Gibraltar

Debate between Martin Horwood and Edward Leigh

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I commend the Foreign Affairs Committee for its report, which includes thoughtful analysis. This is a timely debate. The Liberal Democrats have a soft spot for Gibraltar currently. We do not often refer to the outcome of the 2014 European elections, but there was a 49% swing to the Liberal Democrats in Gibraltar, which must be some kind of record for representative democracy, let alone for the Liberal Democrats. That is obviously testament to the outstanding good sense of the people of Gibraltar, but it is also a tribute to the hard work and diligence of Sir Graham Watson, Gibraltar’s Member of the European Parliament, who for many years took a close interest in Gibraltarian matters and was a strong advocate for the people of Gibraltar. I was personally sad that he narrowly missed re-election on that day and pay tribute to his hard work and diligence for all the people of south-west England, but for Gibraltar particularly in the context of the debate. That underlines that Gibraltar is part of the European Union.

Spain’s behaviour towards Gibraltar is completely inappropriate for a fellow European state. There are many bonds of friendship and affection between Britain and Gibraltar, but the current situation is not about that, and not even about keeping Gibraltar British for ever—after all, as we have emphasised, it is a self-governing territory. It is about absolute support for the right to self-determination for the people of Gibraltar. It is also about the rule of law and the proper application of the rules of the European Union. Since the current Spanish Government were elected in 2011, they seem to have been on a singularly aggressive campaign to try to undermine both those principles, which is extremely unfortunate.

In passing, I should say that the Popular party is a member of the European People’s party. It is unfortunate that the Conservative party withdrew from that grouping and thereby lost an opportunity for regular informal dialogue with Spanish leaders, which might have softened the Spanish Government’s approach. That is speculation, but unfortunately, the hard fact is that their attitude has become more and not less aggressive. They have withdrawn from the trilateral forum for dialogue.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

With respect, I do not believe that Spain would alter its view if the Conservative party were in the European People’s party.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman might be right and I accept what he says in good part.

The Spanish Government have withdrawn from the trilateral forum for dialogue, which provided a framework for discussion between the three Governments. They have committed to unravel agreements entered into under the trilateral forum to which Spain had signed up. The Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Margallo, has called that putting the toothpaste back into the tube. In response, we should tell him that that is generally a messy and pointless process. He has also used slightly more aggressive language. The Select Committee refers to his comment that “play time is over” with respect to Gibraltar, which is intimidating vocabulary. It is unfortunate that it comes from a fellow European democracy.

One arrangement entered into under the forum was that Spain promised to respect the inclusion of Gibraltar airport in EU civil aviation measures, which an hon. Member mentioned. In fact, Spain’s objections have disrupted the single European sky project. “Single European sky” is a phrase calculated to send Eurosceptic Members purple with rage, but it does not mean that Brussels is trying to take over our skies. It is a perfectly sensible and safe improvement to air traffic control measures. It includes Norway and Switzerland, so it does not require membership of the European Union.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Debate between Martin Horwood and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The figures we are talking about are truly enormous. In the three options—the EU proposal, a real-terms freeze and a cash freeze—we are talking about commitments of £990 billion, £885 billion and £771 billion, so these are very important matters, affecting every man and woman in this country. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), with whom I have spent 29 years in this House, that his speech was quite inflammatory. His main line of attack appears to be that those of us who are going to support the amendment are somehow putting our Government at risk by joining with the Labour party. I have heard the argument before; it was actually the argument put by Neville Chamberlain in the Norway debate, when he said that he could rely on his friends. Over the years we have been here, many Members of Parliament have taken the view that principle is sometimes more important than partisanship. We have consistently argued about these matters through difficult times and it is quite wrong to blame us—those who have taken an entirely consistent position— for putting the Government’s political position at risk.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Given his experience in this House, does the hon. Gentleman not think that nailing one’s colours to a wholly unrealistic negotiating position will weaken the position of the British Government going into this financial negotiation and result in a worse outcome for this country, for his constituents and for Europe? He needs not to lecture us about principle but to consider the genuine reality of the situation.

[Mr Leigh]

Let me first make one more comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, who made a very important point. He represents the Anglican tendency in this House and I represent the Catholic tendency. If someone goes to confession and repents, we should accept them into our fold. We should not turn them away. If the Labour party has changed its mind, it has repented.

Sergei Magnitsky

Debate between Martin Horwood and Edward Leigh

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.

Somalia

Debate between Martin Horwood and Edward Leigh

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

I agree entirely and apologise if my opening remarks had a defeatist tone. I did not mean to convey that at all. I just wanted to be realistic. I will, as have many who have already discussed Somaliland, pay tribute to what it has achieved. There is a model about which the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), so we should not despair of the situation. I was leading up to saying—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this—that there is no single solution or governmental process that is right, because Somalia is a patchwork of sub-national entities: some, such as Somaliland, are large, some are small, and some are clan-based.

Somaliland has developed governmental structures that exercise authority in a relatively normal and competent way, despite or—dare I say it—because of almost total non-recognition by outside powers. Perhaps we should learn something from that. Elsewhere in Somalia power can shift rapidly as clans align, separate and shift alliances. I suspect that progress can be made only by encouraging the peaceful institutionalisation and regularisation of the clan structures. That is not being defeatist; it is just recognising reality. That is why I believe that any kind of imposed solution or attempt to create one out of this conference would be a mistake.

At least, in my view, we have learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly opposed both those ventures, because I believe they were badly planned and because they involved western troops on the ground. Thank God we have learned the lessons and British coffins are not returning through Wootton Bassett from Somalia. We are, however, engaged and not a great deal has been said about this so far. We are, apparently, training, equipping and supporting Kenyan and other African Union troops. I am told that British Army officers can often be seen in Nairobi doing that. Not a great deal is disclosed about it by our Government—perhaps that is right and it should be under the radar—but I think that Parliament, which pays for it, needs to know what is happening on behalf of our taxpayers.

We have to acknowledge the limitations of foreign intervention, even if we are being cleverer about it this time and using troops from the African Union effectively as proxies. The fact that troops are from Burundi and Kenya does not mean they are not resented as interloping Christians and foreigners by many in Somalia. We have to recognise that and we must not be over-optimistic about their ability to change events there. I still believe there are worrying comparisons with Afghanistan. There is foreign intervention for a start, there is the resurgent Muslim al-Shabaab—read the Taliban in Afghanistan—and there is a weak, corrupt central Government who are too reliant on aid from the west. I think we have been too kind to the Mogadishu Government in this debate. It might be difficult for the Foreign Secretary to say this—I went to the Somali conference yesterday at Chatham House, at which he gave an excellent speech—but the failure of the transitional federal charter and the transitional federal Government, whom we support, is almost absolute. They are virtually a failed entity, apart from in Mogadishu, where they operate only with foreign intervention.

The corruption in that Government, whom our Government support, is absolutely appalling, and taxpayers here should know about it. A confidential audit of the Somali Government suggests that in 2009 and 2010, 96% of direct assistance to the Government from outside powers simply disappeared, most likely into the hands of corrupt officials. Billions of pounds and dollars from the west have therefore simply disappeared. I am not attacking international aid, and I will say something about the vital importance of humanitarian aid in a moment, but it is appalling that, according to a confidential and authoritative audit, 96% of aid from our country and others has simply gone down the drain—into the pockets of corrupt officials.

I believe the transitional road map should be abandoned. If possible, another road map should be agreed that is more flexible and able to develop in response to the implementation of changes—bending to them rather than being broken by them, as has happened in the past. In that part of the world, as in many others, a strict road map is unlikely to succeed in practice. It is clear that the presidential system of a central Administration is inappropriate for Somalia. That has proved to be unworkable and it might be wise to propose a confederal solution to the problem. The country could be arranged into a number of cantons that bestow authority upwards to the national Government rather than there being a system that works downwards from the centre, as with most unitary states.

[Martin Horwood]

I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman about having a federal organisation of the possible state, which would reflect the history of Somalia, but may I question him about the report that so much aid has been wasted? That is rather counter-intuitive given that a high proportion of our aid goes to Somaliland, which is relatively well governed and where structures are well in place. Quite a high proportion goes through NGOs, with which that kind of exercise of being siphoned off by officials should not apply. Will he give a little more detail about this report and its sources?

[Mr Leigh]

I am not attacking aid to Somaliland. I am talking about aid that goes directly to the Somali Government, not about aid that goes to Somaliland or NGOs. I will happily send my hon. Friend the report, which is very clear, explicit and authoritative. There is undoubtedly a failed state in Mogadishu. We have to be aware of and recognise that.

A report from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York suggests there should be recognition of the reality on the ground with the creation of a council of leaders to replace the bloated and ineffective transitional federal Government and Parliament. That would surely be a step in the right direction. I believe that if a political process begins to succeed in stabilising Somalia, the issue of Somaliland, as we have said again and again in this debate, will need to be addressed. Somaliland has demonstrated its ability to function as an independent state; it is the only part of Somalia with a Government who function properly, and they do so with some democratic legitimacy, which is all the more commendable. All of Somalia, apart from Somaliland, is committed to the idea of a united state; for example, Puntland, while functioning separately, participates in negotiations for the creation of a recognisable national Government and seeks to be a state within Somalia. On the contrary, Somaliland has decisively demonstrated the desire to add de jure sovereignty to its de facto independence, and it should be granted. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office says that self-determination is right for Falklanders, so why is it not right for Somalilanders?

One way forward would be an offer to Somaliland that it sign up to a confederal Somalia, with a guaranteed time frame for an independence referendum, as happened in South Sudan. Nobody doubts what the result would be. If there was a fair referendum in Somaliland, its people would vote for independence, which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, they had in the past. That would give Somalilanders a realistic prospect of achieving the international recognition that their state currently lacks, while retaining national legitimacy at a Somali-wide level, even if only transitionally. I suggest it as an idea for the conference, as others have done.

Much of the piracy stems from Puntland, which is one of the poorest areas in an already poor country. Given the lucrative nature of piracy, its financial attraction is understandably strong, but it should also be noted that Somalia’s fishing industry has collapsed over the past 15 years. Its waters have been overfished, not by local people but by European, Asian and other African ships. Lack of maritime security in Somali coastal waters means that they provide a safe haven for people smugglers and arms smugglers, in addition to illegal fishing.

In Britain, we suffer from the common fisheries policy—a thoroughly counter-productive strategy that our Government are forced to accede to. We should therefore sympathise with the position of Somalis who are being ravaged by an immeasurably worse depredation of their fishing stocks by outsiders. While the pirates—until now—seem to be in it simply for financial enrichment, we must be aware of the potential convergence of terrorist groups in the area.

Worse things could happen. For instance, the sinking of a large container or tanker in the approach to the Suez canal would be a propaganda coup for terrorists. Insurance premiums have already risen more than tenfold since the first flourishing of Somali piracy in 2008. Although the pirates obviously keep most of the ransom funds they obtain, we can assume that a significant amount provides local factions with an injection of cash that helps to finance warfare and escalates conflict in the area.

I shall not repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, but there is some confusion about exactly what ships can do when pirates approach them. We heard what my hon. Friend said; there must be clarification of the law of the sea, and I am sure the Minister will provide it when he winds up the debate.

There has been much good progress. Operation Atalanta is an impressive effort involving 23 of the 27 EU member states. We provide the operational headquarters at Northwood. A combined naval taskforce—CTF 150—has been undertaken by a coalition under US co-ordination. It involves the UK, Canada, Denmark, France, Japan and Germany, with participation from Australia, Italy and the Netherlands. It is very impressive and we should pay tribute to it.

As my hon. Friends who took part in the defence debate pointed out, all these things show the importance of the work of our Royal Navy and that it is increasingly over-stretched: in the Falklands, where we have had to send a Type 45 destroyer, in the strait of Hormuz and in anti-piracy control. We cannot rely on others. An authoritative report from the Defence Committee underlines the fact. In recent years, people have said that there is not enough for the Royal Navy to do, but actually it is extraordinarily important and it should be a national priority. We of course have allies for counter-terrorist and anti-piracy purposes—let us not doubt it—but perhaps we should remember Lord Palmerston’s warning, which applies to us just as it does to others, that nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests. We do not necessarily have permanent allies, but we have a permanent interest in maintaining maritime security. That is why I take every opportunity I can in such debates to pay tribute to the Royal Navy for the important work it does. I hope that when my hon. Friends succeed in catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, they, too, might make that point.

Let me end my remarks by talking about humanitarian intervention, because I did not want my earlier remarks to sound defeatist about the importance of international aid. I condemn the libertarian approach that says we should sit by and let the problem solve itself while hundreds of thousands of people go hungry and die, which I think is completely counter to our history of humanitarianism. Therefore, I warmly commend what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is doing and the help he has given. I often talk about the need for strict controls on public money, but occasionally one has to cut through Treasury controls and get the aid out there. I would like to echo the concern expressed in a Chatham House paper: if the international community does only one thing, ensuring the safe delivery of food aid should be the priority. I have no argument with that. When between 50,000 and 100,000 people are dying, it is right that we should be prepared to take action.

So much of this issue concerns the lack of interest. There is a lack of interest in many parts of the west. Perhaps up to 100,000 people have died in the past year, but this debate has not been overwhelmingly well attended. There is the lack of interest, the divided counsel and the violence. None of this is new. I will end with a quotation I recently read from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI, Part I”, Act I:

“Gloucester: Is Paris lost? Is Rouen yielded up?...

Exeter: How were they lost? What treachery was used?

Messenger: No treachery, but want of men and money;

Among the soldiers, this is muttered—

That here you maintain several factions,

And whilst a field should be despatched and fought,

You are disputing of your generals:

One would have lingering wars with little cost;

Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings.

A third man thinks, without expense at all,

By guileful fair words peace may be obtained.

Awake, awake, English nobility!”

European Council

Debate between Martin Horwood and Edward Leigh

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

I shall not be drawn into that. Critically, it is for the eurozone countries to address the crisis in the eurozone. The right hon. Gentleman highlights the important point that just by drawing up a treaty the eurozone countries do not solve some of the rather fundamental problems in the eurozone. In fact, the situation in Greece is becoming increasingly serious and it needs to be urgently addressed—that is even more the case now than in recent months.

The importance of the main business of the summit must not be neglected. Britain’s re-engagement in European affairs is critical and it must be pushed forward. There have already been some successes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills helped to create the like-minded growth group, which has pushed forward ideas such as lifting onerous accounting rules from the smallest businesses in this country. I think the group has helped to create a shift in Commission attitudes on the smallest businesses to the point where it has committed to review all existing EU legislation to look for other opportunities to lift onerous regulation from such businesses and to screen new legislation to see whether, wherever possible, the smallest businesses can be excluded. That is exactly the kind of agenda we should be pushing in Europe.

[Mr Leigh]

I want to make an intervention that the hon. Gentleman and I can both agree with. Does he agree with the point I have been making consistently at business questions that this debate is so important that in future we should have it in Government time, for a whole afternoon, with the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister here so that we can ask them detailed questions?

[Martin Horwood]

I think that is right, although the point I am making is that the jobs and prosperity agenda should be the focus of such debates. If possible, we should get away from the obsession with structures and treaties. The British Government should be pushing the jobs and prosperity agenda at the summit. I have suggested some areas for deregulation and the European Liberal leaders forum drew up a long list of legislation that should be reviewed for possible reform. It included the working time regulations, the temporary agency workers directive, the control of vibration at work regulations, fixed-term employees regulations, part-time workers regulations, control of noise at work regulations, road transport working time regulations and the transnational information and consultation of employees regulations.

European Council

Debate between Martin Horwood and Edward Leigh

Thursday 8th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

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

[Mr Leigh]

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

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

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

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

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

Debate between Martin Horwood and Edward Leigh

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

This has been quite a consensual debate. It has not been as noisy and pacey as the debate about Europe that we had on Monday, but there has been a great deal of quality and quite a lot of unity, not only on the importance of the Council of Europe, but on the need to reform some of its institutions, such as the European Court. I welcome the Minister’s remarks and those of the Labour representative, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), although I think she might have made a slight slip of the tongue when she suggested that the landmass covered by the Council of Europe stretched from Vladivostok to Reykjavik. The term “landmass” might come as something of a surprise to the Icelanders.

I pay tribute to all the members of the British delegation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) will be sorry that he is unable to contribute to today’s debate as he is feeling rather unwell. He is a committed member of the delegation, and I am sure that hon. Members will regret not hearing one of his robust contributions. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter). He burnished his European credentials earlier this week, but he has received so many accolades today as the leader of the British delegation that that fact is worth mentioning too.

It is an enormous honour for Britain to take on the chairmanship of the Council of Europe. As the Minister highlighted, Britain was involved right at the beginning in establishing the institution, which was forged from the embers of wartime Europe and has promoted human rights, freedom and democracy, the rule of law and cultural co-operation ever since. It is sad that we are now so complacent that in some circles the phrase “human rights” has become something of a dirty word. Indeed, on occasion even the rule of law and the right of judges to interpret human rights have been questioned.

The Council of Europe shows that this is an important area that needs to be defended. Obviously the Council of Europe has a much lighter touch than the European Union and its institutions, but that gives it a much wider and more comprehensive remit. It has not just touched on human rights: we also have conventions on cybercrime, pharmaceuticals, the prevention of terrorism and the prevention of torture, and—as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) pointed out—on trafficking human beings and on racism and intolerance, including intolerance based on religious belief or non-belief.

The complacent and sometimes rather lazy criticism of human rights and institutions at the European level can easily drift into a reversal of the progress that we have seen in all these enormously important areas. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), who is no longer in his place, pointed out how important it is not just to accept that the conventions exist and that a piece of paper has been signed, but to ensure that cases are considered in detail and measures are enforced in member states. However, that does not mean that there is no need for reform. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s initiative to look into reforming Council of Europe institutions. The European convention on human rights is something that we should stoutly defend. We were the first state to ratify it, and we should certainly welcome the European Union’s accession to it and the application of those disciplines to its institutions.

[Mr Leigh]

During the lifetime of this Government, will the Liberal part of the coalition veto any attempt to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998?

[Martin Horwood]

I do not think that there is any suggestion that we will repeal the Human Rights Act, which actually allows this country to exercise its sovereignty by bringing the European convention on human rights into British law and giving British judges the right to enforce it. That is a re-enforcement of British sovereignty, so I would be surprised if any such suggestion were made.

However, the European Court of Human Rights clearly has a lot of problems. Mention has been made of the 155,000-case backlog. Obviously it is right that the British chairmanship should work to ensure that the Court’s judgments are implemented across the rest of Europe as well as they are in the UK, that its membership is of sufficiently high quality and, most importantly, that it does not act as a substitute for domestic courts.

One good initiative by the coalition has been the establishment of the commission on a Bill of Rights, which has already made interim recommendations on reforming the Court. The commission said in July:

“It is essential for the Court to be able to address cases involving serious questions affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, and serious issues of general importance, where the Court’s intervention is justified. The Court should be a court of last resort, and not a first port of call for all human rights issues. It should be adjudicating hundreds of cases a year, not thousands, and certainly not tens of thousands, and ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is observed by national institutions with the primary responsibility for the protection of human rights”.

The British chairmanship should build on that report, and seize the opportunity to take forward reform of the Court. I also hope, however, that the UK chairmanship will not be entirely distracted by the mechanics of human rights, and that it will champion those rights where they need to be championed.

In that respect, the UK chairmanship can build on the excellent work of the Foreign Secretary in his extensive report on human rights and democracy produced last year. It contains a list of countries causing concern to the British Government because of their human rights record. That list includes several European countries and one member state of the Council of Europe. Outside the Council of Europe it highlights Belarus, which is currently barred from membership because of its human rights record. The Foreign Secretary’s report describes “successive waves of repression” in that country. The Deputy Prime Minister has referred to it as “Europe’s shameful secret”. The Liberal Democrats’ own youth organisation has highlighted the struggle of its Belarusian sister organisation, Civil Forum, stating that its members

“continue to protest against the regime despite the potential violence they often face. Their struggle for human rights and political freedom is an inspiration to the global Liberal Youth movement.”

Sadly, I am sure that similar things could well be happening in such organisations in other political traditions as well. If the UK chairmanship can advance the cause of human rights in Belarus, that would be extremely welcome.

Russia also gets an unfavourable mention in the Foreign Secretary’s list. The report talks about

“restrictions on freedom of assembly, harassment and obstruction of NGOs and journalists”.

It also states:

“Human rights defenders in Russia remained at high risk in 2010.”

It highlights the cases of Oleg Orlov, of the human rights organisation Memorial, and of Sapiyat Magomedova, a human rights lawyer. It also mentions the trials of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, and talks about the circumstances surrounding the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, about which many questions remain unanswered. This is all very sad, because Russia has for centuries been a pillar of European culture and civilisation, and it needs to understand that showing respect for freedom, democracy and the rule of law is absolutely essential if it is to become a full member of the European family of nations.

As well as mentioning Belarus and Russia, the report also refers to examples even closer to the heart of Europe. Hungary’s new constitution gives cause for concern, and Amnesty International has highlighted issues in it relating to the rights of women, as well as to

“the provision allowing for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole…and the exclusion of sexual orientation from the protected grounds of discrimination”.

Hungary was in many ways at the starting point of Europe’s democratic revolution in 1989. It is a free democracy, and a full member of the Council of Europe and of the European Union, and it would be a great shame if it were to acquire a poor reputation in the area of human rights. I hope that under the UK chairmanship of the Council of Europe we shall see proactive debate and promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

I welcome the Minister’s remarks on the forthcoming London conference on cyberspace. It is important for it to tackle the threats from cybercrime and even co-ordinated cyber-attack. I also hope, however, that, in line with our role in the Council of Europe, it will emphasise the values of freedom on the internet and in cyberspace. Throughout the whole episode of the Arab spring so far, we have seen how important that freedom can be to championing democracy and human rights.

On the question of the budget, the Council of Europe is a relatively small institution in the great continental scheme of things, but it has had a staggeringly large impact for its size, and I believe that it provides very good value for money. The United Kingdom should pursue an active and successful chairmanship of the Council, as that would be in our national interest, as well as in the interest of our citizens and citizens across the whole continent of Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is my next-door neighbour across the Trent, so I hope that there will be a sort of symmetry to our speeches; I will balance his speech for the purposes of the Gainsborough Standard. He is, of course, an ornament of Parliament, not least because he succeeds in irritating his own side as much as us, which is very good.

You, too, are an ornament of Parliament, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are also a former member of the Council of Europe. We all recall you often flying the flag for Britain on a Friday when everybody else had gone home. We are very grateful for all the work you did in the delegation. I am not sure that anyone has yet thanked you, so I wanted to put that on the record. In the Council of Europe we are restricted to three-minute contributions. I cannot promise that I will take as little as that, but I shall try to be as quick as possible because I know that others want to speak.

I am very proud to be a member of the Council of Europe. When we go there we see some marvellous history laid out in the foyer, with pictures of Winston Churchill speaking to one of the first sessions, if not the first. There is something very noble about this concept which, as we know, arose out of the second world war. The Council of Europe was a tremendously powerful mechanism in saying that we were never again going to have the horrors of Nazism and fascism. We should also be very proud of what the immediate past generation of members of the Council of Europe achieved in the whole transition to democracy in eastern Europe, of what the Council of Europe has achieved in eastern Europe and of how we are really defending human rights in eastern Europe, where there have been the most appalling and profound abuses, as there were in western Europe before 1945. To me, that is what the Council of Europe, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 are all about; it is about the fundamental freedoms that, from Magna Carta onwards, we have built up in this country. We have become a beacon of those freedoms. We all know what they are: freedom of expression and of religion, the right to privacy and a family life—wonderful, basic freedoms. That is what I believe Winston Churchill was talking about, but what we have now seen is judicial creep way beyond anything ever envisaged when the convention was agreed.

There is a misunderstanding about this issue. Nobody on the Government Benches is suggesting that we should leave the convention. I am proud of the convention that we signed in 1949. All we are attacking is the incorporation of the convention into our law under the Human Rights Act 1998, which was passed by the Labour Government. That is our gripe. Nobody is denying that we should be a member of the Council of Europe or that we want to reform it, but this has become a very serious issue. If one looks on the front pages of the newspapers today one will see, just to take one issue, that the population of this country is due to rise within 20 years to 70 million people—a figure that the Labour Government said was quite unacceptable and would never be reached. Two thirds of that increase comes from immigration—that will put a severe strain not only on services but on good relations and human rights. This issue of immigration is therefore important.

If the Minister for Immigration were here and were allowed to speak openly about what is happening in his Department, I am sure that he would have to admit that he is severely constrained in what he can do to deal with this problem of immigration in order to foster good race relations because of the incorporation of the convention into our law. Although he cannot tell us, because he is a Minister, what is going on inside his Department, we have, as I mentioned earlier in a couple of interventions, now heard from a former Minister for Immigration. His diary really is worth revealing because it tells us in great detail what is going on. This is not some right-winger speaking: it is a former Labour Minister—a person who voted for the 1998 Act, was then put in a position of responsibility and was, frankly, driven mad by it.

[Martin Horwood]

I am tempted to discuss the issue of immigration and suggest that it is more to do with providing the skills in the right jobs, as that is what is drawing in immigration—that is something that the coalition is tackling.

The hon. Gentleman talks about getting rid of the Human Rights Act, which effectively means taking the ability to interpret the convention out of the hands of British judges and giving it back to European judges. Does he not trust British judges or does he think that by doing that we will somehow not be implementing it as fully as we would be if it were in British law?

[Mr Leigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because this addresses precisely the point I want to make. I believe that the convention as we understood and implemented it from the late 1940s to the late 1990s was about the protection of fundamental rights. It was understood to be a matter of last resort. If somebody was really dissatisfied with the way that their human rights had been treated in British courts, for example in the immigration process, they could, if they wanted—frankly, after they had been removed—take a case to Strasbourg. What has happened since then—since we have incorporated it—is that we have had a tidal wave of cases coming to our own judges, and they have interpreted the convention in such a way that makes it very difficult for Ministers to do their job. Members of Parliament might not worry about whether it is bad to make it difficult for Ministers to do their job, but Ministers are responsible to this Parliament. This is the democratic forum of the British people. This Parliament should be supreme—not the courts.

If hon. Members do not believe me, they should listen to what Mr Woolas said. I have already mentioned the case. For years we had been working on both sides of the House against forced marriages and we had been trying to raise the age of women coming here. I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) how that had been overturned by judges. I ask hon. Members to listen to this quote from Phil Woolas, the former Labour Minister for Immigration, which directly mentions the European Court. He said:

“We have four people wanted for genocide in Rwanda (there are 100 but the four are the test case)”—

so we have here four people who are wanted for quite serious crimes, so not very nice people. The quote continues:

“The magistrates had agreed to extradite them but the High Court had disagreed on the grounds that they would not get a fair trial in Rwanda.

I am advised”

by my civil servants

“that I should grant six months leave to remain in the UK ‘in the hope that the legal system in Rwanda improves’.

I had asked why we couldn’t try them in The Hague and was told as they were not British, I couldn’t send them there!

So a person accused of committing genocide in an ‘unsafe country’ (which country that has genocide is safe!) simply has to get into an ECHR country and they will get away with it. The ECHR is providing cover for people who commit genocide. Madness.”

That is not me speaking—it is a Labour Minister.

I will refer to another case and then I will stop. There were many others, and I recommend that hon. Members read what is going on inside the Department, because it is our only insight into what is actually happening across Ministers’ desks.

“The French Navy detained some drug smugglers in the middle of the Atlantic. It took 14 days to get back to France because the ship was on patrol. But the…gangster took the French government to court for unlawful detention under the ECHR, saying he should have been dealt with sooner!...The smugglers have been released…I have now asked why we can’t change the law to stop this abuse but the MoD don’t want me to as they are using the same defence to protect six British soldiers, now back in the UK, who are being sued from Iraq after being accused of unlawfully detaining suspect insurgents in Basra…So, we cannot detain suspected gangsters at sea and the Human Rights Act applies in Basra. Unbelievable.”

That is not me speaking; it is a Labour Minister.

That is what we have come to, and it is now affecting national policy in a very profound way. The House may not agree with me about immigration, but I think it is a very serious issue for our country. We have to grapple with it if we are going to ensure good race relations in the future. I believe that a population of 70 million is unsustainable. You may not agree with that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but surely you agree that this House, and Ministers responsible to us, should have the right and the power to deal with it; you do not believe that at all times their hands should be shackled behind their back because of a European convention that has been interpreted in such a way that it goes way beyond what anyone envisaged when it was set up.