Human Rights: Xinjiang

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Order. Several people want to speak, and I want the Back-Bench speeches to finish at 28 minutes past 3 so that we can give the three Front Benchers 10 minutes each and then allow two minutes for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who moved the motion, to conclude his remarks, so I ask people to keep their speeches to about five minutes. I do not want to impose a time limit. If we play it that way, we should get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

I call Lyn Brown. If you stick to four minutes, we will get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Wilson, and I thank you for calling me. I also thank the Minister, who, we know, has a deep interest in human rights and I am sure we will get a positive response from him when he replies. Finally, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important and timely debate just a week after Orkney was named the happiest place in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—we already know that, as it is epitomised by the right hon. Gentleman. However, we are gathered here to discuss a serious issue.

The debate is timely because it takes place in the week of Holocaust Memorial Day, when we remember how millions of people were rounded up and placed in camps and harassed, tortured and killed simply because of their religion. It is deeply saddening that some 70 years later we are having a debate to discuss the fact that potentially millions of innocent Chinese citizens are being rounded up and placed in camps because of their religion. It seems we have yet to learn the lessons of the past—oh, that we had looked back at the past and learned the lessons.

It is important to note that just yesterday evening, right here in Parliament, where today we are discussing persecution by the Chinese Government on an unimaginable scale, the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Foreign Secretary were guests of honour at a celebratory reception for the Chinese new year. It is a coincidence: we are discussing very serious issues within 24 hours of a celebration. Although I am a firm believer in friendly and open dialogue, I am not sure what message that sends to the world and to the millions currently in detention camps in China about the UK’s commitment to human rights and defending those who are persecuted for their religion.

Hon. Members know that I chair the all-party group for freedom of religion or belief. Our group stands up for those of Christian faith, other faiths and no faith. Hon. Members have rightly raised the plight of the Uyghurs, but I want to make sure we do not forget the plight of some of the other religious or belief minorities suffering at the hands of the Chinese Government: for example, practitioners of Falun Gong and Chinese Christians. Twice a year the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I co-sponsor events in this House for Falun Gong. I want to put on the record our thanks to Becky James, who works so hard to make it happen.

In 2018, Cristian Solidarity Worldwide recorded extremely concerning violations against Catholic and Protestant churches in Henan province, where authorities have demolished crosses and churches and destroyed religious materials. From March to June, dozens of independent house churches also reported cases of harassment, fines, confiscation of property and forced closure of churches. Many Christians have also been arrested or disappeared. For example, Lu Yongfeng, a member of the Church of Almighty God, was arrested with her husband in June 2018. The following month she died in police custody, reportedly as a result of torture. I look to the Minister to ask him this: can we make inquiries about what happened to that lady? She died in custody because she is a Christian. That was the reason for her death.

Similarly, thousands of practitioners of Falun Gong have been arbitrarily imprisoned by the Chinese Government. There are credible reports that China is using prisoners of conscience to supply organs for its vast, lucrative transplant industry. In response to such accusations, the UK Government have said that the World Health Organisation believes that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system. However, many who argue that China is involved in forced organ harvesting often point to the fact that the average time to get a kidney transplant in the UK or the United States is two to three years, whereas in China it is two to three weeks. It is fairly obvious; you do not have to be a mathematician or Einstein to work out that something is wrong there. It is almost like a conveyor belt of organ transplant in China, and that needs an answer.

Has the Minister asked either the World Health Organisation or the Chinese Government how they can explain such a remarkable difference? Also, does the Minister know whether the World Health Organisation has assessed the wealth of evidence compiled by former Canadian Cabinet Minister David Kilgour on this issue? It is a phenomenal evidential base. If not, will he suggest it does do so? Might he also suggest that it assesses the evidence being presented to the ongoing independent people’s tribunal being led by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC?

The tribunal recently released an interim judgment that reads:

“We, the tribunal members, are all certain, unanimously, beyond reasonable doubt, that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practised for a substantial period of time, involving a very substantial number of victims”—

innocent victims—

“by state organised or approved organisations or individuals.”

The horrifying nature of the charges makes them difficult to believe and we must rightly assess the evidence before jumping to any conclusions. However, we also must make every effort to gather and assess evidence honestly, and not just turn our backs on the issue because what we may find out might not be palatable. We must speak out when we see the evidence, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because how can we ever hope for a peaceful and secure world when a permanent member of the UN Security Council is rounding up and abusing millions of its own citizens?

Such crimes against humanity—affronts to human dignity and to the very concept of justice and morality—cannot be allowed to pass by with muted and occasional condemnation. There is a time for quiet diplomacy, discreet dialogue and private conversations. This is not it. This is a time to stand up for what is right. This is a time to let every oppressor and would-be tyrant know that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and the rest of the world—will not tacitly accept the systematic, sinister destruction of entire communities. This is a time for the world to rally together and proudly declare, in one unified, powerful voice, that enough is enough. That should be our message today.

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

We now have a little extra time, so I shall bring in the Front Benchers at 15.32. There are four minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

Forgive me; I will not give way because I am running out of time and I want to touch on all the issues.

Our lobbying of China takes place both bilaterally and in multilateral forums. I myself raised the issue of Xinjiang during my visit to five cities in China last July, as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Beijing later that month.

In the UK’s “item 4” statement at the UN Human Rights Council in September, we raised several of our concerns about Xinjiang. And during China’s universal periodic review at the UN on 6 November, we pressed China on when it would implement the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In our formal statement during the review itself, we urged China to

“Immediately implement the Committee’s recommendations on Xinjiang and allow the UN to monitor their implementation.”

Additionally, we have applied such pressure both in private and in public, working strategically with likeminded international partners, in particular, of course, with EU member states and others, to raise awareness of our concerns.

I will touch on one or two of the specific concerns that were expressed in the debate. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about the moratorium on returns of failed asylum seekers. As has been pointed out, that is a Home Office competency and responsibility. However, I understand that the Home Office has recently updated its guidance notes for asylum caseworkers, which I think reflects the latest situation in Xinjiang, and those guidance notes will be kept under constant review.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East called for an independent inquiry. The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, has said that her office is seeking access to Xinjiang as a matter of urgency, to verify what she regards as very worrying reports about the “re-education camps”. We support her call for access and we continue to urge the Chinese Government to grant unrestricted access to the UN, so that it can take care of this matter.

The hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) talked about Hikvision CCTV, which is a very specific case. We are obviously aware of the reports of Hikvision’s specific role in providing facial recognition cameras for use in Xinjiang. I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with more details about that, and indeed I will be happy to write to other Members to deal with the one or two other matters that came up during the debate that I am not able to discuss now.

To conclude, the Government watch with very deep concern the Chinese authorities’ crackdown on Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, and in particular the huge numbers of people in detention, apparently without recourse to due process of law. In the interests of the people of Xinjiang and for the long-term stability of that region, and indeed in the interests of China’s own international reputation, it is vital that China implements the recommendations of the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and honours its own human rights commitments. We shall continue to urge the Chinese Government to change their course and to meet those commitments.

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

I call Mr Carmichael to wind up the debate.

Russia and the Council of Europe

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing this timely debate. It is important that the subject is being discussed in the House.

Our argument is not with the Russian people, but with the Russian Government and—dare I say it—the elite. It will be the Russian people who end up suffering—in fact, they are suffering—because of Russia’s self-imposed suspension from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Let us not forget that it is the Russians who do not present their credentials at the Council on an annual basis. Russia has also suspended its €33 million payment to the Council and has threatened to withdraw from it entirely. If it did that, access to the European Court of Human Rights would be denied to Russian citizens, whose cases take up a disproportionate amount of its time: about one third of the cases brought concern Russia.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that we could go on forever listing the types of cases, but there are a few that we need to mention: the imprisonment of children, phone tapping of journalists, holding prisoners in cages, failing to investigate high-profile murders, torture and detaining lawyers and judges. The Russian Constitutional Court has ruled that Russia should not be bound by all international human rights obligations. In June 2016 the Venice Commission for democracy—a body of the Council of Europe—issued a final opinion on the legal changes in Russia. The commission stressed that the

“execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is unequivocal and an imperative legal obligation.”

It would seem that the relationship between the Russians and the Council of Europe is tense in any case, but it can be resolved over time. I am sure that if Russia remained a member of the Council of Europe, matters would have the opportunity to resolve themselves amicably in the years to come. However, although dialogue is important, so are the principles by which the Council of Europe is governed.

There are also the issues that the Parliamentary Assembly has criticised Russia for in the past, including the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Chechnya; the Smolensk plane crash in 2010, which killed the Polish President; the refusal to send back the wreckage of the plane, which raises more questions than it answers; the politically motivated conviction of Ukrainians; and the condemnation of Jehovah’s Witnesses as an extremist organisation. The Russian Government say that their failure to implement the ECHR’s rulings is because of the fact that without Russian representation they do not have right to select ECHR judges and therefore they should not abide by the Court’s decisions.

The Russian people are the victims—but not the only victims. They are denied human rights protection at the highest level in Europe because their Government have taken the decision to invade another member state, so sanctions are imposed. Still, the Russian Government insist that it is not their fault that the Russian people are denied their human rights—those that any civilised society would want its people to enjoy. For the Russians, it is always someone else’s fault.

The sanctions on Russia should not be lifted. Countries cannot go around invading other member states of the Council of Europe and think they can get away with it. The financial hit on the Council of Europe must be endured, I suppose. This is about principle and we need to seek a way through that does not deny principles. We can consider the human rights issues of the Russian people but we should also consider the rights of the Ukrainians as well. Russia—a country prepared to flout international norms—cannot get away with it.

I do not believe that we can view Russia’s relationship with the Council of Europe in isolation. Russia’s relationship with the Council is disruptive, disconcerting and manipulative, and is part of a pattern that is intended to sow discontent and division on the European continent. That pattern includes the Council of Europe, Crimea, Ukraine, incursions into democratic institutions of other European states—and, indeed, in America—and the use of chemical weapons on the streets of Salisbury. It is part of a strategy to divide and rule—to disregard human rights, international rule-based order and the rule of law.

A populist nationalist Russian leadership believes it can make itself strong only by ensuring Europe is weak, and it will go to any length to secure that objective. Populist movements in Hungary, Germany, France, Spain and Italy, as well as Brexit itself, and President Trump in the White House all play into Putin’s hands. We must take that backdrop into consideration when we think about how we deal with Russia’s relationship with the Council of Europe.

Council of Europe

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on securing the debate. I will not take up much time—I have cut my speech back so that we can get other people in—but I want to make a couple of points.

The Russian Federation joined the Council back in 1996, but it does not send a delegation at the moment because of the imposition of sanctions on it over the invasion of Ukraine, another member state. Russia has stopped its payments to the Council and threatened to leave the institution completely, denying its 140 million citizens access to the European Court of Human Rights. Russia accounts for more than a third of the Court’s case load. That is another example of Russia’s systematic attempt to bully and undermine multilateral institutions, and it is testing the boundaries of what is acceptable in international relations.

We know about Russia’s hybrid activity, which is trying to sow division in other countries, but I want to quote from a journalist from Ukraine—whose name I will pronounce wrongly—Roman Skaskiw, who wrote of the nine lessons of Russian propaganda. I will not quote them all, but we can understand four of them. The first is:

“Rely on dissenting political groups to deliver your message abroad; far right is as good as far left”.

Others are:

“Destroy and ridicule the idea of truth…Pollute the information space”

and

“Accuse the enemy of doing what you are doing to confuse the conversation.”

That is exactly what is happening at the moment, and we should consider that.

I have been on the delegation to the Council for a couple of years and have observed that the countries that seem to have more interest in it are the eastern European, former Warsaw pact countries. Whenever a session in the hemicycle finishes, it is their media there; we do not see the BBC or ITN. They seem to have a thirst for the debate. I also understand that the sessions are shown live on the equivalent of BBC Parliament in about a dozen countries around Europe. The idea of a debate on the Floor of the House and a statement on the Council of Ministers is exactly right.

The problem we have at the moment, and the lesson for me in all this, is that the members of the generation who fought the second world war are becoming fewer in number. As a new generation who did not live through the cold war matures—perhaps as a consequence they may experience a new one—perhaps we should remind ourselves of these words: the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Raqqa and Daesh

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The House can be absolutely clear that the points that the hon. Gentleman has made were made during conversations with the P5, including to Foreign Minister Lavrov and Staffan de Mistura. Russia is protecting its own interest in Syria and it is doing so in what we consider to be an unconscionable manner, by supporting President Assad and what he has done to his people. There can only be a political resolution that gives the people of Syria the free choice to choose their Government. This is not an easy process, and we are giving all backing to Staffan de Mistura as he restarts the Astana talks in Geneva with all parties present. It is essential that the people of Syria have the choice of their own President and Government. It cannot be the case that everything is returning to normal in Syria. That is true in some parts but, in areas of serious conflict, the situation is still miserable for civilians attacked by their own Government.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this urgent question. The decision in this House in December 2015 to take military action in Syria was obviously controversial, but it was the right one in my view. As somebody who supported that decision, I pay tribute to the RAF and to the professionalism of our military servicemen and women who are in the region today. My question is about UK foreign fighters who may have left Syria and ended up in refugee camps in Turkey. What are we doing to track those people down and return them to justice?

[Alistair Burt]

As I mentioned earlier, the acquisition of names on to the Interpol database is extending the reach of national authorities in the more than 60 countries from which foreign fighters have gone to fight in Iraq. That will provide a basis for what happens when they return. I am not aware of any efforts that are being taken to visit camps in order to identify people before they return. I do not know about that matter, so I will find the answer and ensure that it is made available in the Foreign Secretary’s next statement.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

History shows what happens when this country turns its back and stops engaging with Europe. That is why most of the world and many experts are asking us to remain where we are. Those who say that we must look to the world as well as to the EU are correct and I agree with them, but we should do that as part of the biggest and richest single market in the world. If the rest of the world is telling us that we can best deal with the rest of the world by being in the EU, we should listen. The USA, China, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the whole Commonwealth have said that we should remain where we are. Not one country has come out and asked us to leave the EU. Only Russia and North Korea might want us to do that.

World economic forums such as the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation all say the same. Unite, the GMB, the CBI and the National Farmers Union say we should remain where we are. NATO says we should remain where we are, as do universities and 90% of scientists. The Royal College of Midwives says the same thing. Even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says, “Stay where you are.” If the coalition telling us to remain where we are stretches from the world’s superpowers to the local birdwatcher, we should listen to what they have to say.

I want to say a few words about the north-east of England and the con that the leave campaign is perpetrating on people not just in the north-east, but across the country. The north-east is a net beneficiary of EU grants and subsidies that help to train our young people for work and fund small businesses, our universities and agriculture, helping our economy to grow. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Monday that leaving the EU would put the northern powerhouse at risk. Between now and 2020 the north-east is due to receive about £800 million from the European Union.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-east of England has benefited tremendously from inward investment, of which the most successful recent example is Hitachi in County Durham? I pay tribute to him for his role in securing 700 well-paid jobs building trains not just for the UK market, but for Europe.

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend is right. Hitachi has come to the north-east of England for two reasons: it has an excellent workforce and is the gateway to Europe. We know that its business model for that investment— £82 million in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency—was predicated on the fact that we are part of the EU. Those who support the leave campaign say that we should not worry about losing the £800 million that we would get from the EU because they will find the money themselves.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend, benefits tremendously from European social fund money. Does he agree that it is not credible for the leave campaign simply to say one day, “We will replace that money,” without any sense of where it will get it from?

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall expand on during my speech.

The leave campaign says that it will pick up the tab after 23 June if we vote to come out of the EU. I say to the people in the north-east, “Don’t listen to those people. They can’t do it. It’s the biggest con ever.” First of all, they are not the Government. Secondly, they have already committed to spending the money that we contribute to the EU many times over. Thirdly, the people making those comments are Conservative politicians who for years said that there was no money available, but they have now suddenly discovered a magic money tree. Like all things to do with magic, it is an illusion. Don’t fall for it. It is what it is—an illusion.

The leave campaign is spraying spending commitments around as if there were no tomorrow. Perhaps if we leave the EU, there will be no tomorrow. The campaign’s analysis shows the figures involved. It has committed to building more hospitals, providing more school places, and more spending on science, regional airports, improving railways, more housing, more this, more that, and the list goes on and on. The cost is over £100 billion— £100 billion it does not have. So now we know: as of today, we can honestly say that the campaigners who want to leave the EU are perpetrating the biggest con trick ever on the north-east. I say to the people of the north-east, “Don’t be conned by the leave campaign’s fantasy economics.”

I must admit that I fear for the future of our region, where I have lived all my life, if we do leave the EU. Over 50% of the north-east’s trade is with Europe, and that provides more than 100,000 jobs. Those two facts alone should make people think twice about leaving. If they do think twice, and if uncertainty sets in, they should vote to remain. They should not be conned into believing that a land of milk and honey awaits us on 24 June, the day after the referendum, because it does not.

I want to say this to the people of the north-east, “Do you really believe that the people who want to leave, such as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who gave us the bedroom tax and food banks, and the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, who said that the NHS needs to be dismantled, have the best interests of the north-east, and especially Labour voters, at heart?” I do not believe they do. They are very well off, and they will remain well off whether we vote to remain or to leave. I say to the people of the north-east: don’t be conned—vote to remain.

Europe: Renegotiation

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I share my hon. Friend’s love of English history, but I caution him against seeing Simon de Montfort as a true-born Englishman. The direct answer to his question is that the treaties already provide for a mechanism whereby a group of national Parliaments can demand and secure a review by the Commission of a measure the Commission is bringing forward. We think one option we should be looking at is turning such an arrangement above a certain threshold into an outright veto—a red card rather than a yellow card.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Speaking as the chair of the parliamentary Labour party’s pro-EU group, which has more than 210 members, including the whole of the shadow Cabinet and the leader of the Labour party, I can tell the House that we are united behind staying in a Europe which is reforming and progressive. The Minister has said that if the Prime Minister does not get his own way, he rules nothing out, so if we leave Europe, what does that mean for the UK?

[Mr Lidington]

Clearly, when the negotiations are over the Government will make their assessment and their recommendation clear, setting out in detail their reasons for coming to that view, including their assessment of what alternative options there might be and the Government’s view on those. I do not think therefore that the hon. Gentleman has anything to fear. Our focus remains on a successful outcome to these negotiations, which we believe will deliver a reformed Europe—that is what the British people want to see.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I discussed this issue in the margins of the Pontignano conference, and we continue to press Italian Ministers to take action to remedy this injustice that has persisted for far too long.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Can the Minister guarantee that in the EU negotiations there will be no dilution of employment laws?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

In the negotiations, we are seeking to ensure that the EU is focused on greater competitiveness, but we also recognise the EU’s important role in protecting employment rights.

European Union Referendum Bill

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank every Member who has made their maiden speech today, especially the hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani), whose excellent speech we have just heard, and, on the Opposition Benches, my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch). If they, and all the others who have made maiden speeches today, continue to speak in the coming months and years as they have done in this debate, I am sure they will be listened to not just in this House but, more importantly, out in the country as well.

I want to say a few things about Europe, because Europe is very important to me and my constituents. The largest industrial estate in the north-east of England is in my constituency. The question of our future in the EU is important not just for my constituents but for the whole of the north-east and the rest of the country.

I agree with the Labour MEPs for the north-east, Paul Brannen and Jude Kirton-Darling, who outlined the five key factors of our membership of the EU: it creates jobs and growth; it means investment in the north-east; it protects our rights; it keeps us safe; and it improves the environment. It has done all these basic, essential things not just in the last two or three years but in the last 40 years, and it will do so well into the future. In addition there is the fact that, according to the North East chamber of commerce, over 63% of businesses in the north-east want us to be part of Europe.

We also gain in net terms from our contributions to Europe in respect of social and economic investment in the north-east. There will be £1 billion of investment in the north-east of England over the next six years for transport infrastructure, small business support, international trade support and digital skills.

The EEF and the North East chamber of commerce have called for less political game-playing, as that is causing greater business and economic uncertainty for firms in the north-east. I think a lot of games are being played in the Conservative party, because this referendum issue is ultimately not about what the people think but about whether it can keep the Conservative party together. The EEF has said:

“British manufacturers remain overwhelmingly of the view that our economic wellbeing is linked to the EU and we must stay in membership. It makes no sense to disengage from our major market where we would still face all the costs of compliance and enjoy none of the influence.”

I want to mention two major firms in the north-east. Everyone has heard of Nissan and of its importance to the economy in the north-east and the rest of Great Britain. Over 37,000 jobs in this country depend on Nissan. It employs 6,500 directly in its factory in Sunderland. Fifty per cent. of what the factory produces goes to Europe, into the EU, and the factory is part-owned by Renault.

Over the next two years or so, major new models will be coming out—the Juke, the Qashqai—and the Washington plant will be in competition with the Nissan plant in Spain for a new model. If it gets that new model, that will sustain the existing jobs and probably lead not only to more jobs in the Sunderland plant, but to other jobs in the north-east of England. That is why it is vital for us to stay in Europe: I do not want to see the factory going to Spain, France or anywhere else. I want it to stay in Europe as one of the most productive car plants in the world.

There is also Hitachi in my constituency, which is bringing train building back to the north-east of England, where the first trains were built 190 years ago. Hitachi, with 730 jobs and thousands in the supply chain, has come to this country because it wants to export trains to the rest of Europe.

For all those reasons, I do not understand how any parliamentarian of any political party in the north-east can be against continuing membership of the EU.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

If any region in the United Kingdom is the perfect example of the necessity for inward investment and a relationship with the European Union, it is the north-east of England. In our area we have three Tata Steel factories and the largest potash mine in Britain, which, incidentally, was protected by European regulations from Russian dumping. Would the north-east not be severely harmed if we left the European Union?

[Phil Wilson]

The north-east of England would be severely harmed, but not only the north-east—it would be the UK and our position in the world, which is the other issue that we need to think about. Are we an outward-looking country that wants to embrace the EU and the rest of the world, or do we want to pull up the drawbridge? Some people want to pull up the drawbridge and to let the world get on and pass us by. Over the next five years one of the major issues for this Parliament will be the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It is controversial and could regulate nearly 50% of the world’s GDP. It could lead to better standards for labour, in consumer rights and in trade for, as I say, 50% of GDP in this country.

We would not get that kind of agreement for the UK alone; we can only negotiate something like that if we are part of the EU, part of a marketplace of 500 million people and a union of 28 countries. Yes, we do have to pool some of our sovereignty to achieve better things in this world. We are a member of NATO and could go to war for another country if it is invaded—that is what I call pooling sovereignty. Pooling sovereignty for economic gain is worth while if it benefits this country, which I believe that it will.

We are talking about the future of the UK, our future in the world and where we want to be in the globalised economy. We cannot close the door on the rest of the world. We have to remain part of the world, and being part of the EU is vitally important to us. That is why, when the referendum comes, I will be voting yes and campaigning to stay in the European Union.

Britain in the World

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I wanted to take part in this debate because, like my Labour colleagues, I believe in the abiding principle that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we do alone, and the meaning of this principle does not stop at the Scottish border or the English channel. I believe in a United Kingdom that plays a major role in the planet’s global institutions, and I believe that Britain is a force for good, which is why I said on the night I was re-elected that I would campaign to ensure that the UK remained at the top table of European nations by maintaining our membership of the EU. When I joined the Labour party in Sedgefield more than 30 years ago, I joined a constituent part of a British Labour party, not an English Labour party, and I will fight to ensure that the values we adhere to will find renewed strength and favour in all four parts of the UK, because they are not restrained by a cynical nationalism that says, “We want our independence, as long as it is not fiscal independence and we can keep the BBC.”

If we can achieve more together than we can alone, surely our country should stay united. In a world where decisions taken on the other side of the world affect our communities here at home, we should realise that we cannot, and should not, pull up the drawbridge to the rest of the world. Instead, we should embrace it, with all its faults, be they climate change, national financial markets, ISIS or rampant technological change; all these things affect villages in Sedgefield, from Thornley in the north to Hurworth in the south. We should remember that the forces that swirl through the towns, cities and villages of the UK are now global. I say that not just because companies such as Nissan and Hitachi have invested in the north-east, but because being an active member in support of our global institutions means being confident not only in those institutions but in ourselves. Yes, we will need to reform and renew them, but surely we are part of such institutions because we achieve more together than we ever do alone.

As part of our outward and optimistic approach to world affairs and the UK’s role in that approach, we should play a key role in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The negotiations are a long way from completion, but it is not right to say no to the partnership without first knowing what is in it. To those opposed to TTIP now I say: if the agreement goes ahead, it will help us go some way towards reforming and negotiating 50% of the global economy, which can only be a good thing.

Our role in the world as a permanent member the UN Security Council means being a military contributor to the maintenance of global security, which is why we should be very careful before we allow our military budget to fall below 2% of GDP. But all that is at stake if this country is dismantled and its component parts diminished, and if the UK also leaves the EU questions should rightly be asked about whether we should have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Surely if we believe that Britain is a force for good, we should not be undermining our role in the world by bringing uncertainty, but that is exactly what we are doing. We should not allow the UK’s future to be put at risk for party political reasons or out of narrow nationalism. I do not believe in a little Britain. We achieve more together than we do alone, and that principle should guide us in our negotiations in Europe, in any referendum and in any goals we set for Britain in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Phil Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The Foreign Secretary has just made it clear that we do not want the settlement issue to hog the wicket here. We need to focus on the humanitarian efforts. Gaza will face an emergency in a number of weeks when the winter weather approaches. That is a priority. Then we need both sides to come back to the table. That is our focus at the moment, and we do not want to be distracted by the settlement issue.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

T5. The election results in Tunisia at the weekend are welcome and prove that secular and non-secular parties can co- exist in the middle east. As the Minister has welcomed those results, will he let the House know what aid the UK Government can give to Tunisia to ensure that that country becomes a beacon for democracy in the middle east?

[Mr Ellwood]

It is right that we again pay tribute to Tunisia for the journey that it has taken. It is operating in a tough neighbourhood, but it is not yet out of the woods, as there are still concerns about jihadist threats and about what is happening on its borders. But the journey it has made is thanks to its strong civil society and its direct approach in wanting to have elections—first parliamentary and then presidential. We are working with it through our Arab Partnership programme. Funding from the Deauville Partnership and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is helping to support governance in Tunisia.