Saudi Arabia

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My right hon. Friend, who has huge experience in this area, makes a very important point. I made reference to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a young state, created in 1932. There was no sense of nation state before that. There was no sense of central Government; rather, there were powerful tribal structures. It remains a mostly socially conservative society, where today’s leadership is on the liberal end of opinion—we must not forget that. We will therefore continue to work with Saudi Arabia to make sure that it moves towards its programme of reforms and modernisation.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. The Independent recently reported that a legal adviser to the Foreign Secretary stated that it was “not at all clear” whether UK weapons sold to Saudi Arabia have been used on civilian targets in Yemen, and a recent legal opinion published by Matrix Chambers has further cast doubt on the Government’s action. I await a response from the Minister to my letter of 3 December, in which I asked for specific reassurances from him that international arms treaty laws have not been breached in the sale of these weapons. I hope he can use this opportunity to give that reassurance to the House.

At the same time, the Minister should explain why the work of this Government on the export of weapons and military equipment has not been subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny by the Committees on Arms Export Controls. Why have they been reluctant to have transparency on this vital matter? We must have a full explanation as to why Saudi Arabia was excused from the UK Government’s five-year strategy towards abolishing the death penalty worldwide, despite its having one of the world’s worst human rights records. Why did that happen? Following the execution of 47 people in a single day last week, does the Minister regret that decision? What representations did the Government make to Saudi Arabia before and after the execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr?

Finally, let me say that this Government are fast losing any credibility when it comes to supporting human rights around the world. The question has just been asked, but not answered, as to whether they supported Saudi Arabia’s election to the UN Human Rights Council. What role did the Tory-Lib Dem Government play in that process? In addition, and of paramount importance, does the Minister support Saudi Arabia’s continuation in the role?

[Mr Ellwood]

Let me answer that last point about Saudi Arabia’s membership of the UN Human Rights Council first. The UK does not publicise how it votes, and that has been the case under all Governments, but I should say that this election was uncontested so it was very clear what the actual outcome would be. This appointment was made via an internal nomination of the consultative group, and the UK is not a member of that group. I hope that clarifies the British position in relation to Saudi Arabia and the UN Human Rights Council.

I thought I had answered the question about the five-year strategy. I specifically made it clear in my statement that that was written in 2011 and is no longer relevant in relation to the countries of concern, including Saudi Arabia. In dealing with a point about Ali al-Nimr made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), which I did not answer fully, I can only repeat what I have said over the weekend, as have the Foreign Secretary and our ambassador in Riyadh: there are no reasons why Ali al-Nimr should face execution, and nor should the other youths convicted while they were juveniles.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The security situation in Sinai is very serious. The Egyptian army is engaged in combat with terrorist groups across Sinai. The Foreign Office travel advice recommends against all travel to Sinai, except the area around Sharm el-Sheik. Sharm el-Sheik is itself still considered safe for travel, although travel through the airport is advised against. We seek to work with the Egyptian authorities to deal with the terrorist challenge it is facing in Sinai.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does the Foreign Secretary believe that further air strikes alone will move us towards political stability in the wider region? Perhaps he will take this opportunity to address the efficacy of military intervention in Syria and how it will contribute to a wider initiative to end civil war and secure reconstruction. Does he have a plan for securing the peace that includes measures to close down all sources of finance and new recruits to the terrorist cult Daesh, including a Government inquiry into its financing? Why are the Government attempting to make a case for war while failing to address the clear and present need for a long-term, comprehensive peace plan?

[Mr Hammond]

The short answer, as we have acknowledged many times, is that, no, airstrikes alone will not destroy Daesh—as the hon. Lady implores me to describe it from the Dispatch Box—but they have to be part of the overall solution. On her other specific inquiries, if she will wait until Thursday, she can look forward to hearing from the Prime Minister how this fits into our broader strategy.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his response, and I wait in anticipation for Thursday’s statement. I am also grateful for his using “Daesh”; I wish that other Members would follow suit. As we understand it, in Syria today, the USA is bombing Daesh and does not support the Assad Government; Russia, which supports the Assad Government, says it is bombing Daesh but is also targeting rebels; Turkey is bombing Daesh but is also targeting Kurdish forces in the north; while the Australians, Canadians, Saudi Arabians and others are supporting the USA. If military action forces Daesh to give up territory in Syria and Iraq in the coming weeks and months, which force does he expect to take its place on the ground?

[Mr Hammond]

Again, the short answer is that the hon. Lady has correctly identified that the situation is extremely complex. As the Prime Minister has said, we have to resolve these two things in parallel: we have to get a political solution to the civil war in Syria so that we can get everybody dealing with the challenge posed by Daesh, instead of fighting each other, and that is what our comprehensive strategy will seek to achieve.

Europe: Renegotiation

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, we certainly think we need a new mechanism in the EU’s system for working that guards against that ratchet and provides for the opportunity to review and reallocate powers that do not need to be exercised at a European level. The pamphlet recently published by my hon. Friend provides some constructive and imaginative suggestions as to how we might take that forward.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister, in his letter, welcomes last month’s new EU trade strategy. Will the Government first carry out an assessment of how these trade deals would be affected by his wider demands for economic reform? Will the Minister confirm that it is his understanding of the recent remarks by Michael Froman, the US trade representative, that if the UK were to leave the EU, we would not be able to negotiate an independent trade deal with the United States?

[Mr Lidington]

I heard what Mr Froman said. Obviously, he is a senior official in the current US Administration, so one has to take what he says seriously. On the general point the hon. Lady makes, we see further moves forward in free trade deals as an important element in securing the reformed European Union that we want. The potential deal with the US is the most ambitious and most far reaching in its consequences of any of those, but I welcome the fact that the Commission’s trade strategy is also talking about forging new trade deals with some of the emerging economies and also with our good allies and partners in Australia and New Zealand.

Human Rights (Egypt)

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I stand corrected—I welcome him as the chairman of the all-party group on Egypt. I was personally involved in making sure that he and I, and other members of the all-party group, will have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to meet President Sisi in order to raise many of the important issues that have been brought up today. He speaks appropriately about Egypt’s wider regional role and the responsibility it is taking to bring about peace and bring together parties. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), who is in his place, and I attended a meeting in Cairo as part of the Gaza donors conference to look at the humanitarian support—that was an initiative on the part of President Sisi. Finally, we are providing expertise to assist Egypt in defeating terrorism in the Sinai peninsula and elsewhere.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for bringing this important question to the House and the Minister for his answer. A stable Egypt is important for that country and is of course vital for the wider region, but we cannot support stability at all costs. We do not just have a humanitarian responsibility to the people of Egypt to stand up for human rights in their country; we also have an interest in promoting a fair and just country, because a fair and just Egyptian Government will create an inherently more stable Egypt. What assurances can the Minister give that the importance of human rights in Egypt will remain on the agenda for the discussions between the Prime Minister and the President today, given this morning’s reports that the UK Government’s decisions to suspend flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh will mean that the Egyptian Government are likely to be less receptive to discussions on wider issues of concern?

[Mr Ellwood]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her knowledge, interest and expertise in this area, but, as will become apparent when the statement is released—without wishing to take away from that statement—two separate issues are being conflated. There is an urgent security threat that affects flights, which is why flights have been temporarily suspended. That is quite separate from our commitment to encouraging advances in human rights laws and the prosperity agenda. I hope that the urgency of our having to deal with British citizens abroad and ensuring that they are secure does not affect the importance of the visit that is taking place.

Yemen

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be speaking in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. It is the first time I have had the opportunity to appear before you. The privilege is indeed mine.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for raising the very important topic of what is happening in Yemen and for making us aware of his strong family connections there, which were demonstrated by the passion with which he delivered his argument. His speech was engaging, informative and very instructive. Before summarising some of the points made in the speeches we have heard this afternoon, I should mention the interventions made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who also gave a speech, and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

The right hon. Member for Leicester East spoke of the need for an immediate ceasefire, describing the situation in Yemen as the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. He said that it must be given a higher priority and that we should be putting a process in place to ensure that aid, including emergency aid, is swiftly given, and that there is a better flow of imports, including some of the aid items that are required. He spoke of the importance of bringing the parties to the table again, given the dramatic escalation, and of the international community having a very small window to show what they can do. He also mentioned the escalation in the conflict now due to the involvement of Daesh—I am grateful to him for referring to them as that, which is exactly what they are.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is a member of the International Development Committee. She spoke about the children, and it brings things home to think about the 1.8 million children who are at risk of malnutrition and the 20.9 million people who are in need of fresh water, sanitation and hygiene support. She spoke of the shortage of fuel and medical supplies and the medical staff needed to deliver the aid, and she said that 60% of the population need very basic healthcare. She also paid tribute to the humanitarian workers who continue to serve in the most difficult circumstances, and asked the Minister to address the fact that more needs to be done and whether he agreed that more should be expended through DFID to help these people.

We were then privileged to hear from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who, like me, is a new Member. She spoke passionately about the need to review the war crimes that have allegedly taken place and about the 21 million people in humanitarian need—in fact, Yemen is the country with the greatest number of people in humanitarian need in the whole world. She used her speech to raise many issues that are clearly close to her heart, such as whether the UK Government are complicit in killings due to the part they play in the arms trade. She mentioned that it was perhaps time to stop propping up the regime, asked that the Government condemn all violence, and finally spoke of the paradox of aid and arms that cannot be ignored.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), who was also born in Yemen—

[Bob Stewart]

It produces very beautiful women.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I choose to ignore that remark. She spoke of the long-term effect on children that would be seen for generations, which should be of tremendous concern to us all. She said that poverty was at 50% before the conflict and it is now at 80% and that the crisis in Yemen must be given a higher priority. She said that 90% of its goods were being imported previously and now only 15% are, which again demonstrates the difficulties that aid agencies are encountering. She expressed concern that negotiations are not going anywhere and about the lack of a political solution. She spoke of the Minister from Yemen who, I think, said, “What future? There is no hope.” She said that it was a failing state, attracting first al-Qaeda and now Daesh.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Given the situation that has been outlined by many speakers this afternoon and the great difficulty of aid arriving in Yemen, does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Home Office in this country wants to send one of my constituents back to that situation?

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

That should be a matter of grave concern, not least after hearing much of the evidence we have heard today from people with real experience. Those who were born in Yemen are well aware of what is happening in the conflict. The very last thing we should be doing is sending people back when we know the situation in the destination country and what they will face when they get there. I hope that the Minister has listened to my hon. Friend and may address, hopefully in his closing remarks, the concerns of her constituent.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who reflected on the historical links the UK has with Yemen and also, rightly, paid tribute to the charities working there in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They include UNICEF, Saferworld, Save the Children and Beyond Borders Scotland. Summing up, he succinctly posed three sharp questions, given the points that had already been made. He asked what the UK Government are going to do to help the Yemeni Government. He then asked whether the Minister supports the UN High Commissioner’s call for an investigation into any human rights violations. Finally, he said that arms deals should not violate international law and mentioned allegations made in that respect, before asking whether the Minister was able to offer any comment.

We heard last from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who gave us a historical tour, speaking about the opening of the Suez canal and the Aden protectorate and its eventual independence. That subject is very close to my heart, and I am grateful to him for bringing that up—the topic of independence is always key to what we talk about. He spoke of Sana’a and how the situation was so bad that it had to be abandoned by the Government in Yemen, which is now the poorest country in the middle east. He talked us through the presidencies to date and detailed all those involved in the conflict. Finally, he spoke in very strong terms about so-called Islamic State, which he referred to as Daesh, as did the right hon. Member for Leicester East. We have been campaigning very strongly for that, and I hope that he will continue joining me and my colleagues in the SNP, and indeed many across the House, in asking the Government to please refer to Daesh as that in the House.

This has been an interesting and impassioned debate that brings home the urgent need to be doing much more in Yemen. All the speakers said that time seems to be running out fast, so we should not waste time in trying to come to solution on how to move forward. My view is that we need an urgent round table meeting, led by the United Nations, to deal with the civilian casualties and the humanitarian situation and to consider how the international community can more fully uphold its absolute responsibility to address the war’s toll on civilians in Yemen. Finally, on a more long-term basis, all efforts must be made at the forthcoming talks in Geneva at the end of this month under the sponsorship of the United Nations, urging the parties to try to make the peace negotiations a success. There is clearly no time left, and the children and those involved need our help as soon as we can offer it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

No, we will not reconsider that decision. We judge that the best contribution we can make is to take some of the most vulnerable. I am not saying that the fit young men do not have a reason for fleeing. I am saying that we must focus on the most vulnerable people, who do not have the option to flee. While I am on my feet, I would like to pay tribute to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, who have borne an extraordinary burden over many years, absorbing refugees and displaced people from Syria.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Why do the Secretary of State and the Government continue to conflate those important but separate issues? The refugee crisis—it is not a migrant crisis—is an exceptional circumstance. Those individuals and families are fleeing the region first and foremost for their own safety, but they want to go home. Does he not agree that a humanitarian plan for long-term peace in Syria would do far more to address the crisis than these short-term measures, which appear to have been designed to curry favour with the right-wing press?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not know where the hon. Lady has got that from. Of course we agree that addressing the upstream problem by getting a political settlement in Syria and defeating ISIL so that it cannot carry out its barbarous activities is the right way to go. I also agree with her that, when we come to build the new Syria, post-Assad, we will need those engineers, doctors and teachers who are now being encouraged to resettle in Europe. We have a responsibility to ensure that the new Syria has access to those qualified and educated people.

European Union Referendum Bill

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

That is certainly worth looking at, but what we really need is a return to proper purdah and we want section 125, so we would like the House to support amendment 78, which covers the devolved parts of the United Kingdom. That is the best solution. I think that what we are looking at is a botch. I think that it will end up looking like new clause 10, and possibly like amendment 4, but that is better than where we were last time.

I thank the Minister for the respectful way in which he has listened to the debate, but I would be grateful if he answered the points I have made. I repeat them again. What are the instances in previous referendums when purdah stopped normal Government functioning? Where are we with clarity regarding the Venice Commission? Please can these horrific legal statements, which have put such a spook under the Government, be placed in the Library? For myself, I will seek a return to pure purdah.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

The rules relating to purdah in elections ensure a fair and proper process during elections and referendums. In fact, the Cabinet Office’s general election guidance, issued just before this year’s general election, states that elections

“have a number of implications for the work of Departments and civil servants. These arise from the special character of Government business during an Election campaign, and from the need to maintain, and be seen to maintain, the impartiality of the Civil Service, and to avoid any criticism of an inappropriate use of official resources.”

The Scottish National party believes that the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union—arguably our most vital and strategic international relationship—should set the gold standard for fairness and impartiality. The Government’s original proposals fall far short of that standard—indeed, they will undermine public and parliamentary confidence in the process. That is why they are now—eventually—being opposed by Members on both sides of the House.

The Government’s latest back-pedalling exercise, otherwise known as new clause 10, still fails to live up to the highest standard of impartial conduct, and specifically fails to introduce any mechanism properly to enforce the purdah regulations it proposes. Amendment 11, standing in my name and those of my colleagues, fills that gap. The Minister’s own former Government colleague, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), from whom we have just heard, is quoted in The Times today as saying:

“All we’re asking is that this debate is open and fair, and we adhere to the current rules on purdah”.

He continues:

“You cannot have sneaky little tricks to try and rattle the thing through… It is just going to dirty the whole process and the losers may well consider it to be illegitimate if it has not been done fairly.”

Many voters in Scotland remember the sophistry deployed by the previous Government during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence. Despite the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats signing up to the Edinburgh agreement, the agreement was blatantly ignored following the no campaign’s last-gasp panic in the face of judgment by voters in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) mentioned the vow, and we will continue to mention the vow until it is implemented in full, but eleventh-hour initiatives such as the vow, and using the referendum unit in the Treasury to orchestrate a scaremongering campaign by pressurising banks and other companies, were clear breaches of the agreement on the part of the UK Government. Understandably, MPs on both sides of the argument do not want to see a repeat in the Euro-poll. If only they had spoken up last year. That is why I call on the House to support the SNP amendment, which will introduce an enforcement mechanism against breaches of purdah covering both Ministers and civil servants.

As on so many issues, rather than provide strong leadership, the Prime Minister has botched this business at every possible step. That may lead some of us to believe that his heart is not in it and he was somehow bounced into making the commitment against his own free will. First, he backed down on asserting collective Cabinet responsibility on a vital national issue. Then, he caved in on the timing of the poll, after his attempt to hold it on the same day as the Scottish elections faced parliamentary defeat before the summer recess. Last week, he was overturned by the Electoral Commission on the referendum question itself. And in the past few days, we have seen the Government retreat on their original attempt to influence the campaign by using Ministers and civil servants during what should be a strict purdah period. Our amendment will keep the campaign fair and honest and provide the means to enforce good intentions, and I recommend it to the House.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on using the summer recess very well in bringing back this Bill in a different form. The fact that legislation was put together in haste before the recess can only be put down to the manifesto commitment to the referendum. We now have back, at least so far, section 125 of PPERA in some form.

This afternoon, I am not going to speak about the good or ills of the European Union; that is for a future debate. I can appreciate the concerns that led the Minister to try to alter the usual section 125 terms, given the nature of the tentacles of the EU’s involvement in vast tracts of just about every aspect of UK Government, although he is probably over-concerned about this.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) put it very well when he said that legitimacy is the most important thing, in that whatever the outcome of the referendum, the losers, no matter which side they are on, must be able to say to themselves and to the world at large, “We did our best; we lost—but it was fair.” That is the position we need to be in with this European referendum, because it may not happen again for the next 40 years. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) talk about the problems of the 1975 referendum. I was obviously too young to take part in that, but it was, by all accounts, something of a shambles. For the Welsh referendum in 1997, the Neill Committee came up with the precursor ideas to what became the PPERA that we know today.

In all legislation, simplicity is best. While PPERA is far from simple, the purdah rules in section 125 are rules that we know. They are tried and tested, and they have served us in quite a number of referendums. We do not live just by legislation in this country, but by convention, a degree of case law, decent behaviour and knowing what is right. We have an enlarged Electoral Commission. Some might say that it is a somewhat bloated bureaucracy, but it has earned a high degree of respect. We have the ministerial and civil service codes. Also, the media have changed. It was said earlier that “The Andrew Marr Show” breaks various stories. We now accept that all these are just the new ways of doing things. Purdah has not been broken; we know how things are and know that normal business continues throughout elections and referendums. We know fairness when we see it, hear it and feel it.

As was described earlier, the PPERA legislation was put together in anticipation of a euro referendum, when the same concerns that have been aired by the Minister would have been known by the then Labour Government. Legislation does not always do all that it should, but PPERA served us well through the alternative vote referendum. Had there not been local elections in 2011, many people would not even have known that that referendum was on. No aspect of that was important to the day-to-day basis of normal government, unlike the Scotland referendum. PPERA has served for new forms of election as well, including the police and crime commissioner elections. We have all appreciated that government continues. The EU will continue to go through its machinations whether there is a UK referendum or not.

Conservative Members may not always be in government; I doubt it, much as I hope that we will. Changing now legislation—PPERA—that has served us well for some 15 years would be a dangerous step for the future. I urge the Government to accept that amendment 53 merely muddies the waters of that legislation. I would prefer amendment 4 or, even better, amendment 78 as a far more elegant means of having a free and fair referendum that has legitimacy, and after which the losers will be able to say, “We lost, but it was free and it was fair.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As I said a moment ago, it was the United Kingdom that acceded to the European Union back in the 1970s, and it is the United Kingdom as a whole that will take the decision by the end of 2017 whether we wish to maintain that membership.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

16. To be absolutely clear, will the Minister confirm that if the nations of Wales and Scotland vote to stay in the European Union, the UK Government will drag us out against our will?

[Mr Lidington]

It will not be a matter for the United Kingdom Government: it will be a matter for the people of the entire United Kingdom what decision they wish to take.

European Union Referendum Bill

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I will leave it to greater minds than mine to decide whether noble Lords have made such a decision or whether they have simply chosen to access a different seat and therefore surrendered on one, but not every, electoral term. They do not rescind their right to vote universally; they merely rescind their right to vote in general elections, because they already hold a seat in Parliament.

Citizenship is not something to be added or taken away arbitrarily, and that is what we are talking about when it comes to the enfranchisement for the referendum. It is not simply a tactical choice; it is the act of citizenship. In constituency cases, I have been sad to hear time and again people think that they have rights that they do not. Concepts of “common law this” or “common law that” do not exist, and in this case there is no such thing as common law citizenship. If people wish to have citizenship, the laws of citizenship, immigration and naturalisation cover it. If people wish to have citizenship in Her Majesty’s great United Kingdom, they have a choice to ask for it. There are laws that allow them to do so and rules that set out at what stage they can or cannot apply.

As people move through the process of residency in our great kingdom, there are various moments at which they may or may not choose to take that citizenship, and there are consequences that go with that.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a cost of £1,005 to seek naturalisation in this country deters many people who cannot afford it from claiming citizenship, and that they should be allowed to vote in the referendum by virtue of residency? There should be no price on democracy.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but I would argue to the contrary: the right of citizenship in this kingdom is so great that the price of £1,005 is but a small price to pay for the benefit of being British.

Citizenship is not a common law right: there is no common law marriage, common law contract or common law citizenship. It is, therefore, no more the right of this House to bounce people into citizenship than to bounce them into any other form of contract. The proposal seeks to push people into a deal that would change their relationship to this country without their having chosen to do so.

I know that for a fact, because my wife, who could, should she wish, begin the process of citizenship, chooses not to do so. She is—and there is some debate about this—proud to be French. She is—again, there is some debate about this—unwilling to become British. My argument is that becoming British is such a great honour that, even as a French woman, she should appreciate the joys it offers.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

The mandate is based on the manifesto of the governing party. We are not in coalition, so it does not have to be watered down. Our position was that we would hold an in/out referendum on membership of the EU before the end of 2017. The manifesto did not say that the voting age would be lowered, so the clear tacit understanding is that the referendum will be held on the current franchise. More importantly, the general election was held on that franchise—

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

But does the hon. Gentleman agree that the franchise will be changed for the referendum, because the Government are seeking to allow unelected Members of the Lords to participate?

[James Cartlidge]

I am always vulnerable to peer pressure and I must admit that I look forward to the answers from the Minister on the point about extending the franchise to Members of the Lords, but—bar a very small number—the franchise will be the same as in the general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am not going to give way again, as other very fine hon. Members wish to speak.

We have to recognise that many people in Britain are concerned about the sheer number of people coming into this country. If we extended the franchise to people from the rest of the European Union and if their vote were decisive in keeping us in, that would be inflammatory for those who want to leave because they want to control their borders and would leave a lasting feeling of injustice.

To conclude, I believe in votes at 16, but we should refrain from having that now. We should have a full consultation and, if we decide we want to do it, it should be in our manifesto, so that we can achieve a mandate from the British people to have votes at 16 in elections and referendums thereafter.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I rise to support the amendments 18 and 19 and new clause 2, which are in my name and those of my colleagues on the SNP Benches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and commend his excellent opening speech on 16 and 17-year-olds, who demonstrated a supreme ability to participate in the independence referendum.

The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is no longer in her place, made some excellent points about why young people should participate in the EU referendum, but went on to say, “Yes, but not now.” What I would say to her is, “But if not now, when?” The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made the point that Scotland had “made a lot of comments in this debate”. I would like to remind the Committee that we are elected Members of this Parliament, and the House will be hearing a lot from us in this Parliament in the days and weeks to come, because that is why we have been elected. It is also worth reminding the Committee that Scotland did not vote Conservative in the last general election.

Politicians should not pick and choose their electorate. I do not believe that that should happen in the EU referendum either, and the franchise should absolutely be fair. The issues at stake in the referendum are serious and fundamental to the future of the UK and its constituent parts, so it is essential that all those living in the UK who will be affected by these decisions are given an opportunity to vote. With that in mind, we tabled amendment 18, under which EU nationals who live in the UK would be included in this franchise. Foreign nationals from Commonwealth countries who live in the UK will be able to vote, so why not EU nationals?

We have heard that there is already division, unsurprisingly, on the Tory and Labour Benches on this vote. Ruth Davidson, the Tory leader in Scotland, is in favour of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, and a Labour leadership candidate, Kezia Dugdale, is in favour of EU nationals having a vote. I am pleased to see that there has been a slight increase in the number of Labour Members participating in this debate. They were rather thin on the ground—much like the Labour party membership in Scotland, but that is perhaps a debate for another day.

Over and above that, the Bill proposes to extend the franchise to Commonwealth citizens who would be entitled to vote in European elections in Gibraltar. I do not oppose that measure by any means, but surely if the Government agree with the principle of widening the Westminster franchise for the referendum, they should consider including this additional group—EU nationals—who make such an important contribution to our society and economy. By excluding them from the vote, we would be excluding constituents of mine in Ochil and South Perthshire, such as my friend Mireille Pouget, who lives in the village of Glendevon. In a message to me this week, Mireille said:

“I have lived, worked and paid taxes here for nearly 40 years. Staying in the EU is important to me as an EU and French citizen. I should have a voice in this referendum. It’s outrageous that EU citizens cannot vote.”

Hear, hear to that.

It is equally wrong that the Government propose to extend the right to vote to Members of the House of Lords—a place not known for its democratic foundations —without taking measures to ensure that all Members of the Scottish Parliament have the same right. Mention has been made by a number of hon. Members of my colleague Christian Allard, who came to Scotland to open an office in Glasgow for a European seafood logistic group in the 1980s. He subsequently met his wife and moved from Glasgow to the north-east of Scotland, to Aberdeenshire, with his three young daughters 20 years ago. Mr Allard has been chosen—elected—by the people of North East Scotland to represent them in the Scottish Parliament. He has undoubtedly made an enormous contribution to our country and the community that he and his family live in. I believe that he has earned the right to vote in this referendum.

In the Scottish independence referendum last year, the UK Government agreed in principle with the Scottish Government that the franchise for the vote should be as wide as possible. It is clear from the turnout and scale of political engagement across Scotland last year that seeking a wide inclusive franchise was one factor in encouraging a vibrant debate on Scotland’s future. By accepting our amendments, the Government have an opportunity—one that Government Members should not pass up—to use this new referendum to ensure that this wide-ranging inclusive debate is open to all people. It is so important for the UK’s future in Europe.

It would indeed be unfortunate if this Government sought to pick and choose the franchise for this vote, whether for 16 and 17-year-olds or EU nationals, in a way that could be considered as excluding a significant proportion of those who live and work here on the basis of how the Government think they will vote, rather than of taking measures to add depth to the national debate as a whole. I urge the Committee to accept the amendments and to be progressive, if that is what they plan to be.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It is interesting to follow some of the speeches of hon. Members, and I will start by dealing with why the parliamentary franchise is as it is. Let us be clear. When we first joined in 1972, we did so on the basis of the parliamentary franchise and this House’s sovereignty. We then continued, and only a few weeks back, some were arguing that our membership should continue on the basis of the policies agreed in Parliament, based on those who voted in favour then. It is therefore interesting to see how those who were arguing a few weeks back that the referendum would be disaster or a “reckless gamble”, as one hon. Member said last week, now seem so enthusiastic for everyone to have a go with it.

Put simply, we cannot have a pick and mix on the franchise. The reason for peers having it is that it is decided en masse by Parliament that Members either have a vote in the other place or elect a representative from this House to exercise it on their behalf. That is why it makes sense to allow those who would not be able to exercise their vote in the other place on this decision to vote in the referendum. It also makes sense to extend the franchise to Gibraltar, which is a member of the European Union via the UK’s membership of it, so its citizens should have the ability to vote as if they were resident in the UK itself.

Today’s debates have flagged up a whole range of issues about the franchise, but we do not need to have these debates on individual elections. Given that Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are so dependent on decisions taken in this Parliament, it is right to reflect on how they can have a voice in future. Again, however, that is not a debate for today. Given that our membership is based on the UK state being part of the European Union, which is not a sovereign state in its own right, it is right to grant the vote to UK citizens on the basis of the parliamentary franchise, plus those who have benefited historically from the extension of the parliamentary franchise in the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland.

On the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, I am a supporter of votes at 16. Experience where it has happened, as in the Scottish referendum, has been positive. It is not very helpful, however, to bandy around the different ages at which people can do various things. I am not sure how many hon. Members have read the pages on the Government website about learning to drive a tractor. It lists all the different ages that people need to be to drive different things. Anyone wanting to drive a road roller can do so at the ages of 17 to 20, unless it is a steam-powered road roller, for which one needs to be 21, while a mowing machine can be driven at 16. There are all sorts of anomalies in our law, so citing individual ages does not necessarily justify what the franchise should be. I support providing 16-year-olds with the opportunity to vote, but it needs to be done through a substantive debate on the franchise as a whole, not as an amendment tacked on to a Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I know that college, being from Sussex.

I had visitors from my constituency recently, and we were in Westminster Hall. They were 15, and I asked them, “How does it feel to be here? Do you want to be involved in voting?” Lots of people’s eyes glazed over; they were not ready. So let us get people involved in youth parliaments and let us look at the issue more broadly.

I am delighted that Commonwealth citizens will be able to vote in the referendum. The Government are right to use those electoral qualifications. I, as someone with a critical eye towards the EU, am delighted to see the symbolic recognition and involvement of this other greater community of nations—the Commonwealth—but I recognise and respect what happened in the Scottish referendum. We did not agree to or accept the decisions that were made, but they were devolved powers.

On the referendum date and flexibility, the Government’s amendment, whereby the Secretary of State looked at May 5 and ruled it out, showed the care that they are taking over the matter.

I refer to my previous point and the question whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. That is what we are going to let the people decide, and we need to let the Prime Minister get on with negotiating a better deal for the UK. This is the Prime Minister who delivered a reduction in the EU budget, so I absolutely believe we have the right person to do it.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

On the hon. Lady’s points about 16 and 17-year-olds, if young people in this country are not interested in what is happening in politics, that is a failing not of them, but of everyone else who is involved in politics in this country. It is also rather disingenuous to suggest that they might be watching television programmes, when there are probably more people much older than them doing so. We should give the young people of this country the respect that they deserve—and we can expect them to return that respect to us when they vote positively in this referendum.

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point—those programmes are wide ranging and many people vote in them—but I return to my earlier point that we should look at the issue in the round. Members will see that we on the Government Benches are happy to consider the matter, but it dilutes the question before us. Ultimately, it is about the sovereignty of this Parliament and about the people being able to decide for themselves about the future of Europe. I believe that 18 is right at the moment, but I am happy to look at the issue more roundly in a separate arena. I believe also that Ministers are listening to us on that.

Celebrating our magnificent Magna Carta highlights just how much our democracy has done for our islands and our nation. By giving the people—all the people—the chance to have their say on their own future and our constitution, we are delivering on our promises and paying tribute to this country’s long record of democracy. I believe that we in this House will go further and look at all the arguments in the round, but I do not believe that diluting this question and franchise—picking and choosing—is the right way to do so.

Bangladesh

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for her excellent presentation, and look forward to working with her in future. I am of mixed heritage and have background from Pakistan, which shares issues with Bangladesh. I want to focus on child marriage, climate change, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and climate justice.

Last Tuesday, Human Rights Watch issued a report called “Marry Before Your House is Swept Away”, ranking Bangladesh fourth in the world for child marriage, and describing the practice as an epidemic. Sixty-five per cent. of young women in Bangladesh are married before 18, and 29% before 15, according to UNICEF figures. Child marriage leads to dangerously early pregnancies, lack of education, and greater chances of domestic violence and poverty—issues that are, of course, of great concern to all.

Meanwhile, however, the UN has praised Bangladesh for meeting other development goals, including on the reduction of poverty, gender parity in school enrolment, and reduction of maternal mortality. If some of the development goals have been met, the question must be raised of what is going wrong on child marriage. Gender discrimination has been mentioned as one possibility in the Human Rights Watch report, along with desperate poverty that means parents cannot afford to feed or educate their daughters, and natural disasters caused by climate change, which force families to adopt survival strategies.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about marriage. The Human Rights Watch report made great play of the fact that because of poverty the option for many families is either to find a husband for the daughter, or for someone in the family to starve. It is a difficult choice—whether to keep a girl in the family and keep the family together, or marry her off so she can survive. We in this country could not countenance that situation.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

As the hon. Gentleman says, we cannot possibly imagine facing such choices, but people living in Bangladesh make such stark choices daily. The Human Rights Watch report is specific in its comments about child marriage rates in Bangladesh:

“Natural disasters in Bangladesh, and the lack of an adequate government safety net for families affected by them, compound the poverty that drives child marriage. Bangladesh’s geophysical location makes it prone to frequent and sometimes extreme natural disasters, including cyclones, floods, river bank erosion, and earthquakes, which cause widespread loss of life and property damage.”

The report continued:

“Some families interviewed by Human Rights Watch said they had made decisions about marriage for reasons directly related to natural disasters—some for example rushed to marry off a daughter in anticipation of losing their home to river erosion.”

Bangladesh is the most vulnerable nation in the world to the impact of climate change, according to the risk analysis firm Maplecroft; 57 rivers enter the country at one side and drain out at the other. The country has no control over the water flow and is particularly vulnerable to rises in global sea level. It is densely populated, with widespread poverty, little capacity to adapt and ineffective governance. The people are powerless in the face of natural disaster.

That leads me on to the matter of climate justice. The poor and vulnerable—often women and children in particular—are always the first to be affected by climate change, and they suffer the most, when in many cases it is the richer countries and populations that have caused the problem. Acknowledging that imbalance is central to climate justice. Climate change threatens basic human rights: to water, food, a home, an education, economic development and life itself. It reverses hard-won progress on human rights and development, and we can see that clearly happening in Bangladesh. Climate justice puts people, and a human rights-based approach, at the heart of decisions on global sustainable development. It means benefiting the environment, alleviating poverty and improving equality.

The Scottish Government are leading the way in the realm of climate justice, with a dedicated climate justice fund, which is possibly the only fund of its type in the world. The £6 million fund currently supports 11 projects in Malawi, Tanzania, Rwanda and Zambia, empowering the poorest and most vulnerable communities to access their rights and to become more resilient with respect to climate change. The fund’s emphasis is on access to clean water, enabling communities to assert their water rights, and sharing best practice in natural resource management. The results have been inspiring. Communities are brought together to work towards a better future, sickness is banished, crops are healthy, and children can return to school.

The Scottish Government have stimulated conversations about climate justice nationally and internationally among businesses and communities, and in academia and the public sector. Glasgow Caledonian University this year launched the world’s first masters programme in climate justice. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recognises Scotland’s pioneering role, stating last December:

“Within the UK, the Scottish Government continues to take a lead in putting climate justice on the international and domestic agendas, with a renewed commitment to the cause of human rights and an announcement of new projects supported through its Climate Justice Fund.”

As Humza Yousaf, Scottish Minister for Europe and International Development, has said:

“We aim to be a world leader and a progressive voice on the global stage—we hope our commitment to helping the world’s poorest will inspire many people, both home and abroad.”

The Scottish National party manifesto for 2015 promised that

“we will call on the UK government to match the approach of the Scottish Government with a dedicated Climate Justice Fund.”

This debate highlights perfectly the need for such a fund, to help countries including Bangladesh, which suffers an endless stream of disaster caused by climate change—a problem not of its own making that leaves millions in deprivation and forces families to give up on their own daughters’ futures, as was shown in the Human Rights Watch report.

Bangladesh, like many other developing countries, is doing its best to make social and economic progress in the face of ongoing environmental catastrophe. We can call on its Government to restore full democracy and call for strong action on child marriage, but as first-world contributors to the global climate crisis, which affects countries such as Bangladesh disproportionately, we have a strong moral obligation to help. Will the Minister promise to take a close look at the Scottish Government’s climate justice policy, with a view to creating a similar fund at UK level?