Raqqa and Daesh

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Happily, the campaign against Daesh in Syria is coming to an end, bringing hope to millions who suffered abuse from these evil madmen. But in light of the events in Kirkuk last week, is the Minister concerned that Iraq and Iran are now turning their attention militarily towards the Kurds? Does he see that as a potential source of conflict, and what role can he and the Government play in trying to diffuse the situation?

[Alistair Burt]

The first role I hope that I can play is to urge the House to be cautious of reports coming out from the region. It is not always entirely clear what is happening on the ground, and those with vested interests are trying to stir up more conflict than there need be. Our understanding is that there is sufficient of a relationship between Baghdad and representatives of the Kurdish Government to enable a dialogue to take place so that the conflict is avoided. I do not believe it is true that Iraq and Iran have turned their attention to conflict in the Kurdish region. There is a risk of conflict—that is true—but everything we know about Prime Minister Abadi, and his actions and rhetoric, indicates that he does not want conflict. That has been mirrored by those in the Kurdish region. We are using all our efforts to ensure that that will remain the case, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there are spoilers who might start to urge a conflict. We should be doing all we can, in this House and at a Government level, to urge the necessary dialogue, which we think is taking place.

Korean Peninsula

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great pity that some Opposition Members have chosen this occasion to attack the President of the United States, rather than those who caused the current crisis: the North Koreans.

The effect of sanctions is likely to be limited because we are dealing with a deranged, selfish leader who cares little about the suffering in his own country. Will the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has been made of who is helping the North Koreans to develop their bombs and missiles? What steps will we take against those countries if it is shown that they are helping this tyrant in his aspiration to have the means to strike other countries?

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman asks an extremely good question. As I indicated in my answer a moment ago, we are looking into that very question. We have our suspicions, but as yet we have no hard information.

Aleppo and Syria

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am aware that a lot of colleagues want to get in. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing the debate, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the House leave to hold it. It is an emergency debate in every sense of the word; it is urgent and necessary for us to have the debate, because the situation in Aleppo and across Syria has dramatically worsened from the already nearly catastrophic state that the conflict has brought about.

As others have said, the turning point in recent weeks seems to have been the bombing of the UN aid convoy on 19 September. If that and other atrocities are called out as being war crimes, they should be investigated, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. That event ended the tentative ceasefire; hostilities, particularly by Russia, have increased since then. Some 275,000 people in eastern Aleppo, over 100,000 of whom are children, face daily bombing. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, described the situation as “worse than a slaughterhouse”, and others, including rebel groups inside the city, effectively see the enactment of a scorched earth policy by the Assad regime. Over 1 million people have been killed since the conflict began in 2011, so we should not be surprised at the comparisons with Rwanda and Srebrenica. It was absolutely right to make time for today’s debate.

I want to consider briefly responses so far from across the UK and the world, and the options available to the UK Government and the world community. The Scottish National party has consistently been opposed to military action, and has consistently called for a negotiated settlement and significant humanitarian intervention. When this House debated whether to join the bombing campaign, we warned that becoming a party to the conflict would reduce the UK’s ability to be an arbiter in any resolution, and so it has proved. We welcome the response, led by the Department for International Development, in terms of humanitarian support, but there is further to go. We have consistently said that what people in Syria need is bread, not bombs. If we have the technology to drop bombs, surely we have the technology to drop or deliver bread and aid.

The Scottish Government, with their limited power and resources in this area, have played as active a role as they could. In March 2013, they donated £100,000 to the Disasters Emergency Committee, and they later doubled that to £200,000. Earlier this year, the First Minister accepted an invitation from the UN special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, to host an international women’s summit in Edinburgh, focused on supporting Syrian women, so that they can engage in communication, negotiation, and post-conflict planning, and become a key part of the peace process.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am sure that all of us want a negotiated end to the problems in Syria, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the timid approach of America and other allied forces has led to the encouragement of the Russians, who have escalated their military involvement and its brutality?

[Patrick Grady]

I will come on to the geopolitics and relations between the United States and Russia, but the answer has clearly not been for the UK to dive in and continue to add to the chaos and bombing.

The Scottish Government have continued to try to play a role. They announced in August 2015 that they would contribute up to £300,000 to the 1325 Fellowship programme facilitated by Beyond Borders Scotland—another initiative that trains women in prevention and resolution of conflict. It was set up in response to UN resolution 1325, which reaffirms the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts. We in Scotland and the Scottish Government have been keen to make a positive contribution wherever possible. Of course, many people across the country have joined in the efforts to welcome refugees, especially from Syria, who have come here seeking stability and peace.

Peace in Syria seems as far away as it was at the start of the conflict. Russia and the United States have completely different aims for the region, particularly as regards President Assad’s role, or otherwise, in the country’s future. There is a worrying risk of the situation becoming a proxy for broader tensions between the two countries, and indeed of further backsliding in international relations more generally. That is why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is right to question the stalemate’s impact on the role of the United Nations. It has never been more necessary for the UN to play a role, yet in this area at least, it seems that the impasse has never been more difficult to breach.

There have rightly been calls for the General Assembly to be more outspoken where the Security Council cannot reach agreement; that would be a start, but the GA still lacks the teeth of the Security Council. The UK’s seat on the Security Council is supposed to be one of the great defining assets of the Union, putting the great into Great Britain. While I welcome the strong words of the UK representative at recent meetings, strong words are increasingly not enough. It is for the United Nations and the International Syria Support Group to facilitate a peaceful settlement, and the United Kingdom Government should seek to make sure that the UN has the mandate and the support that it needs.

In the meantime, there must be more that the Government can do, either independently or with allies. I have already said that if we have the technology to drop bombs, surely we have the technology to drop aid, but we also need the ability, stability and permission to provide aid, especially to areas controlled by the Assad regime. Negotiating a safe space for that ought to be part of the UK’s diplomatic efforts. If that means that a no-fly zone could help, then that should be explored, but it needs to be properly enforced.

Getting aid—medical, food and non-food relief—into the country, and into Aleppo in particular, should be the No. 1 priority for humanitarian agencies in the country. If the big and multilateral agencies are having difficulty with that, more support should be given to local actors, especially those coming from faith-based or community-based organisations. I join in the tributes paid to the White Helmets, who are thoroughly deserving of their Nobel prize nomination. If there are practical ways that the UK Government, through partners, can support that work on the ground, they should be acted on.

Support also has to be provided in the refugee camps, both in Syria and in the surrounding areas. I was visited last week by a former constituent, Tony Collins, who now lives in Lebanon, where he assists the aid effort on the ground—in the camps. He describes the situation as no longer an emergency, but endemic, and as having a major impact, as we have heard from Members, on the future of Lebanon. UK humanitarian support has to provide emergency relief, but also look at long-term economic development, and the impact that these profound movements of people are having.

The Minister of State, Department for International Development, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is still here; the Secretary of State for International Development has left. I sound notes of caution about DFID’s role and response. I have said many times that while conflating some aspects of security and aid spending may be permitted under OECD rules, it is not what people expect to happen when the Government say that they are meeting the target of giving 2% of gross national income to NATO and the 0.7% target for aid spending. These targets should be met and accounted for separately; the situation in Syria in particular shows why that is necessary.

DFID also needs to think about the longer-term impacts of its policies, and consequential effects that might not be seen at the time. The withdrawal of programme partnership arrangement funding from many organisations is leading them to withdraw from areas, or wind up altogether, and that has a long-term impact that might not be seen at present, yet need is vastly increasing. Of course, support for refugees here needs to increase as well. The UK is committed to taking 20,000 over five years, but that is nowhere near our fair share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

Where did those people go and what did they do? I will take no lectures from Labour Front Benchers about the appeasement of terrorists, whether it is in Northern Ireland or Aleppo. I am glad that what has been shared from the Labour Front Bench has not been reflected in what has been said by the honest, decent and caring individuals who sit behind it. We recognise how serious this matter is.

The Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have a big job to do in considering how we, as a country, can appropriately and responsibly deal with Russia. It is an age-old saying that, “Mine enemy’s enemy is my friend.” Here, that is turned on its head, because in the case of Russia, mine enemy’s enemy is my enemy. It is as stark as that. Russia is moving nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad. It has sorties day after day, whether in the Baltic sea, the Black sea or the North sea, in contravention of NATO. Having shot down a Russian jet a number of months ago, Turkey, a NATO ally, signed a deal with Russia just yesterday. What is the NATO view of that? How will Turkey’s future engagement be affected when our ally is signing a trade deal for gas and a deal for military intelligence with Russia?

Those are huge questions, yet the immediate consideration must be the people of Aleppo. The ICC has been mentioned, and there is concern about whether Russia is a member. My understanding is that Russia has signed, but has not ratified membership of the ICC. I am keen to hear from the Foreign Secretary whether that is an impediment to progress. Last night the BBC was suggesting that, given the nature of previous prosecutions focused on African states, there is the ability to pursue the French option to pursue the Russian state, but there is no will to do so.

[Sammy Wilson]

Given that Russia is a key part of this conflict and the problems faced by the people in Aleppo, it has been suggested today that we impose trade sanctions, take people to the ICC and impose no-fly zones. Does my hon. Friend accept that that will need huge political will, as we will be taking action against a country that thinks that it can do what it wants?

[Gavin Robinson]

I do entirely—it will. Reports at the weekend have suggested that Russia is succeeding in the electromagnetic war. It is succeeding in jamming signals and removing the cover and support for Syrian rebel fighters, meaning that it can attack them. It is succeeding in drone strikes, and is operating those strikes in a way that we do not. Russia is succeeding comprehensively. Is a no-fly zone an easy option? No, it is not, but if it is the right option for the people of Syria and the wider region, this party will not be found wanting; it never has been when it comes to support for the security of the Province and this country, or internationally.

I hope that the Foreign Secretary can give us some reassurances. The task ahead is not an easy one, but I hope he understands from the tenor of debate in this Chamber and from all the positive contributions he has heard that the resolve is there, that there is the will to do the right thing and that, as a country and as individual representatives, we need to be counted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the time for the debate this afternoon? May I also join colleagues from across the House in congratulating the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing today’s debate?

There is, as we have heard, an unimaginable humanitarian disaster happening right now across Syria, and nowhere more than in the largest city, Aleppo. As we have heard, 400,000 people have already been killed, 15,000 of them children, with in excess of 1 million people wounded since the onset of the war in 2011. As a result of the war, 5 million Syrians have been displaced and have had to flee the country. Five million people is equivalent to the entire population of Scotland, displaced, homeless and impoverished.

If I may, I would like to pay tribute to the people of my constituency of Argyll and Bute, who, with the full support of Argyll and Bute Council, the Scottish Government and the Argyll community housing association, have responded magnificently and have warmly welcomed 15 Syrian families to the gorgeous island of Bute, with more scheduled to arrive in the not-too-distant future. I have met the Syrian families and enjoyed their kind hospitality. I am delighted to report that they are settling in well and are being supported by a thoughtful and generous local community. I am sure this House would like to put on record its appreciation for the welcome shown by the people of Bute to the innocent men, women and children of Syria in their hour of greatest need.

Like the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), Bute has shown what we can do. I sincerely hope that we in the United Kingdom can accommodate far more Syrian families—not just in Argyll and Bute or in Scotland, but across the UK. However, those few families on Bute are the very lucky ones, because they managed to escape the hell on earth that their country has become. Although many of the people I met were born and bred in Aleppo, I doubt very much whether they would recognise it today, as just last week the UN envoy to Syria said that he feared that the eastern part of the city could be totally destroyed within two months.

This claim follows on from the bombing of Syria’s largest hospital, which was hit by seven airstrikes on the morning of 1 October. Then, as the repairs started, it was hit again the following day. As we have heard, in a shocking attack—undoubtedly a war crime—a UN aid convoy was deliberately targeted, killing 20 people. The World Health Organisation said that in the week to 30 September, at least 338 Aleppo residents, including 106 children, were killed.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Assad regime and his Russian allies are now deliberately targeting civilians, hospitals and the emergency medical teams and first responders. As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, the regime, with its allies, stands accused of using a method known as two-tap strikes, in which they bomb an area, circle round, giving sufficient time for medical responders to attend, and then return to bomb the rescuers. If that is true, it is a despicably cynical tactic that, even amid the horror of this conflict, leaves one speechless at its depravity.

Today, in eastern Aleppo, a city officially under siege, there are only 35 doctors to care for a quarter of a million residents. It is the biggest besieged area by far. People still ask, “What can we do, when there is so much chaos on the ground and in the skies above Syria?”. I would say to the Government that, as protagonists in the conflict, it is absolutely incumbent on the United Kingdom to be part of the solution. The Government must produce a coherent plan and a sensible strategy immediately to halt the airstrike campaign in which the UK is involved. The Foreign Secretary said on 19 August:

“It is only when the fighting and bombing stops that we can hope to deliver the political solution”.

I say to the Foreign Secretary that that means everyone’s bombs, including our own.

Andy Baker of Oxfam has said:

“It’s not only Russia, it is other nations, too, Britain among them, that have fuelled the fire of this conflict, continuing to support one side or another and failing to deliver peace.”

The Foreign Secretary and Oxfam are right: adding UK jets and bombs to this prolonged and agonising war has not and will not bring about a lasting peace.

[Sammy Wilson]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the UK should unilaterally stop its actions in Syria? If so, how does he think Russia and Assad would react to such a withdrawal?

[Brendan O'Hara]

The United Kingdom unilaterally joined this fight in December last year, promising that it would be a pivotal turning-point in the campaign. It has singularly failed to do so, so we have to take a different tack. We must have the bravery and the courage to stand up and say that we were wrong to do what we did last year. As I say, we have to take a different tack.

Almost exactly a year ago, we asked the Government a series of questions, none of which was answered in the headlong rush to join this conflict, so I ask again: how, when more than a dozen different countries are engaged in military action, have UK airstrikes brought peace and stability closer to Syria? Where is the UK Government’s detailed plan for winning and securing the peace? Where is the money for the reconstruction of Syria going to come from when the bombing ends?

We need to act, and act decisively with our allies and friends. As the French Foreign Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, said last week,

“If we don’t do something, Aleppo will soon just be in ruins and will remain in history as a town in which the inhabitants were abandoned to their executioners.”

Human Rights in Iran

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing this important debate. Many of us will have had this issue drawn to our attention in our constituencies, and I thank the many individual Christians, church groups and members of the Baha’i faith in my constituency for bringing their concerns to the fore. Of course, some of the tireless campaigners we run into almost on a weekly basis here in the House of Commons are in the Public Gallery listening to the debate. They continue to highlight the issues that concern them about the treatment of people in Iran.

I am not going to go over all the grievances that have been highlighted today. Suffice it to say that we have heard about the range of human rights abuses by the Iranian regime not just against minorities but against the majority of the population. We have heard about the abuses and restrictions on women, the restrictions placed on people who hold religious views that the regime does not agree with, and the actions that are taken against those people. They include everything from systematic discrimination in work, employment, education and even their social activities to the increased use of the death penalty, and those of us who live in a society as free as ours find the idea of the public mutilation of individuals who happen to have fallen foul of the regime incomprehensible.

I do not want to go through the details of individual cases, many of which have been drawn to my attention by constituents, or the catalogue of cases that have been well documented in this debate, but I want to raise some issues with the Minister. Given the number of times he has answered questions on the matter in the House of Commons and the responses that we as constituency representatives have received from him, I have absolutely no doubt that the Government are committed to dealing with this issue. However, I am not so sure that that commitment has not sometimes been held back by political reticence, because of the impact that it may have on other dealings that they wish to have with the Iranian regime.

I note the terms used so many times in answers that the Minister has given in the House. They are things like “We have made the strength of our opinion known,” “We have made strong representations,” “We have made clear to Iran,” and “We have repeatedly called on the Iranian Government”. All that is fine, but one thing we must learn from dealings with the Iranian regime is that the only time that it really began to engage was when it was being hurt by sanctions and by actions that had an impact on it.

I therefore have a number of things to say to the Minister. By all means make representations and highlight abuses, because official reports from the Foreign Office and so on have an impact, and of course raise these issues in the international bodies of which we are members. Despite what has been said about the Brexit debate and everything else, we still have influence in the world and it is right to use it, but that influence will be effective only if words are accompanied by actions, and I would like to see our Government doing a number of things.

First, as has been mentioned, the human rights abuses are well known and the people behind them have been identified. Surely we ought to make sure that those individuals are named, brought before the international court and dealt with. Whether they are dealt with in their absence or by being brought before the court, a clear message should go out to them: “You cannot hide behind the cloak of the regime. You as individuals will be held responsible, and we will have no reluctance, regardless of how important you are in the regime and how much influence you have, to make sure that you are dealt with for the way in which you have treated people within your own country.”

Secondly, we know that sanctions hurt and are important in stopping the Iranian regime not only carrying out abuses in its own country but spreading its malign influence to other countries. The lifting of sanctions has given the Iranian regime the ability to carry out activities in Syria and other parts of the middle east. We therefore ought to make it clear that despite the nuclear deal, there are other issues that concern us. Just as sanctions were imposed because of Iran’s dealings and actions on the procurement of nuclear weapons, sanctions can be used if human rights abuses are not stopped. That clear message must go out when we warn Iran against actions such as it is engaged in at present.

Finally, a clearer message needs to be sent out to the Iranian regime that our Government are prepared to have the closest possible relationships with the opposition groups that we believe have the capability to generate internal opposition to the Iranian regime. We should learn from experience that trying to change a regime without building good relationships with those who may replace it in future can leave a vacuum, which is sometimes dangerous. Such relationships would be another clear message to the Iranian Government that regardless of how annoying or embarrassing it is to them, we will be prepared to work with, deal with and encourage those who are opposed to them. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to those points.

EU Referendum Leaflet

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir William Cash]

I endorse my right hon. Friend’s intervention. It also made me particularly angry to hear Mr Juncker say that Eurosceptics should go and visit war cemeteries—people will understand the impact of that comment on someone like me—and I deeply resented President Obama’s reference to the same matter with respect to both United Kingdom and American troops. My father fought with American troops, and I am absolutely certain that the kind of undemocratic, dysfunctional, authoritarian, centralised system represented by the European Union, which does not work, is the antithesis of what they fought for. I want to get that firmly on the record.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a measure of the remain campaign’s desperation that it has to invoke the memory of those who died fighting dictatorships in order to try to present its case as patriotic when, in fact, we know from all the language that the campaign uses that it wants to do the country down?

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I would go further, with reference to the historical analogies that permeate these documents and what the Prime Minister said today, and say that the very idea that Brexit would create war completely turns on its head the reality that, for at least four centuries, this country was drawn into all the wars in which it has been engaged by the desire of those in Europe to create European empires. That started, for example, with Philip of Spain and the armada, and later there were the Dutch wars, the Napoleonic wars and the first and second world wars. Those are realities. We were drawn into those wars. If we leave the European Union, we will be able to stand alone and, as we did in 1940, remind people that we are not going to be part and parcel of this dysfunctional system, which has so much instability and insecurity built into it that it is bound to lead to deep disturbance. Our attempt to make sense of all that has led us to argue so strongly for so many years that this European Union is dysfunctional, which is why, ultimately, we have to leave it.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to the European Scrutiny Committee’s reports. She is an excellent member of the Committee, which I have the honour to chair. In the Liaison Committee’s examination of the Prime Minister last Wednesday, I was asked to go first after the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). I explained to the Prime Minister and to the Committee why I believe that the voters are being cheated on 23 June and, ultimately, a false prospectus is being offered to them. The reason is simple: the outcome of the question of whether there will be a full-on treaty change, which we were promised, cannot be guaranteed, if at all, until after the vote. When the voter goes to the voting booth and votes, they simply will not know whether, for example, there will be a treaty change, whether the European Court will intervene, whether there will be a change of Government or whether there will be a referendum in any other country on the basis of the changes that are made. The outcome of any one of those questions cannot be guaranteed under any circumstances, so I allege that requiring people to vote in such circumstances is cheating the voters.

I was most impressed to see the numbers on the petition, and it may be of interest to Members to know that the clip of my allegation that the Government and the Prime Minister are cheating the voters has now reached 175,000 viewings on Facebook, which is quite a lot. I strongly believe that that message is getting home to all the people who need to hear it.

The question of the single market seems to be so central to the economic case, the political case, the democratic case and the accountability case for why we should leave because it is in contradiction to what the people fought and died for in the last war. That is extremely important, but the Government also make an economic case in the leaflet, which talks about our having a massive single market:

“EU countries buy 44% of everything we sell abroad, from cars to insurance.”

What the leaflet does not say is outlined in a note I received from the House of Commons Library, and it is as simple as this. When we are trading with 27 other member states, the question of whether we have a deficit in goods and services, and in imports and exports, is the equivalent of asking whether we are making a loss in relation to those 27 member states. This is the answer from the House of Commons Library:

“UK trade deficit with EU countries: £67.8 billion”.

That is annual, and it is going up. That is a vast amount of money in our dealings with the single market, and it demonstrates that the single market does not work for us across the board. On the other hand—this is important—Germany has a £81.8 billion trade surplus with the 27 other member states. We make a loss of £67.8 billion, and they have a surplus of £81.8 billion. I do not have time to go into all the reasons, but it is a salutary lesson about the real value of the single market to us.

The UK’s trade surplus with the rest of the world, in relation to the same goods and services on which we make such a monumental loss with the other 27 member states, was £31.1 billion last year, and it is growing. We have a bright future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s accusation that leaving the single market would be catastrophic, the idea that we would end up at war if we do not carry out the diktat that the Government are issuing to the British people, and all the accumulated international bodies that are being brought in to support this flimsy argument that we should stay in, are all to be taken into account when people come to vote on 23 June.

I reject the manner in which the Government have gone about this. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has done us a service in bringing this issue to the House, as have the petitioners. Jayne Adye deserves 100% credit for doing so. There is only one answer to this shambolic European Union, and that is to vote to leave it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

My hon. Friend is right—there is absolutely no proper provision for the very large number of people that the Treasury now admits are likely to come in. That is one of the few Treasury forecasts that I might believe. It is quite obvious that it could not forecast its own public spending, its own interest rates or anything in the recent Office for Budget Responsibility and Treasury documents. It had to make another revision again in the March Budget—it revised the forecast made in November—because it had found it difficult to grasp how the world might change between November and March. So there is this inability to forecast the economic numbers, but for once I think the Treasury may be honest in forecasting a substantial increase in migration. I suspect that the Treasury’s estimate is an underestimate because it has been constantly underestimating these figures in recent years, and it proves that we have no control over our borders and no “special status” whatsoever.

The third area is benefits. The Prime Minister made a great deal about benefits in the renegotiation; it was one of the few areas where he really pushed quite hard to get reform in the way that Britain wanted. I think both major parties campaigning in the last election wanted, for example, to no longer have to pay child benefit to children who are not resident in our country, but apparently that is something that we cannot negotiate. There is no “special status” to allow us to decide that child benefit should go to children living in our country rather than to children living elsewhere. There is some kind of fudge whereby we could pay the benefit at the level that applies in that country, which means in some cases that we will have to pay a higher level of benefit, although in other cases it means we will pay a lower level of benefit. So there is absolutely no control there.

Again, both major parties wanted amendments so that people coming here to work under the freedom-of-movement provisions would not automatically get the full range of benefits until they had been here for a bit and made some kind of contribution. We were not able to get a guarantee on that, either. There is some sort of four-year clause as a temporary expedient, but the benefits have to be phased in over the four years and the negotiating aim was not met.

On the big three things, therefore, which all independent democratic countries control through their Parliaments and Governments, Britain is unable to exert control: we cannot decide what taxes to impose; we cannot decide what benefits to spend our money on; and we cannot control our own borders. So I have to submit that the Government are completely misrepresenting the position when they say that they have negotiated a “special status”. They are completely wrong when they say that shows we can get our own way. They could not even get their own way on a very limited number of negotiating objectives at a point when they were threatening withdrawal and a referendum, so how will they ever get their way at all once the referendum is out of the way if, by any chance, the British people have not seen through this and voted to stay?

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman find it strange that, although the Government claim to have special status on some issues—and he has proved they have not gained such status—they refer time and again to things that we have opted out of? They make a case for joining Europe, but they boast that through our special status, “We opt out of this, we opt out of the euro, we opt out of border controls—we opt out of a whole range of things.” The Government are actually making a case for staying clear of the European project.

[John Redwood]

I agree. I always liken it to someone joining a football club and then announcing truculently that they have no wish to play football or watch football, getting cross when they go to club functions and people talk about football, and wanting to reduce the club subscription because, as they do not join in the football, they think they are overpaying. That is what the Government are doing to Europe. They do not want to join the single currency or Schengen, or the quota system for refugees. They do not like political union being talked about, although that is the EU’s main purpose, and they think that the club subscription is too large. They are right about one thing: the club subscription is far too large for us because we do not believe in practically any of the club’s purposes. Most of us would draw the conclusion, however, that the simplest thing to do would be to leave the club and spend the subscription on things we do like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend is right. It is always a little confusing when leaders of opposing camps in any election start to talk about the other side’s views. I hope that uncertainty and economic disruption will not be caused by Brexit. It is safe to say that we see much ahead of us that could cause that anyway.

The question of what happens if we leave is presented in the leaflet. What is not offered for those who have had the pleasure of having it through their door, or who have that pleasure still to come, is the question of what would voting to stay look like, since we know what would happen if we leave. It would ensure that we remain wedded with almost no influence, as several colleagues have already said. We are outwith the battered and struggling eurozone framework, but we are wedded to it. We are seeing Greek residents yet again put under unbearable financial strain so that EU bankers can circulate IMF money through Greece to ensure that the bankers do not come off too badly because of the euro chaos going on there. That is something we will definitely stay attached to in our uncontrolled sector outwith the eurozone, but that will cost us money. We will have to continue, as required, to bail out future eurozone crashes.

Jim Mellon, a successful entrepreneur who works across a large number of EU states, has made it clear—his forecasts, unlike the Treasury’s, have often been accurate—that the likely next crash of the euro, possibly a complete crash, will be within the next three years. It seems to me that voting to stay in will almost certainly ensure that we are wedded to a big bill over which we have little control, watching nations around us suffer even greater debt. The reality is that France’s and Italy’s debt balance sheet is pretty unsustainable. The chances are that the bill will be a lot bigger than just Greece’s costs. It is clear what will happen if we choose to stay.

The Government leaflet briefly suggests that we might strike a good deal in terms of trade with the EU if we were to leave, but it goes on to dismiss that as a pie-in-the-sky idea that is incredibly unlikely, because, somehow, there is no reason why a trade deal would be struck. The leaflet indicates that 8% of EU exports come to the UK and that 44% of UK exports go to the EU. That sounds terrible: 8% in, 44% out. That is a big imbalance, but let us look at that in real terms—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned this earlier—and in the terms that businesses and those who make the exports and provide the services that we sell abroad would actually understand: the terms of money.

I am an accountant; percentages can be a useful way to present an issue, but also a useful way to create a level of dissimulation. There is a £67 billion deficit of goods and services this year.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the argument about a trade deal is really a non-argument? The United States has no trade deal with the EU and yet sells billions of euros’ worth of goods every year to the EU. Trade occurs because people want to buy the goods and because the prices are competitive.

[Mrs Trevelyan]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman anticipates my words.

On the numbers, there is real cash—real money—involved in selling and buying goods. I am not willing to brook the scaremongering message that businesses that sell us their products—all £67 billion of them—will want to stop doing so. It is said that the EU creates jobs and makes us money. None of that is true. The reality is that hard-working businessmen put their houses on the line to set up a business and employ people. They make a great product that other people want to buy. That is how jobs are created and how business and growth happen. It has nothing to do with the EU. It is about people buying and selling goods. It is as old as the hills and will continue.

British car drivers will still want to buy BMWs and Mercedes, and I have no doubt that the Germans will still want to sell them to us. We will be in what is described as a free trade area, which goes from Iceland through to Turkey. The risk of dramatic and terrifying tariffs is not a real risk. That is not what can happen under WTO rules within a free trade area.

The leaflet is frustrating. Not only is it biased, but it is unable to explain the reality of what trade means and how it might work, for better or worse, if we were to vote to leave on 23 June. At best, it is simply scurrilous. One of the real problems with the message about exports being key is that only about 5% or 6% of our businesses, which are a very important part of our UK trade, actually export to the EU. In my constituency in north Northumberland, I have a large number of small businesses, very few of whom export at all. They mostly sell their goods to other UK citizens. Of those who do export, they export to all corners of the globe, not only to the EU. In fact, thanks to the Emirates airline that set up a Newcastle to Dubai route four years ago, many now trade in the middle east in a whole new world. We have opened up dramatic new markets thanks to one aeroplane that goes once a day. It has been a fascinating thing to see. The EU is not the be-all and end-all of trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As has already been pointed out, the people of Northern Ireland have not yet been subjected to having to read the dodgy dossier that has been published by the Government. No one should be surprised that it is not an objective assessment of the case for staying in or leaving because, as a number of hon. Members said, the Government made up their mind at the outset that, regardless of what happened in the negotiations, they would put forward the case for remain. No doubt, when the leaflet eventually makes its way through the Royal Mail’s postbags to my constituents’ houses, they will treat it with contempt because they will know it is not an attempt to set out the facts and figures.

We have just finished the Assembly election campaign in Northern Ireland, and the question I was most commonly asked on the doorstep over the past three and a half weeks, even though it is nothing to do with the Assembly election, was, “Are you in or are you out?” From the conversations I have had with thousands of my constituents, I have absolutely no doubt which way they will be voting on 23 June.

The Government are desperate. We saw the degree of their desperation when the Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland at the beginning of this campaign. He brought together farmers and told them that their crops will die in the fields, that their bank balances will be slashed, that European money will end and that we will no longer be able to feed ourselves because of the disaster that will befall Northern Ireland if we drop out of the EU and no longer have the support of the CAP. He ignored the fact that, as most farmers know—a large part of my constituency is rural—EU support for agriculture in the United Kingdom has been falling because support is increasingly being directed towards eastern Europe, and that many small farmers are crippled by bureaucracy and the CAP’s requirements.

Of course, the Prime Minister pulled out the ultimate card: he said that somehow or other the peace process might be in jeopardy. I lived in Northern Ireland right through the troubles, and I never, ever heard any IRA spokesman say that he was determined to bomb the life out of people in Northern Ireland to stay in the EU. It was never an issue with republicans. Indeed, it is significant that, until it got embroiled in the politics of the Irish Republic, Sinn Féin used to be a very anti-EU party. Suddenly, because it wanted to curry favour with voters in the Republic, it decided that it was pro-EU. Saying that the peace process will somehow be in jeopardy is another scare tactic.

In Northern Ireland, whenever we get into trouble with the peace process, we can be sure that political leaders whose names the President of the United States has never heard before will get a telephone call from the White House. “Jimmy, how are you?”—I cannot do an American accent, so I will not even try—or, “Peter, how are you?” and the soft-soaping starts. It has been no different in this referendum campaign. The US cavalry has ridden to the rescue of General Cameron, who is making his last stand. I believe that he knows it is his last stand. He cannot convince the people of the United Kingdom to go into the reservation of the EU, so he has to bring in the American President to frighten them, but I think the American President’s ham-fisted attempt has not weakened but strengthened the leave campaign.

Many Members have already talked about the false arguments in this document, and I want to pick up on one or two of them: first, that the cost of living is going to go up. How do they justify that—on the basis, primarily, that the value of the pound will fall. However, our exchange rate goes up and down. We have a freely floating exchange rate mechanism, because we are not part of the euro. Our exchange rate goes up and down all the time. We live with the consequences of that: sometimes it helps our exporters and sometimes it is to the detriment of our exporters; sometimes it brings down the cost of living because imports become cheaper, and sometimes it puts the cost up—but that is what happens without a fixed exchange rate. Our membership of the EU will make no difference to that—but that is the main way in which the cost of living could increase, according to the Government leaflet.

We have had that reinforced by the Chancellor’s predictions and the Treasury’s model up to 2030. I taught economics at one stage and the one thing I know about economic models is that we do not rely on economic models to tell us what is going to happen in 2030 when we are living in 2016. A Treasury model also told us that the deficit would be wiped out by now. The Treasury revises its estimates almost on a yearly basis, because economic models are subject to a whole range of assumptions. If we are looking 14 years in advance, how can we possibly know what parameters to put into an economic model? We are certainly not going to be able to tell people, “You are going to be £4,302.22 worse off,” which is what the Government want people to believe.

That is the first scare tactic. The second is the idea that people will not be able to go on their holidays any longer, they will have to get a visa to go to the sun and flights will cost more. For those who are concerned about carbon footprints, that would be a compelling argument, but it does not really play much with me. Again, that is based on what? The price of flights has come down not because of the EU, but because of people such as O’Leary, companies such as Ryanair and easyJet, and competition between airlines. That has nothing to do with the EU, yet it is rested at the EU’s door.

Next is the argument that millions of jobs will be lost because it is more difficult to get access to European markets. However, in my constituency, there are companies that do research for the pharmaceutical industry; one firm has 140 workers who research new drugs and, as a result, drugs worth £750 million are produced across Europe from the patents for which they are responsible. Do people buy that information because we are part of the EU? No, they buy it because the research is good quality, and the drug has been tested and is capable of being marketed.

In my constituency, too, Schrader Electronics provides valves that tell drivers whether their tyres have gone down, without them having to look at them. The valves are sold to car manufacturers all over the European Union, as part of the supply chain. On 24 June, are those manufacturers likely to say that they will no longer buy the valves? Of course not, because the technology is good and the price is good. The company is part of the supply chain and will remain part of the supply chain.

For anyone who flies on an airplane, every third seat is made in Northern Ireland—anyone sitting on seats A or D is probably sitting on one. Why? Is it because we are part of the EU? No, it is because we have a manufacturer that produces a competitive product.

I could go on. People buy our goods for those reasons. All around the world, we sell goods to countries that we do not have trade deals with. So what about the idea that, if we left the EU, suddenly we would not get a trade deal with it? First, the supply chain would demand that the goods are bought anyway and, secondly, if the product is not competitive, people will stop buying, but if it is competitive, they will keep on buying. The argument is that it will take us years to negotiate a new trade deal. It will not, for the simple reason that, if firms want our products, they will continue to buy them.

On the last argument to be made, I have to say that the Prime Minister has been despicable today, invoking the war dead. It shows desperation to say that people died for the European Union, or for a united Europe. They died for a Europe free of dictatorship; they died for a democratic Europe. The whole essence of the EU is that it is not a democratic institution—some people do not even try to defend it as that any longer—and it is not an institution in which the will of the people is reflected in the decisions made; the will reflected is that of people who believe they know better than the elected politicians. The bureaucrats believe that they can develop an efficient system of government, free from those pesky politicians with their mad ideas and everything else. For the Prime Minister to invoke the war dead was an absolute disgrace.

We have seen the security argument, unfortunately, blown apart in Paris and Brussels. Terrorists, because of the Schengen arrangements and open borders, can wander around Europe like jihadic nomads, crossing borders, planning and plotting, and then killing. That is why we need to have control over our own borders. That is why we need to be out of an institution that leaves us open to that kind of terrorist activity.

I made an intervention about this earlier, but it is significant that the Government’s own document eulogises the fact that our special relationship with Europe enables us to opt out of and to distance ourselves from most of the major policies of the European Union. If there is a compelling argument, it is in the Government’s own document. We do not want to be part of the euro, because we have seen what it has done, the devastation that it has wrought across economies in European countries, the youth unemployment, and the way in which democratic institutions have been undermined in Italy and Greece as a result of the requirements to stay in the euro. Looking at the arguments in the document, we can also opt out of Schengen, another essential part of the EU.

By the way, the Government say that no country has been able to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU without allowing free access to labour. That is not true. Many countries outside the European Union trade freely with it, and they do not have to accept anyone and everyone who wants to move from EU countries to their country, but the document makes that claim—although the Government say that part of our special relationship is that we can opt out of that as well, and we can opt out of any other interference. If it is so good to be able to opt out of those policies, is it not even better to opt out of the EU altogether?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Three people are standing, and I intend to call the Scottish National party spokesperson at 7 o’clock. People can do the arithmetic themselves.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

There are many flaws in the system. The peoples of Europe—although one can generalise too much in this respect—are asking more and more questions as the system fails to deliver, in particular on the economic front. Mass unemployment is causing great hardship in many countries and the EU is failing to deliver.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Baron]

I think I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene once already. No? In that case, please do.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. He is hitting the most important point here. Does he accept that this is not just an academic debate about sovereignty? This is an issue that goes to the very core of social cohesion. If people feel they cannot change those who make decisions, we will have all kinds of trouble and tensions on our streets. That is the core of the issue. Democratic institutions are important for the wellbeing of society.

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree and that is very well put. It is terribly important that there is an element of democratic accountability. If there is not, we will alienate sections of society and issues such as unemployment will not be properly addressed. How are people going to voice their opinion without moving to the extremes of the political divide, and feeding that extremism because they do not feel they can be democratically represented within the existing structures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. I raised the matter when a former representative from UKRep spoke to the Committee a few years ago. I said, as I had suggested to the coalition Government, “What would happen if we gave notice that in five years we would withdraw from the CFP, restore the 200-mile and 50% limits and start to manage fish stocks properly, in the interests of our own fishing industry, monitoring every boat and catch sensibly, as happens in Norway?” He said, “You’d be expelled from the EU,”, so there is no possibility of that happening.

If the Government put that in their negotiations, however, they might be a bit more persuasive. I have a list of things I would have in the negotiations—sadly, the Government have not followed it—and getting rid of the CFP is one of them. We have the largest fishing grounds and used to have the most successful fishing industry in the EU, but it has been devastated by overfishing and the appalling discarding of bycatches. The point is that, if we made a real change, we would apparently be thrown out, so the substantial changes I want would not be acceptable.

Even yesterday, people were talking about the common agricultural policy—another nonsensical policy that has cost us dear—under which we make massive net contributions to the EU. Every country ought to manage its own agriculture. Some, like the Norwegians, would choose to subsidise it for strategic reasons, as would be perfectly acceptable. We could do the same and choose either the current subsidy regime or a different pattern of subsidies. Each country should do its own thing. One of the nonsenses is that some countries are paid not to grow food. I was in Lithuania a couple of years ago with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. It used to be self-sufficient in food, but now thousands of acres are lying fallow because it is paid not to grow food. That is nonsense, and it is all to do with the CAP.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. In Northern Ireland, a big issue is what would happen to farming subsidies were we to leave the EU, but is not the point that farming subsidies are better tailored to the needs of individual countries than is a common policy that often fails to meet the needs of farmers in our countries?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we withdrew, we could eliminate the net loss of our contribution to the budget—some say £19 billion, others £14 billion, but either way it is in the billions—and still subsidise regional and other policies, and tailor them to our national and regional needs.

I turn now to the sham of so-called “social Europe”. It is used as a lever to persuade social democratic and socialist parties to say yes to the European Union, but when it comes to the crunch—this would not necessarily impress Conservative Members and certainly not Labour Members, I hope—the EU always finds in favour of employers. Free movement is not about being benign; it is about bidding down wages, ensuring that wages are kept down and profits kept high. It is part of the neo-liberal package of measures that is being driven by the European Union.

In the case of Greece and other southern European countries that have had bail-outs, one of the conditions for bail-out is to put a brake on collective bargaining: “You’ve got to calm down your employees, especially in the public sector. We’re not going to give you the bail-out unless you cut back on collective bargaining.” That is hardly “social Europe”. What about the rights supposedly involved in the charter of fundamental rights? Then, of course, another condition of bail-out is forced privatisations, and we have seen fire sales of public assets in these countries. All these things have damaged social welfare in those countries.

The biggest problem of all has been mass unemployment, falling national output and falling living standards. Greece provides the most extreme example, but other countries have suffered, too. Greece has seen its living standards cut by 25%, and its unemployment is at 25%—50% among young people. Across southern Europe as a whole, youth unemployment stands at 40%. It is nonsense—it does not work economically. The idea that is all about “social Europe” and that it is beneficial to workers is, I think, complete nonsense and simply not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The Poles, the French, the Hungarians and many others also fought alongside us.

What actually happened in 1706-07 was that the two Parliaments were combined; it was not a takeover of one Parliament by another. I entirely respect the clear pride and positive English nationalism that we have heard from some Conservative Members today. That is a positive thing; as long as nationalism is based on pride in and love for one’s country it is always to be welcomed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone on his pride in declaring that “we are the people of England”, but we are not the people of England; we are the people of Scotland. We are the sovereign people of Scotland, in whom sovereignty over our nation is and always will be vested. For Scotland, sovereignty does not reside in this place, and it does not reside in those of us who have been sent to serve in this place. It resides for ever in those who have sent us to serve here.

I am genuinely interested in the concept that the institution of Parliament is ultimately sovereign, even over the people. Perhaps someone who speaks later can tell me who decided that that should be the case, and who gave them the right to decide that. I suspect the answer will be that it was the people who agreed that Parliament should be sovereign, in which case it is the people who retain the right to change that decision.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this debate is not about the sovereignty of this place but about the sovereignty of the people who elect us to this place? Therefore, if we become pawns, the sovereignty of the people he is talking about—the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales—is diminished.

[Peter Grant]

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s comment, but I have to draw his attention to the wording of the motion. It does not mention the sovereignty of the people; it talks about the “importance of parliamentary sovereignty”—[Hon. Members: “They are the same thing.”] The two are most definitely not the same thing. If Parliament is sovereign, does it have the legal and constitutional right to pass any legislation, however morally repugnant it might be, with the people’s only recourse being to wait five years and then vote for different Members of Parliament? That is not a version of parliamentary sovereignty that I recognise, and it is not a version of parliamentary sovereignty that the people of Scotland recognise or will ever be prepared to accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

More than 70 years ago, our great island nation stood alone against the tyranny of the jackboot and the lash. Our freedom, our democracy and our sovereignty were in mortal peril. Led by Winston Churchill, we did not flinch in protecting them. Hundreds of thousands of our brave men and women—whether in uniform or not—gave their lives to defend our island and everything we stand for. Because of their sacrifice, we have a daunting responsibility to respect what they fought and died for. I must therefore ask: why are we so prepared to hand the destiny of our proud island nation to an unaccountable bureaucracy with barely a murmur? How dare we? How dare we? How would anyone dare to go down that road? I simply cannot understand it.

We have a duty to those who fought and died to stand up for our country and to ensure her sovereignty is kept intact. This sham of a renegotiation does not do that, and we all know it. Sadly, one treaty after another has undermined our will to resist. We have already handed over the UK’s head, torso, arms and legs. Now we propose to surrender our very soul. And to whom? The answer is a group of unelected Commissioners who sit in their multimillion-pound glass towers, surrounded by all the trappings of cars, secretaries and expenses, pontificating over lobster and Chablis about plans to create a wonderful new centralised state—a federal Europe—where uniformity is pressed on an unwilling electorate by guile, persuasion or threat. Democracy my foot!

[Sammy Wilson]

Is that not the central point about the EU’s unwillingness to devolve sovereignty to individuals—to voters—and Parliaments? The EU cannot afford it. If it is going to centralise functions right across Europe, forcing states and individuals into arrangements they do not want, sovereignty is the last thing it is going to tolerate.

[Richard Drax]

I could not have said it better, and I will expand on that very point a little later in my speech.

Who will lose out? It is the voters—the man and woman in the street—whom Opposition Members claim to represent, and who will increasingly rail against an authority over which they have no control and no say. Meanwhile, our political elite march on, deaf to the cries of those who elected them.

This madness will continue, at least in the short term—Germany has too much to lose. To control the experiment further, closer integration is not only necessary but inevitable, with more and more power going to the centre, whatever our Prime Minister says to the contrary.

We are told we are safe from all this. We are not. I am sure that the Prime Minister, who is an intelligent man, knows that in his heart. I have watched, appalled and dismayed, as we have ceded powers to the EU in an insidious and gradual erosion of our sovereignty. There was a time when all the laws affecting the people of this country were made in this House by directly elected Members like us. As we know, that is no longer the case. As we have been dragged kicking and screaming down this truly undemocratic path, we have been assured by one Prime Minister after another, “Don’t worry. We have a veto over this, and a veto over that. We have a red card we can wave.” Now, apparently, to block laws we do not like, we have to persuade at least 15 EU members to agree with us. Will they hell!

To me, sovereignty means the ability to govern ourselves free from outside interference. We are not free to do that today. For heaven’s sake, we have to ask 27 countries for permission to change our welfare rules. Meanwhile, our borders remain dangerously porous, permanently open to EU citizens and horribly vulnerable to infiltration by those who would do us harm. What staggers me is how we wandered into this trap.

I have always been suspicious when political parties agree, and with the notable exception of a few Members, our future relationship with the EU is a very good case in point. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I see first-hand the raft of legislation that comes in boatloads from across the channel. It interferes in every single facet of our lives.

UK’s Relationship with the EU

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

There is certainly still work to be done on the element of the text dealing with the relationship between euro-ins and euro-outs, as well as on other aspects of the text. On my hon. Friend’s initial comment, while we hope it is possible to get a deal in February, the Prime Minister’s position remains that the substance of any agreement will determine the timing of the referendum. If it were to take longer than February to get the right deal, then so be it.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

How can the Minister continue to argue that the proposals meet the Prime Minister’s promise that he wishes to restore sovereignty to this Parliament, when, to exercise a veto over laws we do not like or to put a brake on benefits to immigrants, we will still have to go cap in hand to other European Parliaments or the European Commission? Does he not see that this is the kind of deal that even Del Boy would have been embarrassed to be associated with?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman has always been, quite openly, an opponent of British membership of the European Union. If the United Kingdom were to have a unilateral veto on everything, that would have to be the case for every other member state as well. We would certainly find some of the trading and single market measures that bring huge benefit to the people of Northern Ireland at risk from a veto by a more protectionist-minded Government elsewhere in Europe.

European Union Referendum Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

First of all, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say what an absolute pleasure it is to see you in the Chair and to speak under your chairmanship this afternoon? The only note of sadness I would sound is that you are no longer with us on these Benches. Your company was always a delight.

I am very pleased to be able to support the Bill. Indeed, I have campaigned in favour of a referendum on Europe for a long time. I speak as a former board member of People’s Pledge, the multi-party campaign for an EU referendum, and as a member of Labour for a Referendum. Both campaigns have succeeded, albeit a little late in the day in the case of the latter. Labour for a Referendum has included EU supporters—Europhiles—as well as sceptics like me. Recent voter analysis has concluded, sadly, that had we persuaded our Labour leaders to support a referendum earlier, we would have won an extra eight seats in the recent general election and prevented the Conservatives from having an overall majority. That would have made this Parliament rather different from the one that we shall have for the next five years, so it was a significant decision not to support a referendum before the election.

I am pleased that my party leadership has now had a change of heart and is supporting the referendum. A few years ago, a mini-referendum was held in my constituency on whether local people wished to be granted an EU referendum. There was a 2:1 vote in favour. The wishes of my constituents are now being reflected on both sides of the House, and I am pleased about that.

I have a track record on EU matters going back to the 1975 Common Market referendum, when I was chair of the Luton Vote No campaign and the Bedfordshire agent for the no vote. I have not changed my view since then. Perhaps that just demonstrates rigidity of mind, but I believe that events since then have strengthened my view that the European Union is not a sound organisation—certainly not for Britain. Interestingly, the Bedfordshire agent for the yes vote was the late Sir Trevor Skeet, then the Conservative MP for Bedford. When I met Sir Trevor a few years ago and reminded him of his previous position, he was horribly embarrassed because he had since become a strong Eurosceptic who would no longer have wished to vote yes.

In 1975, however, the Conservatives were overwhelmingly pro-Common Market while Labour had a majority against it. It has been suggested that the Eurosceptics were just a small number of extreme left-wingers, but I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that we had a massive majority at the special conference on the Common Market that I attended in 1975. A great majority of Labour MPs were in favour of a no vote. It was not just a small group of left-wingers—I happen to be on the left myself—who took a Eurosceptic view; people on the right of the party did so as well.

Labour Eurosceptics have included many distinguished former Members of this House, including Hugh Gaitskell, Michael Foot, Barbara Castle, Peter Shore and Tony Benn. Indeed, I last met Denis Healey in the late 1990s at a meeting that had been called to oppose Britain’s membership of the euro. I hope, therefore, that there will be no personal disparagement during the campaign on the referendum, and that the debate will focus on the arguments. I hope that those who take a critical view of the EU will not be abused, and that their arguments will be listened to. I have set out my own views in print, and I shall be writing and speaking on this matter much more in the coming months.

In simple terms, I believe that the EU is about economics, and the economics are failing. Low growth, mass unemployment and falling living standards—in swathes of the eurozone in particular—are evidence of the EU’s failure. But the overwhelming argument against our membership of the EU is about democracy. Democracy must mean elected national Parliaments making the final decision on how their people are governed and how they choose to be governed. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) referred to a dictatorship. It might not be a dictatorship, but it is certainly an authoritarian bureaucracy. We want our laws to be made following debate in this House, not by bureaucrats in Brussels. That is of fundamental importance.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I support all the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. He mentions the importance of democratic decisions, so is he concerned about the increase in the spending limits for referendum expenditure in the Bill and the danger that that could undermine true democratic debate and put the decision in the hands of the big spenders?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Spending limits are crucial and I remember the vast amounts of Euroslush poured into Britain to win the yes vote. Every corner shop in my constituency had a steel noticeboard cemented into the pavement with pictures of Harold Wilson on it saying “Vote Yes.” That money did not come out of the pockets of ordinary people—well, it did indirectly—but it came though big business or from the European Union.

I have a final point to make, repeating what I suggested in business questions last Thursday. I suggested that all parties ought to have a free vote for all Members of this House on whether they accept the terms that come back from Brussels when the Prime Minister has finished his negotiating. I hope that my party will observe that and I hope that the Government will too. It was probably my fault that the row broke out over the weekend, because clearly some Conservative Members were rather taken with my suggestion that there should be a free vote for all Members. I shall be voting freely and I hope that my Whips will understand when the time comes. Harold Wilson wisely allowed a free vote on his renegotiated terms of membership of the Common Market before the referendum and I hope that all parties will follow that wise example so that we not only have a free debate in which we discuss the issues and do not abuse each other but are free to vote with our consciences, as we should be in this Parliament.

European Council

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We are at an early stage of those discussions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear when he wrote for the Financial Times just before Christmas, he wants to start a debate about how we should manage these matters better in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) knows, this subject causes concerns, particularly among Interior Ministers and Social Security Ministers in a number of different European countries. The conversations are being taken forward by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and, of course, the Prime Minister. We are at an early stage, but we will be taking the discussions forward over the next 12 months.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Conclusion 36 indicates that the Council is calling for further discussions on tax evasion, aggressive tax planning, base erosion and so on. Does that include changes in EU regulations which currently permit workers posted to the UK for less than two years to avoid paying tax here and to opt to pay tax in their own country while still being eligible for benefits in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lidington]

I think the appropriate Minister will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the particular issue he mentions about posted workers. The key point about the conclusion on tax is that it is part of taking forward the G8 agenda on tax transparency that the Prime Minister led at the Enniskillen summit last year.

Persecution of Christians

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great joy to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which is important because of the scale of the problem, because of the individual suffering that people experience across the world, and because this issue is actually sanctioned by the Governments of many countries, demanding a response from the UK Government.

The scale of the problem has been outlined very well by previous speakers. Some 200 million Christians are under severe risk of persecution, with many thousands killed every year and ethnically cleansed from their towns and homeland. Some 50,000 Christians have been cleared from the city of Homs in Syria during the civil war. In Eritrea people are being imprisoned on a regular basis. In Sudan before it was partitioned, over a 30-year period 2 million Christians were killed by the regime. That is the scale of the problem.

It goes on even today. Within the last month, hundreds of people, from Nigeria to Eritrea to Kazakhstan to China, have been arrested and put in prison simply because of their faith, and when they go into prison they are denied due process. They are denied access to lawyers. They are sometimes even denied knowledge of the charges facing them. They can languish in prison for a long time and in horrible conditions.

Any other overseas problem on that scale would have been a priority for the Foreign Office, yet the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman attempted to widen this topic, rather than to zone in on the real issue, which is that a particular group of people are being persecuted.

As has been pointed out, this is not only happening in Muslim countries. From Morocco to Pakistan, Christians in Muslim countries are under threat, but it happens elsewhere too.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do from my parliamentary postbag, of the persecution of Baha’is, particularly in Iran. Does he agree that regardless of whether those persecuted are Baha’is, Christians or whatever, a message must come out from a plurality of voices that the persecution of people on the basis of their faith is a very un-Islamic thing to do?

[Sammy Wilson]

Absolutely, and I think that is the point we need to be making in the House. Persecution of people of whatever faith by people of whatever faith is wrong.

We can go beyond the Islamic countries to Korea, where 70,000 Christians languish in prison, some of them in the most horrible conditions. I do not want to start telling lots of individual stories, but one struck me in particular. We found in Northern Ireland during the troubles that people can get numbed by numbers—they come to be seen as just statistics, rather than as highlighting the real suffering behind them—but 6,000 Christians are languishing in prison No. 15 in North Korea. They are regularly brought out on a Sunday, and two people are selected and paraded in front of the rest of their fellow Christians, stabbed with pointed bamboos and called on to renounce their faith because then the torture will stop. Many of them, of course, finish up being murdered because they will not renounce their faith. Leaving aside the huge numbers, that is the kind of horror and individual human suffering we are talking about.

As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, when the Nazis carried out such acts in concentration camps we pursued the prison guards and those responsible to the ends of the earth, to prosecute them and to make sure they were brought to justice, yet it seems there is not the same response when it comes to the persecution of Christians. That is not just to do with the Government, of course. It is to do with the media, too. I thought it was striking that when 80 Christians were blown up at the beginning of November as they worshiped in Pakistan, the BBC found it so important that it came below the Emmy awards in the news agenda. That seems to be the level of seriousness that is attached to such issues.

One of the reasons for that sort of response is that, in many instances, such persecution is actually sponsored, sanctioned and encouraged by the Governments of the countries concerned. We have already heard the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia calling for the destruction of all Christian churches on the peninsula. Human Rights Watch has said that the most dangerous place for a person to be a Christian today is Pakistan, and that much of that persecution is sanctioned by the Government there. A lot of the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is fomented by official sources—and so it goes on around the world. When we point to and specify the persecution of Christians, perhaps we are actually pointing the finger at Governments who, possibly for political reasons, we sometimes need as allies, and at Governments who, for commercial reasons, we need as trade partners. If that is the reason we are not prepared to be specific about this persecution, it is a great shame on the Government of our country.

[Mr MacNeil]

Although we have our concerns about persecution, perhaps we should be highlighting good practice where it occurs. There are indeed Islamic countries that are tolerant, and perhaps we should hold up the examples of Senegal, Bangladesh and Turkey, where there is a lot more tolerance compared with the societies we are concentrating on. We should make it clear that there are examples of Islamic states in which we would all be quite happy to live.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am not so sure about the human rights situation in the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

What can and should be done? I know this is a debate about what the Government should do, but the media have a responsibility. Where such unpleasant things are happening, they should be given proper coverage that is communicated to the wider world. Baroness Warsi said in Georgetown last month that it is important that we get an international coalition against such abuses, and that includes not just Governments but journalists, judges and all the people who can bring to the notice of the world the abuses taking place, do something about them, and deal with those engaged in them.

As has been mentioned, we give aid to many of these countries. I do not accept the argument that, by denying aid to them, we in some way disadvantage the people who live there. If that were the case, we would not impose sanctions anywhere, because there will always be people who are disadvantaged by sanctions. If the aid is going to a Government who are engaged in and supporting these practices, it is particularly easy to make it clear that no further aid will be given. As has been said, sometimes this is not a question of physical persecution but of economic or educational discrimination. When we think about how we spend our aid money, perhaps it should be targeted at persecuted groups.

We have talked about the ability of the Commonwealth to put pressure on the Governments of countries across the world over which we have some influence, where these abuses take place. This requires a concerted effort. It requires us not to be politically correct, but to have the courage to say, “This is happening to a particular group of people. It will not be tolerated, and there will be things which this Government will do.”

I have asked many questions about this. I have been told that the Government are aware of the situation and that they are monitoring it, looking into it and pressing the matter. We need more than that when people’s lives are being put at risk in this way.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionist party for choosing this important topic for debate. I come from a Muslim background, and my father was an imam. When I saw that the topic was “Persecution of Christians in the 21st century”, I knew that it was absolutely right and proper to have a debate on that subject. It is important for the world to realise that persecution goes on. I was speaking to a good friend of mine, the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, about this, and he told me that the persecution of Christians was taking place in more than 130 of the 190 countries in the world at the moment. That is completely and utterly unacceptable; it is a very sad state of affairs.

When I was thinking about which area to focus on in the debate, it was difficult for me to decide because the persecution is so widespread. When it is taking place in more than 130 countries, which country should I pick? I narrowed it down and chose a country that I know well. I was born in Pakistan and had the great privilege, pleasure and honour of serving as an adviser to the former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. She wanted reform, but she lost her life. She wanted a progressive Pakistan, but the radicalisation elements and certain others did not agree.

That is why, when I saw the topic for the debate, I had to choose Pakistan as the subject of my speech. The persecution of Christians is a major problem there, and I want to focus on the blasphemy laws. I recently read an article published by the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement, an organisation that covers the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and abroad, which stated:

“The Blasphemy law is at the root of much suffering and persecution of Christians in Pakistan. The use and abuse of this law is the fundamental issue underpinning discrimination and open violence against Christians and local churches”.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman can obviously speak from experience in his own country. Does he accept that when Muslims stand up for Christians in Pakistan, they too put themselves at risk? When the governor of Punjab stood up for and visited a Christian girl in jail, he ended up being murdered by his own bodyguard.

[Rehman Chishti]

I know more than many others about that issue. I lost my good friend Benazir Bhutto to radicalisation. She was two weeks away from winning an election, after which things could have changed. We had discussed reforming the blasphemy laws, but she was never able to do that. That is the problem in Pakistan, and the hon. Gentleman has highlighted it very well. The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, had raised the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian. She is a 46-year-old mother of six children, and she is still in prison in Pakistan. She was supposed to be pardoned by the President in 2010, but owing to pressure from the radical right, she was never freed. That was totally unacceptable. Pope Benedict said that what was happening to her was unacceptable and called for her release. However, she is still in prison in Pakistan and facing the death penalty. People in Pakistan stand up for her, but they know what the dangers are.

However, this does not mean that the Government of Pakistan cannot stand up and do the right thing by repealing a bad law. That bad law is the blasphemy law, and the abuse of that law must be dealt with. It is used to settle disputes between one neighbour and another, under sections that were brought in between 1980 and 1986 by General Zia, who was himself a radical. He was an extremist, and he introduced a section that stated that anyone who defamed the Prophet had to be killed. That is totally unacceptable. Those sections of the blasphemy law that were brought in during the Zia era are bad law and they have to go. The Pakistan Government could and should do that, but, as has been mentioned, Governments themselves face certain pressures. They can stand up, as the Minister with responsibility for minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian, did. He said that this law was wrong, but what happened to him? He was killed. What happened to Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab? He said it was wrong and he was killed. So we have to understand the difficulties for Governments in changing these laws, but they have to change them.