Future of DFID

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. I have to impose a five-minute limit on speeches. Anybody who goes over that limit will, unfortunately, take time away from the people who come after them, so please stick to it if possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. We have gone slightly over time so I would be grateful if Front-Bench speakers kept their speeches to nine minutes.

International Human Rights Day

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important and timely debate. Staff from the Department for International Development and many from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do fantastic work in defending and promoting human rights around the world, but sadly the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has severely harmed the human rights of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe by his mistakes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has been more effective in helping Nazanin. I would like to put on the record my thanks to her and to suggest—

[Ms Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a 30-minute debate for short interventions, not speeches.

[Ann Clwyd]

I understand the point my hon. Friend makes. I have raised the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe on several occasions. I have spoken to a number of people: Iranian Members of Parliament, the Iranian Foreign Minister and the vice-president. I think we have all made the same case: that we would like to see Nazanin and the other dual nationals released as soon as possible.

We must work together to ensure that human rights obligations, which most states have signed up to, are respected, and that serious and systematic violations of, and wholesale disregard for, the international framework are addressed. We must do that by ensuring reform and punishing the perpetrators, because bad practice is spreading, particularly on the limitation of space for legitimate civil society activity. The labelling as foreign agents, criminals, terrorists or traitors of those who are critical of the state or try to call it out on its failure to respond effectively to the needs of its citizens, or on the ill-treatment, or worse, of its citizens is also disturbing.

We must do more to identify the spread of this contagion, and to confront it. The path to dictatorship and serious, systematic human rights violations is often a series of less drastic events, which ultimately culminate in brutal repression or horrific atrocities. It can start with a few people being arrested for opposing land grabs or for anti-corruption drives, in an attempt to silence brave human rights defenders, whether community leaders, journalists, opposition politicians, lawyers or representatives of non-governmental organisations. Those people may inconveniently report on or condemn missing Government funds, the eviction of neighbourhoods to make way for luxury developments, appalling conditions in prison, or a Government’s narrative aiming to scapegoat a disadvantaged community.

Government Referendum Leaflet

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It will be for the two designated campaign organisations to promote their own messages to the public as they choose, without the Government interfering. What the opinion research we commissioned told us was that people wanted more information, and that included a clearer explanation from the Government as to why we were arguing the case and making the recommendation that we were. What we are doing in this leaflet is providing that factual information in an accessible form, but also showing why the Government have made the recommendation they have.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is the case that constituents have been asking for more information, but I wonder whether the Minister or anybody in No. 10 even has given a second’s consideration to how our constituents who have been impacted by austerity cuts would feel about £9 million being spent on a glossy leaflet that amounts to nothing more than a booklet of pictures. If people are asking for more information, they are obviously asking for information on both sides of the argument. They are not asking for propaganda, they are not asking for facts that are not facts and they are not asking for a glossy booklet. They want unbiased information on both sides of the argument, so will the Minister spend another £9 million putting over the other side of the argument?

[Mr Lidington]

The two campaign groups will have the publicly funded distribution of whatever leaflet they produce, which will be worth up to £15 million apiece to them. In addition to that benefit of free delivery, they will each have a £7 million spending limit—higher than any other permitted participant in the referendum campaign —and they will each be entitled to a television broadcast and to a Government grant, from taxpayers’ funds, of £600,000, which is something this House approved during our recent debates. I would say to my hon. Friend that her views on the subject of Europe are consistent and well known and are held perfectly honourably, but given the seriousness of what is at stake in this referendum vote, for the Government to be spending 34p per household on presenting their views in an accessible form seems to me to be utterly reasonable.

EU-Turkey Agreement

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

People traffickers need to be brought to justice in whichever jurisdiction they operate, but it is sometimes the case that the people committing the crimes involved in trafficking at the sharp end and organising the boats are not the people at the top of those organisations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are talking about very professional, well-organised and well-funded international criminal networks that often indulge in drug smuggling as well as in people smuggling. They are transnational companies that are engaged in criminal enterprise.

There has been no agreement yet on anything beyond the €3 billion refugee facility that was agreed in November last year. Since that agreement, Turkey has taken a number of steps to help Syrian refugees, such as by making it possible for them to get legitimate work within Turkey and opening up work permit arrangements for them.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

All hon. Members will have heard very disturbing reports recently of a newspaper office in Turkey being closed down for doing nothing more than publishing critical commentary about the Turkish Government. Will the Minister please inform the House whether the member states of the European Union value ever closer union and freedom of movement over and above the rights to freedom of speech of the individual?

[Mr Lidington]

The EU and the United Kingdom Government made it very clear last week that we continue to see freedom of the press and freedom of expression in the media as a cornerstone of the values that we champion at an international level. Adherence to those principles is written into the European treaties, and no country that fails to subscribe to them can expect to receive EU membership.

Renegotiation of EU Membership (Devolved Administrations)

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate about the UK’s possible exit from the European Union. There is a potential impact on businesses within the devolved regions. Is he aware that we, in Northern Ireland, are in a unique position because we have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, which will remain within the European Union?

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Please keep interventions short.

[Ms Ritchie]

There is also an impact in terms of the euro exchange rate mechanism. Does the hon. Gentleman have any comments on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I make the point that no Member in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall is referred to as “you”? Thank you.

[Stephen Gethins]

Thank you. My apologies, Ms Dorries.

The Scottish Government set out renegotiation priorities in their agenda for EU reform, which I make Members aware of once again. I also refer Members to a speech made in June 2015 by Scotland’s First Minister, in which she looked at areas such as more local decision making on health, for example. The fact that the Scottish Government were not able to act on minimum pricing for alcohol was a disgrace: the democratically elected Scottish Government saw it as a particular priority to tackle a particular Scottish public health issue. The First Minister also looked at a single market in energy and digital services—especially our renewables industry, which has taken such a battering recently—and more local discretion in implementing regulation.

As part of our renegotiation, we need to look at how the devolved Administrations work and co-operate with member states. A few years ago, under the previous Labour Administration, a memo was leaked that showed devolved Ministers were not having an impact. In fact, one of them was being sent to the salle d’écoute—for Members whose French is not quite up to scratch, that is the listening room—which is no place for a Minister who oversaw areas such as agriculture and fisheries. Europe matters to the devolved Administrations. It matters in Northern Ireland, as we have heard, given the long land border and the ramifications for the Good Friday agreement and the common travel area. In Wales, up to 200,000 jobs are said to depend on EU membership.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being gracious in giving way again. Is he aware that my local council in Northern Ireland—Newry, Mourne and Down—held a significant conference two weeks ago, which was addressed by the shadow Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), on that very point? [Interruption.]

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend the sitting until after the last Division, as we do not know how many there will be. Could Members make their way back here as soon as possible? Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

As a result of the Division, this debate will now continue until 17.40. Four people have applied to speak after Mr Gethins has finished, so I am going to impose a voluntary time limit of five minutes per speech. If people adhere to that, the Minister and Mr Gethins will have adequate time to respond, but, of course, that is entirely up to you.

[Stephen Gethins]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. Before we went into the Division, I was talking about areas that the Scottish Government have identified where there could be reform, and a lot of that focused on areas for reform where powers could come back. I will come back to this point later, but if there are powers to come back, and if those powers directly relate to the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations, I hope that they will not be devolved back from Brussels just to reside in London and that there will be further devolution to reflect that.

On renegotiation, we often talk about less Europe, but maybe we should sometimes talk about more Europe. The Scottish Government have gone further than elsewhere in the United Kingdom on areas such as climate change or our energy union, where maybe we should be looking at more powers. We could also be looking at more powers in areas of security policy. No one country can possibly deal with the refugee crisis on its own, and the Scottish Government have already set out their willingness to work with European partners and the UK Government to take more refugees.

Let me recap why Europe matters for the devolved Administrations. There are big issues that affect us all in areas such as agriculture policy, fisheries, energy, investment and transport—devolved areas where the EU has a big role and the devolved Administrations have direct responsibility. I have mentioned Northern Ireland. In Wales, up to 200,000 jobs are said to be dependent on EU membership. Even the Isle of Man has a relationship with the EU through the UK as set out in protocol 3 to the UK’s Act of Accession. That is worth bearing in mind.

Key areas for Scotland are set out above, but we often hear about sovereignty. I will read a quote from Professor Douglas-Scott of the university of Oxford and would like the Minister to bear it in mind:

“A UK exit from the EU does not save UK sovereignty. The Claim of Right for Scotland 1989 entrenched the fundamental principle that ‘the people are sovereign’ and that the people have ‘the sovereign right to self-determination and to choose freely the form in which their state is to be constituted’.”

Professor Douglas-Scott’s argument is that

“Therefore, any UK exit of the EU against Scotland’s wishes will create a constitutional crisis rather than save the UK’s sovereignty.”

I leave that with the House to consider.

The hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), who has not been able to return from the vote yet, referred to the referendum. We were a little disappointed with the European Union Referendum Bill. We wanted to see whether there would be a referendum and we obviously voted against that—that was in our manifesto—but if there is to be a referendum, we want EU citizens and 16 and 17-year-olds to be engaged.

In Dublin yesterday, Fiona Hyslop highlighted the fact that 173,000 EU nationals make their home in Scotland. They made an invaluable contribution to the Scottish independence referendum and make an invaluable contribution to Scotland’s day-to-day life. We want them also to be involved. We want a positive campaign that puts forward a positive vision for Scotland. That is why I was a little concerned about some of the language from the Minister’s Back Benchers on some of these issues.

As we have heard from other hon. Members, Scotland and the other devolved Administrations reap the economic benefits of membership in exports, jobs and so on, but those benefits are not just economic. As Fiona Hyslop said in Dublin last night, solidarity, social protection and mutual support must underpin a modern Europe and we want Scotland to be a part of a progressive European Union with European citizens—despite what we said in the referendum last year, we are all still European citizens—at the heart of decision making. The Scottish Government are committed to making the positive case for reform and I have set that out a little.

I do not want to take up too much time because I know that other hon. Members want to come in, but I want to pose some questions for the Minister to answer in his response. Will he set out the formal role for devolved Administrations in the renegotiations—the formal role; I am not talking about an ad hoc role over the phone? We want to hear about a formal role in the same way as the Prime Minister said today that there should be a formal role for other capitals.

Will the Minister comment on the Scottish Government’s priorities in Scotland’s agenda for EU reform? In future, will devolved Administrations be consulted as a matter of course on decisions that affect them and are made at EU level if we remain part of it? This is not just about changing the EU’s relationship, but perhaps about changing the way we, as a member state, interact. I would like a much more formal role for the devolved Administrations.

In the past, we have seen civil servants or Ministers with no direct responsibility for an issue, such as the Minister for bees, leading fisheries negotiations when the Scottish Minister was present. Will the Minister look again at where Ministers from the devolved Administrations can take a lead, with particular reference to fisheries and agriculture?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

No. I told the hon. Gentleman that I would not give way—[Interruption.]

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr MacNeil, there has been an indication that you will not be allowed to intervene, so please keep some order.

[Wayne David]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. We are getting used to heckling and barracking from SNP Members. They cannot win the argument, so they try to shout people down and interrupt. That is their style of politics up there. That is, sadly, what nationalism is all about. It is infecting the United Kingdom as well, which is a great shame.

The SNP is today apparently giving credence to the Conservative Government. I believe firmly that this so-called negotiation is an absolute sham. We heard from the Prime Minister in his letter that he sincerely hopes, with all his heart and soul, that he will be in a position to advocate Britain remaining inside the European Union. To ensure that he is able to do that, he will have a superficial façade of a renegotiation to allow him to justify Britain’s continuing membership of the European Union. The SNP should realise that, so why does it want to be part and parcel of that process?

The SNP should be adopting a principled position of arguing in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the European Union. It knows that that is in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of the Scottish people. At the same time, it should have a long-term perspective on the sorts of radical changes we need inside the European Union. Successful negotiation, if it is to be done properly, cannot be carried out in a matter of weeks or even months. Renegotiation has to be a long-term process, and we have to work with people and to make allies. The Scottish nation cannot stand in splendid isolation; it has to work with other people.

When we come to the referendum, the Labour party will certainly put forward its own campaign, and I imagine that the SNP will do the same. I hope to goodness that the SNP campaigns in favour of our continued membership of the European Union, but I cannot be absolutely certain that that will be the case. The SNP must abandon its inward-looking nationalism for once and work with others across the United Kingdom to make sure that we have a coherent and strong message in support of a yes vote throughout the whole United Kingdom.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing the debate and making it possible for us to take part.

I have a certain amount of déjà vu. A number of us took part in the debate on the Scotland Bill in the Chamber yesterday, where we were treated to a succession of MPs who represented English seats telling Scotland and the Scots what was good for us. Although I am delighted that our good friends across these islands have so much concern for the wellbeing of Scotland, the length of those speeches, and the fact that they often drifted to subjects that were closer to the speakers’ hearts than the subject matter of the debate, suggest that that was perhaps not their primary motivation. At times, I wondered whether Scotland would even get a mention in the midst of the discussion about English devolution, who did what in Parliament in the 1970s and Dicey’s theory of the constitution.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Ms Brock, although I appreciate your comments regarding yesterday’s debate, could you keep your remarks to the subject matter of today’s debate and not make the same mistake?

[Deidre Brock]

Of course, Ms Dorries. My point was that Scotland’s voice was being drowned out even in the midst of a debate about Scotland’s future. I am sure that that was not the intent, but it is a reflection of how politics and political discourse are very different here from the engagement that we see in the Scottish Parliament and throughout Scotland, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made it quite clear that the same is true of Northern Ireland. I assume that the same is true of Wales, but the hon. Member for Caerphilly seems to prefer the Conservatives to negotiate on Wales’s behalf in Europe. Each institution has established its own ways of working, which affect the politics of the areas that it serves. In turn, that affects the politicians who operate in each area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Ms Dorries. I have been accused of not taking interventions, but the hon. Lady will not take interventions from me.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Mr David, sit down. That is not a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to sum up for the Scottish National party. I commend my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), for securing the debate and for the eloquent way in which he presented the positive case that the SNP will continue to push for our continued membership of the EU.

The events of yesterday and today make me convinced of one thing and very unconvinced of another. I am convinced that in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, Scotland will still be playing a full part as a member of the EU. I am increasingly convinced that it will not be doing so as a member of the United Kingdom. We may, in fact, see a reverse of the situation described by my hon. Friend. In the not-too-distant future, the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the EU may well have to be done through Scotland because we could be the only part of the current UK that is left in it.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly highlighted the fact that the experts on matters such as fishing and agriculture are very often the people who work in those industries. If we do not listen to them from the very beginning of the process, we will get it wrong. The Prime Minister got it wrong by not even including those important economic drivers anywhere in his list of demands. Possibly, if he had spoken to the devolved Administrations earlier, he would have realised that he had to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) presented the positive case and benefits of EU membership. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) had been listening, he would not have had to hope to goodness that the SNP was in favour of EU membership. Indeed, if he had spoken to the ambassadors of any one of the 21 EU member states who came to a reception in Portcullis House about a week ago, he would have heard that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife explained as clearly as possible that the SNP wants to remain in the EU because that is where Scotland’s future lies. The hon. Member for Caerphilly did his country one service because, having listened to him, I am convinced that he has significantly shortened the odds on Leanne Wood becoming First Minister of Wales next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) highlighted the fact that there are very distinct views, not only on Europe, but on lots of other matters, across the nations that make up this Parliament and this Union. We only have to look at the fact that the devolved Governments are all held by different parties. No party leads the Government in any two of the four nations. Different parties won the general election in each of the four member states of this Parliament.

The separate identity of Northern Ireland is recognised by the fact that it has its own political parties. It does not operate with the same parties as we do. The parties that won the election in Northern Ireland do not exist to any great extent in other parts of the United Kingdom. Having said that, the parties that won the election in England and Wales are in serious danger of ceasing to exist in Scotland if they continue to present the kind of patronising, disrespectful, contemptuous view of our ancient nation that we have seen far too much of over the past couple of days.

The reason for this debate is that we want the Prime Minister’s negotiations to succeed, not because we like the Prime Minister or because we have ever had any intention of running a coalition with the Tories to persuade any nation how to vote on its own future, but because, if the Prime Minister fails—it looks increasingly likely that he will fail—we will go into a referendum based on a promised reform that has not been delivered. That referendum is likely not only to result in us being dragged out of the EU—[Interruption.]

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Grant, would you wind up your comments so that we can have a meaningful debate with comments from the Opposition and Government Front Benches?

[Peter Grant]

I will, Ms Dorries. My real concern is not only that a failure by the Prime Minister will lead to a vote to take the devolved Administrations out of the EU against our will, but that it might lead to a debate that is not about the benefits of EU membership but about an antipathy to immigration and an antipathy to anyone who was born outside these islands. It may become a referendum on the popularity of the Prime Minister, and that is a referendum that the Prime Minister cannot possibly win.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Would you keep to five minutes please, Mr McFadden?

Oral Answers to Questions

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think there was a lot of unity in the House on Sri Lanka, but the hon. Lady chooses to try to make it a party political issue. Having witnessed the bilateral meeting between the Prime Minister and President Rajapaksa, I assure her that there was nothing naive about it. The Prime Minister forcefully put the case for Sri Lanka to mount its own inquiry and forcefully made it clear that he would press for an international inquiry if it did not do so. That is what he is doing in his contacts with other Heads of Government around the world. I and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, are doing the same with other Foreign Ministers. I hope the Opposition will concentrate on supporting that rather than trying to snipe about it.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

9. What recent progress has been made on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

TTIP is this country’s top trade policy priority, worth up to £10 billion a year for the UK. Negotiations are progressing well and our ambition remains to conclude the deal next year.

[Nadine Dorries]

Does the Minister agree that TTIP provides an ideal opportunity to look at having a US free trade agreement based on sovereign states and not on political integration, as well at as our relationship with Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

The key advantage of TTIP is that a successful deal would create what would be by far the world’s most important free trade area, and would set global regulatory standards for trade on a transatlantic basis rather than having to wait for other countries to come and set the model for us to follow.

Ukraine

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I understand that broad economic sanctions would be both counter-productive and harmful to the City of London, and would require the much broader approval of all members of the EU. Surely, however, there is a case for targeted financial and travel sanctions against members of the Russian elite living in the UK and involved in the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and who are strongly suspected of human rights abuses perpetrated against Sergei Magnitsky.

[Mr Hague]

There is a case for certain measures, and Members of the House, including my hon. Friend, make it well. I do not exclude the possibility of any such measures, but I simply return to what I was saying about them being well judged, well targeted and having a clear legal base. Those will be important considerations over the next few days.

Sergei Magnitsky Case: Visa Restrictions

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I entirely agree. That sums up the thrust of the approach that I believe we should be taking in this case.

The European Parliament passed another resolution on the Magnitsky case in October last year, recommending that sanctions be enacted on the Russian officials concerned following the lack of progress in Russia and what we now know to be the effective closure of their investigation. In this House, the Foreign Affairs Committee has issued recommendations asking for the list of banned human rights violators to be made public, with specific reference to the Magnitsky case.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is going to highlight that America has gone much further in both addressing the problem and doing something about it. Will he call for similar action to be taken in this House?

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I have referred to the Act of both Houses of Congress, so it is clear that the United States has gone down the legislative route and is taking action. That is something I urge the UK Government to consider very seriously. There are two ways of doing that: either passing legislation or using existing powers to deny visas to those who are implicated. I will return to that point shortly.

I am also heartened that many legislators in the French, Swedish and German Parliaments have taken the opportunity over the past year, as we have done, to debate and condemn the scandal emerging from this disturbing case. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), offered some reassurance in the debate last year that the UK Government have expressed many times to the Russian Government their serious concerns about the situation, and I accept that the Government take human rights issues very seriously when considering our relations with Russia.

I also note that the Government said that they felt it best to wait to see how other countries such as the United States reacted and responded before we made any final decisions. Well, action has now been taken: other countries have moved on this. Not only that, but the situation has worsened dramatically, in the absurd, farcical way that I have outlined. We cannot stand on the sidelines any more. It is time that we took action, either in the form of legislation to enact our own visa restrictions against those involved in this grave injustice or through Executive action on a case-by-case basis to deny visa applications when made.

I have several questions for my right hon. Friend to which I know that he will do his best to respond. First, with regard to activities here in the United Kingdom of anyone implicated in this scandal, is an investigation under way, and what steps have been taken and what progress made?

Secondly, what is the status of the investigation into the sudden and unexplained death in Surrey some months ago of Alexander Perepilichnyy, a 44-year-old Russian business man who was linked as a witness to this scandal and who suddenly died in what can only be described as unexplained circumstances?

Thirdly, will the Government consider, on a case-by-case basis, the list of 280 persons that United States Congressman Jim McGovern has submitted to the US State Department detailing their role in this scandal, along with links to documents? Will the Government consider whether to issue those mentioned on that list with a ban forbidding their entry into the United Kingdom, in accordance with the policy that denies entry to known human rights abusers? Fourthly, will the Government support the European Parliament’s call to remove EU visa and banking privileges from the officials involved in the Magnitsky case?

I understand the diplomatic complexities that we face in poking a stick into a hornets’ nest, and I know how important our emerging trade relationship with Russia is. Russia has an important role to play, whether it is to do with the balance of our economy in Europe, with regional security, or with wider global security. None the less, it is simply not tenable for us to turn a blind eye to this situation. I accept that approaching it in a heavy-handed manner would perhaps be inappropriate, but we should make it crystal clear that we are not seeking to intervene in the judicial processes of another country but maintaining our right, as a free country, to criticise constructively and to operate our borders in a way that we see fit.

We should carefully enact visa restrictions so as to penalise those who are clearly linked to this and, indeed, other human rights violations in Russia. I believe that this would have a measurable impact on the lifestyles of many members of the Russian elite who come to London because it is an attractive city in which to stay and in which to shop. I ask this simple question: why should these people be allowed to shop when this injustice remains unaddressed?

Sergei Magnitsky

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am not a member of the all-party group, and I have never spoken in this place about anything to do with Russia. However, I recently chaired a meeting at which Sergei Magnitsky’s former employer spoke, in detail and with emotion and depth, about Sergei’s life and death. It was impossible not to be moved, which is why I have come to speak in the debate today and to make a case for our Government to support the motion. That man died in the most horrific circumstances and he was the most principled of people. Sergei Magnitsky was killed by corrupt officials because he was a principled man who exposed officials as thieves, when a huge amount of money to be paid in tax to the Russian state disappeared overnight. Overnight, those officials, politicians, police officers and tax inspectors suddenly became very rich individuals indeed. That is the simple, tragic background to what we are discussing today, but the ramifications reach far further.

A ruling elite has sprung out of the chaos in Russia during the 1990s, and it preaches to the masses nationalism and pride in a powerful Russian state. At the same time, this ruling elite is weakening its own country through corruption, nepotism and greed. That contradiction is not for us in this House to solve. It is not our affair; we have no powers over Russian business. Proud Russian people, furthermore, do not take kindly to foreign interventions into their domestic affairs. The British Council would be able to inform us about that.

The British Government and this House, however, have influence over who enters this country and who crosses our borders, and over our domestic affairs, particularly in respect of foreign visitors. We do not have an entirely open border policy for Russian citizens. Indeed, I have been told that the visa regime between the two countries can make for an incredibly tiresome process. On rare occasions, we reserve the right to say to particular citizens of the Russian Federation that they are not welcome in the UK and we can deny them a visa.

Is there any greater indication that someone’s presence in the UK is not welcome or desired in this country than the fact that we are dealing with thieves, murderers, torturers and corrupt individuals? Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) said, the fact that these people can just pop into our country to do a bit of Christmas shopping is distasteful in the extreme. At the very least, we need to put some process in place to make sure that they are refused entry at the border.

On Sunday, Vladimir Putin was elected President of the Russian Federation for a third term. Mr Putin is known and recognised for his patriotic pride, and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) spoke about how Putin often displays this in taking off his shirt, attending ice hockey events or throwing in curling events to show us what a big proud man he is. He resents interference in Russian politics from anywhere outside Russia, which makes it ironic that the Russian ambassador thinks that this matter is unique to Russia. These Russians feel that they can interfere in what happens in our politics by trying to prevent this debate from taking place.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did the Russian ambassador write to you to try to prevent this debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful for that point of order. I hope that the clock will be held so that the time available to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) will not be reduced.

I can tell the House that I received a letter from the Russian ambassador, drawing my attention to what he regarded as the errors contained in the motion and the merit of what he thought to be that fact—I emphasise that this was what he thought to be that fact—being communicated to the sponsors of the debate. I replied to the ambassador, noting his letter and underlining to him that he must not expect me, as an impartial Speaker, to comment on the contents of either the letter or the motion. I reminded him of the date of the debate, and indicated that if he wished to communicate his views in writing to the sponsors of the debate, it was open to him to do so. I hope that my meaning was clear—that this House debates what it wants to debate and that if other people wish to send letters, they can send letters, but it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to act as a post person.

[Nadine Dorries]

Mr Putin does not want Russia to be treated any less fairly than any other country in respect of trade, defence or intelligence. That is fair enough, but he cannot expect Russia to be given any special treatment. Criminals—thieves, and those who have committed gross violations of human rights—are not welcome in the United Kingdom, no matter what passport they hold, and such criminals who happened to be British would be pursued to the full extent of the law.

Russia is held in deep affection in my office. Culturally, I am in awe of the country. Ilya Repin is one of my favourite artists. He was introduced to me by a master at Winchester college, Paul Thomas, when I went to speak there some years ago, and ever since then we have taken an interest in Russia—perhaps not quite as deep an interest as is taken in a certain Liberal Democrat Member’s office, but a deep interest none the less. However, that does not blind me to the faults of the Russian Government. What greater fault can a Government have than not only failing to protect their citizens, but being the agent through which they suffer, and protecting those criminals instead of the victims? I support the motion wholeheartedly.

National Referendum on the European Union

Nadine Dorries Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that it is now time to start the process of consulting the British people once more. I say “start” because that is all that this motion seeks to do.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend also acknowledge that not only is he moving this motion, but more than 100,000 people have signed an e-petition to 10 Downing street calling for him to do just this?

[Mr Nuttall]

If one added together all the petitions, one would find that many hundreds of thousands of people have called for us to debate this issue.

I am conscious that this is one of the most, if not the most, heavily subscribed Back-Bench debates ever. In conclusion, with the three largest parties in the House all apparently instructing their MPs to vote against the motion despite what those MPs might individually believe to be the best course of action for our country, the result tonight may not be in very much doubt. Members can vote either to give their constituents a choice on Britain’s ongoing relationship with the European Union or to deny them that opportunity. It is as simple as that. If my fellow MPs join me in voting to give the British people a choice in a referendum, they can do so with a clear conscience, knowing that they will have a very large majority of the British people on their side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me an extra minute.

I also think that those who argue that this is simply a distraction would never want to discuss it anyway. They argue that it is not the right time or that this is only a distraction, but would they have said otherwise if the motion had been brought forward two weeks ago, or at some other time? I do not think so. They are in fact more interested in being part of the cosy club. This is an important debate, but as I said before, it is not the most important debate the House will ever have, and the EU is not the most important thing we will ever discuss.

[Nadine Dorries]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davidson]

For another minute, yes I will.

[Nadine Dorries]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why British people are so engaged on this matter is that, in these difficult economic times, when we are giving £25 million a day to Europe, they want to see not only the repatriation of powers, but the repatriation of some of the money?

[Mr Davidson]

I agree with that. They would like to see that because what we need to do is move on from the debate we are having today. Whenever I see the three party leaderships lining up together, I think that they must be wrong, and I think that the vast majority of the public take that view as well. At least there is no conspiracy involving the nationalist parties, because they have not bothered to turn up. We do not know what their view is on whether Scotland would be part of an EU that Britain had already left, because that is one of the things they want to fudge and sweep under the carpet.

However, if we want out of the CAP, we ought to be discussing how we can do that? If we want to stop paying so much money to Sicilian gangsters and a variety of other crooks across Europe, how do we manage to do that? If we want to provide genuine bilateral support to those who are much poorer than us in eastern Europe, how do we do it without the middle men cutting chunks out of it? The same concern applies to the third world. How do we ensure that other European countries, individuals and gangs are not siphoning off some of that money? If we want to scrap the common fisheries policy and introduce something better, how do we do that? Those are the sorts of debates we need to have. In my constituency, how can we ensure that local people get local jobs without the EU telling us that they must be advertised Europe-wide? That is what we need to discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

Many of us would like the European Union to be even more distant than it is. The problem is that its tentacles creep into all aspects of the British way of life. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that there are people in this country, from right, left and middle, who think it is outrageous that over the next five years, in this current Parliament, our membership fee will be £41 billion.

[Nadine Dorries]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hollobone]

I will give way when I have told my hon. Friend that in the previous Parliament the membership fee was £19 billion; it has more than doubled.

[Nadine Dorries]

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) touched on this point. If the House voted yes tonight, then when our Foreign Secretary, Prime Minister and Chancellor went to negotiate with our European partners, they would take with them the threat of the loss of £45 billion and would perhaps be treated slightly differently in the negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

[Mr Hollobone]

I do agree. They could not really treat us much worse.

From my perspective and that of my constituents, whom I have the privilege to represent, the EU is getting its hands on more and more aspects of the British way of life. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) spoke about the effect on this country’s fishing industry, which has been destroyed by our membership of the European Union. Our membership fee has more than doubled. Nine out of every 10 jobs in this country go to foreign migrants, most of whom come from the European Union. These issues are not of concern only to right-wing people; they are of concern to every person in this land.

This debate is exposing an increasing disconnect between our constituents—the residents we struggle to represent—and the Front Benchers of Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, who have tried to deny debate on this issue. One of the qualities of the Backbench Business Committee is that it chooses subjects for debate in this House that the Government would not otherwise allow. That is why the Backbench Business Committee chose this subject. We would not be having this debate if we had left it up to Her Majesty’s Government.

I have a confession for the House: I do not believe in ever closer union. I think it is wrong in principle and I think the British people do as well. I have another confession for the House: I believe that Britain would be better off out of the European Union altogether. I do not expect a majority in this House to agree with that, but I am privileged to put that on the record on behalf of my constituents in Kettering. I believe that if we were to have a referendum on in or out, most of my constituents would vote to leave because they have had enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I could not have put it better myself.

Hon. Members have made the point that a person has to be over 54 years of age to have had the opportunity to take part in a plebiscite on our future in Europe. If we can have a referendum on fiscal powers for Wales, on the north-east Assembly, on Scotland, Northern Ireland, Greater London government and other issues, why can we not have one on one of the most important philosophical differences about our approach to the European Union in a whole generation? It is not right.

[Nadine Dorries]

We have heard many Members say this evening that now is not the right time. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a disingenuous argument because this motion does not impose a referendum now, but at some time in the future. Those hon. Members who say that now is not the right time are, as I say, being incredibly disingenuous about the motion.