EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

This afternoon I want to focus on why it is important for Croydon North that Britain remains a member of the European Union. Croydon North is part of an outer London borough, but it has many of the features of an inner-city area: an extremely diverse population, high levels of youth unemployment—particularly, sadly, in the black community—and too much poor quality housing, particularly in the private rented sector, but it also has a very enterprising and ambitious population.

Croydon is at a crossroads. The Labour council elected two years ago has announced a massive £5 billion regeneration project for the town centre that will affect the whole borough. It will reshape the retail centre around a new Westfield-Hammerson’s shopping mall, including thousands of new homes, thousands of new jobs, new education and leisure facilities, and a growing new tech hub. Being a 15-minute train journey from Gatwick in one direction and central London in the other, Croydon is ideally placed to take advantage of being part of the world’s biggest trading bloc.

The future looks bright for Croydon, but a big question-mark hangs over it all, and that is the threat of Brexit in next week’s referendum. The investors Croydon hopes to attract will think again if Croydon is outside the European Union. They do not want trade barriers blocking their access to Europe and they will think twice about investing in an economy that is going backwards into recession.

If we tried to stay in the single market without EU membership, we would be subject to EU rules and freedom of movement, like Norway and Switzerland are, but without the veto we currently have: the same circumstances, but no voice.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

That is the one argument that people on my street just are not aware of. They think we can have a trade agreement with the EU and still lower the immigration from EU countries. It simply is not true, because we would have to sign up to the same freedom of movement. We need to get that message out.

[Mr Reed]

That is absolutely true. I am sure my hon. Friend is doing as much as she can in her constituency, and I am going to be doing as much as I can in mine.

We would become weaker, not more powerful, if we left the EU. We would lose control over our destiny, not gain it. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned that a vote to leave the EU could trigger a recession, and nine out of 10 economists agree with him that Brexit would damage the economy. A vote to leave next Thursday would be the first time a country had voluntarily chosen to throw its economy into recession, and that would mean more job losses, lower tax revenues, a growing deficit, more cuts in public services like health and education, rising interest rates to prop up the pound and, because of that, higher mortgages. And it is not the wealthy élite that will suffer; it is ordinary people in places like Croydon North.

Immigration has helped London’s economy to grow, and it has benefited Croydon immensely. Where there are pressures because of immigration, like housing or the NHS, those are not the fault of immigrants, who put in more than they take out; they are the fault of a Tory Government who are underfunding our health service and selling off social housing. We cannot allow immigrants to be scapegoated for the failures of this Conservative Government.

Too many people in Croydon work long hours for low pay in insecure jobs. Their lives would become harder still without the employment protection that comes from our membership of the EU. Pro-Brexit Tories have already made it clear that they cannot wait to leave the EU so that they can cut workers’ rights in half. That is exactly what one of them has said they want to do. They want to remove rights for part-time workers and parents, increase working hours, and reduce paid leave. It was the European social chapter that triggered the Tory revolt on Europe, not because they want to protect British workers, but because they want to exploit British workers.

[Chris Stephens]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the independent legal opinion of Michael Ford, QC, who has said that in the event of a Tory Brexit, the damage would go much further and affect collective consultation, collective bargaining and the rights of part-time workers? He also believes that TUPE rights, which apply to outsourcing, would go.

[Mr Reed]

I was not aware of that particular opinion, but I am keen to learn more about it. It does not surprise me, however, because that is what many commentators are saying about the implications of a Tory Brexit for workers’ rights, jobs and the prosperity of ordinary people in this country.

For that reason, and all the others that we have heard this afternoon, I am confident that voters in Croydon North will vote next week to remain part of the European Union. The EU is an organisation that needs reform to make it more accountable, but we need to hear the concerns being expressed by people of good will and use them to make the EU work better. We cannot cut ourselves adrift and leave ourselves subject to an EU that we can no longer influence because we are isolated on the outside. Croydon is better off in Europe, and Britain is better off in Europe. I will be voting to remain next Thursday.

Dog Meat Trade

Steve Reed Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for the work on this issue that he has led for a long time. I am delighted that he has been able to hotfoot it back to the Chamber for the debate following a visit to Croydon North.

I am sure that both my hon. Friends would agree that the cruel and barbaric treatment of dogs and cats for food in a small number of countries is a stain on humanity and a threat to human health that needs to be stopped. The majority of the British public consider themselves to be animal lovers, and they are strongly opposed to cruelty to cats, dogs and other animals. I am sure that they would welcome the fact that this debate is being held today.

There are commercial and cultural reasons why dogs are eaten. In some countries, dog meat is wrongly believed to have medicinal properties. For instance, it is believed to help in the treatment of impotence and poor circulation. However, there is no evidence to support any of these claims and there need to be stronger public information campaigns in those countries to educate populations to understand the facts. Consumption of dog and cat meat is also linked to human health and disease. The consumption of these animals is linked to the transmission of diseases such as cholera and the spread of rabies, in part because of the appalling conditions in which the animals are transported. Perhaps the most offensive aspect of the dog meat trade is the way in which the animals are treated. A huge proportion are family pets that are stolen, transported in inhumane conditions and slaughtered without any regard whatever for the level of suffering being inflicted on them.

I agree with Members who have said that it is not for people from one meat-eating culture to tell people of other cultures which animals they can or cannot eat, but there is a role to be played in seeking to secure global standards of animal welfare and in working with local campaign groups on the ground in the countries affected to help them strengthen their own cases. AnimalsAsia has conducted a detailed investigation into the dog meat trade, finding that the vast majority of dog meat in China comes from stolen dogs previously owned as pets. It found no conclusive evidence of large-scale breeding farms that could have been capable of supplying the up to 20 million dogs which it is estimated are eaten across China every year. Anyone who has ever owned a pet cat or dog knows how much they become part of the family, being loved, cared for and cherished.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is probably not appropriate to think we can tell other countries what to do, but is it not reasonable to tell them what the reaction of the British public will be if the sorts of things they are doing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) referred, become public knowledge?

[Mr Reed]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I agree with him. There is certainly a case for consumer power in those countries influencing those countries, but the key is to persuade them of the need to change. Indeed, there are campaigns on the ground in those countries which we can support.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I declare an interest, in that I am a dog owner, admirer and lover. Of course we have recently seen the wonderful pets in Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should hope and expect that British Ministers and diplomats will continue to make the case when working on our behalf in the countries that continue with these practices that they are not appropriate in our view? Does he agree that that could bring about the change we seek?

[Mr Reed]

The hon. Lady makes a very sensible point. There has been some of this communication in bilateral discussions with other countries, but it could certainly go further. I hope we will hear that response from the Minister in his summing up.

I was talking about family pets. Families are understandably grief-stricken when they lose a pet, but to fear or know that their pet has been stolen by animal traffickers who then subject it to sickening levels of cruelty and abuse only makes the grief all the harder to bear. Stolen animals are often crammed into crates where many suffer broken bones. They are transported for days in shocking conditions, with many dying of dehydration or suffocation. On arrival at their destination, most dogs are then taken to slaughterhouses that have not been approved or monitored by local authorities. In horrific conditions they are butchered, often in full sight of other dogs, which are terrified by what they see.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned, there is a belief in some places where dogs are eaten that a terrified dog produces tastier meat, so some animals are skinned alive, thrown still living into boiling water or hung by the neck to induce terror. The scale of suffering is hard to imagine. One of the most notorious dog-eating events is the annual Yulin dog meat festival, which has been the subject of a worldwide campaign to close it down. An estimated 10,000 dogs are slaughtered and eaten at this event. The treatment of dogs at the event is horrific and it is on a massive scale.

AnimalsAsia highlights the fact that existing animal protection laws are not enforced in some countries—in some cases, we are talking about bans on the sale, transportation and slaughter of dogs for meat. It further highlights the fact that misinformation, abuse and illegality is rife at almost every stage of the industry supply chain. There is an overwhelming need for the stronger enforcement of such laws, and again it is entirely legitimate for the UK Government to raise such issues in bilateral meetings, as they have already done with China, the Philippines and South Korea.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on the comments he has made. I agree with him that this situation is barbaric. Do the Governments of our nations have a role to play in terms of the security of the supply chain and making sure that none of this dog meat enters our food chain and threatens our food supply?

[Mr Reed]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and I am sure that British consumers would be horrified if there was any question of dog meat ending up on tables or in food products in the UK.

In conclusion, there can be no excuse for the intolerable suffering and cruelty inflicted on animals as a result of this trade. We need to do everything we can to support campaign groups in countries where dogs and cats are eaten. It is time to stamp out this barbaric trade.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Phil Wilson]

I want to make some progress, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

More than 140,000 jobs in the north-east will be affected if we left the EU. That is 33,000 in County Durham, 25,000 in Teesside, 19,000 in Northumbria and 30,000-odd in Tyneside. Jobs would also be lost in Cumbria. In Stockton South, 5,200 jobs would be affected or are reliant in some way on the EU. In Sedgefield, the figure is 6,500.

Of those north-east firms that export, 89% do so with EU customers. Three of the north-east’s top five export markets are in the EU: the Netherlands, France and Spain. If the hon. Member for Stockton South had consulted the North East chamber of commerce, he would have heard the organisation’s head of policy, Ross Smith, say:

“For a Region so successful in exports, the EU…remains crucial. Our…studies clearly demonstrate that our businesses want to remain part of the single market.”

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, which I was going to incorporate in my speech. I agree that there are such precedents, so it would be sensible to consider establishing a Speaker’s Committee on one of the most important—if not the most important—issues that we have ever had to face, certainly in modern times.

The British public and British business want to ensure that the date is set in the national interest, not in the partisan interest of the Conservative party. Business knows and we all know—I would like to think that anyone here with a modicum of common sense knows—that the single market is absolutely key. In his comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) referred to Nissan, a massive investment in the north-east of England which is put in jeopardy as a consequence of the uncertainties created by this debate. Those uncertainties are added to by the uncertainty as to whether the date of the referendum is in the national interest.

[Mr Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend was speaking about the potential negative economic consequences of the proposal to delay the referendum as long as possible. Does he believe that this economic uncertainty and the damage that it causes is one of the things that was in the mind of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) when he said in 2010 that he was against an in/out EU referendum?

[Chris Williamson]

Indeed, but the problem for the Prime Minister is that he has been taken prisoner by extremists in his own party who are determined, irrespective of the national interest—their little Englander mentality has captured the Prime Minister. He is being held hostage by the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party and he has done a volte-face on the date of the referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

And my right hon. Friend rightly points out that the Minister would not answer the question today.

I have searched high and low for a hint of what the Leader of the Conservative party might want to do on that question. As my right hon. Friend said, the Minister for Europe has been asked directly a number of times, and has not given a straight answer. The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked him directly, and did not get a straight answer either.

[Mr Steve Reed]

Does my hon. Friend believe that perhaps in the Prime Minister’s mind is the warning from Lord Heseltine that an in/out referendum would be a gamble because it would damage Britain’s attractiveness as an inward investment market?

[Mr Thomas]

One hopes that the Prime Minister might listen to the warnings of the former Deputy Prime Minister, and that he will listen to other business leaders who have warned about the uncertainty of a referendum.

But I come back to this search to understand what powers and competences the Prime Minister might want to bring back to the UK. The Minister for Europe will not give us an answer, so I read the Hansard reports of the Committee stage at great length, but there is no sign there either of what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to bring back. In desperation, I faced up to the challenge of reading the speeches of the Minister for Europe. During all that time that I will never get back I fought the urge to sleep, and I am sure that, being the excellent boss he is, the shadow Foreign Secretary will now want to make sure that I get more than just a Christmas card in the post at the end of the year.

Having waded through the Minister’s speeches, I reached two conclusions: first, his civil servants are just finding him things to do. The speeches were not that different, although they were made in lots of different places. Secondly, and much more serious, I do not think he has a clue what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to bring back to the UK.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

Steve Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I do not want to beat about the bush: Britain should not attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka later this month. It is disgraceful that our Government are heaping credibility on the Sri Lankan regime by doing so.

In just nine days, the Prime Minister and the heir to the throne will effectively bestow their blessing on the regime when they are photographed alongside President Rajapaksa, who is widely considered to be a war criminal. The images of a king-to-be and a Prime Minister with such a person will cause enormous distress to his victims. Worse, they will give succour to other potential war criminals and show just how easy it is to get away with it. As Amnesty said,

“By hosting CHOGM in Colombo, the Commonwealth is giving an extraordinary and ill-deserved seal of approval to impunity for human rights violations in Sri Lanka.”

President Rajapaksa is head of a regime that cluster-bombed its own people, many in the laughably titled “no-fire zone”. It killed at least 40,000 of its own citizens. Even now, nearly 150,000 Tamils remain unaccounted for. Yes, the Tamil Tigers were a cruel terrorist organisation, but according to the United Nations, the large majority of civilian killings were

“the result of Government shelling and aerial bombardment”.

There was systematic shelling of hospitals and civilian areas by Government forces, as well as restrictions on humanitarian aid.

Channel 4’s documentary “Killing Fields” drew the world’s attention to what the UN panel of experts called a

“grave assault on the entire regime of international law”.

The channel’s latest documentary, screened on Sunday, was almost too harrowing to watch. Mobile phone footage, authenticated by the metadata in each file, showed further evidence of what reporter Jonathan Miller called

“the worst…crimes committed this century…that is saying something, given what is going on in Syria.”

Sri Lanka’s own so-called Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission has totally failed to provide accountability. The UN panel of experts said that it was “deeply flawed” and called for an independent, international investigation into war crimes. Yet Sri Lanka continues to ignore even the most minor allegations, describing them as unsubstantiated or biased.

In the absence of accountability or reconciliation, the situation is getting worse. As the UN human rights commissioner, Navi Pillay, said just weeks ago,

“although the fighting is over, the suffering is not.”

For her, Sri Lanka is

“showing signs of heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction”,

with

“curtailment or denial of personal freedoms and human rights...and the failure of the rule of law.”

Amnesty also described

“a deterioration of human rights...violations continue, with the…Government cracking down on critics through threats, harassment, imprisonment and violent attacks.”

Journalists, the judiciary, human rights activists and opposition politicians are all targets of what Amnesty calls a

“disturbing pattern of Government-sanctioned abuse.”

Sri Lanka is now the most dangerous place in the world to be a journalist. Yesterday, I was lucky enough to meet Sandhya, the wife of Prageeth Eknaligoda, a satirist and journalist who disappeared in 2010. Earlier this week, the BBC screened an excellent documentary, “The Disappeared”, which was about the impact of abductions and secret murders in Ireland during the troubles. Even 40 years on, victims’ families are haunted by what happened, and their emotions are still raw. Mrs Eknaligoda’s husband disappeared just three years ago. The paramilitaries responsible for his disappearance cannot be dismissed easily as terrorists, as might have been the case with the IRA; they are agents of the Sri Lankan establishment.

The state of Sri Lanka has done next to nothing to help Mrs Eknaligoda to find her husband. When she reported his disappearance, the case was not investigated. Instead, she was locked up. Police officers called to court to account for what happened to her husband routinely fail to appear. Ministers refuse to answer letters about the case, other than to acknowledge receipt. Sri Lanka’s chief justice, Mohan Peiris, blithely told the UN human rights commission that Mr Eknaligoda had gone abroad, with absolutely no evidence to back up the claim.

Mr Eknaligoda is not the only one of Sri Lanka’s disappeared. Amnesty reckons that there have been thousands of disappearances, including at least 39 critics of Sri Lanka’s Government, since 2010. Many are not even Tamil; Mr Eknaligoda is Sinhalese. Every one of those disappearances is a tragedy, in a country that is well used to brutality.

What was so shocking about meeting Mrs Eknaligoda and hearing her story was how unsurprised I felt about it. Our Government’s complete failure to hold the Government of Sri Lanka to account is also no surprise. Indeed, although this was Mrs Eknaligoda’s first visit to Britain and hers is a cause célèbre around the world, the British Government refused to meet her.

Freedom from Torture says that Sri Lanka has replaced Iran at the top of the table of torture cases referred to it in the UK. Tamils continue to suffer owing to military controls in the north and east of Sri Lanka. The Foreign Affairs Committee has concluded that holding the Commonwealth meeting in Colombo was “wrong”. It told the Prime Minister not to go unless he received

“convincing and independently verified evidence of substantial and sustainable improvements in human and political rights.”

No such improvements have been seen, yet still the Prime Minister and the heir to the throne will go.

Our Government claim to be concerned about

“disappearances, political violence and reports of torture in custody”,

but for the next two years, Sri Lanka will chair every important committee of the Commonwealth, and President Rajapaksa will pose alongside our Prime Minister. If our Prime Minister seriously thinks that his presence alongside Rajapaksa will help the victims of disappearances or cluster-bombings, he clearly knows nothing about Sri Lanka.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case. She is a strong champion of human rights in Sri Lanka. Does she share the sense of betrayal felt by British Tamils living in my constituency, hers and elsewhere in the country that our Government are lending credence to the Sri Lankan regime by insisting on attending the meeting?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

As my hon. Friend suggests, I find it unfathomable that a British Government of any political hue would choose to go to Sri Lanka for the conference.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Steve Reed Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary seem to be prepared to put at risk the jobs and investment that Europe brings just to satisfy the obsessions of their Back Benchers?

[Mr Alexander]

None of us doubts that Europe needs substantive change or that there needs to be reform; the tragedy for the United Kingdom is that the intransigence of the Conservative Back Benchers behind the Prime Minister means that he cannot address those needs in a sensible, straightforward manner. He did not wake up in January with a sudden democratic impulse that had somehow eluded him in the preceding years. He is being driven by weakness, not strength. This is about external electoral threats and internal leadership threats. This is not about trusting the people; it is about these Back Benchers not trusting the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is kind of Opposition Members to look forward to my speech. After the speech of the shadow Foreign Secretary, that is not altogether surprising. Rarely in this House—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Rarely in this House has a speech accusing others of causing uncertainty been so totally shrouded in uncertainty itself.

After the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, he has still not said whether the Opposition will vote for or against or abstain on Second Reading. He has managed to speak for half an hour without even saying what their position is on the Second Reading of the Bill—a feat almost unknown in this House and in all the Second Reading debates that I have attended in the past 24 years.

The parliamentary Labour party briefing, of which I have helpfully obtained a copy—they are left all over the building in surprising places—states:

“This is a Conservative Party Bill…which we are opposed to.”

If the Opposition are opposed to it, presumably they are going to vote against it. The shadow Foreign Secretary is not able to answer that question. Not only does he not know what his policy is; he does not even know whether he is going to vote against something that he is opposed to.

Opposition Members are asking when the Prime Minister will leave, but the Leader of the Opposition is not even here. He is presumably sitting somewhere, wondering whether his instructions will come in a phone call from Unite or from divine inspiration through the ether. There is no other way in which he is able to decide on the Bill.

[Mr Steve Reed]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hague]

I will make a bit of progress before giving way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is to be applauded for introducing the Bill and for his excellent speech. Huge numbers of people across the country, as well as in this House, will thank him for it. The matter before us is about Europe’s future, our country’s place in it and, above all, democracy. It is about giving the people of this country the decisive say that is their right.

[Mr Reed]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will give way in a moment.

At a time of profound change in Europe, this Bill would give the British people the power to decide one of the greatest questions facing Britain: whether we should be in the EU or out of it.

In deference to my hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party, I must say that I am not speaking for the whole coalition. As will be obvious to the House, I am speaking on behalf of the Conservative party.

Two years ago, we passed the European Union Act 2011 to ensure that no Government could agree to transfer areas of power from Britain to the EU without a referendum. It met complete indecision from the Opposition, who resolutely and bravely abstained. However, support for it is now their official policy. Two years later, they have adopted our policy and we are pleased that they have done so. Today, with this Bill, we discover a similar wave of indecision on the Opposition Benches and we look forward to their adopting this policy in due course. Perhaps the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) will clarify that point.

[Mr Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is against uncertainty and indecision. Perhaps he will tell us how he would vote in an in/out referendum.

[Mr Hague]

Opposition Members will have to do better than that. The policy of the Government, which was set out in detail in the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is to achieve a reformed European Union and a better settlement with it. We do not agree with the status quo and we want to be able to campaign for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union.