Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Again, that is an absolutely crucial issue. It is not a containable crisis, as I said earlier, and the impact on Lebanon is the starkest and most worrying example of that. We are working closely with the authorities in Lebanon. After the recent bomb outrage, the Prime Minister spoke immediately to the Prime Minister of Lebanon to urge stability, and our ambassador there is very active. We have increased the assistance we give directly to the Lebanese armed forces and, of course, much of the humanitarian assistance we are giving is going to Lebanon.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the EU annual budget and multi-annual framework increased at least a dozen times while Labour was in power but that to accuse that Government of being responsible for all those complex and EU-wide budget increases would be as simplistic and opportunistic as the attack made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) on this Government yesterday?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I think that we have to judge the previous Government on the basis of what they actually did while in office. The fact remains that they took decisions that conceded the loss of a quarter of the United Kingdom’s hard-won rebate and left us with a current financial framework for the EU that was £13 billion over what they said in office would be the maximum they would accept. They let our country down, and they let it down badly.

Human Rights Violations

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who mentioned some alarming instances of the targeting of courageous journalists, even in this country. I am grateful to her.

I commend the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing this debate, on his eloquent and comprehensive speech and on the report produced by the Conservative party human rights commission. It has reinforced many campaigns in the UK and worldwide by organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Article 19. It has also reinforced the commitment to human rights across the coalition parties and the House, which has been emphasised in government by the regular production of the human rights report, with its courageous list of countries of concern. That might not seem like a courageous thing for a Government to do, but when we are pursuing business and trade probably as desperately as we ever have, highlighting human rights concerns in countries such as Russia and China, putting those concerns boldly in print and raising them with the Governments is a courageous thing for our country to do. I am proud to support a Government who have done that, and I know that the Minister has a strong personal commitment to the human rights agenda.

In the time available, I will not go into a huge amount of detail—the hon. Member for South Swindon has already given us a lot of detail about many cases—but I will mention a few of the countries that he spoke about. In Bahrain, we can see that the Arab spring has not been an uncomplicated or one-way process. The Government of Bahrain have had a deeply ambivalent approach to rising demands for democracy and human rights, and the intervention of Saudi Arabia in that country has been profoundly unhelpful.

However, Bahrain was not a totalitarian state along the lines of the old Iraq or the Libyan regime. It is creditable that Bahrain has set up a national human rights institution and that the King commissioned a human rights report, which highlighted human rights abuses committed in the previous year or so. That is to Bahrain’s credit. However, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how well he thinks the Bahraini Government are implementing the report’s recommendations, and on why, for instance, campaigners such as Nabeel Rajab are still in prison in Bahrain.

The hon. Member for South Swindon highlighted cases in China. I am afraid that the catalogue of human rights abuses in China is depressing, and the evidence that he cited of a fresh crackdown is particularly depressing. Although we are seeking high levels of trade and investment with China, it is nevertheless important to maintain a human rights dialogue. I was particularly proud that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were prepared to risk the wrath of Beijing by meeting the Dalai Lama, albeit in a personal capacity. It made an important statement about a commitment to human rights, not just in Tibet but across China. It is important to keep emphasising that.

On the cases of business people working in Russia, the points made by the hon. Member for South Swindon were well made in the report and in his speech. One of two iconic cases is that of Sergei Magnitsky, in which Britain has a particular interest. The company that Mr Magnitsky was representing when he was arrested was a British company, Hermitage Capital, and Bill Browder, a British citizen, is conducting an extraordinary personal campaign to seek justice for Magnitsky, albeit posthumous justice. Britain should show leadership in the case. There is also the current imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. Unfortunately, in a case that parallels Magnitsky’s, their attorney, Vasily Aleksanyan, died in custody, refusing to collaborate by implicating his colleagues in Yukos in the accusations against them made by the Russian Government. He probably died for his beliefs in much the same way as Magnitsky.

Those cases have been highlighted at numerous levels in this country and in the European Parliament, which made a resolution in 2010 urging member states to take measures reinforcing sanctions against individuals implicated in human rights abuses. I strongly support the calls made in the report and by the hon. Member for South Swindon for further action, and I look forward to the Minister’s statement on whether we will take further action on freezing assets and taking advantage of the fact that London is a destination of choice for many in the Russian hierarchy. I urge him to do so.

Finally, on Russia, it is noticeable that the European Court of Human Rights has been a strong supporter of cases such as Khodorkovsky’s, and has declared his imprisonment unlawful. We are rightly seeking reform of the ECHR, as the backlog of cases is making the Court potentially unworkable, but we must be rather cautious that in our language we do not endorse the idea that Governments can pick and choose which cases from their countries come to the Court, because Russia would take great advantage of that. We must be careful that in our legitimate desire for reform, we do not accidentally damage the prospect of human rights in Russia and other European countries.

The hon. Member for South Swindon mentioned one other country, Belarus. I particularly commend a campaign by Liberal Youth called “Bears for Belarus”. That campaign grew out of the extraordinary action taken by a Swedish public relations company: it dropped cuddly toys with pro-democracy and human rights messages into the Belarusian state. Two journalists were arrested simply for having their photographs taken with cuddly toys as a subtle protest against the regime. A regime that can arrest people for having their photograph taken with a cuddly toy is some way away from the acceptable European level of human rights. The Government must do more to highlight human rights abuses in Belarus and to encourage other states to take action against them. I urge anyone listening to the debate or reading it on the internet to look up the “Bears for Belarus” campaign, and to get their photograph taken with a cuddly toy and make that statement, too.

Finally, perhaps it is a natural Conservative inclination to highlight the plight of professionals, but might I extend the remit slightly to other people who seek work and are vulnerable to human rights persecution? I ask the Minister to address the issue of migrant workers. Governments such as those of Indonesia and India have legitimate fears about, and have campaigned very hard for, the rights of migrant workers, particularly in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, who are particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses and who do not always attract the attention of international non-governmental organisations, or have the resources of companies such as Hermitage Capital to highlight their cases in the capitals of the world. They are suffering human rights abuses too, and I would like to hear that the British Government support Governments such as Indonesia and India in raising those issues.

Respect for universal human rights has been a Liberal and democratic tradition since the days of Gladstone, but I am very happy to commend the report of the Conservative party human rights commission to the House. I strongly support the words of the hon. Member for South Swindon, and congratulate him again on securing the debate.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clappison]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has been consistent in his analysis. I have not yet heard anyone who has convincingly contradicted his analysis of the underlying economic problems.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

The hon. Gentleman has had many goes in the past. I will give him another one now to see whether he can do any better.

[Martin Horwood]

I actually rather agree about the underlying financial and economic problems not being tackled, but that is not what these measures are intended to do. The hon. Gentleman talked about the different mechanisms that have been introduced, but one of those in respect of which the UK has the greatest liability is the EFSM. The whole process being undertaken here will reduce our liability to that mechanism, which will cease to function, so surely he should be welcoming this process, not trying to lay obstacles in its way, however well meaning they might be.

[Mr Clappison]

I am doubly lucky now, because I have two trailers for the film. Neither is entirely accurate, but the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) is slightly more on the right lines than the right hon. Member for Rotherham. I hope that I made it sufficiently clear earlier that I believe the Prime Minister negotiated a good deal for Britain, so far as it goes, in that he extracted us from our liability under the EFSF, which is the European financial stabilisation facility—

[Martin Horwood]

It was the EFSM.

[Mr Clappison]

I am sorry. It was the EFSM—the European financial stabilisation mechanism. That is different from the EFSF. Britain had liability under one of the two measures agreed in May 2010; it was the EFSM, not the EFSF.

I do not want to make many further points about this matter, because we went into it in the previous debate, but it was agreed in May 2010 that, under the EFSM, this country would have liability in relation to the eurozone which would have resulted in British taxpayers having to fork out with no prospect of Britain receiving any benefit from the EFSM because it was not a eurozone member. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cheltenham can just contain his enthusiasm, he will see the point that I am trying to make on the timetable for all these measures to take effect. That is what the amendment relates to. He will know that there is agreement that, as soon as the European stability mechanism is in force, Britain will no longer have any such liability. It is not yet in force, however, and there are important issues regarding the timing of these events. That is what the amendment deals with. The Bill will come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has spent much time holidaying in Europe in recent years, but there has been a substantial devaluation of the English pound against the euro since, roughly, 2008, and what have we seen? A recovery in Britain? An increase in exports? A decrease in imports? An increase in the creation of firms and jobs? In fact, we have seen the very opposite. My hon. Friend is right historically—he is always right historically—but I prefer to live today rather than in history.

The main problem with the amendment is that it is a wrecking amendment, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will have the honesty to say so, although the amendment was tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. The notion that nothing can be ratified until every other country has ratified it and disposed of putative legal challenges is a circle that can never be broken. If the same rule were adopted by even one other EU member state, nothing could be ratified until we had agreed to ratify it, and we could not agree to ratify it until other Parliaments had done so.

Not only are we, as usual, condescendingly and patronisingly lecturing other Parliaments on what their constitutional settlements should be, but this is nothing short of a wrecking amendment, and I wish that Conservative Members would have the intellectual honesty to say so.

[Martin Horwood]

It is generally a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in European debates, as he and I share a broad enthusiasm for the European Union and its development. However, I think that on this occasion he is being a little unkind to our hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. I do not think that this is a wrecking amendment; I think that it asks legitimate questions about the timing of the transfer between the European financial stability facility and the European financial stabilisation mechanism and the new European sustainability mechanism—although I think that by demonstrating that we know the difference between the EFSF, the EFSM and the ESM, we are probably all showing that we need to get out more.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the old EFSM, which made Britain liable for the financial bail-outs, could be brought back. That is an interesting question, and I too would like to hear the Minister answer it. I assume that a vote by the Council, probably with unanimity, would be required to bring the EFSM back into operation, given that the Council voted to end it, or at least not to involve it in any new bail-outs. If that is the case, I think that it would reassure Conservative Members considerably to know that the EFSM is, in effect, dead and buried, at least in respect of new bail-outs.

There are two problems with the amendment. The right hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out one of them in what was a rather pre-emptive intervention. This amendment ties the triggering of United Kingdom legislation to actions of other countries—to events in Berlin, Dublin or the European Court, for instance. That is a strange principle for Members who have generally been rather keen to emphasise the unique sovereignty and independence of the United Kingdom Parliament to be trying to introduce into a British Bill. It raises a constitutional question, too: should we be putting clauses into British legislation that are entirely dependent on events in other countries?

The second problem is the political roundabout problem. If other countries follow our example and make their ratification of the treaty dependent on others finishing their processes, we will be like cars at a roundabout, with everybody waiting for everybody else to go, and the whole process will completely logjam. I am not sure whether that is what was intended, but it would make the amendment something of a wrecking amendment, in practice if not in theory. I think this is an impractical amendment—albeit perhaps a well-meaning one, which has produced an at least mildly illuminating debate.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

First, let me say that I entirely support what the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) said, and I was pleased to sign his amendment.

The idea that we are being difficult by talking about delaying our effective support for this European Union measure is wide of the mark. We are being asked for a favour in respect of something that does not technically affect us, because we are neither contributors to nor beneficiaries from this new mechanism. We as a country are being gracious by putting this Bill forward, as we are helping out. It is absolutely sensible that the eurozone countries, who are very different from this country, should make sure that they have approved this mechanism and that there is no possibility of legal challenges before we say, “Yes, okay, as you’ve all approved it, we’ll sign on the dotted line to help you out”—and we should do that at the end of the day rather than at the beginning.

If we were to rush ahead and do this, the left-wing Eurosceptics in Holland would rise up to derail the Dutch situation, or the German constitutional court would decide it did not like the system, and we would be left having approved something that the eurozone countries do not even like very much themselves. We would be in a very silly position. It is therefore entirely sensible that we and other countries outside the eurozone should only go along with any decisions once the eurozone countries have agreed to them.

However, I must say that I still believe this mechanism is simply another measure for kicking the can further down the road and putting off what some think of as the evil day when the euro comes to an end. I do not say that simply because I have been sceptical about the euro from the beginning and disagree with the whole principle of the single currency, because it is not just me saying this now; other people agree. Indeed, this week George Soros said that Germany should leave the euro. It would be daft of the Germans to do that, however, because if they did, the new Deutschmark would immediately appreciate in value and Germany would become very uncompetitive in comparison with other member states.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree that it would be important. It is not clear when the ESM will be introduced—the constitutional court in Germany will rule on Wednesday —or what the significance or extent of the interaction with the private sector will be. It is important for those reasons as well, therefore, that the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary produce reports in the way suggested by the new clauses. It would enhance the scrutiny of these important subjects in the House and the other place and make it clearer to the general public exactly how the ESM will operate and how its operations will affect the British economy.

[Martin Horwood]

I will not trouble the Committee for long. It is sometimes tempting with a simple Bill to think of things to put in amendments to provoke debate—it can be helpful—and asking someone to make a report is always quite a good one, but we need to be a little careful with civil servants’ time. To ask the Treasury to make a report to Parliament annually on

“the impact of the European Stability Mechanism on the risks to the interests and obligations of the United Kingdom from eurozone instability”,

and to ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

“whenever a loan is made”

to report on the

“potential effect, both direct and indirect, on the interests and obligations of the United Kingdom”,

will involve days and days of civil service time.

[Emma Reynolds]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

No, I will not. I am not going to take up a lot more of the Committee’s time.

The proposals are superfluous, given that we endlessly debate the impact of the eurozone and of the various bits of European constitutional and financial architecture on the United Kingdom and its economy. We also endlessly debate the individual bail-outs, and there are always statements to the House on such matters. If these reports were produced by the Treasury and the Foreign Office, I suspect that Her Majesty’s Opposition would disagree with them anyway. There will be plenty of opportunity to question Ministers on what they think of the indirect or direct implications of any bail-outs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I can see that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) is straining at the leash to intervene on me. I will give way to him, so that he can give my hon. Friend a comprehensive answer. She has made an astute point.

[Martin Horwood]

I would like to put on the record, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, my belief that this House should indeed carry out much more scrutiny of European affairs. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be done on a broader basis, and that the departmental Select Committees should be involved. Indeed, we have suggested as much in our submission to the current discussions on European scrutiny. I am not sure, however, that we need ever more reports being discussed in addition to all the legislation and everything else that we debate, interminably, on the Floor of the House. He cannot possibly argue that we do not spend enough time debating Europe in this Chamber, as we are doing now.

[Wayne David]

I do not want to labour this point. I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ desire for more transparency and scrutiny, but experience shows that, all too often, those words come to nothing unless there is a focus on something. The importance of the new clauses is that they would provide that “something” for the debate to focus on. Nothing concentrates the mind better than a report that has a distinct niche in the parliamentary calendar to enable that debate to take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I congratulate the Minister on his magnificent handling of the Bill. I am very pleased that he stayed in his place in the reshuffle, because his expertise in matters European is now encyclopaedic. I am sure that the quality of our debates and his contributions has not reduced, but these European Bills are certainly going through faster, as we seem to have got through this one at great speed.

The contributions of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) have been positive and constructive, and there has been a great deal of consensus, even extending at times to some traditional Eurosceptics. I was very impressed to see the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) among those who have been supporting the Bill during its passage. That is as it should be, because this should not be a controversial piece of legislation. We are not going to be part of the ESM intergovernmental treaty; we are merely seeking to facilitate eurozone members in trying to find their way out of what is still an extremely serious crisis.

That has to be in the British national interest, because whether we like it or not— whether or not we are a member of the ESM or the eurozone, or even of the European Union—we are inevitably and inextricably linked to the whole European economy. Some 50% of British trade, worth £450 billion a year, is with other EU member states. Over 100,000 British firms export to other EU countries, 94,000 of them small or medium-sized enterprises. Over 200,000 UK companies trade with the EU every year. Over 50% of our foreign direct investment comes from other EU member states, worth more than £350 billion a year, and over 50% of companies investing in the UK cite the UK’s membership of the single market as a core reason for doing so. The fate of the European economy is inextricably tied up with our own fate and with our ability to grow and to recover from the financial crisis that has affected the whole continent.

This is, in its own small way, an historic Bill. It is the first use of the European Union Act 2011, which sought to strike a balance between Liberal Democrat enthusiasm to maximise the benefits of EU membership and Conservative caution that we take not one step without adequate parliamentary scrutiny and, if necessary, legislation, and without the option of a referendum if power were being transferred from the British level to the European level. No such referendum is necessary on this occasion, as this is merely a Bill to ease the passage of the intergovernmental treaty for other members of the European Union. However, the full panoply of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation has been brought to bear even on this small, technical change.

As the Minister rightly said, the treaty that will, we hope, follow the Bill at European level will not be a panacea even for ESM members and eurozone members. It will not, of itself, solve the deep and serious problems of the European economy, which relate to competitiveness, lack of growth, and debt. These complex, interacting problems still pose a real and present danger to the whole European economy, including this country’s economy. We have not in any way solved those problems in the few days that we have spent debating this Bill, but perhaps we have made one small contribution to the start of the journey towards doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are glad to hear it. A beautiful relationship. We are grateful to the Minister. I call Martin Horwood.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I do not want to intrude on the love-in!

Last minute blocking tactics by the United States and then by Russia prevented the signature of a robust treaty in July. What assurances has the Minister had from the American Government that the international community will be able to pick up where it left off, perhaps after any distracting events in November are out of the way, and that the treaty will not be watered down in the meantime?

[Alistair Burt]

“Assurances” is not necessarily the right word. The conversations between us and those we expect to be major signatories, such as the United States, go on all the time. Time scales might have an impact on the negotiations that are going on, but it is important that we use the time that has been given to build on the good things in the treaty and do our best to ensure that those are not lost as we take the process forward.

Syria

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Despite the bleak news it contained, may I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and, in particular, the news of the significant humanitarian aid that the Government are bringing to the Syrian people? Mr Brahimi may have described his mission as “nearly impossible”, but he does have very strong contacts within the Arab League. In his conversations with the Foreign Secretary, did he tell him of any plans that Arab League members have for them to put pressure on Russia and China to lift their disgraceful vetoes, which are effectively preventing any international action against this doomed but murderous regime?

[Mr Hague]

Mr Brahimi is a very wise man. I pay tribute to the work of Kofi Annan, but I also welcome Mr Brahimi to this difficult post. He has set expectations as low as possible, which is a wise thing to do, particularly given the situation, but that does not mean he will be lacking in energy or ideas as to what to do. He will be working closely with the Arab League, as well as being the representative of the UN Secretary-General. The Arab League countries have indeed been putting pressure on Russia and China, but so far it has not worked. A large part of the world has been putting that pressure on, including many African nations, too. A majority of the UN member states have attended one or other of the meetings of the Friends of Syria, so the trend of international opinion is very clear, but that effort to change the minds of Moscow and Beijing has not yet been successful.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making his usual case that the use of article 122 was illegal. That may be his view, but it was clearly being used for the European financial stabilisation mechanism and therefore posed a liability for this country. Surely he must welcome a Bill mechanism that allows a treaty that reduces our liability. The new ESM will not include Britain, and we will not have that same liability. As a good Europhobe, he should support the Bill.

[Mr Cash]

As a Euro-realist, I am glad we will no longer be liable under the European financial stabilisation mechanism, but that does not exonerate the arrangements that were made by the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the current Chancellor, not to mention the Business, Innovation and Skills Secretary. In May 2010, as the former Chancellor makes clear in his book, they were all involved in endorsing the decision on the transitional arrangements between the outgoing Government and the current one. The illegality is shared by all members of the previous and current Governments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

That is a very nice little intervention, because the reason we are in a double-dip recession—in so far as we are—is, first, the massive deficit that the hon. Gentleman’s Government left us with. Secondly, for reasons that I will explain, it is because of the massive deficit—as I said to both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary—that the European Union has with us. We are in such incredible deficit with the other 26 member states that it will be impossible for us to gain out of the 50% of our trade with them the growth that is needed to enable us to come out of recession and grow our economy.

I was disappointed, to say the least, that the problems with the eurozone were not even touched on in the exchanges between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Andrew Marr yesterday, when everybody knows that the failure of the UK economy is partly because of the deficit we inherited, but also because we cannot grow with a bankrupt European Union, with the exception of Germany. Indeed, half of our deficit with the other 26 member states is our deficit with Germany alone. So we have to be conscious that this is a real problem that needs to be resolved, and this Bill will do almost nothing except damage our economy.

Greece is currently in the throes of an EU-IMF economic investigation. One can almost hear the words of endorsement from the EU and the IMF before they have reported. I will be very surprised if they do not try to find some way to muddle through. As with the Bill and, I am afraid to say, the Government’s policy on Europe, real EU reform is off the agenda, as is a referendum.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is very free in his criticism of the IMF—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not only in danger of crossing the Floor, but is turning his back to the House. Please will he address the House?

[Martin Horwood]

I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to do better.

The hon. Gentleman is free with his criticism of the IMF and the EU and everyone else, but may I ask him a basic economic question? If not this, what? Does he advocate the chaotic disintegration of the eurozone? Does he ask the Germans not to seek guarantees for the finance they are providing for other European economies? Does he suggest that there should be no legal framework behind the necessary steps to tackle structural deficits in the eurozone countries? I can think of nothing that would more surely damn the whole European economy, including ours, than a chaotic disintegration of the eurozone.

[Mr Cash]

Again, I am grateful for the intervention because back in the 1990s during the passage of the Maastricht treaty—and I say this without any sense of self-satisfaction—I predicted that this is where we would end up. Massively high unemployment, riots in the streets, the rise of the far right and the implosion of the European economic system were all predicted in the Maastricht treaty debates. It is there in black and white. It is no good now saying that because those of us who took that position and made those predictions then were right that, somehow or other, we should say, “Well, that is just the past. Let us not worry about the present.” We are looking towards the future and we need to have an association of nation states based on the principle of consent by the voters, who have already expressed their views in repeated opinion polls and are denied referendums.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for that intervention, which goes to the heart of the question. If we are worrying about powers that concern us, the answer to my question is still no. That is the point: the answer is still no, because no powers are being transferred through this legislation from us to the European Union. If anyone can describe a power that is being transferred, I want to know about it, but unless they can the answer is that no powers are being transferred. That point is really important.

I shall go further. The real issue about the legislation is that it effectively removes qualified majority voting from the issues of what we were deciding before. That is why we need not worry; we are saying that there is now a power of veto on the process—so, ironically, there is a further strengthening of the British approach to dealing with the European Union. I question the need for regular referendums because that would reduce the influence of the House and I certainly say that there is no need for a referendum on this item, because at the end of the day there is no evidence of any transfer of power.

That is not the end of the matter. The issue that has been bubbling around this debate is that we do not like the euro so we have to pull out or do something to undermine it. My point is that we are not going to join the euro, but we want to make sure that our interests as a country are properly protected so that we can continue trading with the countries that are in the euro.

Let us face it—those countries are significant traders. As a whole, the European Union still effectively controls a quarter of the world’s gross domestic product. Seventeen members of the eurozone are part of that and they are the bigger part of the EU. In sheer figures, we are talking about a large portion of the world’s gross domestic product. That suggests that we have to be sensible about how the euro is treated. Sensible American policy makers agree; they want Britain to be part of the European Union, exercising appropriate influence in a way that promotes the trade activities that we see in Europe and beyond. That is not true of all Americans; one or two in Tampa during the Republican convention would raise eyebrows. However, American government, in the broadest sense, recognises that having Britain in the European Union is a good thing because it has a good influence on how the EU shapes up. It is important for us to recognise that as politicians, policy makers and administrators.

Poland was mentioned earlier, and I understand why. It is a very interesting country to think about because it is the only one that has not had a problem with growth ever since this crisis started. That is partly because it has always had a relatively sensible approach to borrowing money and deficit management. It has also recognised its close proximity to Germany, which is of course part of the eurozone. It is not surprising that the Polish Government are now wondering exactly what they are going to do about signalling their intentions on joining the euro—a decision that Donald Tusk needs to start to formulate as the months and years go by. Poland is not necessarily going to reject the option of joining the euro, and that is in complete contrast to the usual story about countries leaving the euro. We need to bear that in mind as we deliberate on the future of the euro as a whole.

We do not want to join the euro ourselves; we think that would be a mistake. We are not planning to make any decision that would lead us towards having to do so, but the British Government and the British industrial state need to think very carefully about how the euro situation unfolds. Our relationships with the big players are therefore very important.

[Martin Horwood]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech, not least on his points about the importance of European trade to business in Gloucestershire, where both he and I obviously have an interest. He is doing a good job of flying a more positive and realistic flag for the Conservatives’ approach to Europe, and I congratulate him on that as well. Would he go as far as me in saying that until the eurozone returns to economic health it will become increasingly difficult for this country to return to full economic health, and that therefore any small thing that we can do to enable that to happen must be a positive? I am not suggesting that this Bill guarantees that that will happen, but it is perhaps one small step in helping to enable European, particularly eurozone, countries to rebuild their economies.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I am very grateful for the level of support. Plenty of Conservatives share my views; he should not think that we are some sort of sect. He is absolutely right to point out that Britain’s best interests are connected with helping the overall economy in Europe, which obviously includes the eurozone.

Several hon. Members have referred to the situation in Germany, which is pivotal. One has to ask what Angela Merkel is really thinking and why she takes the attitude that she does about how the bail-out operations are decided and managed. That goes to heart of something else that has cropped up in this debate—devaluing currencies. The Germans like a robust currency because they believe that it is good for their economy. They have had one for an awfully long time, and in broad terms their economy has benefited from it. They know that the relative strength of the deutschmark before, and the euro now, has been a good thing for economic policy management. They also know that if they dish out bail-outs too prematurely they will not extract the necessary promises from the other nation states to put right the issues that are not so good in those countries.

At the end of the day, it is important that bail-outs lead to a result, namely improved productivity, better debt management and better management of public expenditure. That is what needs to happen in nation states that are in difficulty, which is why the issue of eurobonds is so interesting and is taking such a long time to crystallise into real results. Those countries that understand the need for robust currencies and, effectively, inflation-proof strategies will win a long-term gain, which proves that that is the right way to improve productivity and ensure that economies grow according to robust economic indicators.

It is necessary for the British Government to continue to work with the German Government in that regard, so that it remains possible for us to develop the right kind of relationship with the rest of the eurozone. We have to ensure, first, that we influence the single market to expand into services and energy; secondly, that we get proper discipline over public finances; and thirdly, that we recognise the value of strong currencies.

It is not true that devaluing willy-nilly achieves results—we have seen that so often in our own history and in that of other countries. Remember 1967, when devaluation was argued over ruthlessly by Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan and others, but what did it actually produce? It did not produce additional productivity or the kind of growth that was anticipated and so desperately needed. Devaluation is not a panacea in complex economic situations in which a lot of trading takes place between complex economies. That is an important marker for our own economic prospects.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that this country needs to deal with its deficit and I recognise the importance of reforming the real economy. I apply the same logic to both of those things in the European Union. Britain should be a positive influence. It should not necessarily be involved in the euro, but it should be able and willing to ensure that the world’s largest single area of economic activity remains a credible force for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman must not fall victim to Iranian propaganda about that, and of course we could also differ about some of the premises of his question, including the terrorist threats that have emanated from Afghanistan. I hope he will support the fact that the whole of our effort is going into finding a peaceful diplomatic solution. That is what the twin-track approach of sanctions and negotiations is about. One hundred per cent of our effort is dedicated to a diplomatic solution to the problem.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge the important role of Baroness Ashton and the European External Action Service in making the talks happen? Does he agree that that has increased the possibility of finding a peaceful pathway out of the crisis?

[Mr Hague]

Baroness Ashton is playing a very strong and effective role in leading the negotiations of the E3 plus 3. It is impressive that all six nations involved, including Russia and China, are working very closely together and presenting a united front and a united set of negotiating requirements. That adds greatly to the power of our position in the negotiations.

Piracy (Somalia)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)]

I commend the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on his excellent report. I am not a member of the Committee, and I will not detain the Chamber for long, but I was interested in the recommendation in paragraph 27 of the Government’s response:

“We conclude that the Government should not pay or assist in the payment of ransoms but”—

crucially—

“nor should it make it more difficult for companies to secure the safe release of their crew by criminalising the payment of ransoms.”

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Chamber of Shipping sent a strong briefing to hon. Members here and elsewhere. There are many acronyms, concepts and ideas involved in the debate about using armed guards, the payment of ransoms and so on, and there have been recent examples of people being taken captive for a ransom elsewhere in the world on land and at sea. It is self-evident that if someone demands a large amount of money for a loved one, and that they will be killed or executed if it is not paid, everyone would want to avoid that.

The taskforce’s general direction of travel on ransoms, announced on 31 May, was to reduce or constrain payment—although I may be wrong, and a Minister may correct me. It is most unlikely that anyone could convince foreign Governments not to pay, and not to assist or facilitate payment. Indeed, there are examples of foreign Governments—it is probably best not to say which ones—possibly making payments, and certainly of Governments facilitating payments. Even if the UK obtained agreement from some members of the taskforce, it is most unlikely that the payment of ransoms would stop. Pirates would still be attacking ships and taking people hostage. They would not be taking people hostage on the basis that their country was one that would facilitate a ransom payment. The risk is that we could end up with a two-tier situation, and some people would be released eventually. As the hon. Gentleman said, Judith Tebbutt was released after payment of a $1 million ransom, and it was reported that someone, perhaps even a news agency, helped to pay £500,000 for the Chandlers. A sad recent example was a Scotsman, Khalil Dale, who was kidnapped in Pakistan. There was evidently and clearly a financial imperative in the demands of the people who kidnapped him, and his employer, the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that its policy, as the Government suggested, was not to pay ransoms.

There is a distinction between a Government who make a political policy decision not to pay ransoms, and an employer. For many different reasons, and given the scale of their work, the Government’s exposure to risk is far greater than that of any employing organisation, and seafarers belong to the latter group. It therefore seems quite improper to constrain employers who may have seafarers at sea from paying ransoms in cases when they could get someone released.

People are held in Somalia, having been captured off the coast. For example, MV Iceberg 1 is still being held; two people are dead and others have been held for more than 800 days. We know that the longer it takes to get a ransom paid the longer people are held in captivity, and that when a ransom is paid, they are likely to be released. Few UK citizens have been affected.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of the knotty moral problem of paying ransoms. Is not the problem that although paying a ransom may well save the life of an employee or a loved one, it encourages the taking of hostages and the risking of other people’s lives? Indeed, it pays for that to be facilitated. Surely we must encourage shipping companies, and others, to take a firm stand against the payment of ransoms.

[Eric Joyce]

The hon. Gentleman describes the point that we all regard as central to the question. Paying ransoms may encourage pirates, but my instinct is that pirates in Somalia are looking not at the policies of international Governments but at the fact that it is possible to get a ransom payment. I greatly doubt that Governments across the world will agree not to facilitate ransom payments. Indeed, I can list—we all can—the Governments who are highly likely to encourage the facilitation of ransom payments. Therefore, if we say that we will discourage such payments, British citizens will be affected but no one else. It is true that the UK has considerable influence because of its importance in the maritime industry and the presence in the UK of the International Maritime Organisation, but it is highly unlikely that other countries would agree not to pay ransoms.

If there was a billionaire whose daughter had been captured and was about to be shot, and there was a £2 million ransom, would they pay it or would they say, “No, I don’t think I will because it’s just going to encourage others.”? Of course they would pay it. If people are discouraged from taking up kidnap and ransom insurance, the risk is that we will end up with only rich people being able to secure their safety. We know of one or two cases, including that of Judith Tebbutt who luckily was able to secure a large amount of money—$1 million—to secure her freedom. If no kidnap and ransom insurance is paid, other employees will be at considerable risk of exposure.

The case of Khalil Dale in Pakistan is relevant, if perhaps only tangentially. The non-governmental organisation in question was described as “brave” for taking a decision that led inevitably to Khalil Dale’s death. I did not regard that as brave. I thought it was a businesslike decision that, in the worst case, saved the organisation money because kidnap and ransom insurance is expensive. Commercial companies can build insurance into their expenditure and planning assumptions, and it seems a bit too easy for employers to say, “Well, the Government say that this is the best thing to do.” If someone who works for an NGO is unfortunate enough to get captured and a ransom is not paid—imagine, for example, someone on land in Somalia—they are much more likely to be held for many months, or even killed. If they are lucky enough to be employed by an organisation that has paid kidnap and ransom insurance, there is a strong chance that they will be released. That is the realpolitik of the matter.

In conclusion, we should be cautious about assuming that just because we say, “This is a jolly good thing”, everybody else will agree. If we decide to discourage, or in the worst case, make it unlawful to pay kidnap and ransom insurance, employees—the people about whom organisations must be concerned—will be exposed to much greater risk. That is why in this dilemma I come down strongly on the side of paying kidnap and ransom insurance, and I think NGOs ought to do that as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and his Committee on securing this timely and important debate and the whole Committee on the report, which is an authoritative and important contribution to British policy making in the context.

The problems associated with piracy are well understood by everyone here. It is conducted on a staggering scale in the Indian ocean, and I think that the report suggests that between 1,500 and 3,000 pirates are operating there. It affects trade through the Gulf of Aden worth hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars to the global economy. Any disruption of that trade certainly affects not just British companies, but companies all over the world, and the insurance and other markets that support it. There are disturbing trends, which the Select Committee drew attention to, including—and probably most worryingly—increasing violence against hostages, which was not a particular characteristic of Somali piracy a few years ago. On top of that, there is the fact that such piracy has been going on for decades. The international community despite, I think, nine United Nations Security Council resolutions and three multinational naval operations, has not remotely cracked the problem. As we have heard, the amount of ransom that is being paid is on the increase.

That is not to say, however, that there are not some positive signals. In Somalia, the situation on the ground seems more promising than for many years. That is partly due to the courage of African Union and other international forces, which have secured more territory than for many years. There is some evidence that progress is being made against forces such as al-Shabaab, although it continues to control huge swathes of the country.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on how serious or sustainable the progress in Somalia is? Is he confident that in three years’ time Somalia will be significantly better than it is today?

[Martin Horwood]

I cannot predict the future, but the fact that Mogadishu is now an overwhelmingly secure city, which was far from true only a few years ago, and that the Foreign Secretary and International Development Secretary can visit cities such as Mogadishu with a degree of confidence about their personal security is a quite dramatic shift, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge. I do not say that securing a military solution is the only path forward, but the fact that African Union troops and others have made enormous sacrifices, displayed great courage and secured a large amount of territory should not go unnoticed.

There is also progress in the sense that areas of the internationally recognised territory of Somalia—mainly, in practice, self-governing areas such as Somaliland and Puntland—have achieved a reasonable degree of peace and security. The Government have shown wisdom in promoting a flexible attitude to territories such as Somaliland. The creation of the Somaliland Development Corporation, which the Government supported earlier this year, is a positive development. Trying to exploit the economic potential of the relative peace of areas such as Somaliland is a practical contribution to the provision of an alternative economic model to the chaos and piracy prevalent in other parts of the Somali territory. It is exactly right that the Department for International Development is prioritising development on the ground and the provision of economic alternatives to people in Somalia.

The convening of the London conference earlier this year was an important step, not just in relation to tackling war and conflict in Somalia and getting a co-ordinated regional approach, which the Select Committee asked for, but in making concrete contributions to progress on anti-piracy initiatives, including some things that have been mentioned: the taskforces on ransoms and the wonderfully named—let me get it right—Regional Anti-Piracy Prosecutions Intelligence Co-ordination Centre. I am sure that Hansard will report that I got that fluently right. The substantial financial commitment that the Government have made to RAPPICC is welcome, and we have provided its first director, Garry Crone. That support is welcome and exactly the kind of lead in international co-ordination that the Select Committee asked for.

On ransoms, Her Majesty’s Government’s instinct is exactly right. Briefings from non-governmental organisations such as Saferworld, which has talked to civil society in Somalia, make it clear that the economic model of piracy brings, in some cases, the most effective wealth provision into the local economy. If we can disrupt that business model and suggest that a peaceful, normal economy and society would be a more profitable way to develop—as we would obviously hope—we will have some chance of defeating the root causes of piracy. If we continue to fuel the ransom economy and pay money, that will be a massive incentive for Somalis to continue with piracy and to allow it to spread. If, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) said, risk and reward are so imbalanced, why would piracy not spread down the coast of Africa? Why would not that model be emulated in other parts of the world?

[Eric Joyce]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the thing for a responsible employer to do, if two dozen employees are captured and a ransom is demanded—they may well be executed—is to pay it, as opposed to the view of NGOs, which appear on the whole to want to leave them to die?

[Martin Horwood]

No. I think that paying is profoundly irresponsible. There are even more extreme cases than that of an employer. It is difficult to tell someone whose loved one has been kidnapped—it would be difficult for me if one of my loved ones had been kidnapped—and other members of the family, “You should not pay.” That is a terribly difficult thing to say to someone, face to face. However, in the bigger picture, people are kidnapped because other people have paid ransoms, which paid for the boats and mother-ships and the lifestyle of the pirates that makes future ransoms, kidnaps and piracy much more likely. We must try to disrupt that business model. Trying to find a simple military solution is only half the answer. I am afraid that I think that the Government’s instinct is right.

[Richard Ottaway]

What does the hon. Gentleman think would have happened to Judith Tebbutt and Mr and Mrs Chandler if no ransoms had been paid?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

As I said, it is a horrendously difficult thing to say to an individual family or a company, “You should not pay,” but Governments must consider the larger picture and the fact that ransoms fuel the whole situation and that every payment of a ransom supports future piracy.

[Richard Ottaway]

To use the illustration of a mugger, does the hon. Gentleman think that the best advice to give a mugging victim is, “Don’t hand over your wallet, because that will stop mugging in the future.”?

[Martin Horwood]

That is the police advice—[Interruption.] The police advice is to co-operate, I know, but that is where someone is at imminent risk themselves. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling set out the situation: it is a balance of risk and reward. The Government and the international community are addressing the risk element, because they are stepping up self-defence measures, and there is greater international co-ordination and increasing provision of private armed security forces and armed guards. The risk element is therefore increasing slightly, but the rewards are stupendous—hundreds of millions of dollars—and we must try to reduce the rewards or the economic model behind piracy will thrive.

I am afraid that this situation is the classic philosophical prisoner’s dilemma, where the individual action may be difficult to take, but the result on a larger scale is clear. Saferworld says clearly in its briefing, from its research on the ground in Somalia, that the continued payment of ransoms fuels and exacerbates the problem. We want to tackle those things and want people to be safer.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) asked what would happen to British ships in that situation and whether British hostages would be more at risk. I suspect that Somali pirates are quite good business men and can spot a red ensign, a white ensign or whichever British flag happens to be flying. If Britain acquired a reputation for not paying ransoms, it would balance out the risks and rewards of attacking a British vessel and they might think that it would be better to attack somebody else’s.

The principle has been established in other fields. It used to be more common practice for ransoms and payments to be made when hostages were taken in international terrorist situations, such as airfields. There was a concerted international drive to stop any hostage payments being made in those situations, and that form of terrorism has largely disappeared. It has sadly been replaced by many others. It is critical that we disrupt the business model of piracy. That was not the only issue that I was going to address; I will move quickly on.

On the military front, the moves towards international co-ordination are good. I note the existence of the European naval force. We ought to agree between these four walls not to tell the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) about it. It is very effective, and a British operational commander is in place. The rejection of the catch-and-release approach was rightly highlighted by the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is important that that approach is abandoned, so increasing the risk that pirates face. We need more effective action to prosecute, using every available international or national legal jurisdiction that we can find. The British Government are taking a lead in that.

The report highlighted other issues, rightly including the disappointing progress to date in tracking financial flows—tens of millions of pounds are being trafficked. The Government and, indeed, the international community have been slow to provide ways to track it down and disrupt the flow. It is an important step in disrupting the pirates’ business model. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s view.

The Foreign Affairs Committee is a little inclined always to want Britain to be the country taking the lead. These are global problems. Likewise, it insists that Britain plays the leading role in the naval operation. Although Britain is an important naval power, perhaps given our financial situation and the fact that it is a global problem affecting global business and threatening the lives of nationals of all countries, it is not absolutely necessary to have at least one British naval vessel on operation all the time. This must be done through international co-ordination.

On the prosecution of pirates when they are visible, the report says:

“Gathering evidence to secure a successful prosecution for piracy is clearly challenging, but when pirates are observed in boats with guns, ladders and even hostages, it beggars belief that they cannot be prosecuted.”

That is exactly right. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on progress on the international front.

I think that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling was a little uncharitable in his comments on the use of force by private armed security forces. The UK legal situation is pretty clear. The Library briefing quotes an international law firm called Ince and Co., which says that

“the use of force in deterring or preventing what is a criminal act”

is justified. It continues:

“In the UK…lethal force is normally only allowed where there is serious and imminent threat to life. The decision to use lethal force must be reasonable and the force used proportionate.”

Further clarification on the exact definitions and terms will be obviously welcome whenever it arrives through the door today, and Government are working to provide that. Ince and Co. goes on to make the point that rules on the use of force need to be internationally agreed and as standardised as possible. That is required internationally. The IMO ought to be taking a lead, but it is possibly the slowest organisation in the world at doing almost anything.

In deference to other Members, because we were distracted, I will move swiftly to a conclusion. It is imperative to tackle the situation on the ground and provide different economic models. We should use the example of Somaliland positively to look at fisheries and try to present an alternative way of providing prosperity in the longer term for the people of Somalia, so that this appalling trade does still not offer the attractions that it does now.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

The whole debate is a tribute to the astonishing attention currently being paid to Somalia. In fact, the increase in African Union troops from 12,000 to 17,730, and indeed this whole discussion, show how important Somali piracy is. I would like to sound a note of caution, however. The most important thing in the debate is not to get dragged in too deeply, or to be too ambitious in what we feel we can achieve on the ground in Somalia.

There are very grand theories going around about the importance of Somali piracy and linking it to theories of state building, economic development, regional stability and terrorism. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) made a number of those arguments. They are powerful, partly because a powerful industry supports them, trying to draw us ever deeper into Somalia. The components of that industry are various, but there are four.

The first is what I call the “forward school”, represented by people like my father, who quite like the idea of grand naval operations and keep talking about sending out Q-boats and remembering Julius Caesar attacking the shoreline. That is the naval “use it or lose it” approach, where a military complex likes to expand its area of operations to justify its existence.

The second is, of course, the Somali Government themselves, who find it very convenient to use Somali piracy to attract international attention and resources. They are increasingly adept at manipulating international sentiment on human rights and terrorism to attract more resources into their Government.

The third component is think-tanks. There is now a major industry, particularly focused on Islamic radicalisation and counter-terrorism, that is keen to connect Somali piracy with the obsessions of Washington think-tanks with the proliferation of al-Qaeda.

Finally, as the previous speaker pointed out, there are the aid agencies, which find it extremely convenient to use Somali piracy to argue for more investment in development operations in Somalia. Connections are perpetually made, and were made by the hon. Gentleman, with governance, failed states, economic development and alternative livelihoods, as they are in Yemen, Congo, Chad, Afghanistan and Sudan.

[Martin Horwood]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s long and genuine experience in the field, but having worked for a development NGO I think the suggestion that the NGOs are in some way fostering an image of Somalia in particular for the benefit of their business model and to encourage spending on development is rather extraordinary and, indeed, really offensive.

[Rory Stewart]

I am very happy to share endless statements from almost every major NGO and development agency that has attempted to draw links between their programmes on the ground in all the areas the hon. Gentleman and I mentioned and state instability, and indeed piracy itself. It is entirely normal. We have seen it all the way from Congo to Afghanistan. Somalia is absolutely no exception.

The problem with that kind of argument is twofold. First, there is a theoretical problem: the strong link between state instability, governance and developmental poverty and piracy is yet to be proven at any theoretical level. Secondly, the actual links, as Anja Shortland argued in a recent academic paper, are very fragile indeed. No link has so far been effectively established between the piracy and al-Qaeda, and very few substantial links have been established between piracy and the al-Shabaab movement itself. As for statements about development and state building, Anja Shortland argued that it is very doubtful whether the contribution of piracy to the Somali economy is anything other than marginally positive at the moment.

I am not saying that Somali piracy is not an evil in itself, or that poverty in Somalia is anything other evil. Both those things are true and important. Attempting to connect the two, however, draws us into a dangerous policy position. The solution is humility and context. Instead of endlessly inflating the problem of Somali piracy in order to draw in more resources, we need to acknowledge the reality of our situation.

We need to acknowledge first that, as many hon. Members have pointed out, we have made little progress on Somali piracy over the past five years. We have invested surprisingly little in the issue, despite an enormous amount of rhetoric. Despite nine UN resolutions and three multinational task forces, the reality on the ground is that there has been an increase in both the number of attacks and the amount of ransom money being paid. Moreover, despite an enormous amount of rhetoric and the idea that people read in The Daily Telegraph that this is the No. 1 priority of the British Navy, we have often only one ship or perhaps none at all in the region; in fact the matter does not actually classify at the highest priority level for our naval operations. Part of that may be due to mixed signals, influenced by the fact that the majority of the crews, unfortunately, are not citizens of OECD countries, and the majority of the ships involved have nothing to do with Britain itself.

However, there are much more fundamental limits constraining us and, unless we acknowledge those limits, we are going to get ourselves in trouble. Those limits are threefold. First, there is a limit of abstraction. Statements about governance, rule of law and economic development in Somalia are extremely vague and ill-focused. We have a poor understanding of governance and rule of law structures on the ground in Somalia, very little idea of what kind of country the international community could turn Somalia into, and few models to put forward. The isolated lives of our diplomats and other international officials, because of security issues and short tour lengths, and lack of linguistic expertise means that their understanding of what is happening at rural level in Somalia is extremely limited. All of that is disguised within a very optimistic language, which talks about a land-based solution, without any evidence that we have the knowledge, the power or the legitimacy to achieve that kind of solution.

[Martin Horwood]

I will resist the temptation to debate Anja Shortland’s conclusions, which I think demonstrate exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but on the specific point about the lack of a positive model, what about the example of Somaliland—he may regard it as a different territory, I suppose—and the British Government’s support of the Somaliland Development Corporation? Does not that look like a positive alternative model of development?

[Rory Stewart]

The problems in the al-Shabaab-controlled areas and in Puntland are completely different from those in Somaliland, and attempting to read from one across the other is highly misleading.

To conclude, the context needs to be put in place. The limited obligation that we have needs to be asserted: in other words, we do indeed have an obligation to the Somali people, as we have an obligation to the people of Congo, Sudan, Afghanistan and our own people, but the threat posed by Somali piracy and by Somali state instability to UK national interests is limited. It is a threat but it is one threat among many. Somalia is one of perhaps 40 countries in the world with which the United Kingdom and the international community needs to be concerned. We should not be raising the expectations of the Somali people through talk of our ability to deliver solutions that we cannot deliver.

This is not a recipe for pessimism. It is instead to suggest that we can make developmental progress, but we will not be able to achieve governance, rule of law, or state stability. We may be able to contain Somali piracy, but we are extremely unlikely to be able to eliminate it. Our objectives should be limited to ongoing counter-piracy operations, some development operations and an attempt to increase the likelihood of a political settlement and decrease the likelihood of civil war. Any attempt to claim that we can do more is likely to mislead the British people, disappoint the Somali people and draw us into a situation into which we should not be drawn.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are going to have call a halt soon, because we have other business and time for that must be protected, but we will take a couple more questions, with the emphasis on brevity.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Much as we all love referendums and rightly remain absolutely committed to the principle of self-determination in the case of the Falklands, is it nevertheless part of the Government’s strategy, once these important and emotionally charged anniversaries are over, to rebuild relations with what should be a friendly democracy in Argentina?

[Mr Lidington]

We have never sought to shift away from a friendly and constructive relationship with Argentina, whether political or commercial. It is Argentina, under its current leadership, that has chosen to walk away from the prospect of a fruitful relationship with the United Kingdom. We will be only too willing to have the sort of warm relationship with Argentina which ought to exist, but in order to seek that we are not prepared to sacrifice or to put at risk the self-determination of the people of the Falklands.

Sergei Magnitsky

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

Well, we had accreditation and we were allowed to go and see all the absentee voting rolls. In the polling stations I visited, the absentee voting rolls were only about 10% of the total. Even if 10% of them were fraudulent or represented votes made under pressure from others, that could not significantly have affected the result. I am afraid that, whether we like it or not, in the polling station where I saw the count Putin won clearly. That leads to the question we have to ask ourselves: is Putin the bar to liberal pluralist democracy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) described in his excellent article earlier this week in The Daily Telegraph, or is there some evidence that the reason why he is quite popular in Russia is that not all Russians want pluralist liberal democracy? I make no defence of that point of view; I just ask that question. In his article, my right hon. and learned Friend said that

“the only opponents permitted to stand in the election were the Communists and an unelectable oligarch”,

but all the parties represented in the Duma were allowed to stand. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughs; I do not pretend that the election was perfect, but progress is being made. We have to acknowledge that there were other candidates.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I think the hon. Gentleman is putting too positive a gloss on this. May I remind him of the case of Grigory Yavlinsky, the candidate of the Liberal Democrats’ sister party in Liberal International in Russia, Yabloko? He was simply denied the opportunity to stand by an electoral commission. It was not a fair election.

[Mr Leigh]

I immediately acknowledge that, and I do not condone the exclusion of any candidate from standing or the lack of prime-time airtime for Opposition candidates. I do not pretend it is a perfect democracy, but the House of Commons has to appreciate that this is still an infinitely freer election than has happened in the past in Russia. At least some progress has been made; let us not knock that.

There has been talk about the case of Mikhail Khordokovsky. I do not defend the tumbling and the show trial of that oligarch, but we have to remember what happened under Mr Yeltsin’s rule. He sold off the family silver to his friends, cronies and supporters, and there was no limit to the power of the oligarchs under him. I do not defend the trial, but Mr Putin was clearly sending a political message to the Russian people that no oligarch is above the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Although it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), I rise from the Liberal Democrat Benches of the coalition to support the motion unequivocally. I am pleased that there has been such cross-party unity—from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The motion was also signed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). That cross-party unity is important, not least because the UK bears a special responsibility in the case of Sergei Magnitsky. He was working for a British company, Hermitage Capital, and the gentleman who has spearheaded the worldwide campaign for justice, Bill Browder, is a British citizen. Our country therefore has an obligation to lead the campaign. The example being set by legislators in the United States, the Netherlands and Canada is one that we should and can follow.

The world has changed since the 1970s and the 1980s—the hon. Member for Gainsborough is right about that. Democracy has flourished in Latin America, eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Africa and Asia, and we hope that it will now flourish in the middle east and north Africa, too. Russia has been part of the process. It is undoubtedly a freer country than was the Soviet Union, yet the implication of all the issues we are discussing is that democracy is, if anything, in danger and potentially going in reverse in Russia, in a way that it is not in eastern Europe, Latin America or even Africa.

It is right that we are increasingly intolerant of human rights abuses worldwide, whether committed by monsters such as Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army in central Africa, or murderous regimes such as that of Bashar al-Assad. Some mechanisms are useful against that kind of leader—for example, the International Criminal Court. In the case of Sergei Magnitsky and cases like it, however, the situation is more complicated. Russia is a country with democratic structures and space for opposition and pluralism; nevertheless, the state and the judicial system are being used as a mechanism for oppression. People are acting with impunity and assuming that they can get away with it indefinitely. We need mechanisms that will target not just the leaders but the accomplices, to discourage people from participating in such activity all the way down the food chain. For that, we need a faster and more effective process than referrals to the ICC.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda: we should not necessarily be waiting for measures to be implemented in other countries before we recognise that it might be right to act in this country. I accept that there are constraints on what the Minister can tell us, and I absolutely accept his personal commitment to human rights and democracy. He has done extraordinary work to raise those issues even when it was inconvenient to do so, not just with the Russian Government, but with many other Governments worldwide. I certainly give him credit, but it is important that we support the motion and seize our opportunity.

It is important, too, that we do not send mixed messages, for example in our suggested reforms to the European Court of Human Rights. There is danger in saying that national Governments can pick and choose which cases go forward. If we do that, it might be possible for Russia to do it too, which in the context of the Magnitsky case would be very dangerous. I am happy to support the motion. I recognise the constraints, but the time has come to speak out and to act.