Hazaras (Afghanistan and Pakistan)
John Denham Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I am grateful for this debate, and I speak as an MP and as chair of the Hazara all-party parliamentary group. In recent weeks, we have seen ethnic and religious minorities face appalling violence at the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq and Syria. This debate is about another community that has suffered at the hands of very similar ideologues for far too long.
I knew little of the Hazara until I met constituents who were part of the Hazara diaspora and who had been forced to flee violence. I believe that might be true of other right hon. and hon. Members who want to speak in this debate. The Hazara are an indigenous people of Afghanistan, predominantly but not exclusively Shi’a Muslims. The community in Quetta in Pakistan’s Balochistan province was established in the late 19th century by Hazaras fleeing religious persecution in Afghanistan. It largely prospered, providing education for men and women and showing a deep-seated and industrious work ethic, until it became the target of terrorist attacks from about 1999.
Hazaras comprise between 10% and 20% of the population of Afghanistan. Persecution continued into the Taliban era, with thousands killed in massacres during the civil war and under the Taliban Government. In part, the Hazara are victims of the violence against Shi’a Muslims and other religious minorities that is endemic in Pakistan and has featured strongly in the history of Afghanistan. I do not want to underplay the common features shared with the wider violence against the Shi’a community, but Hazaras have suffered disproportionately, in part because their distinct ethnic identity makes them easily identifiable and targets for prejudice and discrimination.
There is little doubt that sectarian groups have received finance from states and individuals in the Gulf. Today, they might be recognising just what they have created in Iraq and Syria, but we and other western countries have been silent for far too long on their role. Just occasionally, the violence in Quetta makes the international news: in June 2012, when a university bus was bombed, killing four and injuring 72; and in early 2013, when two bombings killed 180 Hazaras. Continuing violence has been well documented in the recent Human Rights Watch report “We are the Walking Dead”, published in June 2014.
The community in Quetta comprises about 500,000 people, yet nearly 1,500 people have been killed since 1999 and more than 3,500 injured. The attacks have targeted breadwinners and forced businesses to close, promoting economic deprivation, while some recent attacks have directly targeted women and children. Perhaps 55,000 people have fled to Australia or Europe—of course, not all survived the journey—and following attacks on transport, students no longer attend university. In Quetta, the community is restricted to two enclaves with a total area of just 4 square miles. The community is isolated, with travel restrictions imposed by the Pakistani Government.
Shockingly, in the past 16 years, not one person has been brought successfully to justice. The al-Qaeda-affiliated organisation Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has openly claimed responsibility for the killings, while leading members have been seen associating with public figures and politicians in Pakistan. A few people have been arrested, but have then been released or able to escape or cases have been dismissed. It is clear that the Pakistan authorities have failed to act with any effectiveness to protect the Hazara community, with attacks taking place close to the presence of security forces.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the others who have secured this debate, and I agree with everything in his very powerful speech. Does he agree that given the inability or unwillingness to bring people to justice for these horrors in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and given the hideous murders that have taken place, it is high time that the United Nations referred Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and other groups alleged to be responsible to the International Criminal Court in order to send the most powerful signal possible that this is utterly unacceptable to the international community?
Mr Denham
I think there is indeed a strong case for that, and I will come in a moment to the responsibility of the international community.
In other parts of Pakistan, the Pakistan state has made significant efforts against, for example, the Pakistan Taliban, that have not been made in Quetta. The Pakistan Government are clearly in breach of their international obligation to protect their people. We should call tonight for effective action by the Pakistan state, but those demands must be consistently reinforced by the international community, by individual Governments, including our own, and by international institutions, including the United Nations and its agencies, and that must be done in every relationship—political, military, development and human rights.
Demands for change must be central to our relationship with Pakistan, not just raised occasionally or at a junior level. Last year, the then Foreign Office Minister Baroness Warsi did raise those issues with Prime Minister Sharif and he denounced sectarian killings. What we now need to see is visible action to investigate those killings and prosecute those, particularly the LEJ leadership, who have claimed responsibility. Militant groups should be disbanded and those such as the political wing of the LEJ, which in March this year celebrated killings and pledged to eliminate Hazaras from Balochistan, must be brought under control.
We need the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development to recognise the roots of the problems faced by the Hazaras. I would like to see DFID develop assistance programmes to address the immediate needs of the community in Quetta. I would also like to see the conflict pool—the UK fund for conflict prevention, which already operates in other parts of Pakistan—extended to Balochistan. Big efforts must be made to engage the UN system, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said. The UN system has strong policies on human rights, preventing genocide and the protection of indigenous peoples, all of which should apply to the Hazara. While some recent and welcome progress has been made, much more could be done.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Burrowes
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on securing this debate. In 2012 there was an international conference on the genocide of Hazaras—indeed, the new Minister, whom I welcome to his post, was present. I notice that at that time not a single perpetrator had been arrested or brought to justice. Has there been any change in that regard?
Mr Denham
There have been some arrests, as I understand it, but nobody has yet been successfully brought to justice. That is a matter of grave concern.
As I said, the UN has strong policies, but we have to make much more progress at the international level. Let me turn briefly to Afghanistan. The fall of the Taliban brought representation in the political system and support for the Hazaras’ long-standing commitment to educate girls as well as boys, though widespread discrimination continued. There have, of course, been atrocities, notably the killing of more than 60 people, mostly Hazaras, in Ashura in December 2011. However, fears are now rising of what might happen after the withdrawal of international troops. Secure and stable government is by no means assured, and the current political stalemate following the elections is hardly encouraging.
The security situation is becoming increasingly volatile, and Taliban forces are increasing their control of territory. We have seen the killing and forced displacement of Hazaras from Khas Uruzgan and killings and disappearances along the roads from Kabul to Bamiyan, Ghazni and Heart, with 30 Hazaras killed in three separate attacks on those highways in July 2014 alone. It is understandable that Hazaras fear a return to the scale of abuses they experienced under the Taliban regime. It is hardly encouraging that two of the Taliban released by the US in a recent prisoner exchange were Mullah Fazl and Mullah Norullah Noori, who both participated in the massacre of thousands of Hazaras in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That does not show a sensitivity to the history or the future dangers.
The message that we want to convey from tonight’s debate—happening as it is just a few days before the NATO summit—is that even as troops are withdrawn, the international community cannot afford to lose interest in what happens in Afghanistan. The international community needs a clear agenda for its continuing aid and political relationship with the Afghan Government, which should include pressure to address the continuing discrimination and under-representation of Hazaras within the Afghan Government and state, and to assist the Afghan Government in ensuring the protection of ethnic and religious minorities following troop withdrawal.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Stella Creasy
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I wonder whether he believes it would also be helpful to have direct Hazara representation in discussions at the NATO summit as a result of the points he is making so eloquently.
Mr Denham
It is a real issue that the Hazaras have often not been given a voice in international conferences and also, I have to say, in relation to our Government and their aid programme. That voice must be found.
My final point is this. The international community now generally recognises that talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban are both unavoidable and necessary, but it has to be made clear that such talks cannot be allowed to exclude the protection of minority rights as part of any long-term solution. Even after the withdrawal of international troops, I still think we should be in a position to ensure that those issues remain on the agenda.
Mr Denham
I thank the Minister. I know that his interest in these matters predates his appointment to the Front Bench, on which I congratulate him. I hope that we can develop the same relationship we had with his predecessor, who personally went further than other Ministers had done to raise the issue with the Pakistan authorities.
I want to say three things. First, I want to put on record my tribute to the Hazara community in this country. A group of people, most of whom came here as refugees and asylum seekers, have managed to use the system of parliamentary democracy by talking to hon. Members individually as constituency MPs to have the affairs of their communities in Pakistan and Afghanistan, many of which have personal links—personal sufferings connect them—raised in the House. That is a significant achievement.
Secondly, beneath the points of principle on action raised in the debate, policies that could be changed and reports that could be made, there is a great deal of detail that we would like to discuss with the Government about how they could develop relationships with Afghanistan and Pakistan, and develop the aid programme. I look forward to the opportunity of doing so.
Thirdly, our country has been tied up with the histories of both Afghanistan and Pakistan for many years, including recent years. People, including many of our constituents, are tired of our involvement. I hope that, tonight, we have made the simple point that we cannot walk away. We have responsibilities for the position faced by the Hazara community and others in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we must ensure that we do not allow them to slip.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Iraq and Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict
John Denham Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I will add Tony Blair, with Bono, to the list of people whom I will not advise on what to say during the course of our proceedings. There will be many important lessons that are best looked at when we have all the evidence of the inquiry. We are very clear on what is needed now in Iraq and in neighbouring states to respond to this situation, and for the moment we must focus on encouraging that correct response.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary, with his emphasis on looking to responsibilities within the region, say a little more about the role of Saudi Arabia? Have not few countries done as much as Saudi Arabia to promote a sectarian and deeply conservative brand of Islam right around the world, including in the middle east? It and other conservative Gulf states stay high on the list of diplomatic friends of our Government. If we are to speak truth to power, why do we not challenge those who have helped foster the sectarianism that we now see?
European Union (Referendum) Bill
John Denham Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
I trust I will be judged a suitable speaker to make sure the Chamber is not completely empty.
I am delighted to speak in this debate, which has so far lived up to expectations. I would not have missed it for the world, because it must be one of the oddest debates ever held in this Chamber on a private Member’s Bill Friday. It is odd because of the politics of the occasion. I do not think there has been a private Member’s Bill Friday in the time that I have been in this House when the Prime Minister has been forced by his Back Benchers to come here to jump to their tune. Normally, Prime Ministers hold a sort of lofty disdain for private Members’ Bills, but our Prime Minister, in the eyes of Europe, has been humiliated here today by his own Back Benchers. That is one oddity about today. The second oddity is the reason the Bill is here at all, which I shall come to, and the third oddity is what is in it.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman may have observed that the Conservative Back Benches are full of volunteers supporting their leader. Has he noticed that there are fewer than 25 Labour MPs here and no leader?
Mr Denham
As I will explain to the hon. Gentleman and the House, the reason for that is that this is a Bill about the private problems and the private political difficulties of the Conservative party, so it is not surprising that so many Conservative Members are here today. These matters do not really affect the rest of us very much, except for—I will come to this—the damage that is being done by the antics within the Conservative party to the interests of this country.
Philip Davies
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the oddities of today’s Bill, and there are certainly some oddities in today’s proceedings. The greatest one I have heard so far is the shadow Foreign Secretary asking the Foreign Secretary how he will vote in a referendum in four years’ time, when the shadow Foreign Secretary cannot answer how he will vote on this Bill in less than four hours’ time.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will not be here. I wonder whether you could give some guidance on how long Members should remain in their places at the conclusion of a debate to hear the winding-up speeches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Mr Rees-Mogg, I think you know the answer to that. Members are required to hear the speech before them and two after. We are on a private Member’s Bill today, not a Government Bill, and the Front Benchers have already spoken.
Mr Denham
I am not one of those who have been accused of abusing the courtesies of this House, but there is no requirement in the courtesies of this House to vote on a motion that is ridiculous, so I will not be voting on it.
There was a time, not so long ago, when private Members’ Bills were used for matters of great social reform, such as homosexual law reform and gay marriage. Issues of great constitutional importance were seen as the responsibilities of the Government. That may have changed. Gay marriage is an important social reform, so perhaps making it a Government proposal is progress—the Government’s gay marriage proposals certainly had many Government Members beside themselves. However, constitutional reforms, such as the Great Reform Act, the devolution referendum and the initial referendum on the European Union, which were the responsibilities of Government, have now been devolved by this weak and hopeless Prime Minister to private Members’ business. That is one great oddity.
Mr Denham
No, I will make a little more progress.
Why has this situation come about? Why has supposedly the most powerful politician in the land come begging his MPs to support a private Member’s Bill? The Prime Minister’s position on the issue seems clear enough. He made a speech in January in which he said that after the next election, if there is a Conservative Government, he would aim to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, with an in/out referendum by 2017, come what may in those negotiations. That might not be wise—there is absolutely no guarantee of any negotiations being clear by 2017—but it is certainly a clear position, and it came from the Prime Minister.
Why was that not good enough for the Conservative Members who have turned up today? Of course, many of them just want to leave the EU. They do not care when, as long as it is as soon as possible, and they do not trust their own Prime Minister. As soon as the Queen’s Speech was published, they were after him. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) was first off the mark, moving an amendment regretting the failure to mention a referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech. He was very clear why one was needed. He wrote in The Daily Telegraph:
“The Prime Minister made a historic pledge to the British people during his January speech,”
but
“where the Prime Minister’s pledge falls down is its believability.”
Let me repeat that:
“where the Prime Minister’s pledge falls down”—
this “historic pledge”, let us remember—
“is its believability.”
What an extraordinary statement! The reason we are here today is because the majority of Tory MPs do not believe that a historic pledge made by their own leader is believed by the British people. That is the only reason we are here, and that is why the Prime Minister is humiliated by these proceedings today.
Mr John Baron
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman quotes very selectively from that piece. Having written it, I will correct him for the record. What I went on to say was that the issue was believability, not because there is an issue between the Prime Minister and his Back Benchers, but because the issue has been between politicians in general and the electorate, because far too many promises in the past have been broken, particularly by the Labour party and the Liberals, at every single general election. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to quote me, he should please do it correctly.
Mr Denham
I quoted absolutely verbatim from the hon. Gentleman’s article. Let me respond to his further point. I would expect a Conservative MP to say, “You can’t really believe what Labour MPs say”, and I would expect Labour MPs to say, “You can’t really believe what Conservative MPs say.” That is what we do here in this House. It probably does not do us much good with the general public, but that is what we do—we throw these things about. What I do not expect is a Conservative MP to say, “You can’t believe a Conservative Prime Minister,” and that is what the hon. Gentleman did. The Bill has arisen from the decision of Conservative Back Benchers—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The issue is a matter for debate, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I believe his name is down to be called in this debate and he will have ample opportunity at that point if he feels that the record needs to be corrected. I think he is experienced enough to know that these matters tend to be a point of debate rather than a point of order.
Mr Denham
The first point is that this is really a private matter for the Conservative party. Whether they believe that their Prime Minister is trustworthy or believable is primarily a matter for them, not for the rest of us. If they wish to humiliate their party leader, that is up to them. I do not intend to participate in the vote later today.
We know what happened. The humiliated Prime Minister was forced to let the Tory party publish a referendum Bill, and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) was unfortunate enough, from his point of view, to come top of the ballot. He might have made his name by trying to improve the lot of carers, improve animal welfare or tighten gas safety, or by engaging with the traditional territories of private Members’ Bills, but instead he has introduced this Bill. I do not blame him for it, but the Bill is about the Tory party and not the national interest.
Mr Denham
No, I am going to make a little more progress and then I will take another intervention.
The aim seemed clear enough: to put the Prime Minister’s promise on to a statutory basis. We know what the promise was: after the next election to have a renegotiation and then to have a referendum by 2017. So imagine my surprise when I read the Bill, because it does not commit to a referendum after the next election. The Bill is very clear: the referendum could happen as soon as the Bill has been passed. It is not about after the next election or after renegotiation—it is any time now. That is very odd, because the Prime Minister is on the record as opposing a referendum Bill now. Why, then, does the Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Stockton South and drafted in Tory party central office, provide for the possibility of a referendum now? The hon. Gentleman gave the game away in an interview, again I am afraid, in The Daily Telegraph. Discussing possible amendments to the Bill, he said that the most difficult amendment to deal with would be one calling for a referendum before the next election, because
“many MPs would be sympathetic”
to such a move.
There we have it: the Bill has been drafted as broadly as it has, because if it accurately reflected the Prime Minister’s January speech and excluded a referendum before the next election, too many Tory MPs would have turned up demanding to amend it for an early vote. Far from showing the unity of the Conservative party, all the Bill has done is show how thin is the veneer of unity that they are trying to present. Again, this is private grief and is no business for the rest of us. Of course, it is entirely pointless, because no Bill of this sort can bind the next Parliament. Either the Conservatives win the next election or they do not—this is a pointless exercise.
Steve Brine
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and near parliamentary neighbour for giving way. I think that the people of Winchester and Chandler’s Ford, which are both near to his constituency, are clear that they want a choice on our relationship with Europe. He has called the Bill ridiculous. Will he explain why he is so sure that the people of Southampton, Itchen do not want a say on our future relationship with the EU?
Mr Denham
Let me turn to the point I was about to address on how the national interest is served by this discussion. The national interest is the one thing that has been entirely missing from the debate so far. It is a debate about the Conservatives, and that is not the national interest. It is not a debate about the future of our country, our influence in the world or what is best for our children, but what is best for the Conservatives as they run away from the UK Independence party.
The debate is not doing the Tories much good. The January speech intended to lance the boil of UKIP, and some may have noticed that it led immediately to the Conservatives coming third in Eastleigh and losing seats all over the country to UKIP in the council elections. Again, that is private grief and I want to talk about the national interest.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It struck me as a little odd that both the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) and the Foreign Secretary missed out UKIP in their speeches. Does my right hon. Friend think that they are totally scared of mentioning UKIP?
Mr Denham
There is no doubt that this whole exercise is driven by the Conservative party’s terror of UKIP.
In answer to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—I will come on to the specific point on a referendum in a moment—I want our future to be as a confident part of a reformed European Union. There are people who say that we could be like Switzerland or Norway. They are fine countries, but I do not want to be like them. Clearly, the days of empire and global military might are long gone and rightly so, but I am still sufficiently confident in this country and sufficiently patriotic to believe that we can be a country of influence and leadership in the world. I am not going to join those who just want to scuttle away from the challenges of the world, as Eurosceptics do.
Yes, there is a case for a referendum in principle, and I see that. It is a long time since we had one, and to an extent the demand for it has taken on a life of its own beyond the issue of Europe. However, those of us who can see that case also have a responsibility to be clear about the conditions in which a referendum would serve the national interest. If we are to ask people to vote, the choice has to be clear. We need to know what the effect of saying yes will be, and we need to know what the effect of saying no will be.
The hon. Member for Stockton South and the Foreign Secretary both let the cat out of the bag. The hon. Member for Stockton South said that no one knows what the European Union will be like in 10 years’ time, and the Foreign Secretary said that it may be very different from the way it is today. Both those judgments are true, so how can we have a referendum when the consequences of leaving might be clear enough, but it is not clear what the consequences of staying will be. Clearly, we need to pursue reform and to reshape the EU so there can be a clear and settled choice. I am not one of those—not all of those in my party agree with this, but I do not mind there being a discussion in our party—who rule out a referendum on Europe. However, a referendum should only happen if it is in the national interest and if we can put to the people a clear and settled choice. That has not yet been delivered.
Keith Vaz
My right hon. Friend is making an important and thoughtful speech, and he is right to embrace the reform agenda. Does he agree that that reform agenda can start now, and that we can only conduct the reform agenda if we are at the top table of Europe? There is nothing to stop Ministers beginning that process immediately.
Mr Denham
My right hon. Friend is right. What worries me is that the Prime Minister represents a party in which that generation of confident patriots, who believed that this country could shape Europe to the benefit of Europe and in the interests of our country, has gone. The Conservative party is split. There are those who simply want to leave come what may. They are the people Lewis Carroll satirised 150 years ago when he had the Queen of Hearts say, “Sentence first, evidence later”. They have made up their minds. The other faction of the Conservative party simply believes in repatriation and repeal: returning to the country those rights that give working people decent protections—maternity pay, the right not to be maimed and killed at work, and paid holidays—in order to repeal them. Those are the only two positions that exist in today’s Conservative party. So when my right hon. Friend says that these negotiations should start now, the problem is this: yes, but you must have people who are going to be credible in those negotiations.
We send a Prime Minister who has been forced. He goes to meetings and everyone is laughing behind their hands, because they know that he does not control his own party, and that his strength to negotiate on our behalf is being shot away by the antics of the people behind him, who know that 2017 is an arbitrary date that bears no relationship to any decision-making processes in the EU, but is entirely about trying to head off—unsuccessfully, it has to be said—the threat from UKIP. That is not a way to approach the national interest.
I am not one of those who says, “These are only matters for general elections and that there must never be a point where people have a choice.” But to return to what the hon. Member for Winchester said, if I say, “Let’s have a choice”, my constituents have a right for the choice to be clear—clear about the nature of the European Union they could vote for or the nature of the European Union that they would leave. There is no clarity to that choice today. There is no reason to believe that there will be clarity to that choice on the arbitrary date of 2017.
Hazara Community (Pakistan)
John Denham Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity to have this debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and a number of others may be able to participate, given the time at which we are starting. I am also grateful that the Minister is in his place to respond on what is obviously a busy day for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, given the visit of President Hamid Karzai and President Asif Ali Zardari. That visit makes this a timely debate—I will return to that point in a few moments.
On the Wednesday before last, I and a number of colleagues from across the House helped to organise a lobby of Parliament by members of the British Hazara community. That was the week in which many right hon. and hon. Members were signing the memorial book for Holocaust memorial day. That event asks us all each year to be aware that genocidal persecution on religious and ethnic grounds is not simply an appalling past event but an ever-present danger that we have to be aware of. The persecution of the Hazara community, in Quetta and other parts of Balochistan, is undoubtedly persecution for religious and ethnic reasons—it bears those strong hallmarks—and that is the issue I want to raise today.
The last time this matter was raised on the Adjournment was in a debate led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) on 1 March last year. The Minister responded to that debate too. I am sure that when he speaks the Minister will agree that things have not improved for the Hazaras in Quetta since that debate last March.
I do not want to pretend that I have long been aware of the history and plight of Hazaras; the truth is that I was not. Beyond some references to the community in novels such as “The Kite Runner” and an awareness of the small—about 150—but distinctive community in Southampton, of whom I had met a few, I had relatively little knowledge of the Hazara community. As a group, the Hazaras are physically quite distinctive, with somewhat Mongolian looks, and that distinctive appearance has helped to contribute to their vulnerability in Pakistan.
I did not know a great deal about the history and the plight of the Hazara community until a group of my constituents came to see me earlier this year. The story they told me truly appalled me. Theirs is a long history, and I will not attempt to rehearse it here tonight. Suffice it to say that the community originated in central Asia, in the Afghan central highlands. The Hazaras converted to Shi’a Islam in the 13th century, and while the majority remain Shi’a, there are now Sunnis, Ismailis and secular members of the community.
Persecution of the Hazara community by Afghan rulers started, I am afraid, under the British Empire, and it has been a consistent problem in Afghanistan ever since. Many Hazaras have left Afghanistan, and over 100 years ago many settled in and around Quetta, which in due course became part of Pakistan. We are all familiar with the recent waves of refugees from Afghanistan to Pakistan, some of whom have eventually made their way here, where they have sought and been granted asylum.
However, the Hazaras that I am talking about today are part of that much longer-established community in Quetta who are not refugees but Pakistani citizens. For a long time, they lived free from persecution in Quetta, thriving educationally and economically. As citizens, they are entitled to full support from the Pakistani state. Since the late 1990s, however, their situation has changed dramatically. The killings started in 1999. Since then, more than 1,000 Hazaras have been killed in Quetta, 3,000 or more have been injured, and 55,000 or so have been forced to flee to Europe or Australia. All of those came from a population of between 500,000 and 600,000.
The perpetrators are a banned Sunni militant al-Qaeda-affiliated group called Lashkar-e-Jhangvi—the LEJ. The Taliban and the LEJ have both issued fatwas against the Hazaras. After the recent violence, an LEJ spokesman was reported as saying that the Hazaras had been warned in 2012 that they should leave Balochistan, the province in which Quetta sits, and that as many had not done so, the LEJ will not allow Shi’as to leave alive in 2013.
That is the background to the dreadful bombing in Quetta on 10 January this year. The death toll was well above 100, and more than 120 people were injured. One of my reasons for seeking this debate is that although that incident was widely reported on television and radio and in the press, the reporting rarely gave any context to the violence, which was generally reported as simply another bomb attack in Pakistan. Some reports alluded to a generalised struggle between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. The few that even mentioned the Hazaras did not explain their history, the background to their situation or the agency of their persecution. One of the reasons for having this debate is to put on public record at least some of that background, and to challenge some of the myths.
One such myth is that the persecution is a manifestation of some generalised Sunni-Shi’a conflict that has manifested itself from time to time in regional tensions in other parts of the middle east. I do not believe that that is the case. It is clear from the targets of the violence and from the death toll that the violence is directed at just one distinctive community within the wider Shi’a community. I understand that the Hazaras of Quetta are 33 times more likely to be killed by political violence than members of the wider Shi’a community in Pakistan. That constitutes a focus on a particular religious and ethnic group.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. As he has said, this constitutes not only religious but ethnic cleansing, and the figures that he has given the House are stark. Is he aware that, despite the 1,000 deaths, the local government in Pakistan—which, fortunately, has now been disbarred by the Pakistani Government—has not brought a single charge against anyone for the offences, and that not one member of that government has ever condemned any of the atrocities?
Mr Denham
One of the most serious problems is that there has been no acceptance of responsibility by the Pakistani authorities of the kind that we would expect in a serious situation such as this. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what representations Her Majesty’s Government have been able to make to the Pakistani authorities on this matter.
The problem with the ill-informed, shallow or sweeping reporting that we have seen is that it tends to obscure the real causes of the violence and to obscure the responsibilities. It allows the incidents to be shrugged off as though that is “just the way things are”. Since 1990, the violence has included ride-by and drive-by shootings, personal attacks, suicide bombings, rocket attacks and car bombs, as well as the ambushing of buses and taxis and the subsequent selection of Hazara passengers for execution.
This is not the first time that my constituents have alerted me to what has happened to their relatives. Under the last Government, I took constituents who had family in the Swat valley in Pakistan to meet Lord Malloch-Brown, then a Foreign Office Minister, to alert him to the violence being carried out by the Pakistan Taliban. My constituents had come to me with stark examples of what had happened to members of their families in the recent past. I shall not give the House details of names, as family members might suffer as a result, but I have received clear documentation of constituents who had seen family members—male breadwinners—singled out for murder in three separate incidents over the past three years. The effects of that are devastating for the entire family. In a country with little in the way of a social security system, the loss of a male breadwinner has an impact on every member of the extended family.
There are wider consequences too. The Hazaras in Quetta have to live in isolation from other Pakistani citizens, not least because those other citizens fear being caught up in the violence. They suffer travel restrictions, and virtually all the Hazara students in Quetta have dropped out of university, following attacks on student transport. Hazara people have also faced difficulty in accessing civil service jobs. As has already been pointed out, however, not a single terrorist has yet been prosecuted. On the rare occasions when individuals have been arrested, they have been released. The provincial governor has been replaced, but little action seems to have been taken as yet.
The failure of the Pakistan authorities to safeguard the Hazara community is surely beyond doubt, but concerns remain about a much more sinister involvement. It is alleged that the intelligence services, the Inter-Services Intelligence, sections of which have a history of involvement with extremist forces, have links in some ways to the LEJ. I want to put it on record that I do not know whether such links are documented or what the strength of the evidence is, but the concerns about those potential connections are widely shared among those I have spoken to.
There are complicated provincial politics in Balochistan, involving not only the movements I have mentioned. The province is also tied up in the wider regional conflict, and there have been separatist movements and movements calling for autonomy. Many Hazaras believe that they have been caught up as innocent victims in the wider geo-politics.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is describing the confusion and rumours that are spreading about this issue. There seems to be a real case for a proper judicial inquiry to expose what is happening and to call the Government of Pakistan to account. The chief justice of Pakistan has expressed his willingness to do that, and I believe that he is the right person to conduct such an inquiry. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Minister to make representations to the Government of Pakistan to convince them that that might be a way forward that has not yet been tried?
Mr Denham
My hon. Friend has put forward an interesting proposal. I am about to put my specific points to the Minister on the action that could be taken, and I invite him to respond to my hon. Friend’s proposal about the chief justice as well.
The points I wish to put to the Minister are these. First, will he tell us whether the position of the Hazaras been raised with either the President of Pakistan or members of his delegation over the past two days when he was in this country on other matters? If not, when were these issues last raised by Ministers from Her Majesty’s Government with the Pakistani authorities, and what was the response?
Secondly, there are, of course, huge issues in this region that are currently under discussion—not least today between our own Prime Minister and the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does the Minister agree that while these supra-regional questions are being settled, the position of those such as the Hazaras must not be overlooked, left on one side or seen as too small, too trivial or too local to be taken into account? Will the Minister give me an assurance about the Government’s efforts to ensure that the Hazara community—in Quetta, of course, but also in Afghanistan—are not left on one side?
Thirdly, will the Minister give us an undertaking that the plight of the Hazaras in Quetta will be an explicit issue to be raised when the conditions of aid to Pakistan are discussed? Fourthly, what has the British high commissioner—and, indeed, Ministers—done to raise the profile of this persecution within Pakistan itself? Have Ministers or high commission officials visited Quetta to see the conditions faced by the Hazaras?
Fifthly, would the Minister be willing to facilitate a visit to Quetta by Members of this House? Sixthly, at UN level, will the Government ask the conflict prevention unit within the Bureau for Crisis Prevention of the UN Development Programme to assess whether the situation in Quetta is, or is tending towards, genocide, and in general to push for the engagement of the conflict prevention unit in this particular situation?
I have two further points. The Minister has in the past rightly expressed the truth that a range of minority groups have suffered and do suffer oppression and discrimination in Pakistan. In part, though, the Pakistan Government have tended to respond on the Hazara issue by questioning why a single group should be highlighted for attention. Does the Minister agree that although a number of groups face oppression, that is no good reason to lump them all together as part of a generalised concern for human rights, but makes it all the more essential to understand the history, the particularities and the nature of the oppressors in each case and to ensure appropriate action is taken in each case?
For the past two years, the position of the Hazaras has been referred to by name in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report. I welcome that, and I assume the same will happen again this year. In the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle last March, he quite rightly stressed the importance of our relationship with Pakistan and our friendship with that country. My own experience has been one of positive engagement with the high commissioner on a range of issues. The importance of this relationship makes it all the more vital that we are consistent and insistent on raising these issues, particularly for my constituents in those cases that are so intimately linked by family and history to communities in this country.
Alistair Burt
On balance, I share the view of my hon. Friend. The difficulty with making aid conditional is that the determination to withdraw aid is aimed at a Government, but there are many occasions when atrocities take place and the Government may not be totally in charge of a situation—equally, there are circumstances where Governments appear to be all too certain to be implicated. The process is difficult, but until now the situation has clearly been straightforward and aid has not been conditional. Despite that, it is important that countries receiving aid adhere to human rights.
Mr Denham
Having worked in development before I entered this House, I, too, have some sympathy with the idea that imposing crude conditionality is not a good use of aid. The question really is: when the discussions take place between DFID Ministers and officials, and the Pakistan Government, is the second of the three challenges that the Minister set out—human rights—raised in a general way? Alternatively, as a way of illustrating what needs to change, is the position of the Hazaras, for example, specifically raised as the sort of test of, and the sort of thing that we would have in mind in deciding, whether human rights were being properly protected? Part of the challenge is simply to make sure that in wanting to include all the issues in a general way we do not lose the ability to say, “This is one of the ways in which we measure progress.”
Alistair Burt
I absolutely take the point and understand fully how the right hon. Gentleman expresses it, which is absolutely in line with his experience. As a result of the debate, I shall write to the Secretary of State for International Development and make that point directly to her. We use examples in our report on countries of concern, as the right hon. Gentleman has picked out, and by using specific issues relating to the Hazaras and their situation I am seeking to demonstrate that they are not lost in the generality. He makes the point that they could be used as a specific examples—I do not know whether DFID does that but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his precise question.
On the question of the role of the British high commissioners and Ministers in raising the profile of the persecution in Pakistan, officials have not visited Quetta because of the security situation, although they have met Hazara representatives in the high commission in Islamabad. The same security situation that has made it impossible for us to visit in the past year would apply to facilitating visits for Members. Our travel advice is simply not to go because of the danger. It is never possible to prevent Members of Parliament from travelling wherever they wish, but my advice would be to recognise the travel advice offered by colleagues. As we advise all UK individuals not to go at this stage, I am not sure whether we could facilitate such a trip.
The right hon. Gentleman’s last question was to ask us to take matters up directly with the conflict prevention unit at the bureau of crisis prevention and recovery at the UNDP to assess whether the situation in Quetta is tending towards genocide. I do not know the answer to that question, so I shall write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library to allow other interested colleagues to see it. I did not have enough time to deal with that question before the debate.
As I mentioned earlier, the problems faced by the Hazaras are not limited to that group. That brings me back to the issue facing Pakistan in general, but notwithstanding the difficulties of Hazaras in Pakistan it is important to set them in the overall context of how difficult it is and what hopes there are of settling the situation in the near and medium term.
Minorities across Pakistan have at times endured terrible persecution and violence. There was the attack on Malala Yousafzai, the 14-year-old girl of whom we are all well aware from the pictures of her on the television today. I emphasise the joy we all feel at her recovery and the extraordinary bravery with which she faced those conditions and answered questions in the interviews today. The attack on Malala shocked everyone and was an example of the extraordinary and completely unjustified brutality of men against women in that part of the world. The UK Government strongly support the efforts of Malala and the Government of Pakistan to ensure that all children in Pakistan have access to education in a safe environment, free from the threat of terrorism. The only good thing that came out of that horror was the public demonstration in support of her and of education, with men and women in Pakistan saying that they had put up with enough. If only such demonstrations could also be seen on the streets of those places that have suffered the worst outbreaks of terrorism in Pakistan, more corners would be turned.
There is some light, occasionally, in these difficult situations, such as the case of Rimsha Masih, the young Christian girl who was arrested for blasphemy last August. The charges against her were dropped by the Supreme Court because of a lack of evidence and a certain amount of disquiet in the region about the charges brought against her. Again, she was a member of another minority suffering from persecution. There is hope in Pakistan that the case will be a catalyst for change and that future cases can be properly investigated and pursued.
In August, President Zardari publically acknowledged the problems faced by Pakistan’s minorities and emphasised his Government’s support for ending discrimination, which was a first step in the process of dealing with violence against minorities. Although Pakistan still has a long way to go in dealing with those issues, as a friend of Pakistan we offer our robust support in addressing the problems.
Sixty five years ago, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, shared his vision for the newly created nation with the first constituent assembly. He said there should be
“no discrimination between one caste or creed and another”
for Pakistan is founded with the
“fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state”.
We know many statesmen and women from Pakistan who believe in and support his words. Although Pakistan has yet to fulfil Jinnah’s dream of a nation made up of
“equal citizens of one state”,
I have been encouraged and inspired by the many Pakistanis I have met who are working tirelessly to realise that—none more so than my friend the late Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister of National Harmony and Minority Affairs, whose work towards peaceful, moderate change was met with such brutal violence and his death. His brother Paul Bhatti has taken up that cause with energy and commitment.
I am also heartened by the work that we are doing in the UK to promote the right to freedom of religion and of belief worldwide. Last month, my right hon. Friend the noble Baroness Warsi convened a ministerial level meeting to secure political support for the UN Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 to tackle religious intolerance and foster religious freedom and pluralism. It was encouraging to see Pakistan represented at that meeting and to hear its commitment to the agenda.
As hon. Members know, the human rights situation in Pakistan remains complex. Although the past 24 months have seen some positive political and legal developments on human rights issues, successful and fair implementation remains a huge challenge. As I mentioned in my speech last year, enhancing the rule of law in Pakistan is crucial to improving the plight of the Hazaras and other minority groups. I am pleased to say that, since our last debate, this Government have launched a programme to help to improve Pakistan’s ability successfully to investigate, prosecute, convict and detain terrorists in a human rights compliant manner. We are working with Pakistan and the international community to deliver a range of programmes, such as training and mentoring, in support of that long-term goal.
Looking to the future, the upcoming elections later this year will be a crucial milestone in Pakistan’s democratic history. Helping Pakistan to deliver credible elections that lead to a peaceful transfer of power will be a top priority for the UK in 2013. We will also encourage Pakistan and its new Government to step up their actions and implementation of international obligations on human rights. Essential changes will happen only with the political support of the authorities. We will continue to focus on the rights of minorities through frank senior level discussions.
The UK is committed to an enduring relationship with Pakistan and we will continue to work with the leaders of Pakistan and its people. At the universal periodic review of Pakistan last October, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar spoke of Pakistan’s aspiration to be a society that is based on equality, the rule of law, respect for diversity and justice. As a friend of Pakistan we have a distinctive role to play in supporting that aspiration. As the House has made clear this evening, how the Hazara community and its issues are treated will form part of the judgment on how Pakistan is responding to the challenges it is rightly setting itself.
I am grateful for the support of colleagues and to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Europe
John Denham Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Selous
Treaty signing took place under a Labour Government. It was a Labour Government who promised the British people a referendum on the constitution—as did the Liberal Democrats—but transformed it into the Lisbon treaty, which they signed into law before the general election, thus denying the British public a choice. The then Conservative Opposition were drawing up legislation to offer the people a referendum, which could have taken place had the Lisbon treaty not been signed into law before the election. Conservative Members have been consistent in wanting to allow the British people to have their say on these matters.
We believe that the changes the Government want to see in Europe are in the United Kingdom’s interests, but—and this is vital—we also believe that they are in the interests of the European Union. We should bear it in mind that 47% of our trade is with the European Union, and that the ability to trade with a market of 500 million people, with a GDP of £11 trillion, is not an insignificant matter.
Car manufacturers are free from paying tariffs of £900 million because we are in the European Union. Every Range Rover that we exported to the EU would carry a tariff of £6,000 if we were outside it. One in 10 jobs—3.5 million—depend on trade with the European Union. Of course those jobs would not disappear completely if we left, but the fact remains that there are significant economic interests of which we need to be very mindful. The United Kingdom is the largest recipient of foreign investment in the European Union, and the Foreign Office believes that in 2011-12 about 111,000 jobs were either created or safeguarded because of investment in this country.
We have already heard about the Chinese, American, Japanese and Indian car manufacturers that have been moving to the United Kingdom. We also know from an analysis of 147 decisions made by finance firms that 47% of those firms said that they came here because of access to the European market. It is beyond question that half our trade is with Europe, and we recognise that that trade is vital for the UK economy.
Of course the Government are rightly determined to increase our trade with the growing markets in Asia, Africa and South America, and we have experienced some success. So far we have increased our trade with India by a third, and our trade with China by a fifth. The EU South Korean free trade agreement that we negotiated has already increased our trade with South Korea by 32%. Dorset Cereals, for instance, has experienced a sixfold increase in its trade with that country. We need to put all those developments on the record, so that the British people can make a dispassionate decision about what is in the British national interest.
The Vauxhall van factory is in Luton, very close to my constituency, and some of my constituents work there. The factory recently secured a 12-year contract with Renault to extend production of the Vivaro van. I do not believe that General Motors would have given it that contract if the United Kingdom had been outside the European Union. There are other van factories in Europe to which it could have given the business.
That is the positive side of the argument, and people need to hear it, but we also need to recognise that European regulation is hurting British business. For instance, a firm in Leighton Buzzard called ProEconomy, which does highly effective work in eradicating legionella throughout hospitals in the United Kingdom, recently experienced enormous difficulty in obtaining European Union authorisation and approval for copper and silver ionisation. The science is perfectly safe and the Health and Safety Executive is entirely happy with it, but because of the cost of obtaining EU approval and the length of time that it has taken, ProEconomy, along with a similar firm in High Wycombe, was almost put out of business. I am very grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), for the action that he has taken to help those firms.
That is one example of European Union interference going too far and causing difficulties to firms. Another involves a small haulier in Leighton Buzzard who used to transport two vehicles on his trailer up and down the country, but who has been put out of business because of a transport regulation that this country did not want and the Department for Transport opposed.
I have raised both those issues with my right hon. Friend Minister for Europe, and I am grateful for his help, but I wanted to put them on the record to demonstrate that we need a balance. We must realise that there are instances in which we should say to Europe, “You are hurting business, not helping it. Your regulation is heavy-handed, and it is causing us difficulties.”
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is clearly raising some serious points, but the question that will be posed by the Prime Minister in the referendum is an in/out question. If the hon. Gentleman failed to secure change in regard to any of the issues that he has listed, would that lead him to vote no?
Andrew Selous
What I have been saying—I hope that the House has followed the logic of my argument— is that of course there are powerful reasons for our membership of the European Union which are connected with trade, jobs and investment, but there are also some negatives, and there is a massive democratic deficit about which the British people are speaking very loudly to their elected representatives.
We have embarked on the beginning of a process. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is conducting a “balance of competencies” review, a cost-benefit analysis which I think could have been given a slightly snappier title, but which is examining all the areas of EU business with the United Kingdom. I have tried to set out the economic case. I have spoken positively about jobs in my constituency, and I have also spoken about some European Union regulation that is harmful to business in my constituency.
I want the best possible deal for the United Kingdom, but also for Europe. I want us to be able to compete with Asia, Africa and the growing markets in the middle east and South America, which are forging ahead in a more competitive manner, and are leaving European business behind. We are starting out with a series of negotiations: we are starting out by trying to put right things that the Government, and many of our constituents, believe are wrong.
I end my remarks by returning to what I said at the beginning. I say this to Labour Members: “I understand your concerns, but you must have confidence in the British people. Trust your constituents.” They are absolutely capable of deciding what is in the British national interest, and they are saying to us very loudly and clearly that they are fed up with being excluded from this debate, whether by Labour or Conservative Governments. They want their say, and they are entitled to it, and I am proud and pleased that under my party and this Government they will be offered that choice.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is a fine orator but today, apart from quite an amusing bit at the end of his speech, he gave the impression that he would rather have been anywhere other than here. He certainly gave no clue why this issue has driven such passions in politics over a long time.
Let me make one or two fundamental points. There is a fundamental truth: the driving forces of anti-Europeanism are fear and pessimism—fear of meeting the challenges of the 21st century and pessimism about our country’s role in the world. Many Eurosceptics would like us to believe that they are patriots, but their actions tell a different story and show a deep belief that Britain’s future is inevitably one of decline, lowered ambitions and a downgrading of our role in the world. I do not think, based on the same evidence as that used by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), that most British people want to share that pessimism about our future.
When Eurosceptics talk of being free from the drag of co-operation, from shared obligations and from any common purpose, and when they talk about Britain going it alone, they think that that is a proud statement of intent. It is not. It is an admission that they have lost faith in the future of our country. Those who say, “Go it alone” do not believe that we can succeed, as any modern nation must, in collaboration with others. They think that if Britain tries to work with others we must inevitably be losers—that it will always be them bossing us, rather than us influencing them. The debate does not divide Europhiles from Europhobes; it divides pessimists from optimists.
Andrea Leadsom
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Prime Minister’s speech last week was incredibly optimistic about Britain’s positive future at the heart of a newly globally competitive reformed European Union? Surely it was the definition of an optimistic speech.
Mr Denham
None of us is against competitive success, but the Prime Minister gave no clue about how he thought that should be achieved or about which failures to achieve it in the EU would lead him to a no vote. It was all motherhood and apple pie, as my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party said last Wednesday. We can always sign up to those five principles, but the speech took us no further forward.
Mr Denham
I shall do so a little later.
On the one hand, we have those who believe Britain can never again be a nation of power and influence; on the other, we have those of us who have few doubts about the capacity of our country and our people to succeed, our ability to have an influence that exceeds our economic power and our capacity to create a stronger economy in the future.
Some of the pessimists are the traditional Eurosceptics —that is, the UK Independence party and its allies in the Tory party. They still wear the flapping white coats that caused so much harm to the previous Conservative Prime Minister. Those defeatists have been joined today by a new group who are perhaps a bit sensitive to the taint of the past. Those new Eurosceptics—perhaps we should call them neurosceptics—enjoy a much more nuanced and subtle lunacy. Let us stay in the EU, they say, but only if we can act as though we were not part of it, by pulling out of agreement after agreement until there is no meaningful relationship left. Of course, the end game is the same: years of uncertainty and declining influence, which make it more likely to end in a British exit.
Mr Carswell
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for remaining in, and I am sure that when the “in” campaign starts it will draw heavily on his powers of advocacy. Is he against allowing the people who voted for him to be an MP having the final say? If so, why does he believe that the political elite alone should decide these points? Why not allow everyone in the country their say?
Mr Denham
A year ago, I voted with the Prime Minister of the hon. Gentleman’s party to say that an in/out referendum at that point would be damaging to Britain. Nothing I heard last week made the case that an uncertain referendum in five years’ time is not equally damaging. We never say never, but on the two issues that we are considering today, I think that the Prime Minister was right a year ago and wrong on Wednesday.
Mr Denham
I will not give way, as I have done so twice already.
The Eurosceptics and the neurosceptics have made the Conservative party ungovernable. The Prime Minister, who lacks the will, ability or interest to lead his party, was forced into last week’s speech. That pessimism is in their language. Historians will surely puzzle over how the party of Winston Churchill—indeed, that of Margaret Thatcher—became the party that sees Britain’s future in Norway and Switzerland and how a country with all our history, all the capabilities of our people and, notwithstanding our current difficulties, all our strengths should consider countries a 10th our size and with little of our influence as role models.
The pessimism is there in the Eurosceptics’ policy and in the call to withdraw from most of the provisions of the social chapter. They will say that it is about sovereignty, but it reflects a deeper belief that the creation of wealth is incompatible with ensuring that wealth is fairly shared among all the people who help to create it. They want us to turn our back on a broadly shared European value that we helped to create, which is that economic growth and social justice can go hand in hand. That is what leads neurosceptics like the Mayor of London to speak against serious banking reform, despite the damage done to the global economy and our own by the excesses and distortions of the past.
The debate is often clouded by concerns, sometimes quite legitimate, about this regulation or that regulatory threat, but those concerns are the cover for a much bigger and more pessimistic view of Britain’s future. Those who express them believe that we must give up on a fair sharing of wealth, on decent protection at work from exploitation and danger and on the shared obligation to protect our environment, which the Prime Minister attacked last week. That is the pessimist vision: a Britain that can compete only by offering ourselves to the worst regulated, most unstable and least committed global economic forces. That is, indeed, a possible vision of Britain’s future, but true patriots will say that it is not the best.
The real future that is possible—the best vision for Britain—will have sustained, committed private investment that builds on the research, the innovation and the skills that we have to offer, that understands that real success is based not on the quickest profit but on the creation of lasting value and that sees the potential to build strong companies, whether British or foreign, rooted in this country whose business success depends on our country’s success. That is the way to compete and pay our way in the world.
Although their economic prescriptions are founded on pessimism, much of the rest of the Eurosceptics’ and neurosceptics’ agenda is either fanciful or dangerous. On what basis should we believe that an isolated Britain will be able to negotiate more preferential trade terms than a large trading bloc; that an isolated Britain would have more diplomatic influence with the USA or with China and the rest of the BRICs than as an influential part of the EU; or that our constituents would be safer if we tried to tear up co-operation on justice, as though the drugs smugglers, the weapons dealers, the terrorists and the paedophiles will think, “Oh, Britain’s leaving the EU. We won’t go there any more.”? Evil people do not target the strong and the confident; they target the weak and the pessimistic. That leaves our constituents—the people of Britain—more vulnerable, not less.
That is not to say that everything is perfect. It is not. Change is coming and change is needed, so had the Prime Minister come to the House last week and said, “Let’s bring regional aid policy back to member states,” he would not only have united the House but won many friends in Europe. Had he come to the House and said, “Let’s change the state aid rules so that countries that want to develop an active industrial policy can do so within the single market,” he would, I think, have united the House and won many friends in Europe. Had he said, “Let’s change the rules on the movement of people so that benefits are only for those who have contributed through work and taxation, even if they aren’t members of a formal contributory scheme,” I believe that he would have united the House and won more friends in Europe than he thinks.
We have no idea what the Prime Minister wants to achieve, though. The Europe Minister tells us that we will have to wait for the Tory manifesto in 2015 to find out, and tells us nothing about what our Prime Minister wants to achieve in the next two years. That is the truth: it is not about British interests; it is about Tories and the next election. Our hapless Prime Minister dare not say whether he is with the optimists or the pessimists, and the price that our country pays is five years of paralysis, indecision and uncertainty. Britain deserves better than that.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Denham Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
I absolutely agree that it is important to drop blanket opposition to Israel. We should stoutly defend the security and the legitimacy of Israel, but we must also be absolutely clear that Israel needs to make its contribution and recognise that settlements on occupied land are illegal, that settlement building activity must cease and that outposts on occupied land are illegal. We should be clear about that and maintain the pressure on Israel, as well as on Palestinians, to enter into direct negotiations and give them some chance to succeed.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
According to the House of Commons Library, multilateral and bilateral aid to the occupied territories and Gaza cost European taxpayers £670 million last year. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that, given that Israeli policy on settlements is making a two-state solution less likely, any deepening of trade relations with Israel would not be justified when the cost to European taxpayers is so high?
Mr Hague
We do give that support. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the extent of our support, which is, of course, very important for the Palestinian Authority to be able to function, particularly on the west bank. The position on trade relations is the one that I explained to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), and the European Union is very clear that an upgrade of the wider EU-Israel relationship depends on making substantial progress towards a two-state solution. That is a position that the United Kingdom firmly supports.
West Bank (Area C)
John Denham Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Slaughter
Absolutely. Occupation does that in its own right, but this is not a benign occupation. This is violence. It has accelerated with an increase in settler violence of 144% in the past two years. It is an organised campaign to disrupt the lives of Palestinians and to extend the occupation, which continues year-on-year and which, as the hon. Member for Beckenham said, increasingly makes a two-state solution difficult, if not impossible. That is why we need more from the Government—not only words, but action.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most cynical aspects is the Kafkaesque way in which the illegal occupiers use international law to say, “Ah, we should rely on the established law—Ottoman law and mandate law—for the legal framework for house demolitions”? Those laws are used in a perverted way to disadvantage the Palestinian residents who should have rights in that illegally occupied land, while a completely different set of legal rights are applied to the illegal occupations. Is it not that twisted way of interpreting the law that adds offence to the physical destruction of homes, schools and other properties?
Mr Slaughter
My right hon. Friend is right. Rules and regulations are manipulated in an absolutely cynical way to wear down and break the spirit of Palestinians living in the west bank. I think that it has been proved that that does not work. The resilience of the Palestinian people there is extraordinary, which is why there is also violence. Arrests, detention—including of children—and administrative detention, which happens on a continual basis, are all designed to break the will of the Palestinian people and favour the occupier and settlers over the indigenous population. I know that the Minister knows those matters well, but I hope that he will redouble his efforts. I will end on that point.
I know that it is a little cheeky, but in the interests of trying to be conciliatory on these matters, can I get a response from the Minister fairly soon on Mohammed Abu Mueleq? He is a former Hamas fighter and activist who is now reformed and wishes to come to the UK to talk to us about the ways of peace.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
I draw the Chamber’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that I accompanied my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on his recent visit to the region.
What the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) described as preconditions were, until recently, regarded as the mutually agreed starting point for the way to achieve a two-state solution. Those have now been withdrawn from negotiations, which makes things more difficult. I wanted to highlight the way that Area C, which was originally conceived of as a transitional measure—part of the process of going to a two-state solution—is slowly but surely being taken by the Israelis as an area of Israeli authority, in which they are able to impose their will, often with a fiction of law, as I said in an intervention, to the disadvantage of the Palestinian people. That is a very different concept of Area C. It raises a number of important questions.
As European taxpayers, we are, to a considerable extent, paying the human and social cost of that occupation. We are paying the very substantial funding for the Palestinian Authority, and for pretty much all of what is described as economic growth within the occupied territories. It has been wholly right to provide funding in that way, as part of a genuine transition towards a two-state solution. It is not at all obvious to me how we will continue to make the case for European taxpayers finding that money when we are funding not a transition to a peaceful solution, but the status quo.
One of the things that struck me on my most recent visit was how small the place is and how critical the issues are. We went to the Ma’ale Adumim area, where the Bedouin whom we talked about earlier were. The area between that settlement and Jericho is the same as the area between my constituency in Southampton and Winchester. On a train, that is about enough time get a cup of coffee and get out a laptop. Yet if that settlement continues, the west bank is effectively wholly divided. There is no possibility of a Palestinian state with physical integrity. That is why the settlement must stop now; otherwise, it will be almost impossible for the negotiations to reach a resolution.