Hong Kong

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Thursday 13th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I think that is a rather unfair characterisation of our position, if I may say so. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in Hong Kong—this has been our third exchange at the Dispatch Box over the course of this week—but I was merely making the point that the joint declaration was silent on the issue of extradition. We very much feel that the spirit of the joint declaration is fundamental, for the reasons I have set out about the high degree of autonomy, freedom of expression and the like, but I was just making the narrow point that extradition was not raised in the joint declaration of 35 years ago.

The right hon. Gentleman touched on the use of tear gas and rubber bullets, and I would therefore like to talk a bit about export licences; I know this has been brought up in the pages of The Guardian today. The last export licence from the UK for tear gas hand grenades and tear gas cartridges used for training purposes by the Hong Kong police was in July 2018. The last export licence for rubber bullets was in July 2015. We rejected an open licence for riot shields as recently as April 2019. The issue of export licences is close to all our hearts, and it comes up time and again in our work overseas. We are monitoring the situation very closely and will of course undertake to review all current export licences. We will have no qualms in revoking any licences found no longer to be consistent with the consolidated criteria, including criterion 2, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of, dealing with respect for human rights.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)]

The Minister rightly criticised the Chinese ambassador’s remarks on “Newsnight” yesterday, but is this not part of a pattern, as has been said? Is it not clear that there is no independent judiciary in mainland China, so anybody who is either taken illegally—as has been the case in the past, as with the booksellers—or taken with the complicity of the Hong Kong Government authorities is actually potentially facing an unfair trial by the Communist regime, with terrible consequences? Is it not time that we were more robust in what we say about the nature of the Chinese regime, and that, instead of pulling our punches because we are so afraid that our economic situation post Brexit will make us weaker, we stood up for our values and the commitments we made when we signed and agreed the joint declaration and said that for 50 years there would be one country, two systems?

[Mark Field]

We absolutely stand up for one country, two systems, and will continue to do so. On the Floor of the House on Monday I expressed some deep concerns about the Chinese legal system, which have to be borne closely in mind when we are considering any changes that potentially lead to individuals being extradited from Hong Kong to the mainland, and we will continue to make those robust statements.

We are in a world where China is rising, however, and we have to maintain an engaged relationship, as I am well aware the hon. Gentleman understands. That points to the balance in diplomacy that I mentioned earlier. I would like to think we have worked together in forging constructive collaboration on a range of shared challenges including microbial health, climate change, the illegal wildlife trade, money laundering and even threats to international security over North Korea.

There is therefore a range of global challenges on which we have to build trust with China, but we also must accept that our values are fundamentally different, so I am afraid that there will always be a block. Rightly, we must have the confidence, along with partners, to stand up for the values that are close to our heart, but we also have to recognise from our own history that those values evolve over time. Working together and building a sense of trust with China, and indeed with rising nations in other parts of the world, is an important part of diplomacy and we shall continue to do so.

Bill Presented

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary David Gauke, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sajid Javid, Secretary Amber Rudd, Lucy Frazer, Victoria Atkins and Will Quince, presented a Bill to make in relation to marriage and civil partnership in England and Wales provision about divorce, dissolution and separation; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 404) with explanatory notes (Bill 404-EN).

Iran Nuclear Deal

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

Let me first thank my hon. Friend for all the hugely important work that he does. He is our trade envoy to Libya, which is obviously a difficult role, but in the past he was our Minister for Africa in the Foreign Office, and I know that his contribution there is remembered very fondly.

My hon. Friend has made a good point about the special purpose vehicle, which is important because it will ensure that we see genuine and lasting sanctions relief. The SPV is designed to facilitate legitimate trade under both European and international law. Its immediate focus will understandably be on the facilitation of trade where the immediate needs of the Iranian people are greatest—the humanitarian needs for foodstuffs, agricultural products, pharmaceuticals and trade in consumer goods. That will obviously have an impact on UK companies wishing to trade with Iran, as well as benefiting the Iranian people. The UK, France and Germany are the initial owners and shareholders of the SPV, but we are working with other interested EU member countries that may also wish to play a formal role in these initiatives.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)]

The millions of young people in Iran who have suffered under the oppressive theocratic regime were hopeful that the JCPOA would lead to an easing of sanctions, which would in turn lead to economic benefits, but because of the incompetence and corruption of the regime, that easing of sanctions has not had the economic impact for which they hoped. Can we send a clear message to the people of Iran that if we have to re-impose sanctions because their regime broke its word, we will not be acting against the Iranian people, and that we look forward to the day when they will be able to choose their Government freely?

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman has, perhaps, used slightly less diplomatic language than I might have used, but I think that the message to the Iranian people from all of us here is loud and clear: “We are very much on your side.” Iran remains a priority country for the UK in relation to its human rights situation, to which he alluded. On 15 November, the UN General Assembly Third Committee approved a resolution, co-sponsored by the UK, which urged Iran to address a long list of human rights violations, including the widespread use of arbitrary detention. We very much want to see a move towards democracy and all the opportunities that that will provide for all Iranians, not only in human rights but in the broader arena of prosperity.

Hong Kong: Pro-Democracy Activists

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am not sure what I was doing 42 years ago, but I know that he was already a Member of this House at that time. He makes a valid and fair point. He is absolutely correct that it is vital that we maintain that for the interests of all Hong Kong citizens today and in the future. We will continue to make the robust case, which is absolutely essential.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)]

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that in 2014, at the height of the Umbrella movement protests, the Chinese embassy prevented a delegation from this country’s Select Committee on Foreign Affairs from going to Hong Kong. It is clear that the Chinese Communist authorities are extremely sensitive about any scrutiny and any questions asked by this House and its Committees. When the Minister meets his Chinese Government counterparts, will he emphasise to them that this country has a pluralistic parliamentary democracy, which is what the people of Hong Kong also wish to have?

Libya

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the French, and as I pointed out, the United States, or aspects of the US Administration, also has a close relationship. We are calling on all international partners to use whatever influence they have to implore General Haftar to back down and to promote the peace process, which is obviously handled at the UN. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to his French counterpart only today in Brussels and has made that case.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)]

Would it be correct to say that this recent move is driven by a 75-year-old general in a hurry, who wants to create facts on the ground, supported by a coalition of anti-Muslim Brotherhood countries from the Arab world, including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, and others who wish to exploit the oil if General Haftar takes control of it?

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman knows much about this subject, and has obviously kept an eye on Libyan affairs for quite some time. General Haftar may not be the only old man in a hurry, in certain ways.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is broadly right, although I fear that the situation is less linear than he suggests. There may be groups who do not like the Muslim Brotherhood, but I think that some Faustian bargains are being made when it comes to the coalitions that are being formed. As the hon. Gentleman says, given that the strength of General Haftar’s work has tended to be in the Benghazi region, oil is clearly very much at the forefront of his mind.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Thursday 4th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will pick up on the points that have not been covered, particularly those relating to the British Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) is right that we did not explore its work, but it is an extremely important element of Britain’s soft power.

The work of the Department for International Development in China is also interesting, because it has ceased, in many ways, to be a donor agency instead of a partner agency. That is an area in which our partnership with China is reaping rewards, not just for China but for the United Kingdom and many other countries in the region. Our assistance in professionalising Chinese aid and sharing best practice is helping in many areas. That is an expression of soft power that we often overlook. We often look at DFID’s soft power as a donor agency, but being a partner agency is an important element too.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

Let us not beat about the bush: the rise of China is the big geopolitical issue of our age. It is fantastic that the Committee has put so much work into its report. I know that it makes a lot of recommendations; there may be some that we do not entirely agree with, but having appeared before the Committee, I hope that we can work closely together on its important work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) quite rightly pointed out the importance of the juxtaposition between the two reports debated in this Chamber today. I think it is wishful thinking to assume that there will be a global protocol for the internet. It may be slightly disingenuous for Facebook and others to suggest that they can work towards one, because there is no doubt that there are fundamental differences in values. Equally, this is a world in which we need to work both in bilateral relationships and internationally.

May I touch on the rather provocative question asked by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes)? Of course our view is that the judgment of the International Court of Justice was advisory, rather than being a judgment that we are necessarily subject to, but there is a risk that in trying to address these issues we could be accused of being mealy mouthed. Fundamentally, I am not quite sure where we will come out. There is a great risk that if the injustice to the Chagos people continues for any great length of time, we will be accused of riding roughshod in the way that has been suggested. I am being very candid with the hon. Gentleman, but I think that it is right to do so.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. May I gently suggest that we get back to China?

[Mark Field]

Well, there was an issue relating to China there—the fundamental issue of standing up for the rules-based international order. We will need to work closely on it with partners and recognise that China will not respect that order, although it respects order in its own right, and that it will want us to adapt and evolve those rules for a 21st century in which it will be an even bigger player.

I do not think I have any more questions, but more questions will arise from a full analysis of the Committee’s excellent report, to which we look forward to providing a full written response in due course.

Kashmir

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, because he is right: our defence capability here involves a significant number of leading figures in both the Pakistani and Indian military having come out of Sandhurst and having been trained here. That is one aspect of UK soft power, as having these sorts of institutions allows alumni to maintain contact in the future. We will do all we can to keep as many lines of communication open as possible. One does not perhaps recognise until such incidents occur just how important developing the soft power of those connections is, both for the UK’s purpose and for countries caught in the sort of problems faced in Kashmir.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)]

I welcome the tone and content of the Minister’s statement and of the remarks made by the Labour Front Bencher. That is very important at this time, when, as the Minister said, there has today been a terrorist attack on a bus stand in Jammu with a grenade. I understand that it has killed at least one person and left three more in a serious condition—apparently, 28 people were injured. This is the third attack on a bus stand in Jammu in the past year. Clearly, there are people in the region who wish to create tension, conflict and all-out war between India and Pakistan for their own reasons. This is a time for all voices in this country—in this Parliament and in diaspora communities—to come together to tone down the rhetoric and work for long-term, difficult political solutions.

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. He is absolutely right that it is incumbent on us all, as responsible Members of Parliament, to do all that we can to try to tone down the rhetoric, which was at a very high level at some points. He asked me last week about the Kargil war. I very much hope he will take up my offer and come to the Foreign Office. It would be useful to learn a little more because, as I say, one thing one learns quickly in Foreign Office and diplomatic affairs is that very few problems are entirely novel and we can always learn from perspectives on the past. The hon. Gentleman had an important role to play in the Foreign Affairs Committee at the beginning of the new Labour time, when Robin Cook was the Foreign Secretary.

Jammu and Kashmir

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Ind)]

While we should not exaggerate the influence that the British Government could have at this time, is it not nevertheless important for us, as a nuclear-weapon state, to do what Jack Straw did in 1999 during the Kargil crisis, when the role of the British Foreign Office was central to ensuring that it did not escalate into an all-out nuclear war?

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman is right: the issue of being a nuclear state makes the situation particularly serious at the moment, and it is one of the reasons why I think the international community will want to have a part to play. He clearly has some knowledge of and interest in the foreign affairs of 20 years ago, and if he feels that there are important lessons to be learnt from what happened at that time that we could bring to bear on this crisis, I should be happy to speak to him about them.

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I think it is hereditary, Mr Speaker. Others can perhaps judge that. I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I hope she does not feel that her father’s work was in vain. My late father was also in the armed services. In many ways these problems and issues do not entirely go away, but the patient use of diplomacy, even within the military, can make a real difference over a period of time.

My hon. Friend asked about the issue of an arms race and the concern about whether the United States would be held back by allies and, in particular, the UK. It is worth stating again that any situation where the US is respecting its treaty obligations and Russia is not is simply not sustainable. NATO has been, and will continue to be, consistent in calling out Russia and making clear the importance of this issue for broader European security. In many ways, other nations closer to the Russian border feel that more acutely than we do, but the US has made clear its continued commitment to effective and enforceable arms control.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The essence of successful arms control is trust and verification. Will the Minister confirm that there has been no trust of the Russians because, as the Obama Administration were saying for several years, there was no effective way of verifying that, and Putin has lied and cheated on the obligations that the Soviet Union and then Russia signed up to under the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty?

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question—I know he takes these matters very seriously. Yes, trust has clearly broken down. It is difficult to try to restore trust. It is worth remembering, as he mentions, that the Obama Administration had a clear goal from the moment they came into office at the beginning of 2009 to re-cast their relationship with Russia. Even within that context, they concluded, during the course of their time, that Russia could not be trusted on these matters because simply, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there was no evidence of verification. I am afraid that that situation has not improved over the past two and a half years.

Rohingya Refugee Crisis

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Thursday 20th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I very much respect what the hon. Lady has said, and, as she will know, I share her concerns. We will do all that we can.

If I may, in the time allotted to me, I will say a little more about what else we are doing in the international community. The Foreign Secretary is the Minister who visited Burma most recently, back in September. He made our expectations very clear to Aung San Suu Kyi, and repeated that message in a letter written jointly with the French Foreign Minister. He made it clear that if the commission of inquiry was to have any credibility, it must be transparent and independent, and must take full account of the international evidence brought to it. If it is not and does not, the Burmese authorities and their supporters at the United Nations will, in our view, have no grounds whatsoever for rejecting moves towards an international mechanism to secure that accountability.

Let me now say something about the UK’s international action. We are, in the meantime, building on our success at the September session of the Human Rights Council, where we secured a regulation mandating the creation of a “collect and preserve” mechanism. That will support the preparation of case files for use in future prosecutions. I fear that some of the leading lights of the Burmese military will be there for some time to come, but that unique mechanism will enable evidence to be in place for those future prosecutions.

We have been clear with fellow members that the Security Council should take further action, and we have tried to build consensus on what that might be. I know that many Members would like the Security Council to refer the situation in Burma to the International Criminal Court, but a referral would be extremely difficult to achieve, because veto-wielding members of the Security Council would vote against it. I must say to the hon. Members for Tooting and for Bradford East and others that there is a risk that a vetoed resolution would be counterproductive to our aims, because it would reduce pressure on the Burmese military, and would also undermine the very credibility of the United Nations.

I know that some look back at China’s decision to abstain rather than vetoing the UN Security Resolution in 2005 referring the Darfur situation to the International Criminal Court. I believe that we should test what China is prepared to accept in this situation, but I also think we need to recognise that the way in which that nation behaved in 2005 in relation to a crisis in Africa may not be the way in which a China that is rather more assertive on the international stage behaves in relation to a crisis in its own neighbourhood.

[Mike Gapes]

The Minister says that China’s interests in that part of Africa were not necessarily what its interests are in Myanmar. Is it not a fact that the Chinese Government see this region as essential to its belt and road strategy and its overall expansion of its investments, and therefore regards neighbouring countries as a strategic asset? Is it not very likely that the Chinese will continue to prove very difficult in the United Nations on this matter?

[Mark Field]

I fear that they will. There are the strategic and economic issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and there is also—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland—the sense of a non-interference strategy. To be fair, they believe that across the board in the context of sovereignty, but obviously there are issues closer at hand in regard to which there has been public criticism, and that will, I suspect, increase in the months and years to come.

I would like to think that we will continue to try to work within the UN, and that we should try to table a resolution if the opportunity arises, but I am trying to be as open as possible with the House about some of the fundamental strategic difficulties that we face in trying to table a resolution. Although I understand that there is a real sense of outrage, and a feeling that we need to be on the front foot, it might well undermine what we are trying to achieve in the short to medium term in building some sort of consensus among like-minded international states.

2012 Olympics (Legacy)

Debate between Mike Gapes and Mark Field

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing the debate. I am sure he is excited at the prospect of the Olympics being held in his backyard—a much-deprived part of east London that he has represented with great distinction over the past decade and a half.

Financial concerns were always at the heart of the issue for those of us who expressed some doubts, prior to 6 July 2005, about the wisdom of the London bid for the Olympics. Those doubts have not been entirely assuaged by the passage of time. We should face facts: we have the Olympics and we have to make the best of it. There is no doubt that, with all the planning in place, it will be a great, spectacular three-week festival in August 2012. However, that should not be at the expense of the legacy. When £9.2 billion of public money is being expended on the Olympics games, there ought to be a long-term physical legacy of interest. I shall touch on that in a moment.

The right hon. Gentleman understandably talked much about the future of the stadium. I very much share his views and concerns about what might happen. As vice-chairman of the all-party group on football, I believe that it would be right for West Ham to have the stadium, rather than it going further afield to Tottenham Hotspur. I understand many of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on this matter. In 1997, I was my party’s candidate in Enfield North, where I reckoned at least two-thirds of the football fans were Spurs, rather than Arsenal supporters. I remember that in the Lea Valley area of the constituency there was a great passion for and pride in Tottenham Hotspur. For many football fans across the country, the notion of Tottenham Hotspur moving 4 or 5 miles away might seem to involve a small distance, but in the context of the villages that make up London it is very important. People would quickly forget the long-term history based around White Hart Lane.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that West Ham are an east London team, Tottenham are a north London team, and that the Olympic stadium is in east London?

[Mr Field]

I am sure that, as an expert on postcodes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although one might ask, where does east turn to north? We will not go down that route, but he makes a good point. It would be encouraging for Twenty20 cricket in particular if Essex used that stadium. It is a tragedy that Essex have not regularly played cricket at either Valentine’s Park in Ilford or at Leyton, which still has a beautiful historic 1930s pavilion, for 20 or 30 years. It would be great to see the stadium being used for that purpose.

The right hon. Member for East Ham hit the nail right on the head in relation to the short-term issues that affect West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur. It would be a great shame to look at this matter just in the context of where the two clubs are at the moment. I fear that I may be less of an optimist about the Hammers’ chances over the next four or five months, as they might well end up a championship club with financial problems in the very short term by the time the season ends in May. Tottenham Hotspur are having one of their most successful seasons since 1960-61, when they won the double. They now understandably regard themselves as a champions league team: they are in the last 16 and may well qualify as of right for the champions league next season. Therefore, there would be great passion for the idea of having a big stadium, not just because the Olympic stadium has a capacity of 60,000—well above the 37,000 to 38,000 at White Hart Lane—but because it will be seen as iconic. However, I strongly believe that that would be a short-term decision made with the facts of December 2010 and 2011 in mind, rather than the long-term historical perspective pointed out by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).

I want to say a few words in passing about the commitment we are making to the Olympic movement with our bid. The right hon. Members for East Ham and for Tottenham, and the Minister, will have seen the well-researched, quite provocative article in The Spectator of 11 December, “The true cost of the Olympics”. Following a number of freedom of information requests, Ed Howker and Andrew Gilligan went into some detail about the precise nature of the commitment that we have made to the International Olympic Committee. We are now in a very different era—an era of austerity—from that we were in five and half years ago when we won the Olympic bid. The article identified some ludicrous situations: the money to be spent on having some 40,000 hotel rooms booked for IOC flunkies over three weeks in August 2012; the somewhat absurd brand-protection rights that are being insisted upon, not just in the Olympic stadium, but within a large, well-defined curtilage in that part of London. As Mr Howker and Mr Gilligan put it, there will almost be a “state within a state” in London during that month in 2012.

I firmly believe that the very scarce financial resources that we have for the Olympic games must not be used simply to placate the desire of a vast International Olympic Committee quangocracy. I want to see a much bigger and a proper legacy for the locality, particularly in that part of east London.