UK Relations with Ukraine

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Swire]

Not to date, but we—together with our EU partners—had hoped that the EU-Ukraine relationship would enter a new and fundamentally different phase following signature of the association agreement, which includes a deep and comprehensive free trade area, at the Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius on 28 and 29 November. What we have made a study of is the benefit that the agreement would bring to Ukraine and Ukrainian companies. It would give Ukrainian companies access to a market of 500 million consumers. Reliable studies have shown that GDP and wages would rise, and closer economic integration through the deep and comprehensive free trade area would be a powerful stimulant to Ukraine’s economic growth.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am fully supportive both of the people in the Ukraine and their democratic rights, and of the policy of Her Majesty’s Government here. However, does the Minister accept that there is some understandable nervousness—I can see it in the Government of Ukraine—that to suddenly change the relationship with the EU to one where there are much more open trading agreements could force tariffs in relation to the trade with Russia, and that therefore the right way forward, given where we are now, is to encourage negotiation between all the parties so that there is an agreed policy, with Russia, Ukraine and the EU growing together in the future?

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon mentioned the economic troubles in Ukraine at the moment and it is our assessment that an early benefit would be brought about by Ukraine signing this agreement, which would far outweigh any negative impact in resulting loss of trade—as he sees it—with Russia. Approximation to EU legislation, standards and norms will result in higher-quality products and improved services for citizens, and will improve Ukraine’s ability to compete in international markets.

As I say, my hon. Friend mentioned the economic challenges that Ukraine faces at the moment. I hope that the Ukrainian authorities can reach an agreement with the International Monetary Fund on a new stand-by arrangement. That is in Ukraine’s hands, and it is in Ukraine’s interests to entrench fiscal and financial stability by advancing structural reforms. Doing so will increase Ukraine’s ability to withstand external pressures.

The Government and, I am sure, Members from all parties in this House look to the Ukrainian Government—working collaboratively with opposition parties, civil society and business—to show the necessary political will and commitment to enable signature of the association agreement to go ahead in the near future. That means continuing with the reforms that are already under way, and ensuring that the parliamentary elections that will be rerun on 15 December are conducted in accordance with international standards.

When Ukraine is ready to sign, under this Government or a future Government, it will find the UK to be a willing partner that is ready to lend support and assistance on the road to a closer relationship with the EU. As the Prime Minister and other EU leaders made clear to President Yanukovych at Vilnius, the EU’s door remains open; it is Ukraine’s choice whether to walk through it.

Before I close, let me touch on Russia’s role. We have all seen and read reports about the pressure that Russia has been bringing to bear on Ukraine and many of its businesses. Any such pressure is unacceptable. In the modern world, every country should respect the sovereignty of others and their right to enter into the agreements that they consider appropriate. And I hope that Russia can understand that this is not a zero-sum game. The association agreement will help Ukraine to modernise and transform its institutions and economy. Ukraine will become more prosperous. That is in everyone’s interests, including Russia’s.

We continue to follow developments in Ukraine very closely, and we are in touch with the EU institutions and with other member states. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon will be aware, Baroness Ashton, Vice-President of the European Commission and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, has travelled to Kiev and will encourage all parties to engage in constructive dialogue. And as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe set out in his written ministerial statement earlier today, the Government continue to urge all parties to remain calm and to avoid actions that could lead to an escalation of the situation or the restriction of personal freedoms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Will Ministers take up with the Government of Bangladesh the increasing concerns of Bangladeshis in this country, and others, about the intimidation, threats, violence and persecution of minorities, both political and faith?

[Hugh Robertson]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the answer to that is yes. As he knows, the next round of Bangladeshi parliamentary elections is scheduled for 5 January, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh in November to find an agreeable way to run those elections—in a fair, free and satisfactory fashion.

Persecution of Christians

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for choosing this theme for debate. Does he accept that not just members of the Christian Church—him, me, many other Members and our constituents—but people of other faiths now believe that the Government and the Commonwealth in particular should be much more proactive about this issue? In reflecting further on the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), does he agree that one thing the Government could do would be to urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to argue for the Commonwealth to set up a specific group of people—of politicians and faith groups—to make sure that the human rights of faith minorities in the world, particularly in the Commonwealth, are much better protected than they are now?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that very valuable contribution. I will mention Baroness Warsi later in my speech. She has outlined the issue from the Government’s point of view and explained some of the ideas she is thinking of. I will return to them shortly as I believe they show the direction we should be going in, and hopefully that will address some of the points Members have raised.

In Indonesia and the Philippines Christians have had their churches burned to the ground and church members attacked and killed because they dared to tell others about the love of God, and that God is a God of love who loves them and wants them to be saved and in heaven. Now, in the 21st century, nearly 65 years since the universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the UN—we can now think about the UN’s role and the role it can play—and with great improvements in technology and medicine, we might also expect to see an improvement in how humans treat each other. However, sadly, we still see severe violations of human rights around the world. Indeed one human right that is particularly violated is that outlined in article 18: the right to freedom of religion or belief. It is enshrined in the motion before us today, too; that is the thrust of where we are coming from. This right is one of the only rights defined as non-derogable in the international covenant on civil and political rights. That means that it must be protected at all times and cannot be suspended or reduced in times of emergency.

Iran

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is a perfectly legitimate question. We are talking about either sanctions that will be suspended—not lifted or abolished—or about the unfreezing of a specified amount of frozen assets on a one-off basis. The sanctions relief that is being offered to Iran can easily be reversed if it does not abide by the commitments into which it has entered.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Of course we thank the Foreign Secretary and his Security Council and European Union colleagues for a very successful agreement, but we are mindful that the proof of Iran’s sincerity lies in inspection and verification in the next six months. Does he think that, while that is proceeding, Iran might be encouraged to participate in the other conversations in the middle east that must happen—the discussions on Syria that he has announced will take place in January, and discussions on other issues further down the track relating to Israel and Palestine?

[Mr Hague]

I hope so. There have been several questions about that topic. As I have said, it is too early to conclude from this agreement that other aspects of Iranian foreign policy will change, but of course we should like that to happen. I have said to Foreign Minister Zarif that if Iran—along with nearly all the rest of the world—were to accept last year’s Geneva communiqué on Syria as the basis for future discussions on the subject, many countries would be much more open to its involvement in those discussions. That is up to the Iranians, and I hope that they will respond positively to such suggestions.

UK Relations with Gibraltar and Spain

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mark Simmonds]

Regiments play a significant role in Kenya. My response to my hon. Friend is the point I made earlier: we must strike a balance between being forceful, strong and determined—to ensure that the Spanish Government understand the UK Government’s position and that the Commission undertakes its role responsibly and consistently to ensure that the issues on the border and in Gibraltarian territorial water cease—and finding mechanisms to de-escalate, rather than escalate the situation. That is why we must get back to discussing solutions as soon as possible, without negotiating the Gibraltarian sovereignty position at all.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The Government are being very robust about the principles, but will the Minister ensure that when we speak to the ambassador here and Ministers in Madrid, we make it clear that it is in Spain’s interest for the good relationship that exists between Gibraltar and La Linea locally to be expanded to the region? They need jobs, they need investment and they need tourists. They need people coming to Gibraltar airport. Making the region look like a place of huge confrontation and frightening investors away is not in Spain’s interest.

[Mark Simmonds]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I assure him that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have made exactly that point, and the other points I made, over the past couple of months, to try to ensure that Spain takes a constructive and positive stance in its relationship with Gibraltar, rather than a negative one.

UK Relations with China

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his measured, balanced and important speech. On Tibet, many of us are very supportive of better links with China. London South Bank university in my patch has the Confucius institute, which is very positive. We also represent Buddhists in this country. The Chinese do not yet appear to understand that nobody is seeking to threaten China’s control of Tibet; we are just seeking, with the Buddhists, to argue for their religious freedom and for a certain degree of autonomy for them to live their lives in the old parts of China, as they would choose to do.

[Mark Pritchard]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are hopefully arguing for the upholding of the Chinese constitution itself. The Chinese authorities need not fear freedom of religion. The suppression of religion, not the freedom of religion, is what causes instability in societies.

I have my Tibet notes, so I will hopefully have some added value later, but first I will speak briefly on animal welfare. As I mentioned, China probably has the worst animal welfare record of any country, yet it is known as the country of the dragon. I fear that, if dragons existed, they too would probably be cruelly reared and cut down in their prime for their teeth and claws, or be caged throughout their life without any care or compassion. In a world in which dragons lived, the country of the dragon would be pre-eminent in their slaughter. The country of the dragon would slaughter the dragon to extinction.

China’s demand for ivory is a major factor in the demise of elephant and rhino populations across the world, often for alternative medicines and therapies, some with unproven benefits, and with the false claim that those and other such medicines improve libido—science has proved quite the opposite. The Chinese Government should educate their population on the threat to some of the world’s most endangered and vulnerable species and unblock websites so that people may access that information themselves. Even the Tibetan antelope has been driven to the brink of extinction due to the Chinese authorities destroying its habitat with forced land use changes and unregulated hunting.

The Chinese invasion of Tibet has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans and the imprisonment and torture of thousands more. In 1959, the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s political and spiritual leader, fled into exile in India followed by more than 100,000 Tibetans, and established the Tibetan Government in exile.

China must end its economic strangulation of, and mass economic discrimination against, Tibet. That deliberate policy has forced thousands of Tibetans to abandon their traditional rural lives and move into new housing colonies in urban areas where non-agricultural jobs are controlled by the Chinese state. Tibetans are now a minority in such urban centres because of China’s encouragement of mass Chinese migration.

The Buddhist religion continues to suffer. The Chinese have destroyed more than 6,000 Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and shrines since 1949. Today, the number of monks allowed to enter monasteries is strictly controlled and limited. Any references to, or images of, the Dalai Lama are banned. As I mentioned, I have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama twice, and I have made it clear whom I will meet and not meet.

Chinese political oppression—and that is what it is: oppression—has responded to uprisings with extreme violence. Some 300,000 Chinese soldiers are now posted in Tibet. China has repeatedly violated UN conventions through the extensive use of torture against Tibetan political prisoners, including monks and nuns. The Chinese regime has also wreaked huge environmental damage throughout Tibet.

The third plenary of the 18th central committee of the Communist party of China met last week. Many of the decisions made at that important gathering are welcome, but those decisions must be implemented, not just announced—the Chinese are very good at press releases, but we need to see action on the ground that changes people’s lives for the better.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) for initiating the debate. I also endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) about gay rights across the Commonwealth, where much work has still to be done.

I have a strong view—I have not changed it—that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting should not be in Colombo. With others, I have argued that case in the Liberal Democrat party and in the Government. We did not win the argument, and I understand, therefore, that the Minister appears before us committed to going with the Government’s decision. He has been courteous in receiving some of us and listening to the arguments we want the Government to make.

I want to put to the Minister again some of the arguments I have put elsewhere, including to him at our meeting. First, I hope the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister will publicly argue for the independent inquiry into war crimes I believe still needs to happen. It is unarguable, on the basis of independent evidence, that there were war crimes.

I do not defend the Tamil Tigers—they committed terrible atrocities, too—but Governments have particular responsibilities, and they fail them dreadfully. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who I think is visiting Parliament today, went to Sri Lanka in August. She was clear in her report that the situation was not improving, but getting worse. She said she feared that the country was becoming increasingly authoritarian and that, since the war had ended, democracy had been undermined and the rule of law eroded.

Secondly, I would be grateful if the Prime Minister and Ministers went to Sri Lanka equipped with a list, based on independent evidence, of the disappeared, those who have been killed and those who have been tortured or harassed. I would like them specifically to challenge President Rajapaksa and the Sri Lankan Government to tell us what happened to those people—particularly senior lawyers, newspaper editors and others who have simply been wiped out.

Thirdly, I hope we can address the structural need to change the way in which the Commonwealth works if it is not to become entirely disrespected over the next two years under the chairmanship of President Rajapaksa. The idea I have put to Ministers is that we should argue that, consistent with the Commonwealth charter, there should be a panel—a small group of, possibly, three people at any one time—whose job it is to be the Commonwealth’s human rights panel. They would make sure that, in future, the Commonwealth does not decide to go to countries that are clearly abusing the charter’s human rights requirements.

Lastly, I hope we make the strongest representations and engage in the strongest discussions to make sure the next secretary-general of the Commonwealth is much tougher and much more effective in standing up for human rights than the current incumbent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Substantive changes in our policy on sanctions will require substantive changes in Iran’s nuclear programme, of course. Negotiations took place in Geneva on 15 and 16 October and a further round of such negotiations is now planned for 7 and 8 November, the end of next week. We welcome the improved tone and posture of Iran in those serious negotiations, but it will have to take serious and real steps for us to be able to reciprocate.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for successful negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I welcome the more positive approach taken by the Iranian Government at the recent E3 plus 3 talks in Geneva. Foreign Minister Zarif presented a basis for negotiations and we have begun more substantive discussions on how to address the serious concerns about the nuclear programme. If Iran is willing to take the necessary first steps on its programme, we are ready to take proportionate steps in return.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful for the constructive reply from the Foreign Secretary. Given that Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and Arab League peace envoy on Syria, has recently said that Iran’s participation in the Geneva talks would be fruitful, natural and necessary, will the Foreign Secretary consider an invitation to him to help in that process and in the negotiations with Iran on nuclear weapons?

[Mr Hague]

It will ultimately be up to the UN to decide who can be brought around the table in a Geneva peace conference. I have already discussed Iran’s approach to Syria with the Iranian Foreign Minister and have put it to him that it is time that Iran accepted—along with Russia and many other non-western countries—that last year’s Geneva communiqué is the basis for discussing the future of Syria and that we are out together to create a transitional Government and bring the conflict to an end. Iran has not yet indicated that; it would be very helpful were it to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The worry of the conflict in Syria spreading over its borders is a very real one. We have seen the impact of that in Syria recently. The bombings in Tripoli recently produced from the Lebanese authorities an investigation into and indictment of pro-Assad supporters for that atrocity. Those in Israel are therefore absolutely right to be constantly aware of the risks and the dangers to them. Again, this goes to show how important it is to seek a resolution of the conflict in Syria, on which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is spending so much time.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The Government have always been very clear about what is legal and illegal in international law in relation to Israel and the settlements. Now that the very welcome peace talks are under way, can Ministers assure us that they will continue to urge all parties—businesses, the voluntary sector and others—to do the things that will support the peace process and remind people that keeping talking round the table is now the paramount objective because it is the best chance, possibly the last chance, to get some progress in the near future?

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. Friend has it absolutely right. A key part of the work that is going on at the moment is to make very clear to Palestinians and to Israel the economic benefits that will flow from success in the peace talks that are going on. That is very much work in progress. If the talks are successful, we will be talking about the opportunities for Palestine and for Israel rather than having the conversations we continually need to have about the difficulties caused by settlements and the like.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend is right. We have generations of people who have not had a say and we have generations of people who, when they had their say, voted for something which is not what exists today. Taken together, the changes that we have seen to the European Union and the length of time since the British people gave their consent in that original vote are significant. They make the case for a fresh referendum an obvious one and one that should be supported. The times have changed, the European Union has changed, and public sentiment has changed. It is time we had a referendum, it is time we gave people a choice, and that is why we are here.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I voted enthusiastically yes in the ’70s and I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would not vote yes in any future referendum. Why do we need this Bill when we have already legislated for a referendum anyway, and when I hope the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, like mine, believe that the priorities are jobs and growth and investment, not putting the whole of the European investment links at risk for the next few years?

[James Wharton]

It never ceases to amaze me—I hope my colleagues on the Government Benches will allow me this indulgence—how the Liberal Democrats change their position as the wind blows. On this important matter Liberal Democrat MPs campaigned at the last election to offer the British people a referendum. They have now changed their mind because it looks a real prospect. I hope that they may change their mind again and agree with what some of us are trying to achieve.