Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Debate between Martin Horwood and Richard Graham

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who made a typically well-informed and moving speech.

I will start on a slightly sober note with a touch of realism. We in this Parliament are obviously not in a very strong position to influence events in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, it is absolutely right that we should support human rights and democracy for the people of Hong Kong and support the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and his Committee in stating very clearly that the accusation of unjustified meddling in the internal affairs of China is not justified. Indeed, it is not justified either to try to inhibit the work of the all-party group on China, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is being generous, both in what he says and in giving way, but I want to make a tiny point. He said that we may not have much influence over Hong Kong, but the whole point of this debate, of course, is that we are not trying to influence Hong Kong. We are trying to discuss the issues, but we are not trying to interfere, meddle, influence or anything else.

[Martin Horwood]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point and I will come back to it. There is an argument for us to comment on universal human rights and thereby try to influence their conduct throughout the world. To that extent, I think we are trying to influence events, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the focus of this debate is on, in a sense, the opposite situation, which is the Chinese Government’s unjustified attempt to curtail a parliamentary inquiry. It is true that we are not seeking in this debate to change anything in Hong Kong immediately.

The accusation of unjustified interference is wrong on two counts. First, as many hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out, we are party to an international agreement—the 1984 joint declaration—which refers in article 3(12) to the

“basic policies of the People’s Republic of China regarding Hong Kong”.

Article 3(4) states:

“The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People’s Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.”

That is not the strongest wording in the world, but it is repeated in the Basic Law that was also implemented by the joint agreement. Article 3(12) goes on to state that those policies would

“remain unchanged for 50 years.”

We are clearly within that time scale, so the British Parliament has a perfectly legitimate right to look at how the Basic Law and joint agreement are being interpreted in practice in Hong Kong, particularly in the light of the Beijing Government’s announcements in August.

The second reason it is wrong to criticise the Foreign Affairs Committee is that we are all party to the United Nations universal declaration of human rights, which affirms that human rights—from Iran to Colombia and from China to Britain itself—are inalienable for all members of the human family. It is legitimate for any member of the United Nations to look at, comment on and take an interest in the conduct of human rights worldwide, and no Parliament or democratic assembly anywhere in the world should feel inhibited from doing so. It is common for this Parliament to comment on human rights in a variety of countries. Indeed, the Government publish an annual human rights report, in which they comment on human rights in many countries around the world.

As Lenin once said, what is to be done? First, we have to be clear that the Foreign Affairs Committee should continue to highlight the issues raised by events in Hong Kong, to investigate them thoroughly and to draw reasonable conclusions without fear of intimidation. We need to be clear that everyone in this Parliament supports its right to do that and encourages it to continue its inquiry.

Secondly, it is important that the British Government continue to raise concerns about China’s interpretation of the Basic Law and the joint declaration, and in doing so draw on the expertise of the Foreign Affairs Committee and its eventual report.

Thirdly, this country needs to adopt a deeper and more sophisticated policy towards China. Parliament and Government have tended to address China as if the only important thing we want it to do is buy and sell more widgets. The view has been that trade and capital investment are important, but almost to the exclusion of other considerations, and many hon. Members have reinforced the point that that is not the case. Trade and capital investment are important, but policies have to be wider and more sophisticated than that.

Part of that policy has to be an understanding from our side of China, its sensitivities and history, and the progress it has made. That means acknowledging that our shared history with China has not been particularly glorious on the British side on many occasions. We have to acknowledge that our role as a colonial power in events such as the opium wars was, in retrospect, disgraceful. We have undervalued contributions such as that of the 96,000 members of the Chinese Labour Corps during the first world war. They behaved with complete heroism and lost thousands of their number, but they were treated pretty disgracefully at the time and, equally disgracefully, their heroism and contribution to this country during the first world war have been neglected. A broad-based campaign is seeking to rectify that omission and obtain a memorial in this country to the Chinese Labour Corps. I hope that will attract Government support.

We have to acknowledge our own failure to deliver democracy in Hong Kong. We were the administrators and rulers of Hong Kong for many years, and we never delivered a Chief Executive who was elected by the people of Hong Kong without interference. We appointed colonial governors, and I am sure that some of them were very skilled, talented and caring, but in a sense it was a benign colonial dictatorship. It is difficult for us now to turn around and criticise China on how it behaves towards Hong Kong, and we have to be sensitive to that.

Hong Kong

Debate between Martin Horwood and Richard Graham

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate and on his measured, balanced and well-informed speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—another neighbour—on his similarly well-informed speech. I also congratulate the Minister on meeting Martin Lee and Anson Chan over the summer. It was important that a British Minister did that. The Deputy Prime Minister met them, as well, something that was appreciated and recognised.

Some of the statements Martin Lee made in The New York Times earlier this month have been pretty shocking. For instance, he wrote:

“At 76 years old, I never expected to be tear-gassed in Hong Kong, my once peaceful home. Like many of the other tens of thousands of calm and nonviolent protesters in the Hong Kong streets last Sunday, I was shocked when the pro-democracy crowd was met by throngs of police officers in full riot gear, carrying weapons and wantonly firing canisters of tear gas. After urging the crowd to remain calm under provocation, I got hit by a cloud of the burning fumes.”

When such accounts reach the world’s media, it is important that we say unambiguously that we support the peaceful process being pursued by the Hong Kong people, as well as their aspirations for freedom and democracy and, quite specifically, their right to elect a leader without a vetting process that would fundamentally undermine the democratic process.

The news today is actually more promising. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester remarked, there is some suggestion that Mr Leung has started to make statements implying the possibility of negotiations and that, while the Hong Kong Government will try to save face by not unbundling the Beijing Government’s whole proposal, there may be some room for discussion about the democratic process behind the nominating committee. That is a positive first step, and we should recognise that.

However, Martin Lee was quite clear in his article in The New York Times that, if the negotiations are to succeed, we in this country and across the western world have a role to play. He said:

“In order for us”—

the Hong Kongers—

“to attain the rights that Beijing has promised, the rest of the world has to stand with Hong Kong. That includes the many multinational companies whose prosperity depends upon our free markets and open-and-honest society, but more important, it includes the world’s free democracies. Hong Kongers deserve more vigorous backing from Washington and London, which pledged to stand by us before the handover in 1997, when Beijing made the promises it is now so blatantly breaking.”

The crisis obviously has implications for Hong Kong, China and UK-China relations, but it also has implications for the international rule of law and the role of international treaties, which is what the joint declaration was—it was registered at the United Nations as such. To take a much more distressing example, the Budapest memorandum, under which Britain and the United States were joint guarantors of the independence of Ukraine, has turned out in practice to be hardly worth the paper it was written on. It is important that China treats the joint declaration much more seriously and that we reinforce respect for it as an international treaty.

[Richard Graham]

On that point, I am sure my hon. Friend, like the rest of us, is absolutely clear that there is nothing specifically in the joint declaration about the arrangements for these, or indeed any other, elections; it simply states that there shall be elections. The methodology is in the Basic Law, and it is entirely an issue for the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. However, the Basic Law has been amended; like any law, it is not cast in stone for ever. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the real issue is the level of dialogue and trust between the Hong Kong Government and their people, and between the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese Government in turn, as they try to find the necessary compromises?

[Martin Horwood]

Yes, I would agree, and my hon. Friend put the point very well. However, this is also about understanding what universal suffrage really means and ensuring that the democratic process of choosing a leader for Hong Kong is free in a way that is understood by the Hong Kong people and by people in democracies around the world—and that does not include prior vetting by a one-party Government in another part of China.

We must be realistic and honest about the limits of our ability as a former colonial power—we did not actually deliver democracy when we were running Hong Kong—to influence this process. We must be persuasive, but we cannot be confrontational with the Government in Beijing. We certainly must be true to our values, but we must recognise that there are limits. We must try to persuade China that it is in its interests to have a stable and free Hong Kong; that is the basis on which Hong Kong’s prosperity has been built.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester rightly said, stability is not just about maintaining the status quo. It is in China’s interests that the process that emerges from whatever negotiations take place delivers a Chief Executive who is in tune with the Hong Kong people, not just through the formal process of democracy, but, for instance, in the sense of recognising issues of economic equality in the territory, as the hon. Member for The Cotswolds mentioned. The Chief Executive should not, for instance, make remarks such as those Mr Leung made about the Occupy Central movement when he dismissed it as being manipulated by external forces. That is dismissive of the aspirations of the community-based movement that has emerged in Hong Kong and would not be acceptable in most democratic leaders.

It is important that we try to persuade the Beijing Government not just to save face, but to move in a direction that recognises the aspirations of the Hong Kong people and to do better than we did as the colonial power—to outdo us—in its administration of Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s future stability certainly depends on that.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Martin Horwood and Richard Graham

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

I was not, in fact, the only Liberal Democrat Member here, and my colleagues are probably focused on jobs, A and E departments, the good deal we are delivering for pensioners and promoting employment and economic prosperity in their constituencies, rather than spending an entire day banging on about Europe. I am reassured that so many Conservative Members are so confident that all the jobs are provided and all the A and E departments are safe and no green spaces need protecting that they are willing to spend an entire day here talking about the minutiae of European referendums. I am equally confident that at one stage we had the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and, I think, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions all in the Chamber for this debate, so I assume the Deputy Prime Minister must have been busy running the country at that point.

The consistent position the Liberal Democrats have taken is to be in favour of an in/out referendum either at a time of major, fundamental treaty change or at a time of a transfer of power, which also has to happen under treaty provisions. That is the consistent position we have taken, and that is the position we still take today. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) want to point out when we have said anything different? She does not; I thought as much.

The Conservative party, by contrast, has taken a bewildering variety of positions on referendums. I think it was the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who is no longer in his place, who pointed out that Margaret Thatcher opposed the original European referendum and she quoted Clement Attlee saying referendums were a device of demagogues and dictators. At that point she was a supporter of European Union membership, which at that stage was already identified as a discussion about social and political union as well as about access to an economic common market. That is clear from the literature produced in that referendum campaign. It talks about the new regional fund, the social fund, bringing the peoples of Europe closer together and promoting peace and freedom—so even the defence and security aspects of the EU’s work were already being debated. Margaret Thatcher said that for the Labour party the proposal of a referendum was

“a tactical device to get over a split in their own party.”—[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 306.]

I think history might be repeating itself now.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is my neighbour, for giving way. He talks about history repeating itself. Some of us remember very clearly that when the Prime Minister stood up and announced he was going to renegotiate the EU budget so that it was cut, one of my hon. Friend’s distinguished colleagues described that as being an inconceivable act. Does he believe it would be inconceivable to renegotiate anything with Europe?

[Martin Horwood]

The point is that we can be in favour of reform, but not necessarily make that conditional on referendums. If we read the Prime Minister’s speech carefully, we can see that Liberal Democrats would disagree with very little of what he actually wanted to change in Europe. Indeed, we would enthusiastically support much of the reform agenda. We have gone along with Conservative colleagues in supporting the Government’s review of the balance of competences. I think that is a very important process, and I think it is an absolutely correct one to carry out, but I also think it was ill-judged to attach a time bomb to all this and say that unless we get what we want we will do this or that, and to try to negotiate on a unilateral basis. It is important now to try to achieve these reforms on a multilateral basis by co-operation with other European partners.

I was explaining some of the political background of the Conservative party’s position. In the 1990s John Major was in favour of a referendum, but only on membership of the euro. By 2001, that had changed and then we had an evolution of a policy that was really about—

Gloucestershire Libraries

Debate between Martin Horwood and Richard Graham

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

I am not familiar with the situation in Painswick, so I had better not venture into that. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the provisions from the 1964 Act that I read out. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to

“superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales, and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of the functions in relation to libraries conferred on them as authorities by or under this Act”.

Those local authority duties include the provision of a

“comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof”.

The Minister is familiar with those powers, as he drew attention to them in the case of the Wirral in 2009, when we were both in opposition.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I shall give way to another neighbour, from Gloucester.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend raises concerns that libraries may be closed, but my understanding is that no library in Gloucestershire has closed, and that they will all continue. That is certainly the case in my constituency of Gloucester, and I welcome the proposal for greater flexibility in the provision of library services which I hope in due course, in the ward of Matson, which is similar to Hesters Way in many respects, will result in opportunities for the community to be more involved through voluntary work, work experience for the young and the greater provision of other facilities alongside the library.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman refers to Matson, which is interesting because it seems to be a parallel case to that of Hesters Way. It is an area of deprivation, as he obviously well knows. In the case of Hesters Way, the offer of a community takeover resulted in a neighbourhood project supported by the district council, which is Liberal Democrat-led Cheltenham borough council. I am not sure exactly what the situation is in Matson, but I understand that the library is also staying open as a public library. If Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries is correct, there are still threats of outstanding closures to public libraries, and the question of whether invitations to communities, neighbourhood projects or other institutions to take them over will succeed is still outstanding.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

No, I am sorry. I have given way twice, which is stretching the courtesy of the House in an Adjournment debate at the best of times, so I will press on.

Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries has raised the Secretary of State’s responsibilities and the possibility of his intervention in Gloucestershire on a number of occasions, but decision came there none—not even a reply to some of its communications until yesterday, less than 24 hours before this debate. The Minister probably owes some eagle-eyed official in his Department a drink for having spotted that potential little embarrassment. The letter to Johanna Anderson, one of Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries’ most uncompromising supporters, rather surprisingly implies that intervention by the Secretary of State in the form of a public inquiry is still possible. It says that the Department has been in the process of gathering evidence since April 2011 and offers the excuse that

“the council’s plans have been subject to considerable change over a sustained period of time”—

but not as much change as many campaigners in Gloucestershire would like. I suggest that the Secretary of State had better get a move on, or all the decisions will have been taken and implemented before he has finished gathering the evidence.

The powers of the Secretary of State in the 1964 Act are serious ones that are not to be used lightly, but in a county where the decisions of the council and the processes by which they have reached them have generated such opposition, and even been ruled unlawful, I would have thought that they could and should be exercised. This is not a request for the Secretary of State to run Gloucestershire’s libraries for us, or even to take all the decisions that need to be taken locally; it is a request for him to make inquiries and, in the words of the Act, to

“superintend, and promote the improvement of”

public library services. It is not at all clear to me that this duty is currently being fulfilled in the manner that the authors of the Act might have expected. We all wish that these decisions could be taken in a time of expanding budgets and generous local government settlements, but sadly, as we all know, that is not the case, and there may still be more pain ahead. However, as the institute has pointed out, different and more careful approaches are possible.

As Julia Donaldson made so clear in her recent public statement, libraries are a precious local and national resource that need to be celebrated and defended with as much courage and resourcefulness as the tiny snail on the tail of a whale so that future generations, whatever their personal circumstances, can be given a space to discover, to read and learn, and to enjoy stories like hers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I want to put on record my absolute rejection that this is in some way the launch of a Lib Dem election campaign. I wish we could recruit 13,000 petitioners and the High Court to our cause, but I do not think that that is credible. However, if the electors of Gloucestershire wish to try a different approach, they will know which way to vote in May 2013.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Perhaps I can emulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and try to draw the Minister back to Gloucestershire. The hon. Member for Gloucester made the confident assertion that no libraries in Gloucestershire will close, yet Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries lists seven that are still at risk of closure, at least as public libraries, if not completely.

[Richard Graham]

Which ones?

[Martin Horwood]

The libraries are listed on the Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries website. They are all outside my constituency so I will not list them. Has the Minister received any assurance from the county council that there will be no library closures in Gloucestershire?