G7

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

On the figures, this Government effectively froze defence spending in cash terms, which was an 8% real-terms cut. We are, of course, still meeting the 2% that NATO countries are meant to meet, and we are virtually the only country in Europe that is doing so, so I think we are in a strong position to say to others that they should do more.

Where I would perhaps part company with the hon. Gentleman is on the fact that our changes are about making sure that we have effective and deployable armed forces. Some countries might maintain spending or current patterns, but they do not actually have deployable armed forces for the things that are needed. That is what we need to get countries to focus on as they come to the NATO summit.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

May I echo the Prime Minister’s appropriate words about D-day? It is very welcome that President Poroshenko has committed to normalised relations with Russia and that Russia, in turn, has recognised his legitimacy as President of Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is important that the European Union does not slip into complacency over Ukraine and that other, alternative options, such as the alternative long-term energy strategy, should still be pursued with vigour?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Europe has to do two things. First, it must make sure that the trade relationship with Ukraine works properly, that the implications are discussed with Russia and that a successful Ukrainian economy develops. The second and far more long-term issue is the changes to our energy markets in the European Union. We really have to set out a work programme for more investment in liquefied natural gas terminals, more reverse flows between different countries and more action on shale gas, which is an important natural resource that we ought to be making the most of. Europe will rue the day if it just puts out communiqués and talks about these things, rather than actually doing them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has provided a very useful public service by reminding me of one useful thing that the SNP has done in its history by getting rid of that dreadful Labour Government who nationalised half of British industry and made such a mess. I agree with him on one very important thing, in spite of his views, and that is that the United Kingdom is much better off together, but I do think he is completely wrong about one of the issues he raised. This is the week in which we have cut corporation tax to 21%. That will attract businesses into England, into Wales, into Scotland and into Northern Ireland. He should be standing up and praising this tax-cutting Government, rather than criticising them.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

A planning inspector recently told a closed meeting in Gloucestershire that he would give more weight to consultants’ economic models than to “10,000 objections from local people”. Is that what the national planning framework really meant by “empowering” local people?

[The Prime Minister]

The national planning framework is very clear about the importance of listening to local people on development. My hon. Friend will have received a letter recently explaining some of the changes in the guidance under the framework to make sure that, for instance, previous housing performance by local councils is taken into account in these very important decisions.

European Council and Nuclear Security Summit

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm that we will be working towards that goal and will continue the excellent work the Foreign Office does on it.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Freezing a few bank accounts may look pretty feeble, but a strategy to reduce eastern Europe’s energy dependence on Gazprom could send a much stronger and much more painful signal to Russia. In that context, are we committed not just to the military defence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, but, more importantly, to their economic and political defence as well?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will not reduce Europe’s energy dependence on Russia overnight. Hungary is more than 80% reliant on Russian gas and some of the Baltic states have an ever greater reliance on it. The truth is that this a long-term piece of work that involves building liquefied natural gas terminals, having reverse flows through pipelines, exploiting shale gas, including shale gas in south-eastern Europe and in the Baltic states, and building pipelines from Azerbaijan and other countries where gas can be supplied directly to Europe. All of those things will make a difference, and they will make a long-term difference to the relationship between the EU and Russia in a way that will make the EU more resilient. Although we are not reliant on Russian gas, we should be helping to push that process.

European Council

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman, who served as Foreign Secretary, speaks with great knowledge. The fact is that a number of things our Russian interlocutors have said have turned out simply not to be true. We have to be very clear in challenging them on that. Of course Russia has an interest in having a strong and positive relationship with Ukraine, which we understand and welcome, but in these circumstances some of the things that have been said about what is happening on the ground, the consequences that would follow certain actions, and indeed the point he has just made, show that they have not been entirely straightforward with us.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the steps that have already been taken and the option of much stronger economic sanctions, but the presence of small but visible numbers of neo-fascist thugs on the streets of Ukraine, and indeed on the TV screens of Russia, is clearly just playing into Vladimir Putin’s hands. Can we assist the Government of Ukraine in returning control of law and order on the streets to the regular police as soon as possible?

International Wildlife Crime

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

That is an interesting intervention, but I will let the Minister reply to it, if I may.

Tackling this illegal trade can no longer be seen as a low priority. That is why I was proud that the Conservative party’s manifesto promised action through border policing, and this important commitment fed through to the Government’s new serious organised crime strategy, which explicitly mentions wildlife crime. This prioritisation of organised crime is new and it has been welcomed by WWF, and it is essential that it is turned into effective action.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight these connections, but he must also agree that we must put our own house in order. Is he aware that hundreds of thousands of songbirds are being killed on British sovereign territory in Cyprus, with the Ministry of Defence apparently turning a blind eye to the industrial-scale planting of acacia bushes to facilitate this, and will he join me in demanding that the MOD put a stop to this as soon as possible since it is organised crime on British sovereign territory?

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend has made his point forcefully.

Enforcement and conservation measures, however well resourced, will never be sufficient while there is a demand for animal parts. In both the medicine and the ivory trade, seeking a reduction is not enough. As Will Travers of the Born Free Foundation has said, we need to be calling not for a reduction, but for the eradication of the trade.

We must refuse to allow cultural sensitivities to prevent us tackling so-called traditional “medicine” that does so much to fuel the illegal wildlife trade. Spurious health claims about the efficacy of rhino horn as a cure for everything from hangovers to cancer led directly to the extinction of the Javan rhino two years ago and the huge spike in killings of the African rhino. Education programmes to challenge the myth of traditional remedies are vital, and so is leadership by Governments.

Seeking an eradication is entirely incompatible with farming wild animals such as rhinos, as some have suggested, so that their parts can be sold. We must choke demand; not stoke it. That is why there should be a total ban on further ivory sales. As shadow Environment Secretary, I strongly opposed the sale of stockpiles, proposed by Tanzania and Zambia, in 2010. We took that decision because the 2008 sales were a complete failure. Far from reducing poaching, as some thought that they might, the sales led to a huge spike in killings. A report the next year showed that 38,000 elephants were then being poached a year, almost three time the level before the sales. In Sierra Leone, for example, the entire elephant herd was destroyed by poachers in the country’s only national park.

The 2008 sales were also significant in that they allowed China to participate for the first time. It purchased more than 105 tonnes of ivory, flooding the market with cheap “legitimate” ivory and stoking a demand that is now being met with poached illegal ivory. The Chinese Government’s destruction of six tonnes last month was a welcome change of emphasis, but that still leaves 99 tonnes unaccounted for. It must be a goal of next week’s conference and international agreement that there are no sales of ivory, and all stockpiles are destroyed.

In conclusion, action to oppose the illegal trade in wild animal parts is vital to conserve endangered species, to develop communities in Asia and Africa and to cut off an important source of funding to criminal and terrorist groups. I will never forget, in Kaziranga, hearing the electrifying roar of a tiger in the wild, yet seeing the sorry fate of a captive tiger orphaned by poachers. It would be a tragedy if magnificent animals such as those were lost from the wild. Next week’s conference offers a real chance to prevent that from happening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Having happily visited the Beatles museum many years ago and enjoyed being there, I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. I have never had any problem working with the mayor of Liverpool and enjoyed appearing on a platform with him to advertise the brilliance of that city, and I will continue to co-operate with him in all the work that he is doing to attract investment into the city.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Abolishing roaming charges is one of the big wins for British consumers that we might get from remaining in the European Union. Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to discuss international mobile phone usage with any other European Heads of Government in the past day or so?

[The Prime Minister]

You could say I have, in a roundabout way. It should be remembered that the television cameras are always on, but in my defence I would say that Nelson Mandela played an extraordinary role in his life and in his death in bringing people together, so of course when a member of the Kinnock family asked me for a photograph, I thought it only polite to say yes.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I hesitate to rise and echo the tributes of so many eloquent speakers. I think that the one contribution Mandela made that has not yet been mentioned was his founding, in retirement, of the global group The Elders, along with his wife Graça Machel, Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, Kofi Annan and others, at a time when surely he had earned the right to put his feet up and spend more time with his family. He was a truly extraordinary man.

I am also slightly daunted, because I think that this is the first time in a parliamentary debate that I have followed three leaders of my party. Honourable mention should also be made of one of their predecessors in particular, David Steel, who was president of the Anti-Apartheid Movement before becoming leader of the Liberal party. I am not sure whether he would ever admit to having been inspired by the example of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) when he was in the National League of Young Liberals—it is a shame that he is no longer in his place, because I mean this as a compliment—but the flame that burnt brightly in the movement in his era was still pretty bright a generation later, when I was very proud, as chair of the Union of Liberal Students, to invite Donald Woods to be that year’s keynote conference speaker.

Donald Woods was an anti-apartheid activist and a banned journalist who helped, along with Helen Zille of the Rand Daily Mail, to expose to the world the murder of Steve Biko, which of course denied South Africa another potential great leader. That is a salutary lesson about how many people lost their lives in the struggle and how, when Mandela said at the Rivonia trial that his ideals were ones for which he was prepared to die, that was no rhetoric, because he faced the imminent possibility of the death sentence. How different history might have been if that had been the outcome.

It was one thing to be a liberal and an opponent of apartheid in this country, but it was quite another to be that in South Africa. Alan Paton and the Liberal Party of South Africa were increasingly militant opponents of apartheid there. It was a Liberal party activist, Eddie Daniels, who was the first person Helen Suzman met on her first visit to Robben Island. He famously told her, “Don’t waste time talking to us. Go and talk to Mandela at the end of the row. He’s our leader.” It was an early indication of the extraordinary way in which Mandela reached out to people beyond his own natural constituency and to those from different political backgrounds and traditions in South Africa. Daniels was sentenced to 15 years at Robben Island for violent sabotage, and he served every day of it because he refused to renounce the armed struggle. Sometimes we have to be prepared to fight for freedom.

The Liberal Party of South Africa faced being banned in 1968 for the appalling crime of having party members who were from different races. It chose to disband, rather than accept that outcome. For decades it looked as though moderate voices were likely to be drowned out in South Africa. We had the likes of Eugene Terreblanche on the extreme right and some extreme voices on the other side making it look as though the only possible outcome was a bloodbath. It is an extraordinary testament to Nelson Mandela and the others who led the ANC and other political parties at the time that they managed to achieve a peaceful transition not only to a multiracial South Africa, but to a multi-party democracy.

A few weeks ago I was honoured to meet three inspiring young people—I would like to read their names into the record, because they represent the future of South Africa—Mondli Zondo, Lidia Rauch and Rishigen Virenna. They are members of the young leaders programme of the Democratic Alliance, the party now led by the former Rand Daily Mail journalist Helen Zille. They are too young to remember watching Mandela walking free from prison or that extraordinary moment—I remember being glued to the television—when he stood to be sworn in as President, listening not only to “Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika” but to “Die Stem”. What a picture of reconciliation that was. I remember fighting back tears while watching it. Those three young people were certainly too young to have bought The Special A.K.A.’s “Free Nelson Mandela” the first time around. I showed my age by telling them about it.

In the 1960s, those three young people would have been called a black, a white and an Indian. It is thanks to Nelson Mandela and the struggle he led that today they are simply called South Africans. It is thanks to Nelson Mandela and the struggle he led that they are free to post pictures of themselves embracing each other on Facebook regardless of race. They are free to take up political causes. They are free, if they so choose, to oppose the ANC Government. I hope that young people like them and the new generation of South Africans remember, and that we never forget, that it was Nelson Mandela and the others who led that struggle who helped to make that possible. Thanks to Nelson Mandela and those who supported him in the struggle, those young people today are simply free.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

G20

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Looking at the donor table, the EU is the largest contributor, Britain and America are the two largest country contributors, and the rest of the top 10 reads Saudi Arabia, Germany, Canada, Qatar, Japan, Australia, Italy and France. I cannot see Russia on the table, but perhaps I could write to her when I get hold of the number.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I have heard the answers that the Prime Minister has given, but will he tell the House whether the prospect or the opportunity of drawing Iran into a regional approach to peace in Syria was discussed at the G20, especially given the notably less belligerent and partisan remarks recently attributed to President Rouhani and former President Rafsanjani?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course the Syrian issue was discussed, but the principal avenue of discussion was chemical weapons and the right response to their use. There were countries that supported the US motion and countries that did not. There was not an extensive discussion about how the Geneva II process could work, but all the countries around the table are broadly supportive of it.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s doctrine that evidence should precede decision; that is a stark change from at least one of his predecessors. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Does he believe that the evidence that has been presented to us today by the Joint Intelligence Committee is compelling or not?

[Edward Miliband]

I think it is important evidence, but we need to gather further evidence over the coming days. That is part of persuading the international community and people in this country of President Assad’s culpability, and I think that is important. Let me also come to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, though, because the Prime Minister raised it too. I am very clear about the fact that we have got to learn the lessons of Iraq. Of course we have got to learn those lessons, and one of the most important lessons was indeed about respect for the United Nations, and that is part of our amendment today.

On the question of the Security Council, I am also clear that it is incumbent on us to try to build the widest support among the 15 members of the Security Council, whatever the intentions of particular countries. The level of international support is vital, should we decide to take military action. It is vital in the eyes of the world. That is why it cannot be seen as some sideshow or some “moment”, but is an essential part of building the case, if intervention takes place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. As he rightly highlights, we have an opportunity now with the new regime in Iran and we should be responding to a more moderate leader there, yet by going ahead and giving a signal that military action is the direction in which we are heading, we absolutely undermine the authority of that new leader in Iran.

I was making the case that we should have seen the Attorney-General’s full legal opinion and that this one-and-a-half-side summary is simply unacceptable. While I am on the subject of further pieces of information that could have usefully informed this debate, I wish to refer hon. Members again to the Chilcot report—that missing report which has gone absent without leave. It is unacceptable that, yet again, many people are talking about the importance of the legacy of Iraq and we do not have that document, which would have given us the lessons to be learnt.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Lady seems to be making a reasonably powerful case against any use of military force whatsoever. Faced with one motion that does not rule it in and a Labour motion that does not rule it out, is not the logic for all those who have spoken against military action today, including those on the Labour Benches, to vote against them both?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is, unfortunately, a very strong one—[Interruption.] He knows what I mean.

I remain to be convinced that a military attack would deter, rather than escalate, conflict in the region, which is why I agree with what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) just said. I have yet to hear what the strategy would be for Syria and the wider region in the event of an attack. I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister on the radio this morning. It was put to him that Assad could well retaliate against an attack, but when he was asked what we would do in the face of such an escalation, answer came there none. I remain concerned as well about the impact of flouting international law. To intervene without the due resolution would send a message to everyone else that international law can be ignored when it is inconvenient.

As the law of the jungle takes hold, it will be increasingly difficult to condemn similar actions by others. I am increasingly convinced, therefore, that only a political and diplomatic solution will solve the war raging in Syria and by extension hold its spread beyond the region. That is why I will not support the Government’s motion and why I tabled my own amendment setting out that the case for military action had not been made. I am sorry that we will not have an opportunity to put that amendment to the vote, because it would have addressed the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Had it been accepted, we would have had a genuine choice tonight.

We need to strain every sinew to get all relevant parties around the table for peace talks. On so many levels, as others have said, this is a proxy war, which is why we need China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others involved as well. We also absolutely need to redouble our efforts to support refugees. We are hearing from many of the development agencies, including Oxfam, that the situation facing those refugees, both in Syria and the wider region, is appalling. More than 8 million people are now in desperate need of supplies. That is why people who say, “If we don’t have military action, it is equivalent to doing nothing”, are so misguided. There is much we can do on refugees and a political solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend is attributing motives to me, which does not do him justice. The bottom line is that we have asked the UN inspectors to go in and inspect the site. We should at least wait and see what they say when they return—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend wants to intervene again, he is welcome to do so. We are talking only of a couple more days before we get the report. One hundred thousand people are already dead. We need only a couple of days to ensure we have a calm assessment of the evidence. That is not asking too much, yet the motion reads that the

“House…Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria…by the Assad regime”.

That is a statement of fact, but it is not correct until we at least have the UN inspectors’ report.

[Martin Horwood]

I will try to save the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) from saying for a sixth time what he has said. The JIC report comes to a strong conclusion. It says not that it is bewildered, but simply that it cannot put a “precise motivation” on the attack, and concludes that there are

“no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.

As the motion states, it is not the responsibility of the UN weapons inspectors to attribute blame.

[Mr Baron]

The JIC document states clearly that it cannot understand the “precise motivation”. The document is in terms of probability. I put this question to the House, and particularly to those who want to intervene militarily: what is the harm in waiting for the UN inspectors to come back and present their evidence? We should not forget that the west did its utmost to get those weapons inspectors to the site. At the very least we can wait a couple of days to see what they say after their due inspections. Otherwise, what was the logic of sending them there in the first place? Sending them there and not waiting for the report would not make sense.

The second question is of legitimacy. Is military intervention without a UN resolution legitimate?

G8

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right and we will never solve that issue just through Governments reaching agreements, either nationally or internationally. We need a debate about this in every boardroom and business in the world, and we also need lawyers and accountants to think about their responsibilities, as well as the bottom line. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to do. A positive suggestion made by the French and Americans, with my support, was that we ought to be asking accountants and lawyers to do more to help developing countries with their tax systems. Otherwise, there is an unequal struggle between businesses armed to the teeth with corporate lawyers and—this was one example given—a country where the entire budget of the department dealing with the company was far smaller than that of the army of lawyers sent to deal with it.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the G8 pledges on Syria and fairer taxes worldwide, and particularly the Prime Minister’s closing remarks at the summit when he said:

“If Britain weren’t in the EU you would not directly benefit from an EU/US trade deal”.

Is it right that Europe means jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

The point I was making—I hope the hon. Gentleman will quote me in full—is that if Britain were not in the European Union we could reach our own trade agreements with different parts of the world, but I believe we benefit from being part of the single market, and obviously part of bigger negotiations where we have a huge amount of heft in delivering these deals. The EU-Korea deal has been positive, and I think the EU-Canada deal will be positive and completed very shortly. The EU-US deal obviously has more potential than all the others put together.