Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and, in particular, to follow so many hon. Members with great expertise in the matters that we are discussing. I do not claim to have such expertise, but it is important to put on record some of my concerns and those conveyed to me by constituents, including women—I note in passing that I am now the only female Member in the Chamber.

It is important for us to debate a situation that continues to develop on a daily basis in Libya, as well as wider issues relating to the middle east and north Africa. There are far too many of those issues for me to be able to cover them in a short speech, so I shall focus on matters involving Libya.

Like many other Members, I thought long and hard before deciding to support the Government in their Libya mission. I am not naturally inclined towards armed interventions, and many of my constituents expressed concern about what such an intervention would lead to, but—albeit with a heavy heart—I felt it necessary for us to enforce UN security resolution 1973 in view of the rapid deterioration towards a one-sided armed conflict and the humanitarian crisis that was likely to follow, particularly given the number of non-military casualties.

I have no doubt that the British forces have performed their role in an exemplary and professional fashion, as they always do, and that they have contributed significantly to the protection of the civilian population. As we have already heard, however, the challenge now is to define our future role and establish at what stage we will feel able to withdraw. Regretfully, I have to say that there currently seems to be a lack of strategic direction. In recent weeks, the Government appear to have made tactical and operational decisions that begin to depart from the original mandate of protecting civilians. The Government’s decision to provide telecommunications, body armour and a number of military advisers seems to me, and to many of my constituents, to have more to do with a military situation developing on the ground in Libya than with simply enforcing the resolution. I also regret having to express the view that the Government have failed to communicate to the public, and indeed to Parliament, the exact role of those people in a developing situation. For how long will they be deployed, and how does their role relate to the wider remit of protecting civilians? Those questions remain unanswered.

It seems that none of the measures represents a breach of the mandate provided by the United Nations and approved by the House, but they suggest a move towards measures that are beyond what I expected in supporting the Government when we debated the issue. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the Secretary of State for International Development will identify some specific issues and make the case for the strategic role of the advisers in resolving the crisis. Specifically, the advisers are there as a result of the Foreign Secretary’s assertion to the House on 26 April that

“it is impossible to see a way of securing the full implementation of the UN Security Council resolution while Colonel Gaddafi remains.” —[Official Report, 26 April 2011; Vol. 527, c. 40.]

A number of Members have commented on that statement. Is the mission now to remove Gaddafi at all costs, rather than simply to ensure the protection of civilians? If the Foreign Secretary’s statement is informing strategic military decisions, the Government must be absolutely clear and up front. That is vital in the context of some of the comments made today about a possible move towards identifying different targets.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady appreciate the distinction between the wishes of the British Government, in terms of someone who is now wanted by the International Criminal Court, and what the UN resolution sanctions in terms of the military mission by the international community? Those are two different things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

In the House on 21 March, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the current violence in north Africa and the middle east:

“I agree with the hon. Lady that there will be lessons to learn from the conflict for the future.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 707.]

I want to focus on one area where I believe that there is a very important lesson to be learned—arms export policy. That question arises because in the two years prior to the Arab spring, under both the current and previous Governments, arms export licences for weapons that can be used for internal repression were granted on an extremely wide scale throughout north Africa and the middle east, and those export licence approvals have been shown to have been grievously mistaken.

The policy was clearly stated on 18 February by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt):

“The longstanding British position is clear. We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts or”—

this is the key policy statement—

“which might be used to facilitate internal repression.”

The recent Committees on Arms Export Controls report sets out quarter by quarter since the beginning of 2009 the details of the arms export licences that were approved in each period. That shows, for example, sub-machine-guns and sniper rifles to Bahrain, and components for semi-automatic pistols and sub-machine-guns, artillery computers, combat shotguns, intelligence equipment and small arms ammunition to Libya. Since the publication of that report, the latest quarterly report has been published, taking us up to the last quarter of 2010—in other words, to a matter of two or three weeks before the start of the Arab spring. It shows that even in that period we were exporting equipment for sniper rifles to Bahrain and components for combat aircraft, military equipment for initiating explosives and weapon night-sights to Libya.

If one Government statement reflects the over-optimism that has afflicted both the current and the previous Governments about the risks that are run in exporting certain types of weapons to authoritarian regimes, it is to be found in the 2008 annual report on strategic arms exports. There was a case study of a licence application for armoured personnel carriers for Libya, which concluded:

“There remain wider human rights risks in Libya, but it was judged very unlikely that these vehicles would be used to carry out abuses. As a result it was concluded, with reference to the Consolidated Criteria, that there was not a clear risk that these vehicles would be used for internal repression and the licence was approved.”

I think that conclusion was symptomatic of the policy followed by both Governments.

[Martin Horwood]

I strongly support many of the points that my right hon. Friend is making, and it is absolutely proper to raise this issue. However, we both welcome the fact that the current Government have revoked more than 150 such arms licences granted by the Labour Government, and we both welcome the fact that this Government are currently actively reviewing the whole policy of arms exports.

[Sir John Stanley]

That anticipates the point that I am about to make.

Britain was, of course, by no means the only country to engage in this degree of over-optimism and, as has been said, the Government have sought to retrieve the position. First, they have announced the revocation of a substantial number of arms export licences. Indeed, according to the latest figures, between 27 January and 9 March this year more than 150 previously granted arms export licences were revoked. That serves to highlight the scale of the previous misjudgment.

Why, however, are those revocations limited to just four countries—Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain? Why have there been no revocations of arms exports to Syria, for example? Why, too, have there been no revocations of arms exports to Saudi Arabia, whose British-made armoured personnel carriers have rolled into Bahrain and are therefore complicit, as it were, in the appalling abuses of human rights there? Of course, I understand that Saudi Arabia is big money, is big oil, and is useful intelligence, but can the Government really justify such a blatant degree of inconsistency in their revocations policy?

Secondly, I greatly welcome the review of arms export licences, but it has been initiated only in relation to north Africa and the middle east, while recent events also suggest that there are serious questions to be raised about arms export licence policy for weapons that can be used for internal repression in relation to authoritarian regimes worldwide. Sadly, authoritarian regimes extend from the boundaries of the European Union to the very furthest east. There are too many authoritarian regimes in Africa and some in central and south America. The current review should therefore be extended to cover authoritarian regimes worldwide. The Committees on Arms Export Controls has recommended that, and I earnestly hope that the Government will accept that recommendation and the other recommendations in our report.

Future Diplomatic Network

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We are much reassured to know that the hon. Gentleman did not think that he was the Foreign Secretary. We are also reassured to know that nobody took any notice of what he was saying. That is an enormous relief to us.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a strong diplomatic presence in Russia, with one of our major embassies in the world in Moscow. I do not think that it is necessary either to increase the size of that embassy from the current level of activity or to reduce it. That is why the embassy did not feature in the statement. Given that we have 260 posts altogether, there are many nations around the world that I did not mention in the statement. I am highlighting changes today.

Relations with Russia have improved in recent months, and we have made an effort to improve them. I visited Russia last October and my counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, came here in February. The Prime Minister intends to visit Russia later in the year. Both sides have been working at improvements in relations, but I do not think that we are at the point yet where we can reverse decisions that were taken under the previous Government about this. I make no criticism of the previous Administration on this issue, because the difficult relations with Russia were not their fault. [Interruption.] Yes, that is very generous of me, isn’t it? We will always continue to raise the difficult issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the statement’s much needed strategic vision of a diplomatic network that is stronger in a changed world, and the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to working closely with the European External Action Service. Does he agree that working in close collaboration with the External Action Service and supporting it offers a cost-effective and efficient way to strengthen our diplomatic connections, to protect more Britons abroad and to increase Britain’s voice in world affairs?

[Mr Hague]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s warm welcome for the statement and the input from him and his colleagues among Liberal Democrat Back Benchers, which has been valuable. We must work with the European External Action Service and have good people going into it. I am afraid that I am going to offend the Opposition again, but that will be part of rectifying something else that went awry under the last Government, which is that the number of British people going into European institutions was too low. We are putting that right, including in the External Action Service. It is right that it can be an extension of our influence in the world, but it is not a substitute for it, as I made clear in my statement. The External Action Service does not mean that we do not need British diplomatic posts or a British diplomatic presence, which are the only way to be sure of advancing the interests of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the bombing of civilian targets, but NATO and its allies have saved probably thousands of civilian lives from the intentions of regime forces that indiscriminately attack civilian targets. If we followed the course he recommended, civilian casualties would be immense indeed, because of what the Gaddafi regime would do to people across Libya. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the international coalition is very strong on, and supportive of, the actions we have taken. As I said, more countries have moved their aircraft into strike activity. Of course, however, there must be a political settlement, but Colonel Gaddafi can open the way to that by departing from power.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Are the Government still in complete agreement with the United States on the clear need for legal authority for any military action against individual targets, however loathsome we may find the individuals?

[Mr Hague]

We are in complete agreement about the meaning of legal advice on these matters, and about the need—I stress this again as I stressed it to the House last week—to stay clearly within the United Nations resolutions in order to maintain the legal, moral and international support we have for these actions. So there is no disagreement between the UK and the United States. However, I do not think it is right to speculate about individual targets.

Zimbabwe

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and all the members of the all-party group, including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), on securing the debate and on keeping the issue high up the political agenda. The hon. Lady is right when she says that there is a risk of indifference at times, especially as more exciting political events on the international stage seem to take people’s attention, but it is important that Zimbabwe remains on the agenda.

We may take different views on which reforms we want and when we want them, but whatever our coalition’s disagreements over constitutional reform and its progress, at least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has not ended up in chains in court, and at least my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities has not had to go into hiding, which is what their opposite numbers in the Zimbabwean Government have had to endure. Elton Mangoma and Theresa Makone deserve enormous credit for the courage with which they have faced appalling abuses not only of public freedom, but of parliamentary, political and even governmental and ministerial freedom. It is extraordinary, but they are of course only the tip of the iceberg. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and many others pointed out the level of abuse in Zimbabwe, which unfortunately seems to be increasing again as the elections draw closer after it had seemed to subside.

The situation in north Africa, particularly Libya, holds lessons for various people, but sadly the lesson for some dictators might be that if they treat rebellion and dissent with sufficient violence and determination, they might have a chance of surviving and succeeding. That is obviously a lesson that we do not want ZANU-PF to be able to draw, so there is an interest in this for the international community, and the same lesson could be drawn from the situations in Yemen and Syria as we speak. We need to make it clear to the international community that that must not be the lesson drawn, and it must act with resolution in all those situations.

Luckily or unluckily, any thought of military intervention in Zimbabwe, despite what some constituents might occasionally call for, is absolutely out of the question, as I am sure the Minister will confirm. The important thing is that we should work not only with the international community but with regional organisations. Others have referred to the lead role of the Southern African Development Community, but the African Union is a co-guarantor of the global political agreement. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the latest intelligence from the African Union and others, and what position they are taking to guarantee that the constitutional process is going forward.

Of course, one country has an absolutely key role: South Africa is the leading political and economic force in the region. It is interesting that President Zuma has taken a robust line on the constitutional process. In gratitude, he is coming under attack from the state media in Zimbabwe, which recently described him as a “dishonest broker”. The language is becoming quite fierce, but in a funny sort of way that is an encouraging development. It is a sign that the southern African political community as a whole is becoming more realistic in its treatment of Robert Mugabe’s regime, and that it is prepared to make enemies within the ZANU-PF movement. South Africa’s historic position in the region is inevitably one of moral and political leadership. We should give President Zuma all possible support in that role, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on his latest contacts with the president.

With the onset of elections in Zimbabwe, we are in a sense putting the cart before the horse. The constitutional reform process was supposed, ideally, to precede the next round of elections, but that now seems to be in doubt. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s latest take on that aspect.

We are in a difficult situation with all countries where violent and dictatorial forces are in play. In many countries around the world—I look at East Timor, the former Yugoslavia and, I hope, Côte d'Ivoire—these dictatorial and violent forces have ultimately been defeated. We see clear defeat there, rather than compromise, yet our urge to avoid confrontation obviously leads us to suggest political solutions, with compromises and deals. Indeed, that was the source of the global political agreement in Zimbabwe, but it has not served the purposes that we hoped. Perhaps we should encourage the regional community to take a more robust political approach in Zimbabwe.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was right to mention China. It is clearly investing a great deal of money in Africa. It is not generally clear where that money is going, but some of it is certainly going in less than helpful directions, such as armaments and intelligence and communications capacity. China’s hand is being seen in some of the least savoury regimes around the world—we can add Sudan and North Korea and various other countries to the list—and that has the potential to do China’s international reputation a great deal of harm. Commercial logic alone should show the Chinese that investing in regimes that are inherently unstable because they rely on violence and coercion will not be a good long-term strategy for China.

[Oliver Colvile]

One reason that the Chinese are interested in Africa is that it is wealthy in mineral rights and such things. If the Chinese can have some control over that, they will be very happy. They are not particularly interested, as I understand it, in what takes place in the country; they tend to bring in their own workers, who do everything that they have to do and then leave. That is a big problem. Some may say that they are acting in an imperious manner—they most certainly are, and in a very big way—and we in the UK have to be most concerned about that as it could be another sparking point. We may have trouble at the moment in the middle east, but it could be significantly worse elsewhere.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The risk is that the Chinese will not leave once the resources have been exploited but that China’s interests will continue in many of these countries. It is imperialism on the model of the East India Company, I suppose.

“Imperialism” is a strong word to use, but there is certainly a risk of Chinese political and commercial dominance in some of these countries, and exploitation of the political vulnerability of these unsavoury and undemocratic regimes. That of course raises uncomfortable political questions for China itself, but the democratic international community needs to make a stand on that question. There certainly seems to be potential for an alliance between the UK, the European Union and the democratic west and the democratic nations of southern Africa.

I turn briefly to Mozambique. It is a democracy and a member of the Commonwealth. However, the exploitation of the Marange diamond fields is allowing diamonds to be smuggled or illegally exported to avoid Zimbabwean taxation. Revenue clearly passes back to the military and the coffers of ZANU-PF. It seems to me that the Government could make representations to the Mozambique Government to take a stronger attitude to controlling the Zimbabwean border, as it is a vital financial link in the chain that supports the regime.

I shall be encouraged if the Minister has good news for us, but I realise that it is a difficult situation. However, I believe that our instinct to take a robust line on human rights and democracy and to seek internationally based co-operation as a solution to problems of dictatorship and violence will serve us well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you very much, Mr Robertson, for calling me to speak. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing this important and timely debate. I pay tribute to her tenacity and long-standing involvement in this cause, in her role as chair of the all-party group on Zimbabwe. She and other Members have spoken eloquently today about the tragedy of what has happened in recent years in Zimbabwe, and about the courage of those in the country who have stood up to Mugabe. She mentioned the Movement for Democratic Change, the trade union movement in Zimbabwe and Zimbabwean civil society.

Debates such as this are an important opportunity for Parliament to demonstrate on a cross-party basis our commitment to and solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe in these difficult times. On 10 March there was a debate in the other place, secured by Lord Avebury, in which a number of important contributions were made, again on a cross-party basis. One was from Lord Chidgey, who placed great emphasis on the importance of security sector reform in Zimbabwe, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall this morning. In that debate, Baroness Kinnock, a former Minister with responsibility for Africa, placed great emphasis on the important role that the European Union can play, a point echoed in a number of this morning’s speeches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to the tendency of ZANU-PF to smear the MDC and other critics and opponents. In February, I had the opportunity to meet Zimbabwe’s Deputy Prime Minister, Thokozani Khupe, and the Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, Jameson Timba, here in London. Both are members of the MDC and, like my hon. Friend, I was very impressed by their dedication and professionalism, which give the lie to the smears against them that she described.

I also want to put on the record my appreciation for the work of a number of organisations in and around Zimbabwe, such as the Open Society Foundation. Here in the UK there is Action for Southern Africa, which arose out of the former Anti-Apartheid Movement, and the British Trades Union Congress. I also echo the thanks and appreciation that my hon. Friend expressed to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I support her in saying that we look forward to the eventual return of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth.

I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who is the Minister with responsibility for Africa, is in Africa today, and I welcome the Minister for Europe to his place in Westminster Hall to respond to the debate. Last month, I tabled a question to the Under-Secretary asking him what recent discussions he had had on the role of the Southern African Development Community in monitoring progress towards the 24 goals in the global political agreement. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his response and to put on the record on the Opposition’s behalf that we absolutely share the Government’s concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe, and that we appreciate the strong and real personal commitment to Africa that he has demonstrated since he took office almost a year ago.

I also want to put on the record that we welcome the statement in February by the Foreign Secretary supporting the European Union’s rolling over of restrictive measures—travel restrictions and asset freezes—for those who have perpetuated human rights abuses and political oppression in Zimbabwe, and of course the continuation of the arms embargo on Zimbabwe. These measures from the EU offer an important bargaining tool with which we can apply pressure on Mugabe’s regime. As a number of hon. Members have said during the debate, we cannot and must not leave unchallenged ZANU-PF’s claims that the EU’s targeted measures are in any way undermining the humanitarian aid that is needed to assist the people of Zimbabwe. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) said, those measures are only needed because of the policies of Mugabe.

As the hon. Gentleman also said, Zimbabwe was formerly the bread basket of Africa, but in recent years we have seen a very significant increase in the UK’s bilateral aid to Zimbabwe. I am pleased that the previous Labour Government increased that aid to £67 million in the last financial year—2009-10—and I very much welcome the fact that this Government have decided to maintain that bilateral aid. However, I agree with hon. Members, from all parties, who have said that that aid should be an opportunity for us to exert more leverage on Zimbabwe in this crucial period. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall made the very important point that, in the case of Zimbabwe, consulting officials rather than elected politicians is perhaps not the best route, and certainly should not be the only route in terms of the implementation of aid; and that we should also consider consulting elected members of Parliament and councillors in Zimbabwe on a cross-party basis.

[Martin Horwood]

We need to treat the conditionality of aid very cautiously. The hon. Gentleman’s Government —the last Labour Government—were right to grant aid to Zimbabwe through the UN and NGOs exclusively, rather than giving aid from Government to Government, and we have been right to follow that policy. It is important to understand that point.

[Stephen Twigg]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. What I sought to do was to echo an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall about the specific circumstances right now in Zimbabwe. An approach that relies on officials, which may well make sense in the vast majority of countries, does not make sense in the case of Zimbabwe, for the reasons my hon. Friend set out earlier.

I echo what a number of hon. Members have said about the robust approach of President Zuma, which, as my hon. Friend has said, stands in stark contrast to the lamentable record of his predecessor. I also agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I happened to be in South Africa in 2003 when Walter Sisulu had just died, and I saw the pictures of Mugabe at Sisulu’s funeral. Mugabe got exactly the sort of response then that the hon. Gentleman described in his speech today, and we need to remember that public opinion in Africa, particularly southern Africa, is a challenge, and that we should give whatever support we can to President Zuma and to other Governments in the region who are now prepared to stand up to Mugabe’s thuggery.

We have seen some progress in recent years towards economic improvements in Zimbabwe—my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to visiting shops that were full of produce—but clearly, as this debate has demonstrated, political developments have fallen well short of what we would expect. Targeted measures remain an essential lever at our disposal, but we also need to press a number of issues that require immediate and intensive political and diplomatic pressure.

First, there is the need for a new constitution that is endorsed by the people of Zimbabwe, and I press the Minister to respond to the points made by almost all this morning’s speakers about the vital importance of getting election monitors on the ground as soon as possible. Secondly, there is the importance of opening space for a free media to publish. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport spoke about access to balanced radio and the possibility of securing Department for International Development funding for that. Thirdly, there is the crucial importance of an independently verified electoral register. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about people who are on the register but are no longer with us, and about fairness in the electoral register being important in there being a free and fair election. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke about the experience of manipulation of the register in Zimbabwean elections. Fourthly, there is the crucial role that we can play in securing the root-and-branch reform of the security sector.

Progress, as this debate has demonstrated, has been painfully slow. I welcome the establishment of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Human Rights Commission and Media Commission, but it is demonstrable that those bodies do not have sufficient resources to operate effectively, and there is a real danger that what should be independent bodies might serve no purpose other than the objectives of Mugabe and his supporters. Any election that is held ahead of an agreement to a new constitution, the opening of space for free media, an independently verified electoral register and security sector reforms will not be acceptable, and it is vital to restate that throughout this debate.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) spoke about the escalation of abuse in the run-up to elections, and I want to highlight the very concerning recent escalation of violence in Zimbabwe, and to refer to an excellent but disturbing report from Human Rights Watch, “Perpetual Fear: Impunity and Cycles of Violence in Zimbabwe”, which documents the context of impunity within which ZANU-PF activists have perpetrated systematic violence against other Zimbabweans, whose only aspirations are for a free and democratic Zimbabwe. Human Rights Watch has observed the active and passive forms of impunity that are fostered by the democratic deficit in Zimbabwe, and as long as fear and intimidation are either encouraged or ignored by the state apparatus, democratic developments will not be achieved.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said, SADC has an increasingly important role to play. She said that there are reasons to be hopeful, but the situation is fragile. What today’s debate has demonstrated once again is the very real cross-party agreement in this House in standing up for the people of Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about the important role that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy could play, and I echo those words.

A number of hon. Members have referred to events elsewhere in Africa and the middle east, and there is clearly a danger that the world, and the UK in particular, will take its eye off the ball. We have a unique influence and we need to use it, as has been said, both directly with South Africa and with the other SADC countries, the wider African Union, which has its own responsibilities, and our European Union partners. I am keen to hear the Minister’s current assessment, as the Minister for Europe, of the perspective at a European level, and also at an African level, with the role that SADC and the African Union have to play.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall paid tribute to Mike Campbell, and said that we must hope that his death was not in vain. Too many lives have been lost in Zimbabwe; too many people have suffered through the tyranny and thuggishness of the Mugabe regime. We must not take our eye off the ball. I again congratulate my hon. Friend and the other members of the all-party group, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, which I am sure will demonstrate that the Government maintain their absolute commitment to the people of Zimbabwe, and the absolute commitment of the British people to securing a democratic future for the country.

Africa and the Middle East

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The number of Arab states involved in military participation is two, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. They have both supplied fighter aircraft to support the no-fly zone. Of course, other states are involved in humanitarian assistance, and the 34 also include states that have given over-flight rights to assist in the implementation of the UN resolution. That would be a minority of the 34, but I do not have the numbers to hand for each different category of Arab support.

We should be clear that the Arab League continues to support the implementation of the resolution robustly. It attended our meeting at the London conference, and we will expect to see it in Doha as well. There were five or six Arab nations represented at the London conference, and I hope that more than that will join the contact group. The support of Arab nations for what we are doing has been maintained from the beginning, and it continues.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we owe it to the United Nations to continue to press the Afghan Government to bring the Mazar-e-Sharif killers to justice? However, will he also condemn the burning of the Koran by American extremists, which does not excuse, but clearly inflamed, the violence?

[Mr Hague]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I absolutely condemn the burning of the Koran in that or any other instance. It is fundamentally wrong and disrespectful. As he said, that does not excuse what then happened in Afghanistan, but we should be very clear that we condemn both.

Libya (London Conference)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not call President Museveni to ask for his advice on human rights. As I explained earlier, I called him to discuss the African Union’s attendance at the London conference. The hon. Gentleman must not place a different interpretation on what I said. In fact, I must correct what he has said in a couple of respects. He ended his question by saying that we were pouring more arms into Libya, but it follows from everything that I have said so far that we are not pouring more arms into Libya.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the end of all this. Let us remember that the purpose of resolution 1973 is to protect civilian life, which is what we have been achieving. Had we not passed that resolution and acted on it quickly, the loss of civilian life would have been dramatically greater, and the humanitarian crisis with which we would now be dealing would also be dramatically greater. Even at this stage, the achievement of those things in the last 11 days is something that people of all points of view should be able to welcome. Even the hon. Gentleman might say a word of welcome about the way in which people’s lives and human rights have been protected.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I too congratulate the Foreign Secretary. Being a bit more of an optimist than the shadow Foreign Secretary, I strongly welcome the vision of a democratic Libya published by the interim transitional national council. Does the Foreign Secretary welcome in particular its commitment to intellectual and political pluralism, the rights and empowerment of women and the rights of minorities, and what practical steps are we taking to build the ITNC’s capacity for democratic government?

[Mr Hague]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming that statement. It includes other provisions as well as those he mentions, and the ITNC has given much time and serious thought to it. It is not a rushed document: ITNC members have debated it among themselves and prepared it carefully. I encouraged them to publish it yesterday because I think it showed, alongside the London conference, that it is the people of Libya who will lead and decide their own future. It is a very encouraging document in that regard. Our diplomatic contact with the ITNC, including the visit of our diplomats there on Monday and Tuesday of this week, has included looking at how we can support it in developing capacity for, and ideas about, securing democracy and a free society in the future. Developing such links will be a prime objective of the further missions we are now planning to Benghazi.

North Africa and the Middle East

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, particularly the positive news of contact with the interim national council in Libya. I know that a review and revocation of arms export licences to Libya has already taken place, but will all arms export licences to the Governments of Yemen, Syria and Bahrain now urgently be cancelled if they have not been already?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend will be aware that more than 100 licences have been revoked in the case of Libya, that many have been revoked in the case of Bahrain and that successive Governments have been extremely careful about the licences granted in the case of other countries, such as Syria. We constantly review these licences in the light of changing developments in the middle east. I do not have a new announcement to make about that today. If we think it necessary to revoke other licences for the countries he mentioned, we will certainly do so, and I will keep the House updated on that.

North Africa and the Middle East

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I must be able to get into my speech, but let me give way to a few more hon. Members.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Is the Foreign Secretary particularly concerned about this morning’s news from Bahrain and some of the footage on the internet that clearly shows unarmed protesters being shot in the streets there? The authorities are clearly beginning to follow the path of brutality and repression that I am afraid other states have tried as well.

[Mr Hague]

I will come on to Bahrain. I want to make a few general points and then go quickly through each of the countries concerned. Perhaps I can respond to those points then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

My point is that public declarations of support for a policy need to be matched by private diplomacy. It appears that there is a fashion in the Government to take a different view and a different approach from the previous Government on many aspects of policy. There might be a view in the present Government that the action the previous Prime Minister took ahead of the G20 meeting—getting on a plane, travelling to Brazil and travelling around the world making the case for concerted international action in circumstances of economic crisis—was somewhat overplayed. I personally think that there is a genuine need for action to be taken at this stage but that public words need to be matched by private conduct. In that sense, there must be concerted efforts to try to bring the international community together. That challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom—it is a responsibility that falls on all those in positions of leadership—and I would be the first to concede that this is a challenging and difficult set of circumstances in which, to date, the international community has not been united. That is why, however, I think it demands effort, skill, application and judgment to ensure that we do what we can to cohere the international community rather than further to divide it at a point at which judgments are being made not only in Tripoli but in Benghazi about the commitment of the international community to supporting these changes.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood).

[Martin Horwood]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a danger of Governments giving mixed messages. In that vein, will he accept that his Government did that too? Does he now regret granting arms licences and promoting arms sales—including of ammunition, crowd-control equipment and tear gas—to the Gaddafi regime in the closing years of the Labour Government? That does not sound like the sort of positive engagement that he seemed to be talking about earlier.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me repeat my point: if there is evidence that British exports have been used in the appalling repression that we are witnessing, that should be cause for change. I stand ready to work with the Government effectively and in a constructive manner to try to secure the tightening of the arms regime if that proves necessary. On the substantive question of whether it was correct for the UK Government, many years ago, to engage directly with the Gaddafi regime, I think that there might be an honourable disagreement between the pair of us. I have made it clear that—

[Martin Horwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will finish the point and then I will be happy to take a further intervention—perhaps from somebody who has not yet had the opportunity to intervene. I think that there can be an honest disagreement between us about whether it was right for the UK Government to engage with Gaddafi at the time. There has been much criticism of former Prime Minister Tony Blair for shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi. I would simply point out that President Obama and Nelson Mandela have both shaken hands with Colonel Gaddafi. Any serious consideration of the issues recognises that it is important for there to be engagement with regimes in order to try to secure change.

[Mr MacShane]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is right. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who has just left the Chamber, was eloquent on this subject on the “Today” programme and in this House: the diplomatic gain of weaning Gaddafi off WMDs and terrorism was worth the connection. The previous Conservative Administration gave a knighthood to Robert Mugabe as Sir John Major tried to make friends with him and, up until 19 February of this year, those on the Government Front Bench were selling arms to Bahrain. I am not criticising them for that—I am sorry, but we are an arms-manufacturing and exporting nation. This is really the most piffling and irrelevant hypocrisy. The Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary are concentrating on important issues and the way we should go forward. Having this sort of row about who shook hands with who and which guns were sold—

[Martin Horwood]

And tear gas.

[Mr MacShane]

And tear gas. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) is part of the coalition Government who were selling tear gas and small arms weapons to Bahrain. He has no right to get pompous about what was happening before May 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Many of us are inspired by what we have been seeing in the middle east and north Africa in recent weeks and by the courage and heroism of the protesters, particularly the young people who have lived their entire lives under repression. Equally, many of us feel sick at the prospect of repression triumphing in many parts of the region.

In that vein, I welcome many of the things that the Foreign Secretary announced today. The new Arab partnership and the promise of practical support for what we hope are the emerging democracies of Egypt and Tunisia are excellent. I think he said that there would even be promotion of think-tanks. I am not entirely sure whether that is a good thing, but they are certainly better than the other kind of tank.

The Foreign Secretary also reported positive developments in both countries, including the abolition of their secret police organisations. That is welcome, but there are also worrying reports, including the recent one in Egypt about the forcible clearance of Tahrir square. The experience of Europe, Latin America and the new African democracies is that old habits sometimes die hard among security forces. Perhaps we should take up that theme with the Egyptian Government in particular and with all the emerging democratic movements.

It is also welcome that the Foreign Secretary described a bold and ambitious vision at the European level. A positive vision of transforming the European neighbourhood and actively promoting freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights is very good indeed, as is the role of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in that. I hope that the Department for International Development will also play an active role in considering how that programme should be carried out. It is very important that the people of the middle east and north Africa see a democratic dividend from their transition to democracy, and DFID can play an important role in that.

Sadly, however, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights are not all that British Governments have promoted in the region. In 2009, EU arms exports to Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, none of which enjoyed good human rights records at the time, totalled €2.3 billion. Export licences granted by the previous Government—the most recent details I have are from 2009—make disturbing reading. We sold tear gas to Bahrain, imaging cameras to Iran, bombs and missiles to Egypt, anti-riot shields to Kuwait, crowd control equipment and tear gas to Libya, crowd control ammunition to Qatar, small arms ammunition to Syria, armoured personnel carriers to Saudi Arabia and so on. For that reason, I welcome the Minister’s announcement on 17 February that we were revoking many licences to export to Bahrain, and his unambiguous statement on that day:

“We will not authorise any exports…we assess…might be used to facilitate internal repression.”

That is an incredibly important announcement.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I agree with the burden of what the hon. Gentleman says about arms sales and I welcome the suspension of arms sales to Bahrain, but we still pursue massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and the people dying on the streets of Bahrain are being killed with equipment that has been sent there from this country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to stop the whole arms sales policy to that region?

[Martin Horwood]

Bluntly, yes—the use of Saudi arms and armour in Bahrain, particularly in the context of today’s disturbing pictures of unarmed protesters being shot in the streets by security forces, means that we must question any continuing arms sales to countries that have records of repression.

I regret that in the midst of the democratic revolutions, the Prime Minister, on his tour of the middle east, which had many positive aspects, was nevertheless accompanied by representatives of BAE Systems, QinetiQ, the Cobham group, Thales UK, Babcock International and Atkins.

In the spirit of coalition, I remind Ministers of the Liberal Democrats’ pre-election criticism of arms sales to the region, and specifically to Libya, and of our support for an international arms trade treaty and the prevention of arms sales to any regime that could use them for internal repression. That last objective has now been strongly expressed by the Minister, but I hope he confirms today that the sale of tear gas and crowd control ammunition to anyone is completely incompatible with those objectives.

There is a clear danger that Libya will not be seen in future in the same light as Egypt and Tunisia; sadly, we might see it alongside Czechoslovakia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Hungary as one of the great failures of the international community to intervene on behalf of the people. I do not envy the Foreign Secretary the decisions he must make, but I can assure him of Liberal Democrat support for any belated action by the international community, although he was right to be wary of any intervention that could be described as “western”. That would be a dangerous path to go down, and any intervention must be undertaken with wide international support.

I support the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, who said that we should look at other imaginative ways of intervening, particularly in respect of IT infrastructure, to make life impossible for the Libyan regime.

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made an eloquent speech in which he called for a complete policy rethink. There is a lot of truth in that. At UK, European and international level, we need to review how we can rapidly respond to situations such as the one in Libya. We need to do that quickly, because similar situations could soon emerge elsewhere.

[Mr MacShane]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 17 February I called on the Foreign Secretary to

“agree to a wide review of UK foreign policy in the region before it is too late”?—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 1136.]

I made that call, and I am glad that one month later more Government Members are supporting it.

[Martin Horwood]

I am not sure what I am supposed to say to that, except that I have already said that I support a review of international policy. That has to happen quickly. We also need to review—unfortunately—how we treat brutal dictators who survive using violence and repression. That needs to be addressed urgently. At an international level, we need a strategy for persuading Russia and China in particular—both quick enough to intervene in their neighbourhoods—that the international community’s responsibility to protect needs to become a practical reality. Perhaps we also need some fresh faces in the international community’s peace efforts, not least in the context of the middle east, and Israel and Palestine. In that vein, will Ministers tell us exactly what contribution and progress the former Prime Minister Tony Blair is making in his role as the Quartet’s special envoy? He was always a rather bizarre choice as a middle east peace envoy, and I would like to know whether Ministers think the time has come for him to go and to make way for fresh faces and those slightly more actively engaged in the massive changes taking place in the region.

The clear policy of Arab partnership also needs to extend to states and people currently overlooked. I will end with one example that I hope Ministers will take up: the case of Dr Kamal al-Labwani. He is a Syrian doctor, writer and artist who took part in the brief but unsuccessful Damascus spring in 2001 and the founder of the excellently named Liberal Democratic Union. In 2005, he was charged with weakening national morale and imprisoned. He was behaving only as a free citizen in a free country would have done—an extraordinarily courageous approach once described in Europe by Vaclav Havel as living in truth—but it resulted in his imprisonment. The charge was changed to scheming with a foreign country with the aim of causing it to attack Syria, and he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He is now on hunger strike, along with other prisoners in the Adra prison. His detention has been condemned by a UN working group on arbitrary detention as arbitrary and contrary to the UN declaration of human rights, and there is now disturbing news of fresh detentions and disappearances, including of members of Dr al-Labwani’s family, who bear no responsibility for any of his political actions. If we are to have a real Arab partnership for peace, democracy and reform in the region, it must reach out to people such as Dr al-Labwani and other courageous members of democratic movements who might not be in government, and not just to the emerging democratic Governments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

But that is not right, because if the test is whether a humanitarian disaster is taking place or whether human rights are being violated, we should not be cherry-picking which fights we want to have; we should be prepared to go for all of them or stay out of all of them.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I just want to deal with my next point.

I was not planning to talk about Palestine, but I shall do so because so many hon. Members have referred to it and it is an interesting case. The undisputed facts of the history of Palestine are that before the creation of the state of Israel 9% of the land belonged to the Jewish people and 91% belonged to the Palestinians; the Nakba resulted in 75% of Palestinians being forced out of their homeland; 4 million people have since been left displaced—they are living in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere—and many thousands have died; and the massacres at Shatila and Sabra refugee camps killed more than 20,000 people.

The UN has passed a number of resolutions regarding the illegal settlements, but they have not been dismantled and continue to be built. As the Prime Minister said on Monday, if Israel carries on in this way there will be no land for a two-state solution. The people of Gaza have been collectively punished, with some 1.5 million people living on 3 km of land. That situation has been declared illegal by the UN, and when visiting Turkey our Prime Minister described Gaza as a “prison camp.” I went to Gaza last year and I was appalled by the conditions in which people are living there. If that is not an abuse of human rights, what is? The segregation wall has also been declared illegal. Again, land and livelihoods have been taken but nothing happens. We do not do military intervention there. I am not asking for military intervention there, but I am saying that we need to be careful when we start invading other countries.

We have heard about the concept of so-called “liberal interventions.” If we really want to undertake those, the United Nations should set up a special international army representing all the different nations. All the nations would make a contribution and it could then go to all the various hot spots of the world to sort the problems out. However, I know that that is unrealistic and it is not going to happen. We cherry-pick the disputes we want to have and decide that we do not want to bother with others, perhaps because the regime has been sympathetic to us in the past or perhaps because we have economic trade with the regime and we conveniently forget about whatever else it might have done. That has been the problem for our international policy, because perhaps we have not been an honest broker in a lot of these world disputes—perhaps it is about time we became one. This is not a party political point, because successive Governments have been carrying on with these policies. However, in some respects there has been no genuine honest brokering of the peace.

I recall hearing the speech that Robin Cook made in this Chamber setting out in a very analytical way the reasons not to go into Iraq. He mentioned a number of things, including the lack of information, the fact that the need for the war might have been pumped up and the fact that drumbeating for the war had risen sharply. He urged caution and said that we should not go into the war. Many people did not accept or heed what he said and now, with the benefit of hindsight, most people say, “Oh yes, what Robin Cook said was right.” We now hear that we had the wrong information.

On Libya, the situation is bad and I do not condone the death of anyone. I was sad to hear about the Fogel family in Israel. I do not believe in killing people and do not think that it can be justified. On those grounds, I am one of those people who do not believe that we should go into a sovereign nation and invade it. If we want to do that, we should invade all other nations where there have been even bigger problems. For example, in Sudan, 100,000 people have died—Libya is nothing in comparison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I shall not take another intervention from the hon. Lady. I was generous because she gave way to me.

Europe must participate, too. France is doing its best, but I would like to know where Italy would stand, given that Libya was one of its colonies—until, of course, the Eighth Army kicked them out in 1943. Finally, we must consider our own British public, who need to be fully on side. I suspect that they would be on side if the conditions that the Prime Minister and other hon. Members have laid down came into play. I do not think that we could do it unilaterally, and certainly not without a Security Council resolution.

I agree with the no-fly zone, but it must be effective. It cannot just be words. We must be able to strike on the ground if necessary. I am sorry about that, but that is what a no-fly zone means. I was underneath Bosnian Serb jets in 1993; there was supposed to be a no-fly zone, but they were 200 feet above me. A no-fly zone requires a lot of organisation and, of course, it requires the Americans to help. I happen to agree with the idea of arming the rebels, but when we arm people we must also train them.

There is an embargo in place on Gaddafi. My long-standing right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has made a plea that we should somehow get around that embargo for the rebels, and I support that idea. Military ground intervention, which is another option, is extremely unlikely on the part of the west. Some have suggested that Egypt might do something, but I think that that, too, is unlikely. If we have time we can establish a no-fly zone. We could even start to arm the rebels in Benghazi.

In conclusion, I am prepared to support a no-fly zone and the arming of rebels, particularly if the substantial conditions I have outlined are in place. The Libyans are crying out for our help. They are pleading for help.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Stewart]

I have so little time that I will not.

If we want to help the Libyan people, we must do something very quickly. Time is of the essence. It may already be too late.

European Union (Amendment) Act 2008

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

On the working time directive, I completely share my hon. Friend’s objectives. Work is going on involving, in particular, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Health. We judge that the appropriate time to seek to give effect to the objectives set out in the coalition programme for government will be when the Commission comes forward with its own proposals to change the terms of the working time directive, which we expect will be some time in the next 12 months. That is the moment that will give us the opportunity to do this. However those changes to the working time directive might be given effect, there will have to be a legislative procedure involving not only the Council of Ministers but the European Parliament. It is at that time that we will need to deal with the matter.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the stability mechanism is a test of our willingness to engage positively with Europe and to act responsibly, using the existing procedures of the House and those laid down in the European Union Bill? After all, we have no interest in further weakness or instability in the eurozone; it is positively in Britain’s interest to engage responsibly with the process, rather than to talk of vetoes or of extracting concessions on issues quite unrelated to the stability mechanism.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes good points. It is in our interests that the euro succeeds. Many in the House still doubt whether that is possible, but I can say only that, in discussions with my counterparts throughout the European Union, I recognise that those countries that have chosen the euro as their currency retain an incredibly powerful political commitment to the project, and I simply do not think it realistic to talk about shaking them from that and trying somehow to bring about some eurozone Gotterdammerung in the near future. The converse would be true: that sort of outcome—the disintegration of the eurozone—would cause enormous damage to jobs and to prosperity in the United Kingdom, precisely because of the interrelationship between the economy of this country and the economies of our chief trading partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Article 122(2) was interpreted by the then Governments of all 27 member states as capable of being used as a proper legal basis for the EFSM and we inherited that binding measure.

[Martin Horwood]

Article 122 mentions

“natural disaster or exceptional circumstances”,

and the position certainly merits the word “exceptional”.

[Mr Lidington]

We can debate whether that interpretation of article 122 was justified. However, the reality is that the mechanism had been established. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) to consider not only the fact that we inherited something that was legally binding, but that, if there had been some renunciation by the European Union of a mechanism, which, for all its imperfections, had given a measure of reassurance to the markets, there could well have been adverse consequences for eurozone countries, which would have had adverse consequences for United Kingdom companies and financial institutions with exposure and investments in those eurozone member states.

If we refuse to agree to the draft decision, the effect on our trading partners in the eurozone would not be helpful. I do not wish to speculate too much, but it is safe to assume that the markets would not view favourably a failure by the EU to establish a permanent support mechanism, especially when all 27 Heads of State had publicly set themselves a timetable that would conclude at the March European Council. The consequences for many economies that are already under pressure could be severe. The knock-on effect on the prospects for jobs, investment, growth and prosperity in the UK would also be severe.

I therefore believe that the case for approving the motion without amendment is clear. By supporting the adoption of this treaty change, the UK will support the members of the eurozone to establish a permanent mechanism, and thereby make clear the responsibilities of all members of the eurozone to each other and to the overall stability of the euro area.

We will ensure through our agreement that our current indirect liability for eurozone bail-outs ends in 2013, and because the mechanism is established using the treaty provisions specific to members of the euro area, it does not apply to us or other non-euro-area member states and cannot confer any obligations or duties on them. We will not be part of the ESM, and the treaty change does not therefore involve a transfer of competence or power from the UK to the EU. However, as I said earlier, I can pledge to the House that hon. Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise the decision in still greater detail, as the EU Bill requires parliamentary approval by primary legislation before the UK can ratify the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The essence of this debate is not just the technicalities, which we heard about at great length from the Minister, but something far more fundamental—the political landscape of Europe. The Minister knows it and the Foreign Office knows it. To give an example, there was a massive row between Nicolas Sarkozy and Mr Kenny about the terms of European economic governance only a few days ago. Furthermore, as was said this week in The Economist:

“Mrs Merkel has struck a Faustian bargain with France’s Nicolas Sarkozy.”

He knows that France is losing influence, and as one senior EU official commented:

“France needs Germany to disguise its weakness, and Germany needs France to disguise its strength”.

The fact is that we have the strength to prevent this hybrid treaty arrangement, which presents Germany with a predominant role. We have great sympathy for Germany’s predicament, given that it contributes so much to the European Union and is having to pay out so much. I have fairly regular meetings with German politicians, who tell me that if their country had the opportunity, it would almost certainly go back to the Deutschmark. There is a serious crisis in Europe, but the response is about the nature of a treaty, something in which this Government are acquiescing—it is not far short of appeasement.

The plain fact is that this is a serious moment for the future of Europe. This is a new, unprecedented situation, and it is accompanied by other proposals, which, as I understand it, will also be considered on 24 and 25 March, namely the proposals for the euro pact, which has otherwise been known as the competitiveness pact. However, nobody really knows exactly what the ingredients of it are, any more than they knew about the ingredients of the proposal that we are discussing this evening in its earlier stages. Indeed, I had to use an urgent question to extract from the Government the fact that it was even being made. That is the manner in which Europe works: by secrecy and behind closed doors. Indeed, there are already signs of committees meeting, and we are discovering—through leaks and otherwise—the manner in which they are going forward.

One element in all this is that, as my hon. Friends have rightly said, it would have to be determined by unanimity, so we would have the leverage to stop this juggernaut moving forward. I described it the other day as being like an aircraft carrier in comparison with a rowing boat, but we in Britain will not be regarded as a rowing boat by any means. If such arrangements were being made co-operatively by a voluntary association of nation states, I would be the first to say, “This is fine”, but they are not. They are being dealt with in the context of a legal treaty. We are parties to it, which is why clause 4 of the European Union Bill is such a disgrace. I say this with great respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister, but he talks about how we would be under no legal obligation and how there would be no transfer of powers or competences, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the United Kingdom is affected. That is the point that I put to the Prime Minister repeatedly, and he cannot answer it. The fact is that the arrangements in question do affect the United Kingdom. They are matters of foreign policy; they are not just constitutional questions relating to sovereignty, competence and powers.

[Martin Horwood]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am missing the Cheltenham festival to be in Parliament this week, which I do not mention flippantly. The festival is enormously important to my constituency economically, and it depends enormously on Irish euros to make it succeed. If in the long run the outcome of the stability mechanism adds some discipline and rigour to eurozone economies such as Ireland, can he not see that that would be of enormous benefit to the festival, to Cheltenham and to the whole of the UK, and should we not do everything in our power to facilitate it?

[Mr Cash]

I was one of the first—in fact, I think I suggested that we should help Ireland through the bilateral Bill that we eventually produced. However, the Irish are now being put under pressure, at the dictation of Germany in particular, to reduce their corporation tax. That will not do much for the Cheltenham gold cup.

There is a serious problem, because the Government are effectively obscuring the nature of this measure by giving the impression that it is all about institutions. It is about realpolitik. In the days of Bismarck, the German states were brought together in a customs union. That was done for understandable reasons; I do not want that to be misunderstood. However, there is now a problem for Europe. Our problem is that, in the 43 minutes that the Minister spent addressing the House, he did not deal with the politics of this matter at all. That is most unfortunate. In every serious commentary on this issue, including those in the Financial Times, the real question is whether Germany is becoming increasingly predominant, and whether that is intentional or whether it is happening by accident and Germany is making the most of it.

Germany is making the most of the financial crisis to get a greater degree of political control, and the question of whether we can influence that by entering into an arrangement of this kind—which affects us even though we are technically excluded from it—is a serious foreign policy matter for the innermost parts of the Foreign Office. It is also a matter for this House. I believe profoundly that these issues, including the euro pact itself, are not being properly disclosed. The Minister might know what is going on, but we do not. We are not being told. We do not know what the strict conditionality affecting the other member states in the eurozone will be under article 138 as amended. The plain fact is that in that conditionality a crisis lurks. If over-severe conditions are imposed, we will have another crisis in Europe.

This is a bad treaty proposal. The leverage comes now, when we have the opportunity to say no. The Government propose that this will be dealt with in a Bill, but that will be far too late. The Government are acquiescing in this, and I regard that as a form of appeasement to the modern problems of Europe in the form of a predominant Germany, which is not in the interests of Europe, not in the interests of the United Kingdom, and not in the interests of Germany itself.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I actually agree with some of what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said: a lot of this does turn on Germany. We are told that the eurozone is a disaster zone, economically, but we can now see that Germany is succeeding rather well in the eurozone according to all the indices that matter: growth, falling unemployment and exports. I agree that Germany is playing its hand. I am worried about the German position on intervening in Libya, but that is the price we pay for—

[Martin Horwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

Very briefly. I want to take up only two or three minutes.

[Martin Horwood]

I hope that, while endorsing the words of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the right hon. Gentleman will dissociate himself from the hon. Gentleman’s use of the term “appeasement” in connection with Germany. It was profoundly distasteful and quite inappropriate to this debate.

[Mr MacShane]

I thought the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) made an important intervention earlier this week about the Saudi invasion and occupation of Bahrain, but that is another point. I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Stone has put his finger on a very profound point, although I would not use the term “appeasement”.

I have affection for the Minister for Europe, who was like Horatio defending the bridge, fighting all by himself “for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods”, as the Tuscan hordes—the Eurosceptic hordes—bore down on him and tried to thrust him to one side in order to bring to bear their vision of what Britain should be like. This is a very serious development. The Government have used article 48(6) of the treaty of the European Union—the famous passerelle clause, which was not meant to be used.

We are agreed that part of the problem is connected with the budget freeze, about which the Minister spoke so passionately and proudly, but in exchange the President of France is going to get an absolute block on any common agricultural policy reform. Right hon. and hon. Members should have no illusions about that; if any part of Europe is frozen, it all tends to start freezing. In the agreed statement, although the new mechanism applies only to eurozone or euro-using members, it fully engages Britain. As the key statement we are debating tonight states:

“The Heads of State or Government of the euro area”—

that is not us—

“and the EU institutions have made it clear… that they stand ready to do whatever is required to ensure the stability of the euro area as a whole. The euro is and will remain a central part of European integration. In particular, the Heads called for determined action in the following areas”,

which were specified. The Heads of the European institutions speak for us. That means the President of the European Council. We appointed him, as we appointed the President of the European Parliament. Our MEPs elected him. I am afraid that this is not simply a matter solely and exclusively for the eurozone. Frankly, this might be a comfort blanket that my dear friend Horatio is trying to throw over the noisy bedsteads of the Tuscans behind him, but the fact is that this will commit Britain to take part in decisions that involve us as a nation.

When I said in a debate last week that the Prime Minister, after discussing the Libyan crisis on Friday, would be asked to leave the room, the hon. Member for Stone intervened, as some Members might remember, and read out a press release saying that the British Prime Minister would take part in these decisions on the architecture of economic governance of Europe as a whole. The hon. Member for Stone might care to recall that, last Friday, as soon as the Libyan discussions were over—they ended, frankly, in nothing, with bits of paper being waved around—the serious decisions of the European Council started and lasted all through Friday afternoon, Friday evening and Saturday. The Irish Prime Minister, the new one of the newly elected Government, went home, not achieving what the Irish people had voted for, but we were absent. This is what the Deputy Prime Minister rightly calls the “empty chair” policy of the present Government, which greatly worries me.

We will pass this legislation tonight, but I accept what the hon. Member for Stone said—this is a matter of high importance. I worry that we are slowly isolating ourselves from the main thrust of decision making in Europe. I think the Minister is putting up a firm defence. The Prime Minister, however, at Prime Minister’s Questions last week, dismissed the intervention of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—I do not mean that unkindly, as I thought it was one of the nicest interventions ever. The hon. Gentleman appealed to the Prime Minister for an in-or-out referendum, but the Prime Minister effectively said on behalf of the British nation state that we are not leaving and that we are not going to a have a referendum, as we are part of Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question; we have spoken about this over the weekend. The ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, is working on all available contacts, including the relatives of the gentleman whom the hon. Lady has mentioned. We will make sure not only that contact is made as best as possible but that information is passed back to her constituent.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the act of inviting in troops from militarily superior neighbours has evil precedents in the crushing of human rights in 20th-century Europe? If so, as a good historian, will he share that view with the Bahraini and Saudi Governments?

[Mr Hague]

We are extremely concerned about the escalation of the situation in Bahrain, particularly the decision of the Government of Bahrain to declare a state of emergency. We call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to avoid violence. The Government of Bahrain should respect the right to peaceful protest, respond to the legitimate concerns of the Bahraini people and persist with their attempts to draw others into a dialogue on reform. The intervention by GCC partners at the request of the Bahraini Government should also be consistent with that, supporting reform and not repression, allowing a swift return to peaceful conditions and creating an environment in which dialogue can take place.