Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

As I say, the Foreign Secretary spoke to President Abbas last week. We are encouraging him to work with Prime Minister Netanyahu. We are also aware that the US is looking at the situation very closely, and Secretary Kerry is ready to visit the region when appropriate.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

20. Earlier this month, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas proclaimed:“We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem…With the help of Allah, every martyr will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward.”Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary share my concern that such provocative remarks have fuelled the recent wave of deadly attacks on Israel? What more can we do to help?

[Mr Ellwood]

There has been too much provocation on both sides. The current violence underlines the fact that a lasting resolution that ends the occupation and delivers peace for Israelis and Palestinians is long overdue. We have been round this buoy many times. The Oslo accords seem in the far distant past, and the tensions are ratcheting up again. We call on both sides to come together.

Iranian Nuclear Programme

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for obtaining the debate.

The Prime Minister said of Iran in 2012:

“The Regime’s claim that its nuclear programme is intended purely for civilian purposes is not remotely credible.”

I am not convinced that too much has changed since. The Iranians still do not allow IAEA inspectors to see sites or to see what centrifuges there are. How many do they have? What are their intentions? It is a simplistic thing to say, but if their intentions are honourable and they have nothing to hide, why do they not let the inspectors in to see exactly what they are doing? I do not make any apologies for that simple question.

I agreed entirely with what the hon. Member for Dudley North said about claims that the only alternative to an agreement is war. He rightly said that is nonsense, and I would turn it around. If we—the international community—sign a flawed agreement with Iran, that will most definitely lead to war, for the simple reason that Iran will produce a nuclear weapon. Many of the states in the middle east—not just Israel—will want to follow suit, and all that we will have will be a huge proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east. Are we all, including the Americans, going to sit back and let that happen, when the Iranian President still will not recognise the state of Israel, and would prefer it to be written off the face of the map? What sort of language is that, and what sort of world are we living in?

I said in a Westminster Hall debate last week—on 16 June, at column 14WH—that it is dangerous when a US President is coming to the end of his second term of office and is looking for a legacy. It may be simple to sign up to a legacy of having reached an agreement with Iran, but if that is not worth the paper it is written on—and it probably will not be—the approach is wrong. I have great respect for the Minister, for our British Government and Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and for all the work that we do around the world, but we must keep our eyes absolutely open. Iran has form on this issue, going all the way back to 2004. While Iran was busy negotiating an agreement with the EU, that allowed it more time to carry on producing more enriched uranium. That is the whole game, and it is why this debate is timely.

We must pause until we can be certain that we have an agreement under which we can go in and see the facilities, completely unfettered. It is absolutely right, if Iran wants to further its nuclear power, that it should be allowed to do so—I would be the first to say so—but I find it difficult to believe that that much uranium is being enriched just for a nuclear programme. That is where we are all being far too naive. I look forward to hearing the Minister and the shadow Minister sum up this debate; I do not think there will be many political differences between them. In my view, we must not have any political differences on this issue. If we are to be taken seriously by the Iranians and sort out the situation, we must present a united front to them.

Before any agreement is signed, we need to get into Iran to see what is being produced and ensure that it is being used for civilian purposes and nuclear power, not weapons. I repeat what I said at the beginning: if we do not get this right, we will regret it, because it will lead to huge problems and action will have to be taken. We in the international community must decide whether to sign a flawed agreement, brush everything under the carpet and allow Iran to increase its amount of enriched uranium—which will lead eventually, in however many years, to a nuclear weapon—or take more action now, however uncomfortable it might be, to sort out the situation so that we do not find ourselves in that position further down the road.

We must also be careful about ISIL, those dreadful people who are committing huge acts of terrorism and atrocities across the region. Again, whatever co-operation with the Iranians there may or may not be, we must not let that cloud the issue or the need to take firm action. I have every faith in our Minister. I am sure that he can sort out the whole situation, and I look forward to hearing him sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Amess. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on securing this debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for their contributions, and the two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for theirs.

It will be no surprise that I am unable to speculate about quite a few details, because negotiations are continuing in Vienna today. Although all questions asked during the debate were perfectly reasonable, many can only be answered if and when there is a final agreement between the E3+3 and Iran. At present, there is an interim agreement—the so-called Lausanne parameters—and ongoing negotiations. The Foreign Secretary is in Vienna today to take forward conversations with the Iranian negotiators, having met his five counterparts a few days ago.

I can tell the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) that throughout this process, which it is fair to say has commanded broadly bipartisan support under successive Governments, Foreign Office Ministers have sought to keep Parliament informed about negotiations, and we will certainly continue to do so. I expect that, in the event of a final agreement being reached, a statement to Parliament will be made by the Foreign Secretary or another Minister, so that Members have the chance to see the detail of what was agreed.

When we and our E3+3 partners and Iran agreed the key parameters for a comprehensive agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme on 2 April, we set ourselves a deadline for reaching a final deal. That deadline passed on Tuesday, as hon. Members mentioned, without an agreement being reached, but that does not mean that the process has definitively ended in failure. It demonstrates our resolve not to be hurried into an unsatisfactory agreement on the substance, including on the vital technical details—I accept what Members from all parties said about consideration of the technical details being essential to any judgment about the nature of a final deal, should one be secured. It is important that all sides have the assurances they need and that we get those details right. We have to be confident that any deal is verifiable, durable and addresses our concerns fully. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: substance is the key to this, not any particular question of timing.

All parties remain committed to achieving a deal. Nobody wants another long extension, so the interim agreement—the joint plan of action—has been extended for seven days to allow negotiations to continue.

Just over two weeks ago, the House debated these issues, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), replied on behalf of the Government. I have picked up from this debate, as I did from the record of the previous one, that hon. Members in various political parties are concerned about the detail and worry that Iran might be granted too many concessions.

Although I cannot give a running commentary on the detail of the negotiations, I reiterate my strongest possible assurance on behalf of the whole Government that we will not do a bad deal. Any deal must achieve the Government’s prime objective of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. That means more than just a verbal or written commitment: it means the inclusion of detailed undertakings by Iran that are sufficient to give us confidence that their nuclear programme will be entirely peaceful. Anything less is completely unacceptable.

We have an historic opportunity to find a solution to a long-standing source of tension, instability and global concern that, if unresolved, will undoubtedly threaten our security and that of our partners. In a week when we have seen tragic violence and bloodshed in the wider region, we should reflect on how much progress we have made towards reaching a solution through peaceful, diplomatic and negotiated means. A great deal is at stake—for this country, for our partners and for the people of Iran.

Let me give a bit more detail on the parameters within which we hope to agree a deal and its implications for Iran, for the region, and for the UK. In addressing the Lausanne parameters, I hope that I will answer at least some of the questions and concerns raised during this debate.

The parameters for a deal agreed in Lausanne are a sound basis for what could be a very good deal that is durable, verifiable and addresses our concerns about proliferation. Under the Lausanne interim agreement, Iran’s enrichment capacity, enrichment level and enriched uranium stockpile would all be limited, and the facility at Natanz would be Iran’s sole location for enrichment.

Hon. Members mentioned research and development capability. Iran’s research and development on centrifuges will be carried out under the Lausanne parameters, based on mutually agreed details relating to scope and schedule. When I say “mutually agreed”, I mean agreed not just by Iran, but by Iran and the six international partners with whom it is negotiating. The Lausanne deal also requires the Arak heavy water research reactor to be redesigned and modernised to exclude production of weapons-grade plutonium. Taken together, these measures will ensure that Iran’s break-out time—the time taken to produce sufficient fissile material for a nuclear device, should Iran ever attempt to do so—will be extended to at least 12 months.

A robust and credible regime for monitoring compliance by Iran will be put in place under the Lausanne parameters. Iran would need to implement the modified code 3.1 and the additional protocol to the comprehensive safeguards agreement. The International Atomic Energy Agency must be able to use the best modern monitoring technologies and have enhanced access to sites to make sure that if Iran ever tried to break out towards a nuclear weapon, the international community would be alerted and have sufficient time to respond.

[Neil Parish]

What faith have we that this agreement, which should deal with enhanced access to nuclear sites in Iran, will happen? We have had agreements like this before, but still have not had access to the sites.

[Mr Lidington]

I want to say a little bit more about access in a few moments, but to answer my hon. Friend directly, questions about access and verification lie at the heart of the detailed negotiations going on today. Unless we and our partners are satisfied that the IAEA will have the access that it believes it needs, there will not be a final agreement.

Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for securing this debate.

I want to discuss the principles behind the forthcoming agreement. American Presidents in their second term are—dare I say it?—dangerous, because they are looking to leave legacies, and those who might struggle to leave a legacy look even harder. We must be careful that that is not what the agreement is about. I have much respect for my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who is a great friend of mine, but I entirely disagree with him. Will there be a pecking order for terrorism as to which groups are the worst? I think not. In our desire, which is quite right, to have Iranian help to deal with ISIS, I worry that we are blind to what is actually happening in Iran. We must be careful if we take that line.

[Rehman Chishti]

The point has been made that Iran is supporting the international community to defeat Daesh or Faesh. I think that that is completely wrong. The G7 statement says that we must first defeat the Assad regime to defeat Daesh, but as long as Iran is supporting the Assad regime, we cannot defeat Daesh or Faesh. That point must be clear.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The middle east is complex and contains states such as Iran that will sponsor terrorism. It is something that none of us wants to foresee, but the idea of Iran, with its attitudes towards its neighbours, especially towards Israel, having a nuclear weapon and being capable of using it is abominable.

Why does Iran need so much enriched uranium? We could go through the figures all day, but I do not intend to go into them again. I do not believe that Iran needs uranium just to create nuclear power stations; it wants to enrich it. Why does Iran not allow proper access for us to see what is going on? If we were allowed better access, we could stand up in this Chamber and say what a delight it is that we are able to go all over Iran and see exactly what it is enriching and what it is not, but we have no real idea, because we are not allowed access. We have a fairly good estimate of what might be going on, which in itself is far too much.

I am from the west of England and have the same trouble as my hon. Friend from the north of England, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) in pronouncing such words, but consider the Bushehr nuclear power station. It uses Russian technology— I first upset the Americans and now the Russians, so I will perhaps upset everyone this morning—and I am not always delighted with Russian technology or with Russian nuclear power stations. The idea of such a combination does not bode well. It is no good our sitting here, putting our rose-tinted glasses on and saying, “Let’s do a deal with Iran”—dare I say it?—“at all costs.” I have great faith in the Minister here today and Britain must stand up and be sensible about this matter. If we are actually to reduce terrorism in the middle east and to make the region more secure, we cannot possibly have an Iran with the capability to make a nuclear bomb.

The agreement mentions 10 to 15 years of control, but that is just not enough. Ten to 15 years passes almost in the blink of an eye. I would love to think that we could talk of a wonderfully peaceful middle east in 10 to 15 years. Call me cynical, but I do not believe that that will be the case—although I hope that it is. We must stand up to such states. It is no good sitting here saying, “It’s okay. Let’s have an agreement and brush all the problems under the carpet because they don’t really exist.” Oh yes they do. They exist and Iran will have that capability.

We have debated the matter thoroughly this morning. We need to have our eyes open. I want to hear from the Minister about the British position and not about some nice, cosy and lovely agreement that makes everyone feel warm. What is actually happening in Iran? What are we doing about getting inspectors in? I cannot see how we can sign any agreement until we know exactly what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the opportunity to reply to this interesting, informative and important debate, which is taking place before the negotiations.

Let me begin by responding to the kind words from the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). I am sorry that we have heard his valedictory foreign affairs speech. We will certainly miss him. I have worked with him for more than a year, and it has been a real pleasure. There has been huge cross-party support on this and other issues, and that is very welcome. I am sorry that the energy and enthusiasm he has shown in the debate has not been reflected by Labour Back Benchers, who have not taken part in the debate. It was perhaps also too early for Scottish National party Members to make the debate. I would have thought that they would want to engage in a debate on nuclear issues. None the less, I am grateful for the debate.

Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing the debate and on his continued interest in this matter. We had a good debate last November, and I hope there will be further opportunities to discuss the issue. Through you, Mr Hollobone, I would certainly ask the Backbench Business Committee to make time for it to be debated on the Floor of the House as well as in Westminster Hall.

For more than a decade, the Iranian nuclear issue has posed one of the most intractable and persistent threats to international security and stability. The prospect of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran carries severe consequences for the security of the UK, the region and, indeed, the world. The Government have always been clear that the best solution lies in finding a peaceful, diplomatic and negotiated settlement. The process has been long and challenging, and we are grateful to both sides of the House for their support.

Our discussion today comes at a crucial moment. The joint plan of action agreed by the E3 plus 3 and Iran in November 2013, and extended in July and November 2014, froze the most concerning elements of Iran’s nuclear programme in return for limited sanctions relief. When the interim deal was extended in November, we, our E3 plus 3 partners—China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States—and Iran set ourselves a deadline of 30 June to reach a final comprehensive deal.

The UK played a leading role in diplomatic efforts that secured agreement on the key parameters of a deal in Lausanne on 2 April. That marked an important milestone in the ongoing negotiations, but as has been made clear today, those negotiations are not complete. Since April, UK diplomats and experts, and E3 plus 3 colleagues, have been working intensely to secure a comprehensive agreement by the 30 June deadline. That agreement, which has been questioned in the debate, must satisfy the Government’s objectives, which have remained consistent throughout this process: preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, while recognising its right to access nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We have always been clear that we will not agree to a deal that fails to address our proliferation concerns.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be present for the talks in Vienna in the coming weeks, where he will maintain a laser-sharp focus on our key UK objectives. As the deadline draws ever nearer, it is crucial that Iran should appreciate what is at stake. Significant economic advantages and political benefits await if Iran agrees to a robust nuclear deal. Right hon. and hon. Members must forgive me for not going into the detail of the deal, but I will try to outline answers to some of the questions.

[Neil Parish]

Is the Minister certain that if a deal is reached Iran will stick to it?

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that question: what assurances do we have that Iran would maintain the deal? I shall certainly try to answer the questions that have been asked. I am, to the horror of my team, going to abandon the speech that they have carefully prepared for me, and do my best to answer the questions from the debate. I offer my apologies if I do not manage to answer all the detailed questions. I shall read Hansard—not because I like reading what I have said, but because it is important that I read what Members have said and reply in writing, if I may, to keep dialogue going.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy asked whether the agreement was intended to be a non-proliferation or arms control treaty. It is a mixture, as I have made clear. It important for us to be able to maintain that, because there are breakout weapons systems that we are concerned about in addition to what Iran is doing on the nuclear side. He mentioned Iran’s foreign policy objectives, for itself and the wider region, which I want to touch on in relation to other concerns. Iran’s role, and where it sees itself in the region, is a major issue. It has a responsibility not just to itself but in the wider region and we look to it to act responsibly.

My hon. Friend mentioned the United States foreign policy aspects of the matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) raised the question whether there was a legacy issue. I have never heard the line before that a President is most dangerous in his second term. It could be argued both ways; a President in that case is not tied by anything and therefore can be more robust in some of the measures that he or she is willing to pursue.

I want to go through the eight major headings of the deal, which may help the House to understand where the conversation and agreement are going, leading up to 30 June. First there is the question of a durable and verifiable deal. The first heading is enrichment, which covers Iran’s capacity and its enriched stockpile. The number of centrifuges is obviously part of that. Many figures have been given in the debate, but the number is less significant than the breakout time—how quickly a weapon could be procured if it was decided to close the doors and prevent IAEA from carrying out inspections. We have set that as a year. Whatever the experts are saying, that leads to the number of centrifuges that we would consider acceptable. We are less focused on the actual numbers at the moment, and more on the breakout time.

The second area heading is research and development, covering types of centrifuges, and leading to a mutually agreed scope and schedule. Thirdly, the Arak plutonium reactor has been mentioned. There will be a redesign to cut off the plutonium route to a nuclear device. Fourthly, Fordow, which has also been mentioned, will no longer be a site for the enrichment of uranium. The fifth area is duration. There are programme restrictions in a number of areas. A period of 10 years for the agreement has been mentioned. It could well be that parts of it will last longer, and parts might even be shorter. That is some of the detail being worked out.

The sixth heading is the possible military dimensions, which I have touched on. That covers the measures that Iran must address: the IAEA’s concerns about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear programme. If there is one area that is of concern in the discussions at the moment, that is probably the most difficult. The seventh area is sanctions: relief from the comprehensive EU and US economic and financial sanctions in return for IAEA-verified actions on Iran’s programme; an agreement on the termination of UN sanctions, with limiting transfers of sensitive technologies and activities; and other issues relating to conventional arms and ballistic missiles. The eighth and final area is transparency and verification, which many hon. Members have mentioned. That covers the ability to make sure that nothing is being done behind our backs, and a robust and credible monitoring programme including the implementation of various protocols to give the IAEA greater oversight of Iran’s activities.

Iran (UK Foreign Policy)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who made good points about the quality of the debate and the views that have been put forward.

I, too, want to state clearly that I am a huge supporter of Israel. I have concerns about the direction in which Iran will eventually take us. Previous leaders of Iran have stated clearly that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. If we had a neighbour like that, we would be somewhat concerned. The Israeli people or the Jewish people lost half their population in the 20th century. Do we want the rest of them to be wiped out in the 21st century? I think not. We therefore have to be careful.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) was right to bring this matter forward and is very well informed about it. I will put forward some views that he might not agree with entirely, but which need to be said.

Many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about Iran’s nuclear programme and the negotiations that are taking place in Vienna with the P5 plus 1. The ultimate aim of the negotiations must be a permanent and verifiable guarantee that Iran cannot escape all the restrictions on its nuclear programme, reach break-out capability and quickly produce a nuclear weapon.

In return, Iran seeks to have all sanctions lifted immediately and permanently once an agreement is reached. Many of the sanctions, once lifted, would be almost impossible to reinstate quickly enough to act as a deterrent against Iran’s transgressing on any agreement. The lifting of sanctions must be a gradual process to ensure that Iran keeps to its side of the agreement. Some argue that that will not be acceptable to Iran and is doomed to fail, and that we must therefore soften our negotiating stance.

The UK Government and their allies must ask the following questions. Can Iran be trusted to abide by international norms and agreements? Is President Rouhani genuine in his commitment to engage positively with the international community on Iran’s nuclear programme and other issues affecting the region? Even if President Rouhani is genuine, to what extent does that matter when it is the Supreme Leader who must ultimately approve any agreement and when the Iranian revolutionary guards, who are personally loyal to the Supreme Leader, run the nuclear programme and its sites?

I believe that a look at the terrible human rights abuses of the Islamic republic of Iran against its own people and at its role as a lead sponsor of terrorism across the world goes some way towards answering those questions. According to Amnesty International, Iran now leads the world in executions per capita—surpassing China. As of April 2014, more than 500 people had been executed under President Hassan Rouhani’s regime—206 in 2014 alone. That includes two Iranian men executed in August this year for the act of “consensual sodomy”. Article 110 of Iran’s Islamic penal code states:

“Punishment for sodomy is killing”.

Iran also continues to persecute religious minorities, including those of the Baha’i faith, whose origins are in Iran. The Baha’i community faces arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, is denied access to education and receives no protection of the law from religiously motivated violence from vigilante groups.

Some will argue that this is the work of the judiciary, who are appointed by the Supreme Leader and that President Rouhani is not to blame. However, it was President Rouhani who appointed Mostafa Pourmohammadi as Justice Minister. During his time as Deputy Intelligence Minister, he was implicated in the 1988 massacre of thousands of political prisoners. Despite his welcome words as a reformer and pragmatist, the President has yet to deliver on his promises—something that does not bode well for any future agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Iran’s role as a sponsor of terrorism is well documented, from Shi’a death squads in Iraq to its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon, which was responsible for a series of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and diplomats in India, Georgia and Thailand in 2012. In its support for sectarian terrorism, Iran has repeatedly shown itself to act not as a responsible member of the international community, but as a country whose foreign policy aims are ideologically motivated and will continue to propagate Khomeini’s bloody revolution. It is this record of support for terrorism and its treatment of its own people that the UK must have in its mind when considering its policy towards Iran.

Bangladesh

Neil Parish Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is good to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who gave a good résumé of the history of Bangladesh. I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for securing this debate.

My interest in the country stems from the fact that I was an EU election observer in 2008, along with Dr Charles Tannock, Nirj Deva and Koenraad Dillen from the Netherlands. What was interesting, and perhaps depressing in many respects, was the great hope that came after those elections. Before them, there had been a huge amount of electoral fraud in the country. In 2008, we saw one of the best electoral rolls ever seen anywhere in the world. There were 80 million photographs of the individuals who were to cast their votes. I expected the electoral roll to contain rather fuzzy pictures from which one might not be able to recognise the voter, but I can assure the House that, although the photographs were quite small the people in them were recognisable.

That election was carried out in a pretty free and fair way, resulting in a landslide for the Awami League. In a way, that is what brought about many of the problems we see today. I find it depressing. In 2008, Sheikh Hasina was under house arrest under the then military Government. She was released to take part in the election, and there was talk about whether the military were going to back off from the government of Bangladesh. All those things came about and there was a transition to a form of democratic Government. As other hon. Members have said today, when we are in government we are not always delighted to get a lot of opposition from the Opposition, but that is how democracy works and how we are held to account. Once a party has 80% or 90% of the seats, there is no opposition. It becomes a dictatorship, albeit by a different route. That is what is fundamentally wrong with what is happening in Bangladesh today. It is ironic that Sheikh Hasina is treating her opponents in exactly the same way as she was treated.

I know that it is not always easy to find the Nelson Mandelas of this world in every country, but there comes a time when it would be lovely if someone could stand up and say, “Let’s learn from the past, let’s forgive and let’s have some reconciliation.” The trouble is that that is not happening. Members have clearly made the point today that Bangladesh needs a Government who can rule on behalf of all the people. We want Bangladesh to remain a secular country; we do not want to see the persecution and even perhaps the murder of Christians and Hindus. Those are things that we cannot accept.

It is very difficult for us, as I am sure the Minister is aware—particularly if we are seen in some ways to be the old colonial power—to say that we will tell people how to run their country and how to run a democracy. We have had a form of democracy for 500 or 600 years —or even, one might argue, for nearly 1,000 years, although that is not to say that I think that William the Conqueror was particularly democratic. It has taken us a long time to get to where we are and some might argue that our democracy is not entirely perfect even now, but younger countries with huge divisions find it more difficult to have a democracy. However difficult it is for us to intervene, we can say that we give a great deal of money to help Bangladesh and we must consider how the money given to the Government is spent. We expect the Government of that country to show some recognition of human rights, recognition of a free press and respect for opposition. The Minister has the wisdom of Solomon and will, I am sure, be able to provide all the ideas we need, but we need to put the pressure on.

We must also remember, as other Members have said, that the people of Bangladesh are very hard working. They are very poor yet they will work hard to bring themselves out of poverty. We must help them by targeting the areas where we want the Government to change rather than targeting the people. That is always difficult.

Bangladesh is almost one huge river valley, so the soil is very fertile but also prone to flooding. Building anywhere is difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans made the point that many of the buildings are not structurally sound because of what they have been built on and how they have been built.

Should we as individuals boycott clothing made in Bangladesh? I do not believe that we should, because it makes the situation worse, but we need some checks and balances on where those clothes have come from, what the factories are like, how the workers are treated, how they are paid and what sort of conditions they are in. We are right to debate that in the House.

I agree with the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) that it is not our duty in this House to tell Bangladesh when the next election should be, but we should not ignore the situation. We cannot ignore a Government who were not elected in a free and fair way in the recent elections. If fewer than half the seats are being contested, that is no way to run any form of democracy, and if vengeance is then to be taken on political opponents, that is no way to run a country. Let us put the pressure on where we can and say to Bangladesh that it has to change its ways and go back to the ballot box. The timing is for Bangladesh to decide, but we and the international community must add to the pressure.

I am delighted to have been able to make this speech although I am disappointed that the great hope of 2009, with the landslide and Sheikh Hasina coming into power, has not delivered what we want for Bangladesh. We should not walk away from Bangladesh now, however, as we have to support it through these difficult times. Ultimately, the country has a bright future.

Gibraltar

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

The United Kingdom is standing shoulder to shoulder with the Government and the people of Gibraltar. The Spanish activity, both the incursion into territorial waters and the border delays, are unacceptable. The British Government have made this clear in the strongest possible terms. The Prime Minister wrote to the EU Commission President to ask the EU Commission to get involved, which it has now done. We continue to provide evidence to the EU Commission, we continue to press the EU Commission to make sure that its recommendations to the UK, Gibraltar and Spain are implemented in full, and we will continue to do everything we can through diplomatic and political means to resolve what is a political dispute to the satisfaction of Gibraltarians and everybody in the United Kingdom.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Partido Popular in Spain and the Government are extremely unpopular, so these activities are just a diversion. The trouble is that the people of Gibraltar are the ones who suffer every time the border is closed. We need to stop these things constantly being escalated. In the end, it is the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to remain British, which they emphasise all the time. We must do more as a Government to make sure the borders are open.

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the necessity to improve access across the border, which is why we will try to do everything we can to ensure that the EU Commission’s recommendations are implemented in full. We also fully expect Spain to act on the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission is still clearly concerned by the situation and is committed to remaining engaged and following up in the way that I outlined. Interestingly, it has reserved the right to reconsider its position and has explicitly offered the possibility of a further visit to the border. If the Commission is to do that, I suggest that it does so without giving the Spanish notice so that it can see how people are suffering.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on procuring his place in the ballot for private Member’s Bills.

To save time and divert interventions, let me say that I am a lifelong European. I campaigned for and voted yes in the referendum 30 years ago, and I will abstain in the vote on this Bill because it is much more about party management than the essential higher purpose of our national interest. Those who claim that people are being denied a choice on Europe should listen to the wisdom on the doorstep. We must, of course, take seriously the rise of UKIP, and understand why millions of people—including former supporters of my party as well as of the Government—are voting against the major parties. This initiative is being driven by UKIP. It is opening up old divisions and fails to recognise that even for UKIP supporters, Europe is not the greatest concern. We should attend to that if we are serious about hearing the voice of the British people.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

rose—

[Dame Tessa Jowell]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak; I will not take an intervention because I want to make my speech as quickly as I can. We must understand that the momentum behind this debate comes principally from a sense of suffering felt by families up and down the country—anxiety about whether their children will get jobs; fears about long-term security and the sustainability of their pensions. Under such circumstances, the EU has become a proxy for the public’s wider anger about good services and housing, and in doing so it has provided fertile territory for a lot of myths about the EU. I do not for one moment doubt the anger—indeed, I have confronted it—in some parts of our country about the impact of too much migration too quickly, and the sense of broader insecurity. People feel that their living standards are falling. They are falling, but that is a result of decisions by this UK Government, not decisions by Europe.

The Bill is principally about managing the Conservative party, and evidence suggests that for the majority of right hon. and hon. Members in that party it is about exit, not renegotiation in Europe. The real tragedy is that renegotiation is possible, is needed, and is always to be achieved, but that is not done by saying one thing at home and a different thing in the Council of Ministers. If the Prime Minister is serious about renegotiation, he must spend time going round the capitals of Europe and visiting his counterparts, building trust and securing the support of other European leaders for his case for change. That is what will achieve change in Europe.

There is, of course, an agenda for reform, which Labour would support wholeheartedly and—I hope—on a cross-party basis, if only the Conservative party would demonstrate that it is serious about reform rather than exit. Reform of the EU budget, the appointment of an EU commissioner for growth, reforming transitional arrangements to address issues such as too much migration too quickly, more powers delegated to national Parliaments—those are all parts of an agenda for reform that I am sure we could share.

For those of us among my right hon. and hon. colleagues who represent constituencies in London, there is also particular concern about the impact on London of the growing uncertainty, which risks unseating us as the economy that is top of the league among beneficiaries of foreign direct investment. Underpinning and essential to that continued primacy is stability and certainty. The way in which this debate is being conducted, in the interests of the Conservative party, is putting that at risk.

In conclusion, I think this captures very well the position on the Opposition Benches:

“the problem with an in/out referendum is it actually only gives people those two choices: you can either stay in with all the status quo, or you…get out. Most people in Britain, I think, want a government that stands up and fights for them in Europe, and gets the things we want in Europe, that changes some of the relationship”.

Those, Madam Deputy Speaker, are the words of the Prime Minister, less than a year ago. Look how he has flip-flopped and been bullied by his party, letting down the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when we had the referendum in 1975, it was about a common market? Now we have a European political union. Brussels has seized power. The last Labour Government gave away our rebate and got nothing for it, so the people should have a say.

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely right. There is a growing frustration on the part of the people, which is borne out of years of them not being adequately communicated with or informed about the implications of what was happening in the EU institutions. That has resulted in our public wanting this say.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South was quite right that the British people want a say, but I believe that they also want an informed say. Many of them feel they have a gut instinct of how they would vote, but they know that this is such a serious issue and such a major constitutional decision that they must have an opportunity to deliberate, debate and discuss the complex issues around it. Those of us who are today putting forward this proposal for a referendum are saying that we trust the British people to discuss such complex issues and then come to the right decision. Anyone who opposes this referendum is saying, “We don’t trust the British public to discuss issues of this complexity and detail.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced that he will be able to persuade his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, and the Leader of the Opposition, to support a referendum?

[Keith Vaz]

Absolutely not. I am merely a humble Back Bencher. We need to do our best to persuade those on the Front Bench that this is in the interests not only of the Labour party but, primarily, of the country. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), spoke very well this morning, but we still need to convince him that we need to go one step further. After all, progress has been made. Labour voted for a reduction in the EU budget and against the amendment to the Queen’s Speech, and we are going to abstain today, so we are on the way; we are moving in the direction that the hon. Gentleman wants us to move in, and I hope that we will get there in the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on talking about Liberal Democrat policy on a former referendum, why is he not supporting us today? I also congratulate him on being the only one of an endangered species here in the Chamber today.

[Martin Horwood]

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

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

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

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

I think history might be repeating itself now.

Europe

Neil Parish Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). I do not agree with her views, but that is probably why we are on opposite sides of the Chamber.

I suspect that it will surprise a few Members in this place when I say that I love Europe. I love the languages, the culture, the history, the open roads, the mountains, the rivers, the wine—

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The women!

[Richard Drax]

Indeed, the women. However, I do not want to be ruled by Europe.

Why do we not admire the diversity of this great European space rather like a family? I am a father of four. I am not offering any advice on how to be a father —it would be far beyond me to do that. However, I have noted from my experience and that of my friends that if you let your children go, they come home, but if you cudgel them over the head and say, “Do this job, do that course,” they say, “Goodbye,” and you lose them. Why can we not do the same with Europe? One rule simply does not fit all. The evidence is there to be seen.

I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on his speech. It is perhaps rare for me to say that, but I really do. He is a man of courage, standing up for our country, which is what we are all here to do. My battle cry during the election campaign was, “We want our country back.” That is not being a pessimistic, down-at-heart little Englander. It is being optimistic. It is looking to the future and doing what is best for our country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said so eloquently, this debate is about democracy and freedom. I am delighted that we are at last talking about this bogeyman—this elephant in the room—that nobody has discussed until now. The fact that the Prime Minister has at last said that we will have a referendum in 2017 allows us to speak our minds.

From the Opposition Benches we heard words such as “uncertainty” and “clarity”, but we do not have certainty and clarity now, because Europe as we know it is dead; it is finished. I am sure all hon. Members are familiar with the “Dead Parrot” sketch from Monty Python. As it stands and as it is being progressed, the parrot—Europe—is dead. It is finished. For 17 years the doctor—the accountant—has injected all this medicine into the poor EU parrot: “Wake up, wake up!” Yet there it lies saying, “No. I am a corrupt dead parrot; I am a finished parrot.” The evidence is there to see. Opposition Members are shaking their heads—yes, the nightmare Member for South Dorset is standing up for his country. I am proud to be in the Chamber and to speak in this way, and I have 46 seconds left to speak up for my constituents and my country—our country.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, this place has lost so much power. We were put here to stand up for our constituents and they say that they are worried about the way Europe is going. It is time to look at the issue and at whether we can renegotiate the powers. Again, we are asked, “What powers?” I say all powers—repatriate the lot so that this House becomes a sovereign Parliament once again and all hon. Members do the job that we were sent here to do.

EU-UK Relationship (Reform)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

The beauty of democracy is that it is not over until it is over. It is important to think about who is in power now and not who might be in power in the future. In June, Angela Merkel said:

“I don’t see total debt liability as long as I live.”

She also said:

“Apart from the fact that instruments like eurobonds, eurobills, debt redemption schemes and much more are not compatible with the constitution in Germany, I consider them wrong and counterproductive.”

Angela Merkel has been clear on the fact that she does not believe that debt pooling is the way forward. That does not mean that Germany is opposed to eurobonds in principle; but from Berlin’s point of view, a full fiscal union must be established first. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble put it very clearly when he said:

“We have to be sure that a common fiscal policy would be irreversible and well coordinated. There will be no jointly guaranteed bonds without a common fiscal policy.”

Italy’s Prime Minister Mario Monti, who is a technocratic, not a democratically elected leader, has said that his position is quite similar to that of Germany in that he believes that central oversight of national budgets is a necessary precondition to eurobonds.

In Spain, the centre-right Government are keen on introducing eurobonds in the next few years and seem to be ready to accept losses of budgetary sovereignty to achieve that. Mariano Rajoy has proposed a three-stage path towards debt pooling: in 2013-14, eurozone countries should adopt measures to meet the fiscal and economic convergence criteria imposed by the European Council; in 2015-16, a European fiscal authority should be created that would oversee national budgets; and in 2017-18, when fiscal targets would be imposed on the eurozone in its entirety, full eurobonds could be issued.

France has not made its position entirely clear. It tends to favour more solidarity immediately and fiscal union later down the track, but in the name of Franco-German solidarity, it seems to have dropped the idea of Eurobonds, at least for the moment.

Most importantly, what about the UK? At the Lord Mayor of London’s banquet, the Prime Minister called for a looser EU

“with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc.”

That is an important indicator of where the UK stands. It is important to recognise that the EU is already multi-layered.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

For a long time, I dealt with the common agricultural policy, which is far too prescriptive to cover 27 countries with different climates and different soils. We want a flexible approach, so that this country can deliver good agricultural and environmental policies.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

The concept of a multi-speed Europe is already a reality: some countries opt in to Schengen, the euro, defence co-operation, and co-operation on justice and home affairs, and some opt out. A multi-speed Europe is already a reality, not something we are inventing for the first time.

Zimbabwe (Blood Diamonds)

Neil Parish Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Havard, for allowing me to make a short speech although I was late getting here. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) on securing this extremely important debate.

I have quite good experience of Zimbabwe, as I was an election observer in 2000. I have been banned by Mugabe from returning to the country, as I was critical of the regime. This debate is one of many that we have had here that are essential to put pressure on the Mugabe regime.

I have some simple points to make. ZANU-PF and the Mugabe regime need to pay for their army and their tyranny, which is why they need money. That is the blunt message that we need to convey in this debate. Blood diamonds are part of the criminal element that feeds into Government. I would go so far as to call it state-sponsored terrorism and violence. Blood diamonds feed a terrible regime that goes on destroying its people despite the so-called coalition Government in Zimbabwe.

The other point that I want to raise with the Minister is that I have a lot of experience of the European Parliament. Undoubtedly, a lot of countries in Europe with colonial backgrounds have links to different countries. It is therefore important not to take it for granted that all European countries will pull together on Zimbabwe. I ask him to speak to his counterparts in France, Belgium, Germany and all the other states of Europe with past links to Africa to ensure that we pull together to put as much pressure as possible on the regime, close down the trade in blood diamonds and bring about real democratic change. All of this is part and parcel of that. The EU has an important role to play. The diamonds are getting through in various ways, and the EU can do more to pull together. Thank you again, Mr Havard, for letting me speak.