Israel and Palestine
Michael Ellis Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Hendrick
The hon. Gentleman talks about giving land for peace, but the land Israel has given did not belong to it in the first place. The only land of any size that has been given is Gaza, but the Israelis have made it plain that they do not want Gaza; they want as much of the west bank as they can take. While the building of settlements by stealth is going on, Israel claims to want peace but in the meantime does everything it can to build these settlements, which we know will be an obstacle to peace.
Mark Hendrick
I will not, because I want the Minister to have time to respond and I still have quite a bit to say.
Despite vigorous efforts to win over European countries, only the Czech Republic supported Israel on 29 November. The move signals a widening gulf, not just between Israel and Europe but between Europe and the United States. Israel’s response might well be a bluff, given that bellicose rhetoric will play well with the settlement wing of Likud ahead of the elections on the 22 January. It has been reported that President Obama secured a commitment from Israel not to construct any units in E1 back in May 2009. However, whether or not this announcement is sabre rattling, it remains another chapter in an intractable dispute that is at the heart of geopolitical instability in the region. It is also a further clear sign that Israel is not committed to securing a two-state solution. Israel is continually changing the facts on the ground, which is an obstacle to peace, and at the same time blames the Palestinians for not entering into talks.
Let us remember that settlements are not residential enclaves, but virtual military barracks—fortified castles that separate Palestinians from their schools, places of business and extended communities. They threaten the safety of Palestinians who venture near, consume the lion’s share of the region’s water and prevent normal movement of people and goods. The result is ethnic segregation and discrimination, with Palestinians treated as second-class citizens in the occupied territories that belong to them. There are also more than 1.25 million forgotten non-Jewish citizens of Israel—principally Muslims and Christians—who are treated as third-class citizens. Indeed, both Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela have compared Israel’s segregation of Palestine to apartheid.
Mark Hendrick
Everybody says that, but then there are lots of people.
According to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Israeli settlers in the west bank consume approximately six times the water used by Palestinians. There has been a threefold increase in the number of settler housing units in 2012 compared with 2011. The settler population was estimated at more than 520,000 last year. When I first visited Palestine in 2002 the population was 50,000, so there has been a tenfold increase. The UN also estimates that there are around 540 internal checkpoints, roadblocks and other physical obstacles that impede Palestinian movement in the west bank. The demolition of Palestinian structures is on the rise, displacing more than 1,000 people in 2011. The Palestinian economy is also severely constrained by Israeli restrictions on access to markets and natural resources. The annual cost of this has been estimated at €5.2 billion, or 85% of total Palestinian GDP, which has led to the Palestinian Authority being dependent on large amounts of funds from the EU and other foreign donors. Between 1994 and 2011, the EU gave €5 billion to Palestine. However, the impact of Israel’s paralysing constraints on Palestinian access to markets and resources is too great to be covered by aid alone. The PA currently faces an acute budget crisis.
The real tragedy of this tit-for-tat conflict is the human collateral. The continued loss of lives on both sides is truly appalling. I am concerned that inertia has set in and that the international community has become an observer of a tragedy that is regularly broadcast across the world, with hope of finding a viable resolution lost. Last month Israel launched a major offensive on Gaza —Operation Pillar of Defence, so-called—killing the military commander of Hamas in an air strike. After continuous bombardment, a ceasefire was negotiated between the two sides. The UN confirmed that 158 Palestinians and six Israelis were killed. The fatalities included a pregnant woman carrying twins, an 11-month-old boy and two infants. The reality of these statistics on the ground is truly appalling. The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported:
“On 4 November, Israeli forces stationed in an observatory tower shot and killed a 23 year-old mentally-challenged Palestinian…It was not until two hours later, following coordination with the Israeli military, that a Palestinian ambulance was permitted to reach the area”.
The fact remains that this is an uneven conflict. Some 1,377 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza war from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, while 13 Israelis died in the same period. More recently, statistics from the OCHA for casualties and fatalities prior to 6 November show that 71 Palestinians were killed by Israel in the Gaza strip in 2012, with 291 injured. In the same period, 19 Israelis were injured by Palestinian fire from Gaza and none were killed.
I call on the Minister to press the European Union and the Israelis to secure an end to the siege of Gaza. Even our Prime Minister once described Gaza as a prison, so it is incumbent on our Government to demand the freedom of the prisoners who are being subjected to collective punishment because of the sins of a minority. When I questioned the Foreign Secretary on a statement last month, he refused to comment on what he regarded as proportionate. I can only take from that the embarrassment that he might feel if he tried to explain away Israel’s grossly disproportionate response to terrorist rockets fired from Gaza.
I should like briefly to talk about the Quartet’s road map for peace, which was first announced in 2002. My first visit to Israel and Palestine was in 2002, when the road map was a source of hope for peace. At that time there were 50,000 settlers in the Palestine territories; there are now more than 500,000, and peace seems much further away. Ten foreign ministers of the European Union’s Mediterranean states—Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia—sent an open letter to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in 2007, in which they stated unequivocally and without any diplomatic nuance that they believed the road map had failed. The letter stated:
“We might as well admit it straight away”.
It went on to say that this was
“the recognition of a shared failure we can no longer ignore: the ‘road map’ has failed.”
It is clear that there is no credible plan on the table to achieve a two-state solution or peace, and I believe that the UK has a responsibility to work with our European partners to create a credible plan and to use all the instruments at our disposal to bring pressure to bear on Israel. The settlements are illegal under international law, specifically article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention and United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. The United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the overwhelming majority of states share this view. Israel controls the borders, airspace and coastline and has overwhelming control of life in the area.
The establishment of settlements has created a discriminatory two-tier system in the west bank, with settlers enjoying the rights and benefits of Israeli citizenship while the Palestinians are subjected to Israeli military law. This year, I had an opportunity to visit a prison in the west bank, where I observed children as young as 14 being tried by a military court for throwing stones at an Israeli defence force vehicle. One of the children received a two-year prison sentence from military officers who should not have been in a court in Palestine; indeed, that court should not have been on Palestinian land in the west bank.
In a recent report, the former EU Commissioner for External Relations, Hans van den Broek, gives evidence of how EU member states have helped to sustain the Israeli settlements. He stated:
“As settlement construction has continued and accelerated, however, we Europeans have failed to move from words to action. So far we have refrained from deploying our considerable political and economic leverage”.
Will the Minister tell us what the UK Government are doing to apply pressure on Israel to cease settlement building, either bilaterally or multilaterally through the European Union? The Foreign Secretary has made it plain that it is impossible for an EU of 27 countries unanimously to agree to economic sanctions against Israel, but he has yet to say whether he would be in favour of sanctions against Israel in principle if agreement on sanctions could be found across the EU at some stage in the future. I invite the Minister to comment on that point.
The most recent estimate of the value of EU imports from the settlements, provided by the Israeli Government to the World Bank, is €230 million a year. That is approximately 15 times the annual value of EU imports from Palestinians. With more than 4 million Palestinians and over 500,000 Israeli settlers living in the occupied territory, that means that the EU imports over 100 times more per settler than per Palestinian. The most common settlement products sold in Europe are agricultural products such as dates, citrus fruits and herbs, and manufactured products including cosmetics, carbonation devices, plastics, textile products and toys. Despite its firm position that the settlements are not part of Israel, Europe has been accepting imports of those settlements’ products with the origin designated as Israel. I believe that the UK Government should lobby the EU member states to adopt our own policy of consumer labelling for all settlement products and also for manufactured goods. Beyond the trade in settlement goods, some European-owned companies have invested in settlements and related infrastructure or are providing services to them. Examples that have been reported include G4S.
Adding to the contradictions at the heart of the EU’s policy towards Israel’s illegal settlements, the EU has failed fully to exclude settlements from the benefits of its co-operation programmes and bilateral agreements with Israel. In several cases, EU public funds for research and development have been used directly to support activities in settlements. The newly ratified EU-Israel agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products is an example of the EU’s failure to insist on a firm distinction between Israel and the illegal settlements. The Government need to raise this with the European Commission. At the heart of the UK’s policy towards Israel is the contradiction between recognising that the settlements are illegal, running counter to achieving a two-state solution, and our continuing to trade with the region through the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the House any updates on recent developments in the political situation in Israel and Palestine.
I also want to press the Minister to assure me that his Department will consider the following proposals for action against inertia: the suspension of appropriate strategic dialogue meetings with Israel to show that the UK is prepared to act in opposition to Israel’s settlement policy; the use of Government advice to discourage businesses from purchasing settlement goods and from all other commercial and investment links with settlements; a ban on the imports of settlement products, as called for by Ireland; the championing of the exclusion of all settlement products in the EU and European Free Trade Association from preferential market access by insisting that Israel starts designating the origin of settlement products other than by “Israel”; the exclusion of settlements from bilateral agreements and co-operation instruments with Israel by means of explicit legal provisions and safeguards; the removal of organisations’ funding settlements from tax deduction systems, as happens in Norway; the prevention of financial transactions to settlements and related activities by means of applying restrictive measures as a more comprehensive approach; the issuing of guidelines for European tour operators to prevent support for settlement businesses; and no longer selling UK-supplied components that can be used in the conflict.
As I have said, there is tragic complacency in the international community and the UK about the latest developments in the Palestine-Israel conflict and an observable lack of commitment from the key players towards securing a two-state solution. I believe that the UK has an important role to play and we should not underestimate our influence, particularly in Europe, in leveraging more political and, more important, economic pressure on Israel. That will require moral and political leadership and action, but we should not shy away from that and I urge the Minister to use his office to promote peace in the region by pushing for a two-state solution.
Mark Simmonds
If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come on, time permitting, to exactly what we are doing to try to stimulate, encourage and facilitate the peace process and get it back on track. It is not true, however, to say that nothing is happening. There are, for example, ongoing talks chaired by the Egyptians between the Palestinians and the Israelis, albeit not directly as the two sides are in separate rooms. The two key elements coming out of that are, first, the need for Israel to ease the restrictions on Gaza, particularly so that economic activity can take place; and, secondly, the need for Egypt to tackle the arms smuggling into the Sinai, which is Israel’s main concern about the rockets that are going into it.
We engaged intensively with the Palestinians before the vote in the General Assembly, and in advance of it we urged Israel to avoid reacting in a way that would undermine the peace process and to return to the negotiations. We made it absolutely clear that we would not support a reaction that sidelined President Abbas or risked the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. We have made it very clear to the Israeli Government that their decision to build 3,000 new housing units on the west bank and in East Jerusalem, to unfreeze the development of the area known as E1 on the west bank and to withhold tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority is not acceptable. The settlements plan in particular has the potential to alter the situation on the ground on a scale that threatens the viability of a two-state solution.
Michael Ellis
Does the Minister agree with me that provocative actions on both sides is unhelpful in such a volatile situation, and that it is particularly provocative of the Palestinians to have involved or threatened to involve the ICC in this context because that is clearly not going to advance peace on both sides? Does he agree that Israel has a right to protect its citizens?
Mark Simmonds
I certainly agree that Israel has a right to peace and security, and a right to protect its citizens from rocket attacks, which were extremely prevalent during the fortnight leading up to the escalation of the conflict in Gaza. However, what the international community and the House need to focus on is how we are to get the Palestinians and the Israelis back around the negotiating table, without preconditions, to find a satisfactory, lasting solution to the conflict that has dogged that part of the world for so many years.
Syria
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
We are in close touch on a daily basis with all our key partners and allies on this matter, including the United States, leading European nations and leading Arab nations. That is why I went back to Istanbul last Wednesday to meet Secretary Clinton and the Foreign Ministers of 13 other nations from the region and from Europe, including the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Italy. We share information all the time. What I have said to the House today could have been said, and probably is being said, by the great majority of those Ministers in their Parliaments, because we have a common understanding of the situation and of the way forward, which I have described.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The Assad regime is a brutal, wicked and barbaric dictatorship that is savagely oppressing its people. May I take this opportunity to applaud the Secretary of State and his Department for the work he is doing on the international stage to assist the Syrian people? I appreciate that the Foreign Office has, over several months, repeatedly warned any UK citizens who might still be in Syria to leave that country, but I understand that there may be some UK citizens still there—in particular, those who may have dual nationality. If that is the case, are there any contingency plans for any British citizens who might still be in Syria?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right: it is many months now since we warned all British nationals to leave Syria. We have made that clear for a long time, and I reiterated it when we ceased to be able to operate an embassy safely. We have what is called a protecting power arrangement—that is, an arrangement with another country that looks after our interests, which in this case is Hungary, as it still operates an embassy there. We are grateful to the Hungarians for that assistance. They are able to give assistance, if appropriate and possible, to British nationals. However, I repeat that British nationals should not be in that situation. They should have left Syria long ago, and if there are any remaining, they should leave now.
Foreign Affairs and International Development
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady is right to say that that is one of the changes in the administration of the Foreign Office. We are saving £100 million in administration, and it is not possible to do that without making some important changes, such as the one she refers to for A and B-band staff. Most of the staff who work overseas, of course, come in at a different level and did not acquire their previous experience at the A or B-band level. Those staff affected by the change will, in many cases, have the opportunity to seek promotion to higher grades—I strongly support that—so we are trying to mitigate the effect on their careers.
I announced to the House on 11 May last year that we would substantially reinvigorate Britain’s diplomatic presence overseas. I believe that there will never be any substitute for a strong British diplomatic service that advances the interests of the United Kingdom, centred on a global diplomatic network.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
On that point, may I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the work he has done to expand the diplomatic network, because under the previous Government many of our diplomatic missions were neglected and some were closed? I congratulate him on what he is doing because it is good for business. Are there expansion plans for India, that crucial and vibrant democracy?
Mr Hague
Yes, there are, but I will speak about India in a moment because I have a specific announcement to make on our posts there. I can say to my hon. Friend that we will not set out to close any of the existing British embassies or high commissions in the lifetime of this Parliament, although clearly there are extreme circumstances, such as the attacks on our embassy in Tehran and the security situation in Damascus, that have required the temporary withdrawal of British diplomats. Instead, by 2015 we will have deployed 300 extra staff in more than 20 countries and will have opened up to 11 new British embassies and eight new consulates or trade offices.
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the salience of Zimbabwe. In that, of course, we are as one. I had the opportunity in recent weeks to meet Morgan Tsvangirai when he visited the United Kingdom and was able to emphasise on behalf of my party our continuing interest, concern and deep worries about some of the developments that endure within Zimbabwe. When I was in the Foreign Office and had the opportunity to meet Morgan Tsvangirai long before he took office in the Zimbabwean Government, there was a constant tension between Britain’s capacity to make public statements and its capacity to exercise private influence in relation to the South Africans. The Minister may be able to comment on that. We were constantly aware that if we made some of the statements that we were minded to make in relation to Zimbabwe, we were vulnerable to their being used to offer succour, encouragement and a propaganda advantage to Mugabe. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government are following a path of quiet diplomacy and making sure that the regional leaders who bear a heavy responsibility—principally South Africa, as my hon. Friend suggests—recognise their heavy responsibility as we anticipate the potential for further violence and intimidation ahead of further elections in the country.
On the pressing issue of Europe and the eurozone crisis, there are many in the House who would like any discussion of Europe to focus on the question of an in/out referendum. If we are to believe the blogs and the briefings, our part-time Chancellor of the Exchequer is spending more time considering the electoral implications of such an approach than he appears to be spending on helping to solve the eurozone crisis that is engulfing parts of the continent. Let me be very clear about this. Opposition Members believe that Britain should now be focused on jobs and growth and leading the recovery in Europe so that many millions of British jobs that depend on Europe are secured, even in these turbulent times.
Within the eurozone itself, forecasters are predicting that Spain, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and Belgium would all miss the EU deficit target next year, as well as Ireland, Greece and Portugal, which are not expected to be able to comply with the terms of the EU bail-out programmes. The International Monetary Fund is forecasting shrinking economies and rising debt. No wonder firms are reluctant to invest, with such bleak prospects. An austerity-only economics—the voodoo economics of our time—driven by 23 out of the 29 Governments of Europe being held by the centre right, has been shown to have failed both here at home and abroad in Europe, yet have this Government shown themselves to be worthy of this moment? I would argue, far from it.
When British exporters and firms desperately need influence, the Prime Minister last December chose isolation instead. Why did he make that choice? Perhaps he was following the advice that was attributed to the Foreign Secretary on the eve of that fateful summit:
“If it’s a choice between keeping the euro together or keeping the Conservative Party together, it’s in the national interest to keep the Conservative Party together.”
But at what cost has this political party bargain been struck? They claim that they used their veto to stop a treaty that would harm British interests, but even the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not present in the House today, begged to differ. He said:
“The language gets confusing. Veto suggests something was stopped. It was not stopped.”
What of the so-called protections that the Government secured for British jobs and for British business? The Foreign Secretary was totally silent today on the fact that not one of the measures included in the fiscal compact would have applied to Britain, and still the Government are unable to point to a single extra protection that their so-called veto managed to secure for Britain’s financial services. But he need not take our word for it. It was no less than Lord Heseltine who summed it up so well in the week of the summit when he stated, “You can’t protect the interests of the City by floating off into the middle of the Atlantic.” We now know that this is not a Tory party following in the tradition of Macmillan, who applied to join the EEC; of Heath, who took us into Europe; of Thatcher, who signed the Single European Act; or of Major, who signed the Maastricht treaty. This is a Conservative party being followed and not being led by those on the Government Front Bench.
Michael Ellis
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when he was Minister for Europe in the last Government he gave away £7 billion at the last European Union budget negotiations? Does he not accept that it is rather difficult to take him seriously when it comes to negotiations with Europe?
Mr Alexander
I am flattered and touched by the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in my record as Minister for Europe. If he had been in the House at the time, he would have known that there was broad bipartisan support for the accession of the eastern European countries to the EU. If he is respectfully suggesting, seven years on, that somehow there would not be consequences for the European budget from the accession of 10 former eastern European countries, I would respectfully differ. If he wants a job for reading out the Whips’ briefing, he has to work a little harder than that.
Iran
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
I have said on the record previously that the cost of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is too high. I could not be clearer that this is an issue not simply for Iran’s immediate regional neighbours, but for the whole international community. That is why I am grateful for the Foreign Secretary’s gracious acknowledgment that the position being advanced by the British Government today is entirely consistent with the position that was advanced when Labour was in office.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has been gracious in most of his remarks about the Foreign Secretary, but as he has said, he did not agree with the cold war analogy. Will he clarify the Labour party’s position on that? Is it not the case that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) pointed out, we are talking about the difference between a hot war—a fiery and more immediate conflagration—and a cold war-type scenario, where Iran has a nuclear device, with all the hostilities and the fractious situation that would evolve from that, potentially over the very long term? The analogy with the cold war is therefore quite accurate in the circumstances.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). It is important for us to have a full opportunity to discuss the growing concerns about Iran’s activities to develop nuclear weapons. I fervently hope that those activities can be stopped by peaceful means, hopefully through negotiation or sanctions, and I think it is essential for all international efforts to be directed towards that end.
I want to explain in my brief speech why this matter is of such concern, and why it is of international concern. First, the Iranian regime is domestically a savage regime that attacks dissent. Last year alone, more than 600 dissenters were executed. The UN’s special rapporteur has reported attacks on, and persecution of, groups including Arabs, Kurds, Christians, Baha’is, and gay people. On 3 February this year, 11 violent raids were made on the homes of Baha’i people in Shiraz. That was just the latest episode in official attempts to eradicate the Baha’is as a group, and it is just one example of Iran’s persecution of its own peoples.
Secondly, Iran threatens international peace, because it exports terrorism and provokes conflict, preventing peaceful solutions to long-standing conflicts. I refer specifically to its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and for Hamas in Gaza. There is clear evidence that it is not just promoting terrorism, but supplying weapons and training to those groups. One of its main aims is to prevent a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Until the events of the Arab spring earlier this year, we were told that that conflict was the only issue in the middle east. We now know that that is not correct, but Iran’s efforts were and still are designed to prevent a peaceful solution there.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her comments. Does she agree that, as well as supporting terrorist proxies in the middle east, Iran has been responsible for an attempt to assassinate an ambassador—the Saudi ambassador—on American soil, has sacked the British embassy in Tehran, and in many other ways has behaved in the international community in a way that is completely inconsistent with the behaviour of a civilised nation state?
Mrs Ellman
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Iran exports terrorism, and is a force for instability. Last year 80 Iranian Katyushas went to Gaza and continued the conflict there, and in March 2011 the Israeli navy seized 50 tonnes of weapons from Iranian-loaded ships bound for Gaza. Those attempts by Iran—the supporting of terrorism and the provision of arms to perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—are underlined by its continually expressed theological objection to the very existence of the state of Israel.
Another major reason for being concerned about the possibility of Iran promoting and perhaps using nuclear weapons is its pro-genocidal activities. It has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map. That, combined with repeated holocaust denial, including the outrage of holding an international conference in Iran to see who could produce the “best” cartoon on holocaust denial, is just another example of Iran’s motivation and Iran’s danger. In February last year, Ayatollah Khamenei referred once again to Israel as a “cancerous tumour” that had to be removed, and this February, his chief strategist stated:
“In the name of Allah, Iran must attack Israel by 2014.”
I cite those examples to illustrate the danger that Iran poses to peace, not only in the middle east, but throughout the world. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said, what Iran does in the middle east has repercussions outside that region, potentially in the whole world. That is why it is so important that this genocidal regime, which already exports terrorism by practical means, must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. I fully support all international efforts to secure that by negotiation and by sanctions, if necessary, but it is vital that everyone understand how important it is to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed power. If it were to acquire nuclear weapons, as it now seems determined to do, that would provoke a new arms race across the middle east, and it would mean the exporting of more terrorism and perhaps the equipping of those terrorists with nuclear weapons. That is why I will be supporting the amendment and why I hope it will receive universal support.
British Embassy (Tehran)
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
We are of course in constant touch with the United States. Secretary Clinton and President Obama have issued very strong statements about this incident. The United States does not have an embassy in Tehran, but the Americans are strongly supportive of the action we are taking and will, of course, reflect that in their wider diplomacy around the globe.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May I take the opportunity to commend my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the robust action that he has taken? It is clearly necessary in view of the hostile, belligerent, anti-Semitic regime in Tehran, which in many respects is clearly a force for evil around the world. I also take this opportunity to commend the sangfroid of the British ambassador in Tehran, who is clearly following in the finest traditions of the diplomatic service. Is there an option for compensation, which I understand the British Government could, under the Vienna protocol, insist on for damage done to its property, which was supposedly under the protection of the Iranian Government?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. His comments, like those of many other Members, demonstrate the high regard of all parties in the House for the conduct of our diplomats, in particular our ambassador and our chargé d’affaires, both of whom did extremely well. We have already put the question of compensation and the financial liability of the Iranian Government to the Iranian chargé d’affaires, and we shall continue to pursue the matter.
European Union Bill
Michael Ellis Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that that is increasingly less likely to be the case.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
In a judicial review, the courts would be concerned about any abuses of power and about whether a public body might have taken decisions that were ultra vires, meaning that they were beyond the powers of that body. The courts have recently been involved in reviewing decisions relating to the royal prerogative. As far as judicial review is concerned, the courts will not interfere with primary legislation or the decisions of this House. It seems perfectly reasonable, therefore, that the administrative courts could act as a safeguard in relation to secondary decisions, such as those taken by a Minister of the Crown on whether a matter is significant.
Charlie Elphicke
I completely agree with my hon.—and learned—Friend, who makes the central point. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that until recently the courts shied away from reviewing the exercise of prerogative powers. These days, they are far more gung-ho in acting as a check on the decisions of the Executive. We should be in no doubt that the significance condition set out in the Bill is the decision of a Minister, meaning a decision of the Executive. As such, it is amenable to judicial review. In that way, we have the check and balance, which gets us out of the problem that concerns me: the issue of whipped votes being used to ram legislation through Parliament under some future Government. That does not apply to the current Minister, because he is a fine Minister who will use the powers correctly, but what if a future Minister has a more Euro-enthusiastic approach?
Charlie Elphicke
Perish the thought. Were such a Minister to make such a decision, my constituent would be able to challenge it and ensure that there was a more objective assessment.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The House of Lords was once a thoughtful, revising Chamber that would have orderly debates and not detain business excessively, but some of the new arrivals seem to have changed the way in which it operates. I am told that the Standing Orders and courtesies of this House prevent me going any further into all that happened in the House of Lords, but we have all read the news and seen the number of marathon sessions, and it is incumbent on some of its newer Members to think of the health of some of its older Members and to be a little more considerate than they have been of late. My hon. Friend is right about the House of Lords: whether we go further into or come out of Europe is a matter that should start in the House of Commons, because this is the House of the people.
Michael Ellis
Is my hon. Friend struck by the fact that the Opposition appear to wish to increase the power of the unelected Chamber, as it is currently constituted, in a way that one has not seen since at least the Parliament Act 1949 and potentially the Parliament Act 1911? Through their proposed change, they seek to give the House of Lords the power, in effect, to overrule the wishes of the House of Commons.
Charlie Elphicke
I entirely agree. My hon. Friend makes a strong and forceful point.
I have another concern about new clause 9. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, as I have said, fought valiantly for the people to have a say on the Maastricht treaty. If Maastricht were refought and the matter reconsidered, is it likely that out of the Opposition’s proposed committee a referendum would come forth? Many of us have some doubts about that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in former times made the case that the Amsterdam and Nice treaties should also have been subject to a referendum. If we had had such a committee system, would there have been a referendum? Can the shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), tell us whether there would have been a referendum if his committee system had been operational?
George Eustice
If there were fatigue because we were holding too many referendums, that would mean that we had been attempting to pass too much power to the European Union. I hope that the requirement to gain public consent for handing any such powers to the European Union will dissuade Governments from recklessly throwing away the power of this House.
There is a lot to commend amendment 11, and I have listened with great interest to the debates on it today. It is far superior to new clause 9, in that it does not attempt to water down the pledge; it provides it with an extra belt and braces. It would apply only when a Minister judged that a change was not significant. When such a judgment was made, Members of Parliament would have to support it. That proposal has a lot going for it. It would strengthen the presumption in favour of holding referendums. For all those reasons, I am quite attracted to the amendment.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said earlier about the fact that the proposal might make it less easy to have a judicial review. He suggested that a motion in the House might undermine the chances of a judicial review. That was a valid point. I was not convinced, however, by the argument that a better way to deliver this would be to table an amendment to the Act of Parliament that would be required in relation to the referendum. We all know what happens to the majority of amendments that are tabled in the House. We have only to look at the amendments tabled to this Bill to understand that. The immediacy of the proposed motion, linked to a statement by a Minister, has a lot going for it. Having said that, I also understand the counter-arguments regarding judicial review.
The Bill does exactly what Eurosceptics have wanted for a very long time, and we should stand behind it all the way. I completely reject new clause 9, because it is an almost weasely way of getting round the purpose of the Bill. It would significantly water it down, taking power away from the voters and giving it to politicians. The idea that some committee of 19 people should be the arbiter of these matters rather than having an automatic trigger for a referendum is absolutely crazy. I completely reject the new clause, but I believe that amendment 11 has a lot going for it.
Michael Ellis
I welcome the Bill. I embrace it with open arms; I actually cherish it. It goes further than any other piece of legislation to check the further encroachment of European power and hegemony into the United Kingdom. It ought therefore to be embraced as the landmark Bill that it actually is. Many people in Britain feel disconnected from how the European Union has developed and the decisions that have been taken in their name over the past few decades. Someone would now have to be in their 50s to have had the opportunity to vote on a European Union issue in the United Kingdom. It is time that a check was made on the ever-increasing and ever-encroaching power of the European Union, and this Bill does that in a way that has never been done before by any Government of any hue in this country.
The Bill gives people more control over the decisions that Governments have tended to make. It also provides for a referendum lock over future powers. People in this country are tired of the European Union telling us that we must have straight bananas or not use imperial measurements. Ironically, it is the European Union that has been imperious in its outlook for some considerable time. I recognise the Bill as a measure that will, at last, provide a check to that ever-encroaching power, and I welcome it with open arms.
The Bill requires the consent of the British people, through a referendum, for any proposed treaty change. It goes further, however. It is not just about treaty changes in the big sense. So-called mini-treaty changes would also require the people’s consent, and even bridging clauses would activate the referendum requirement. It is a substantial and sizeable measure, and I agree with the point made earlier that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) can claim considerable credit over many years for standing up for the British parliamentary sovereignty that we cherish so much. I congratulate him on that.
Geraint Davies
The hon. Gentleman mentioned parliamentary sovereignty, but does he agree that the Bill is tantamount to an abdication of parliamentary sovereignty? Instead of taking the decision here to veto a change in Europe, we are simply passing the ball to the general public, who might find some of the complexities—the hon. Gentleman mentioned the sort of nuanced changes that can be made to treaties—difficult. To be fair, people come to this House with a knowledge of and focus on these issues and what we are doing is throwing away that sovereignty. An Irish referendum might end up being decided on the issues surrounding abortion, for example, which had nothing to do with the case in point. It is absurd.
Michael Ellis
It is extraordinary—although not surprising from Labour Members—to hear that the general public should not be consulted on these matters. This Parliament derives its authority from the public, which Labour Members would do well to mention.
Geraint Davies
It would follow, then, that we should have a referendum on every Bill we pass and every decision we take. The hon. Gentleman’s position is absurd and untenable.
Michael Ellis
This Bill is about checking the European Union in its encroachment of sovereign powers. It is not a routine measure, such as the ones the hon. Gentleman mentions. It is not an abrogation of the rights of this Parliament to give the people a referendum to prevent further encroachment of sovereign powers.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is making the point—the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) seems not to have absorbed it—that on the issue of European politics, the House of Commons, our Parliament, is simply not trusted. Time and again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) pointed out, we promised referendums, but failed to deliver them. In this specific case, it is quite right to have a referendum lock on any further treaties. This is not an argument for having referendums in general, but a specific point about our relations with Europe and the capacity of this country’s people to make their views felt. I think that the public generally feel that the House and the political class as a whole have been bad at listening to them. The idea that we are abrogating responsibility through this referendum is foolish. What we are trying to do is to re-engage with the public.
Michael Ellis
My hon. Friend is quite correct: this is not an abrogation, but a reaffirmation of people power. In enacting the Bill, this Parliament, which represents the people, will give the public the rights for which they have been screaming for so long over further EU encroachment.
Claire Perry
Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), in representing 50% of the Labour Back-Bench Members who have bothered to show up for this debate, perhaps demonstrates the disdain with which the Labour party regards the Bill and Parliament, proving once again that Labour Members do not believe in listening to the people on such crucial matters as our constitution? I would prefer to see referendums on many more issues, including abortion, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We should not be scared of the voice of the people in the way that the Labour party so clearly is.
Geraint Davies
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way again, but I must correct the record here. I am completely in favour, for example, of the March referendum in Wales on the extension of legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly, and I am in favour of having referendums on other devolution issues. I am not against referendums in themselves; what I am against is having endless referendums on every little change in Europe. People in Parliament are more empowered and more informed to be able to take those decisions. That is why I view it as an abdication of sovereignty.
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill; it is not about every little change, but “significant” changes. The reality is, as hon. Members demonstrated earlier, that the general public have, sadly, lost faith and confidence in this institution on the issue of Europe. They had been led to believe—by no less than the Labour Government in respect of the Lisbon treaty—that they would be given a say prior to the Bill, but they were not given the referendum they were promised. In fact, it is clear that the promise made was insincere. That has gone some way towards alienating the general public from the legislative assembly of this country. Now we need to satisfy the general public that they will have a say in any further encroachment of EU power.
Mr David
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the Bill was about giving this country’s people a voice on significant changes. I have already tried to ask the Front-Bench team, but the Minister would not respond, so let me try again to ask about the Government’s rationale for deliberately excluding one of the most important changes that will affect the European Union and Britain—the accession to and possible membership of the EU by Turkey. Why is that excluded?
Michael Ellis
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, a new country—whether it be Turkey or any other—joining the EU does not mean that more decisions will be shifted to the EU. Nor does a new country joining the EU mean the giving up of vetoes. That is the difference. Conservative Members have always supported the widening of the EU, and a wider EU has changed it for the better by bringing in free-market allies such as the Czech Republic. I hope and expect Turkey to join, and I would encourage it to do so.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in the event of Turkey joining the EU, we—unlike Labour Members—can exercise the transitional arrangements. If there are concerns about a great deal of people coming into this country, we can put limits in place, as indeed our colleagues have done in other European countries. That is something that Labour Members abysmally failed to do when they were in government.
Michael Ellis
That is absolutely right. Conservative Members have learned lessons from previous enlargements and we will not allow full free movement of workers from all new members, carte blanche, as soon as they join. We should require, it seems to me, complete fulfilment of all the membership criteria, particularly on criminal justice enforcement, for example. Labour messed up on that previously and this country suffered.
I respectfully submit that there has previously been a fundamental lack of understanding of sovereignty issues in this country. One example I would venture to provide is Labour’s creation of the Supreme Court. The very name is a misnomer, I submit, because in this country the law is not as it is in the United States where the American Supreme Court in Washington DC is empowered to say that the Government’s legislation is unlawful and to strike it down. The US Supreme Court can overrule Congress, but in this country Parliament is sovereign. Labour thus showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the British constitution when it called the institution that took over from the House of Lords judicial committee “the Supreme Court”. The law in this country is not supreme; Parliament is supreme and Parliament gives the law its authority, not vice-versa, unlike under the American system.
That brings me to clause 18, which is crucial and reaffirms that Parliament has ultimate sovereignty over European law.
Michael Ellis
I was not present for that, so I shall forbear making further reference to the matter.
The Labour amendments to the Bill are nonsensical. They seek to take away power from the people, and even from the House. They seek to empower a committee, and it was Winston Churchill, I think, who said that wars are not won by committee, and nor would this type of legislation be won over by committee. With great respect to the Whips, such a proposal would involve them having greater sway, over how a committee might be constituted and what might result from it. The public need to be satisfied, and a referendum will at last satisfy them that they will have a say. Labour’s suggestion of involving a committee is erroneous and on the wrong track entirely.
I am also anxious that other amendments do not weaken the Bill. Amendments tabled by my hon. Friends might have the opposite effect from that which is intended. By creating too strong a test as to what is substantial, and requiring a referendum on almost any issue, we might bring European Union institutions to a standstill—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That might be the wish of hon. Members, and I respect that, but I do not agree with it, as it is not the way forward. Subsequent Governments—not Her Majesty’s Government as currently constituted, who would never buckle under such pressure—might be put under disproportionate pressure from other member states of the European Union to alter and interfere with the Bill once it is on the statute book. With respect to hon. Friends who take such a view, that might indirectly have an effect of weakening the Bill and leading to diplomatic crises.
On the significance test, Labour seeks to have a significance test on everything, which would not work. I was fascinated by one Labour amendment suggestion to give greater power to the other place. I venture to suggest that it is 100 years since the House of Lords has had greater authority than the House of Commons, yet the Labour party proposal of a veto on a referendum is tantamount to giving the unelected House of Lords, illustrious and greatly respected though it is, a right over and above that of the House of Commons. That would be an entirely unhealthy position. The Labour party does not dare oppose the principle of the Bill, as it knows it will have the support of the vast majority of members of the public, but nor does it want to accept it, as it wants to oppose for the sake of opposition.
The Bill sets out 44 vetoes, 12 decisions and eight different ways of increasing the European Union’s competences, and there will not be a significance test on any of those. One would hope that that would have the effect of placating those on the Government side of the House who are concerned about the significance test.
Michael Ellis
I am afraid that that is not relevant to the Bill.
Matthew d’Ancona has said:
“Imperfect though it may be, the bill is a dramatic punctuation mark in the history of Britain's relationship with the European Union.”
Opposition Members ought to accept that. They ought to acknowledge that the Bill is a ground-breaking, landmark piece of legislation which will do that which has not been done in this country for decades, and give the general public the rights that they so obviously desire in relation to the European Union and further expansion of its powers.
Martin Horwood
Thank you for calling me, Mr Brady. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I believe, the first time.
Let me begin by saying, as a Liberal Democrat, that my perspective on Europe is subtly different from that of some of my Conservative colleagues. However, I am at one with them in believing that the debate is crucially important, and that it goes to the heart of our democracy at both United Kingdom and European Union level. I think it important for these issues to be debated.
It is a matter of some pride to me that most of the robust intellectual debate seems to have taken place on the coalition Benches, although there have been some quality interjections from Opposition Members, most of whom are not present now. Partly for that reason, I think that amendment 11 is unnecessary. Every treaty change suggested in the Bill will be subject to debate and vote in the House. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is no longer in the Chamber, an Act of Parliament is the ultimate constitutional lock. It is unlikely that the Whips could somehow force through such proposals, especially given what has been said today. One of the healthy features of the coalition—I say this with the most deferential respect to my very good and right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—is that the Whips do not seem to have quite such a stranglehold on debates and votes as they did in the last Parliament, of which I was a Member—