Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman but, as I made clear in my earlier answer, we want to make sure we provide support to those who need it most. I would respectfully suggest that a universal approach, uniform and without reference to need, income or the most vulnerable in our society, is not the way to achieve it. Our plan is one of the most extensive in the world. It makes sure that workers receive 80% of their salary up to £2,500. We have already extended that to June.

We have made other forms of support available for those who do not qualify; the right hon. Gentleman talked about the self-employed and others who may not fall within the criteria of the scheme. I have made it clear that the increases to universal credit and the working tax credit basic rate, the mortgage holidays and the energy bill deferrals are the way to have a focused approach that targets resources at those who need them most and allows our economy as a whole to pull through this coronavirus.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

At this time of national emergency, many people are being forced to use their bank overdrafts, yet the banks are charging 20% interest per year, which they are going to increase to 40% in July. At the same time, they are offering savers a pathetic interest rate of 0.1%. Yet these are the same banks that were saved by billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. What on earth is going on? When are the banks going to act in the national interest? Acting—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman has been cut off in his prime. If the First Secretary can get the best out of that, we will all benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman is at risk of sounding like he is all mouth and no trousers, because he had the chance to vote for a general election and he turned it down; he had the chance to avoid no deal; and the best chance now is to back this Government in securing a good deal—good for the United Kingdom and good for all quarters of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Q7. On Saturday, I was out knocking on doors with my listening team, listening to the views of local people, as we do every week. The message to me, whether they were leave or remain voters, was crystal clear: get Brexit done by 31 October. Deputy Prime Minister, can you reassure my constituents that we will leave the European Union by the end of this month, come what may, no ifs, no buts?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend gets straight to the crux of the matter. We must leave by the end of October, come what may. We are committed to doing that. The most effective way of doing it that will unite this House and bring the country back together is to get behind the Prime Minister’s efforts to secure a good deal. I think it is incumbent on all Members on both sides of the House to support the United Kingdom rather than try to undermine the negotiating position in Brussels.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Language has consequences, as people trot out what has been said by the Prime Minister and others, and turn it into the most abusive language and the most abusive behaviour against others. Surely we can have an intelligent debate in our society without resorting to the kind of behaviour, language or violence that has been threatened against some individuals.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition is very generous in giving way. When talking about the rule of law, if we get to 31 October and one of the other European countries says that we cannot extend, would he support coming out with no deal, because that is the law?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That is an entirely hypothetical question. The question that the Prime Minister has to answer is: an Act of Parliament has been passed, and it requires him to take a specific course of action. He, in his many statements over the past few days, appears to contradict the wishes of Parliament that he carry out those actions. Let us not go down a hypothetical road—let us get an answer from the Government about whether or not they accept the decision of Parliament to pass that legislation into law. It is not difficult, and I am sure that when the Minister comes to reply he will give us an answer—I seriously hope so.

It is not only Conservative Members who are encouraging the Prime Minister to break the law in their numerous WhatsApp groups. Cabinet Ministers are refusing to confirm that the Government will abide by the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I think it a slightly outrageous suggestion from the shadow Chancellor that I should speak for the Government. I do not know who is more offended, me or the Government.

I rise very briefly to say that I do not welcome the passage of a Bill that has been rushed through the House in a totally outrageous manner without proper scrutiny. [Interruption.] I have no idea whether it has received Royal Assent or not. If it has, it is the law of the land. It still does not make it a good law. It seems to me that every Government would abide by the law. The point I made to the Leader of the Opposition is that the idea we have passed an Act of Parliament that takes no deal off the table is blindingly obviously not true, because we do not have that power. You may say that this Parliament wants an extension—that is one thing—but to say that every single European Union member country has to grant that extension is just wrong.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the special circumstances in which the European Union would decide to give an extension is if there is an election? If the Opposition were to vote for an election tonight—we might then have, if they are confident, a new Prime Minister—that would guarantee an extension. What has been done today, however, does not guarantee an extension.

[Mr Bone]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and it may well be that tonight the Leader of the Opposition will see the wisdom of her words and the Opposition will vote for a general election. I did a bit of research, and it is interesting that in this House, the Leader of the Opposition has called for a general election 35 times. It seems somewhat surprising that tonight, he is going to show support for the Government by not voting for a general election.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, frankly, Members of Parliament should not pick and choose the laws that they obey, just as Members of Parliament should not pick and choose the results of referendums that they obey either?

[Mr Bone]

On my hon. Friend’s first point, absolutely any Government must obey the law of the land. There is no doubt about that, but it seems to me that this House, by a substantial majority, including many Opposition Members who voted for this—

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Bring back Eric Forth!

[Mr Bone]

I am sure that Eric Forth was much better. He will probably be looking down, saying, “Oh my goodness, what a shower there is on both sides!” He would do this far better than me and he would wear a much better tie in the process, but alas, he is in a better place—and he will be wearing a better tie than the hon. Gentleman, that’s for sure. The really important point is that this House delegated the decision to the British people, and after three years, we have failed to do it. That is the fundamental difference between this and anything else that we normally debate.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman and I obviously disagree on the Brexit issue, but he would surely accept that since that point, we have had a general election where the Government lost their majority, and the Government have further lost their majority during that time. That is part of democracy. Given that the Prime Minister found time to vote in the last Division—we all saw him scuttling off down the corridor—is the hon. Gentleman not disappointed that neither he nor the Law Officers are here to explain whether or not they will comply with the law of this land?

[Mr Bone]

Do I think that the Prime Minister should waste his time coming to an Standing Order No. 24 debate—a general debate—about whether he is going to obey the law of the land? Of course he is going to obey the law of the land. Nobody doubts that point. The hon. Gentleman made another important point before that, which I have completely forgotten—sorry.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

This debate is important because it is about the Prime Minister obeying the law. This is not just about the Leader of the Opposition. Is the hon. Gentleman not surprised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said, that the Law Officers of the Government are not here to hear the debate, given, quite astonishingly, that the Lord Chancellor—the chief Law Officer of Her Majesty’s Government—had to see the Prime Minister to seek reassurances about the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom obeying the law passed by the legislature of the United Kingdom? Does the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) not agree that that is astonishing? Frankly, the importance of this debate is reflected in the fact that the Lord Chancellor had doubts about whether the Prime Minister is going to obey the law.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman might want to withdraw that remark, because I have seen no comments from the Lord Chancellor that he in any way doubts the word of the Prime Minister—on reflection, he might wish to withdraw that.

The truth is that this is a general debate that is being held for political purposes. Nobody in this House for one moment thinks that any member of the Government is not going to obey the law of the land. My only reason for speaking in this debate was to say that I do not welcome the Act. It was pushed through in an extraordinarily unconstitutional way, and I say with all sincerity to the Leader of the Opposition that if he sits on this side of the House as Prime Minister, he will regret that constitutional outrage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Foreign Secretary shakes his head and does not wish to intervene.

The situation is simply this. The House has voted several times to say that a no-deal exit must be taken off the table, and it subsequently passed legislation to prevent no deal. The Government then apparently refused to accept the decision of the House, which is why this motion has been brought before us this evening. The Government’s response is to try to prorogue Parliament later this evening so that no Minister can be put under any scrutiny for more than a month, during what they themselves must accept is quite a significant point in our country’s history. The Government have now been forced to produce Operation Yellowhammer documents, as a result of a decision taken earlier by this House.

Surely the very least we deserve from the Prime Minister is a clear undertaking that a requirement that we ask for an extension until January to prevent us crashing out must be made at the appropriate time. Why can the Foreign Secretary not say that? Why can the Prime Minister not say that? All that we have left is the ability of this House to declare its view this evening, and I hope that is what we will do.

When the Government have made it clear that they will carry out the law and, if necessary, prevent a no-deal exit, we will then be very happy to debate all their policies in a general election, including ending austerity and the poverty and misery that the Government have brought to the people of this country. I look forward to that opportunity. The priority in this is that operations in hospitals will be damaged, the supply of medicines will be damaged, the supply of food will be damaged, and the supply to manufacturing will be damaged. If all this is a lot of scaremongering, why were the Government so unkeen to present Yellowhammer documents, which will show that truth to be the case? If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding it? This House has forced them to put those documents out to the public, but, of course, the House will not be sitting. How convenient is that? I say to the Government: do not go ahead with the Prorogation of Parliament; do not go ahead with the threat of no deal. Instead, they should look after the interests of the people of this country which will not be served by our crashing out unless, of course, there is another agenda, which is to rush into the arms of Donald Trump and all the trade deals that they want to make with him.

There we have it. First of all, no Tory MPs want to speak. Now they have all turned out to have a bit of a shouting match. That is absolutely fine, I do not mind.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

Resignation of UK Ambassador to USA

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We should stick together in defence of the standards that apply to us all. We should ensure that we all uphold those standards in everything we do, and try to keep our political attacks on a higher and non-personal plane than we so often see in this House, in our politics and, more deplorably, on social media.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

How right the Minister is to deplore personal attacks, especially those on senior colleagues in my party. The attacking of colleagues is completely wrong, and the people involved should be ashamed of themselves. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) on asking this urgent question, but there should have been a statement. The Government should not have been dragged here; they should have volunteered a statement. This is an unprecedented event. Confidential, sensitive cables have been leaked within the Foreign Office. The Minister has to tell us what he is doing to discover the culprit, because if we do not get the culprit, what ambassador will ever trust sending cables to the Foreign Office again?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am not sure where my hon. Friend has been over the past couple of days, but this is my second response to an urgent question on this topic, and the Prime Minister made her own comments yesterday in Prime Minister’s Question Time. There have been several clear statements to this House on this issue and about the nature of the inquiry, so that should satisfy my hon. Friend for the time being.

International Humanitarian Law: Protecting Civilians in Conflict

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mark Field]

I am happy to undertake to do that.

I want to talk about the challenges that our UN peacekeepers face. In today’s modern conflicts, missions are facing increasing asymmetric and physical threats, and they can be targets themselves. The importance of finding political solutions remains paramount. We are committed to improvements in peacekeeping. We will continue to call for support to improve the three Ps of peacekeeping—planning, pledges and performance—as we, along with 63 nations, set out in a communiqué at the 2016 UN peacekeeping Defence ministerial meeting in London.

I realise that time is getting tight, and if there are matters that I have not been able to bring up, I will respond in writing. I will make sure my team looks through the Hansard transcript.

A key approach is that there should be no impunity. Primary responsibility for investigation and prosecution of the most serious international crimes rests with states themselves, but where those states are unable or unwilling to fulfil their responsibilities, other justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, have an important role to play. The UK remains one of the foremost contributors to the ICC, and we will work to ensure that the court undergoes the necessary reforms to enable it to fulfil its mandate as the court of last resort, as intended under the Rome statute. We have been strong advocates of ad hoc and hybrid international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and its successor, as well as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone.

UN peacekeeping is an important aspect of the protection of civilians, and we will continue to work with the international community on it. In addition to our international efforts, we are working domestically to ensure that we are doing all we can to uphold IHL in the interests of protecting civilians. We have established a centre of excellence for human security, which will deliver extended training on the protection of civilians; women, peace and security; human trafficking and sexual exploitation; and cultural property protection. Ours is the first military in the world to have a dedicated national defence policy on human security. The centre will help other militaries. We have also had a safe schools declaration, to support the continuation of education during armed conflict, and the publication of our “Voluntary Report on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law at Domestic Level”.

Mr Bone, I appreciate that you want to ensure that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley has a moment to speak at the end of the debate, but, if I may, I want to conclude by saying that our support, recognised, I think, by everyone in the House, for the principles, rules and instruments of international humanitarian law remains unwavering. The robust framework is designed with the protection of civilians in mind. We take our responsibilities seriously, and I am glad that the House feels as strongly as we do. The review is under way, and I am convinced it will be a great success, not least because it will have input from Members here and from a range of bodies with these interests at heart. I hope we can discuss these matters again in the House before too long.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Does the right hon. Lady want to wind up?

[Ann Clwyd]

indicated dissent.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the continued importance of international humanitarian law in protecting civilians in conflict.

Russian Federation Activity

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Seely]

I think the hon. Gentleman is more of an expert than I am on that. I absolutely think that the strength of our electoral systems and their vulnerability is one of the critical issues. I think it is number 8 on my list, so I will come to it shortly. I am grateful for his suggestion, which goes further than what I would propose.

To wind up the first point, occasional Government statements are good, as are some excellent Select Committee reports, but I believe we need something more permanent —not something that points fingers at the Russians but something that seeks to methodically understand the way subversive operations operate in the western world. We face a new kind of political conflict from hackers, trolls, assassins, politically connected business executives and market manipulators, spin doctors, paid-for protestors and criminals, who are often more usable and useful than conventional tools of conflict. On that point about market manipulators, given the Bloomberg investigation earlier this week, which showed that hedge funds had been buying private polling data that effectively allowed them to front-run the Brexit vote, is it not time to initiate a parliamentary inquiry into the behaviour of those involved, especially considering statements made by some party political leaders at the time of the result, which appeared to concede defeat, despite possibly being told by their favoured pollsters that the Leave campaign would likely win? I choose my words carefully, but I think there is a prima facie case here, which is concerning.

Secondly, I believe we should introduce a list, as they have in the United States, of PR and other agents of Russian influence in the UK. Russians will have influence in this country that is clear and above board, but people who work for President Putin, one of the oligarchs, a proxy front or a third group linked to them need to be open about it and we need to have some kind of register. Perhaps that will be a voluntary thing for PR companies to do; it may be something for the Select Committees to do; but it may equally be something for Government to look at. We also need to ensure that the House of Lords has the same anti-sleaze standards as the House of Commons. It does not at the moment, and I think we can expect more scandals.

We do have a problem with Russian influence here, on both the hard right and the hard left. I have written about Seamus Milne’s mirroring of Russian lines in 2014 and 2015, when he was working for The Guardian. I wrote about it in The Sunday Times in the spring. He is clearly one of a number of people with uncomfortably close links to the Kremlin around the Labour leadership. I believe that that does not serve democracy well.

Thirdly, we should introduce laws to ensure a health warning on broadcasters and other media that are paid-for propagandists for authoritarian states. A counter-propaganda Bill is going through Congress to do just that. Just as we have a public health warning on a packet of cigarettes, we can have some kind of public health warning on a TV channel that is a propagandistic outfit for an authoritarian state, which does not have an independent editorial line. If we shut down Russia Today or RT—or whatever it is calling itself this week—in our country, we can expect the Russians to shut down the BBC in their country and they would probably quite like an opportunity to do so. I am not suggesting that we do that. I am suggesting that TV stations that do not have an independent editorial line should be forced to advertise that fact in some way. The Countering Foreign Propaganda Bill, which is going through Congress at the moment, is potentially a model.

Fourthly, we should properly fund the BBC World Service radio and TV, and boost the Russian service more than is currently being done. We are in a battle with authoritarian states globally to promote free speech and open societies. I do not think this is a battle we should aim to lose; it is an important one to win. For me —this is a wider point—the Department for International Development should be paying all £400 million for that, as part of a fundamental rethink of what global Britain means and how we spend that 0.7%, because I do not believe that we get value for money for it at the moment.

Fifthly, we should change our visa regime to make it easier for ordinary Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians and people from that part of the world to come here, and more difficult for oligarchs, rather than the other way around. At the moment, our visa regime with too many countries rewards kleptocrats at the expense of ordinary people. I congratulate the Government, potentially, on a recent oligarch visa decision.

Sixthly, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office needs to be more active in seeing Russian influence in the round. I am sure the Minister would say that it does, but more vocality, if that is the right word—being more vocal—on Nord Stream 2 would not go amiss. I am aware of recent statements by the German leadership about oil concerns for Ukraine, but we know how the Kremlin tends to get around such promises. We also need to ensure that the Kremlin’s appalling war crimes in Syria, which are genuine, significant, serious and consistent, are recorded for history. We should work with others, if need be, to shout about it and use open-source information to highlight it.

We should also take much more interest in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, in relation to the manipulation of the US presidential elections, which may be one of the most serious and significant cases of Kremlin and Russian espionage that we will ever witness in our lifetime. An important part of that process took place in London and probably involved Mr Julian Assange as the recipient and online publisher of the material stolen from the DNC. It is bizarre that we have not heard more from the Mueller inquiry in relation to London, because so many links seem to go through it.

I ask the Minister, and I choose my words carefully, what the current Ecuadorian Government are doing to encourage Mr Assange’s exit and an end to this process. What representations have the Government had from Jennifer Robinson or other members of his Australian, UK-Australian and UK legal team? Two Australian consular officials recently visited Mr Assange, and I am curious as to why.

What passport does Mr Assange hold? I was told that it was an Ecuadorian diplomatic one, but it may not be. I ask that because the Soviets sprang George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs in 1966 and I am aware that under the previous Ecuadorian Government, the Ecuadorian secret service looked at a series of possibilities to get Mr Assange out, including a rooftop escape by helicopter, getting lost in the crowds in Harrods—I did not know it was that popular—being smuggled out in the ambassador’s car and being made the Ecuadorian ambassador to the United Nations. I stress that there has been a change of Government in Ecuador, and I suspect those plans are no longer in the state they were before, but I would be grateful for the assurance that the Government are aware of the risks, especially in propaganda terms.

There are several potential suspects. A courier—a cut-out—was likely used to take the DNC-hacked material from the GRU, Russian military intelligence, and the Guccifer 2.0 account from Moscow to Mr Assange in London, possibly via a diplomatic pouch or a third country. Two weeks ago, James Clapper, a former director of US national intelligence, said that a suspect had been identified last year, so this is a live issue that very much relates to Russian activity in the United Kingdom and the United States.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is making a most interesting and powerful speech, but I want to ensure that we are not straying into anything that is sub judice.

[Mr Seely]

I do not believe we are—certainly not in this country.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman has assured me, so that is fine.

[Mr Seely]

Thank you, Mr Bone. I am well aware of the point.

The suspects in this case range from the improbable to the possible. There are many Australians on the visitor logs to the embassy, which I have seen, but there is no evidence, and little reason, for those people to have been involved in handling stolen material. There have been allegations that UK politicians may have been conduits, but it should be clearly stated that again, there is no hard evidence. The Guardian has indicated several people, including a courier who has worked for Mr Assange in the past. A German gentleman who fits his description visited the embassy in late September, on the same day as the date stamp on the second DNC dump, which included the Podesta emails.

The FSB might have continued to use journalists. The first dump of DNC emails ended on 25 May, and in early June, an RT journalist, Nikolay Bogachikhin, visited the Embassy twice—a four-minute social visit, which is pretty taciturn even by Russian standards, and a slightly longer 22-minute visit on 8 June. If those were social visits, they were pretty brief. One cannot say much in four minutes, but there are probably other things one can do in that time.

Up to 80 people could be suspects, so I would be grateful if the Government could shed any light on who they believe is the culprit and whether they will encourage the US to name a suspect. I ask because the guilty parties were probably acting on behalf of the Kremlin to bring stolen material from the United States into Britain to influence the US presidential elections, which is incredibly serious.

To return to the main theme of my speech, my seventh point is that we should give Ofcom greater powers. The Latvian Government regularly complain about the content of Russian broadcasters from London who spew out propaganda in their country. Ofcom’s investigations take up to a year, while RT and Sputnik churn out a regular diet of anti-western nonsense. I do not believe that we should ban RT or Sputnik, as I have told the Minister, but we need to strengthen Ofcom’s powers, including fines and rights of reply, and ensure that it investigates broadcasters of knowingly fake or propagandistic news more quickly.

Eighthly, we should use our financial and legal powers to hurt people around the Kremlin regime. Transparency International has identified £4.4 billion-worth of properties in the UK that were bought with suspicious wealth, a fifth of which was Russian. I am curious to know whether any unexplained wealth orders have been used against people from eastern Europe.

Ninthly, we need to look at conventional deterrence as well, and I am sure we will do that at the coming NATO summit, which is causing a certain amount of consternation in political and military circles in Europe because of Mr Trump’s, shall we say, erratic tweets. Russia’s political and financial dealings with the west are part of a multi-faceted strategy that runs from information warfare to military dominance of its neighbours, including dominance in tactical nuclear weapons and conventional missiles. It is part of a holistic strategy that includes military and non-military elements.

Finally, to repeat the point that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) made, we need to understand the threat of bots and fake news to our democracy and our electoral system. We have seen how divisive disputed elections are, and one only has to look to Capitol Hill to see that Democrats want to talk about the 2016 US presidential election but Republicans definitely do not. In much the same way, Brexiteers refuse to discuss the referendum here. I voted for Brexit, and I have seen no serious and significant evidence that the referendum here was manipulated, but the time to talk about it is now—as soon as possible. Does the Minister realise how disastrous it would be for our country to have disputed elections and referendums in the same way as the United States? The German secret service recently accused the Russians of being heavily engaged online in the Catalonian referendum and in other elections in the European Union. We have already discussed the United States. Does he realise the urgency of this issue? We should do this now, not in two years’ time.

To sum up, we need to spend more money on hard power, but we also need to get the balance between hard and soft power right. We need to fundamentally re-examine what global Britain means and how we can maximise our influence in the world to defend the existing order and gently but resolutely deter countries that wish to undermine it, such as the Russian Federation under its current leadership and other states. Russian conflict strategies are an example of how political and other forms of war and conflict are changing. I am ready and willing to help and support the Government in that challenge, and I hope that they are willing to listen to me and other hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to contribute to that debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

As I have said before, the striking thing about this debate is how much unanimity there really is between the two sides of the Chamber on these fundamental questions, and I have been very struck that the leader of the Labour party seems to be very much on all fours with the objectives of the Brexit—[Interruption.] He very much agrees with the position we are taking, and I hope to see him in the Lobby with us.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I hate to disagree with the Foreign Secretary: while he is right to say that the Leader of the Opposition is fully behind the Government and those on the Conservative Benches are fully behind the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, the Opposition are hopelessly split on this issue, and is that not hindering the Government’s negotiating position?

[Boris Johnson]

It is not for me to comment on the ability of the Labour leader to control his own party. I take it that Labour Members are all following official Labour party policy, which is to come out of the EU and the single market. If they are not, they can stand up now and, by their questions, betray their real position, but as far as I know they are supporting the will of the British people as expressed last year. If they wish to dissent from that, now is the time.

Turkey: Human Rights and the Political Situation

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights and the political situation in Turkey.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for the debate, and I am grateful to the co-sponsors of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Members for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I also appreciate the cross-party support for the debate, which demonstrates the deep level of interest and concern among parliamentarians regarding the current situation in Turkey. Could I just say, Mr Bone, that I believe there are a large number of people outside?

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It seems that there are a lot of people outside the room who ought to be inside; I am sure that will be attended to swiftly. I had to battle my way through to get into the room.

[Joan Ryan]

For context, Tukey is a NATO ally, a partner in the fight against ISIL/Daesh, a key player in helping to tackle the current migrant crisis, a guarantor power in Cyprus and a major trading partner. The UK’s bilateral relationship with Turkey is vital, but as the former shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), said last year,

“the basis of any close relationship must be that the two parties can be honest with and, where necessary, critical of one another; indeed, this is in both countries’ national interest.”

This debate provides us all with the opportunity to have an honest and open debate about Turkey and to reaffirm our strongest possible support for democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Turkey.

It has now been more than four and a half years since Members have had a full debate in Parliament on issues relating to Turkey. So much has happened in the country during that period, particularly since the attempted military coup in July 2016. In just over five weeks’ time, on Sunday 16 April, a national referendum will be held on a new draft constitution, the outcome of which could provide sweeping powers to the Turkish President. This debate could not have come at a more opportune time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan]

I can do nothing but agree with my hon. Friend who has made an important and powerful point. I hope that the Minister will deal with it.

Turkey is a key member of the NATO alliance, and one of the core requirements of membership is to promote democratic values. How is it adhering to that? As a vital regional player, particularly in the humanitarian situation in Syria and the continuing negotiations in Cyprus, it has a responsibility to support peace, democracy and human rights. How are the UK Government using their influence to press Turkey to change course, strengthen democratic institutions and protect the rights of all its citizens? Human rights are universal and that includes the rights of Kurds, Alevis and other minority groups in Turkey. What steps are the UK Government prepared to take actively to monitor the treatment of Kurds, Alevis and other minority groups? What discussions is the Minister having with his Turkish and UN Human Rights Council counterparts to ensure that the Turkish Government, without delay, allow a visit by the UN special rapporteur on torture?

We must be prepared to support those progressive voices in Turkey that are calling for greater democracy, the advancement of human rights and the promotion of equality and social justice. It is incumbent on the UK Government to promote those values vigorously in our relationship with Turkey; because Turkey—and the Kurds and the Alevis—deserve better, and the UK Government must do better in supporting democracy, the rule of law and human rights in that country.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It is not my intention to impose a time limit on speeches, but I think six right hon. and hon. Members want to speak from the Back Benches, and the winding-up speeches must begin just before 4 o’clock.

I thank all the people who have come here today to follow the debate closely, but I have one bit of housekeeping: we do not allow any photography.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Five more Back-Bench Members wish to speak. We only have 20 minutes. I call Jim Shannon, who I know will keep to the time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Turkish diaspora and Alevis in my community are very worried about their homeland, so today it is important that we send a message that while Turkey may be a friend, we are a critical friend. We must not let its position in NATO and its centrality to the refugee crisis and the fight against ISIS stop us making clear our concerns about what is happening in the country. I speak on behalf of my constituents—I have the largest Turkish speaking population in the country—and I apologise that I now have only two minutes to make a contribution in this debate. I will publish my speech afterwards on my website so that they will all see it.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to let the House know that because I want to try to get everyone in and give them reasonable time, I am going to ask the Front-Bench speakers to restrict their speeches to eight minutes each to give the Back Benchers a bit more time.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for that indication—I can return to my scripted speech, which is important.

The debate comes at an important time in Turkey’s history and our relationship with the country. It is a wonderful country. I have visited it on occasions—it is young, it is vibrant—and I participate in this debate very much as a friend. However, the state of emergency declared last summer has been used as a pretext for a comprehensive purge of judges, generals, civil servants, teachers, police officers, soldiers, lawyers and academics, as well as the detention of thousands of Turkish citizens opposed to the current President.

More than 100,000 people have been arrested, dismissed or suspended since last year’s failed coup, including 25,000 police officers and 3,000 judges. Some 140,000 citizens have had their passports revoked and 130,000 public sector workers are under investigation. Those figures are frankly staggering. The headquarters of an opposition party has been raided and the two joint leaders of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic party have been arrested and detained along with 11 of their party’s MPs. That must be of tremendous concern to this country. The World Justice Project’s rule of law index put Turkey 99th out of 113 countries, just behind Iran. Reporters Without Borders ranked Turkey 150th out of 180 countries in the press freedom index—177 media outlets have been shut down, almost 400 journalists are behind bars and 10,000 people working in the media have been purged.

This is now a democracy in name only. President Erdogan is seizing total control, reinforced by a classic dictator’s trope: a nationalist, populist narrative claiming that internal agitators are fifth columnists and a risk to national security. The planned constitutional changes that Turkey will vote on in the referendum next month represent the next step on a road that will in all likelihood lead to an authoritarian, dictatorial state. It is not a fair fight; one side is shouting while the other can barely utter even a muffled whisper. All outdoor gatherings in support of the no campaign have been banned. Campaigners have been arrested and branded as terrorists or fifth columnists.

What is at stake next month? We have the introduction of an executive presidency to replace the existing parliamentary system, the abolition of the office of Prime Minister and the erosion of the separation of powers, giving Erdogan huge, unconstrained powers to appoint Ministers, prepare the budget, choose senior judges and enact laws by decree. The writing is on the wall. This is an enabling referendum, of a kind we have not seen from an ally in the continent of Europe since the 1930s.

Most of all, the writing is on the wall for the Kurdish and Alevi minorities in Turkey. Throughout history they have been massacred, deported, tortured, arrested and discriminated against, with even the word “Kurd” and the Kurdish language banned. They have had their homes and livelihoods destroyed by Government forces. At least 18 villages are currently under siege with military curfews in place.

This is a serious debate that has been attended by 17 or 18 Members of Parliament. We can feel the Public Gallery. This issue is of tremendous concern to the world and this country, and I hope Britain will do the right thing and say the right thing in the coming days, weeks and months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I went to Harran camp—an exemplary camp run by the Turkish authorities, it has to be said. We should give credit where credit is due.

All my hon. Friend’s comments on Turkey’s internal problems and its undemocratic actions are very valid, but before he concludes, will he touch on the issues on Turkey’s border? There are 2,000 Turkish troops in Bashiqa who are almost getting into conflict with the popular mobilisation units—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions have to be short. I cannot give the shadow Minister a longer speech than the Minister, so I hope you will finish very, very shortly, Mr Jones.

[Graham Jones]

Thank you, Mr Bone. I think I have made my point.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I apologise that I will not be able to take up that point, but perhaps we can come back to it when the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report comes out.

Let me briefly touch on women’s rights. President Erdogan has publicly stated that he does not believe in gender equality. He calls abortion “murder” and birth control “treason”. Yesterday was, of course, International Women’s Day. On lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, we know that those who abuse, attack and even murder people who are self-declared members of the LGBT community are getting off very lightly under the judicial system.

Finally—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. It is not possible for the shadow Minister to speak for longer than the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I call Joan Ryan to wind up, please.

[Joan Ryan]

I thank the Minister for his response to this debate, and I thank all Members who have taken part in it and supported it. I was very encouraged by the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on the Labour Front Bench. However, although I have thanked the Minister for his time and contribution, it was a very disappointing contribution, and many people in the Turkish, Kurdish and Alevi communities here will also be disappointed. Indeed, the disappointment will be even more widespread, because people in this country are very committed on human rights.

We need to say and do so much more to be a critical friend of Turkey. I do not think we are being critical enough of what is happening in that country. Just as the Kurdish people in Turkey defended their democracy and President Erdogan, only to find him then turning on them, we may come to regret not taking a much stronger line on what is happening in Turkey and with Mr Erdogan. It is not for us to tell the Turkish people how to vote in their referendum, but if it were for us to do so, I would say, “Vote no. Don’t vote for this slide into authoritarianism, for this oppression, for these detentions, for these arrests, for this loss of human rights and for this complete ignoring of the parliamentary democracy in Turkey that is valued by Turkish people.”

I do not think we are a friend to Turkey if we do not speak up loudly now, while it matters. When we do finally speak up, it may well be far too late and we may well deeply regret the fact that we are not now taking the responsibility that we should be taking. Yes, Turkey is a NATO ally and, yes, that is very important, but it does not have to be a case of trade or human rights; there needs to be both.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I thank the right hon. Lady and all those who participated in this debate, particularly as there were so many people attending it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered human rights and the political situation in Turkey.

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the need for repeal of President Trump’s discriminatory, divisive and counterproductive ban on entry to the United States for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the indefinite ban placed on Syrian refugees.

May I place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate? It is right that Members from both sides of the House of Commons have a clear opportunity to address these pressing issues. I will seek to keep my remarks brief to allow others to contribute to the debate.

I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for co-sponsoring this debate. Throughout the past couple of days he has acted with great dignity and great eloquence, as recognised on both sides of the House. He and I are approaching this debate in the hope of sending a clear and united view from this House about President Trump’s measures.

I should say at the start that this debate is not about our respect for the United States or our friendship with that country. I have lived there and I have friends there, and the declaration of independence is one of the most powerful political documents. Since its foundation, the United States has been built on the back of immigrants from around the world. Indeed, inscribed on the Statue of Liberty is the phrase:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

It is precisely the role of the United States historically, and our friendship and unique relationship with America, that gives us a special responsibility, given what has transpired over the past few days.

At the heart of this debate are three simple questions. First, is it right for President Trump to ban indiscriminately people from certain countries of the world from entering the US, and to indefinitely ban Syrian refugees?

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech, as usual, but will he tell the House who gives the most funds to support Syrian refugees? Is it not the United States?

[Edward Miliband]

The US plays a role and this country plays a very important role, but that is really beside the point of whether the US should impose an indiscriminate and, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon—my hon. Friend for the purposes of this debate—said to me over the weekend, an indefinite ban in relation to Syrian refugees. I shall come to that later in my speech, as I am sure will other Members.

The second question is crucial: will the President’s actions make the world a safer place or a more dangerous one? My contention is that they will make the world a more dangerous place, and that on its own reflects our national interest in this matter. The third question follows on from that: what is Britain’s responsibility in speaking up on these issues?

I shall discuss those three questions briefly, but let me say first that Americans and, indeed, people in this country are fearful about the threat from ISIS and wider terrorist networks. Those fears are understandable and we must respond to them. There is no dispute about that. I support measures that keep our citizens, and those of the United States, safe, but it is not enough to say that we are fearful, or that our citizens are fearful; we then have to weigh whatever actions are proposed or taken. Understandable fears cannot be an excuse for the suspension of reason and rationality—that applies to the Trump Administration in a whole number of areas. The only way to understand the ban is that it represents the suspension of reason and rationality. Indeed, it has perversity, discrimination and divisiveness at its heart.

US Immigration Policy

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Lady will know very well that the Prime Minister has herself said several times that such language is unacceptable.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House and answering questions so fully. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing such a debate so that we can move swiftly on to the Pension Schemes Bill afterwards.

If the Foreign Secretary had a very special friend who had been invited to a big party, which would be the better way of influencing them: banning them from the party, or taking their hand and saying to them quietly what you would like them to do?

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend has made the point very elegantly. We do not agree with this policy, we do not support it, it is not something that we would do ourselves, but we think that the best way to effect change and influence the White House is to engage, and to be as positive as we possibly can.