Palestine

John Hemming Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that international humanitarian law and its enforcement would be a good step forward?

[Mr Hancock]

If only somebody would enforce international humanitarian law! I agree entirely. The failure is that no one is prepared to take the next step. It is no good saying that there is a great resolution from the UN; I was at the UN last week and listened carefully to the words of the Secretary-General about the situation. Unfortunately, he knows that he is a political eunuch when it comes to providing anything that will really lead to Israel responding positively, creatively and helpfully.

The overwhelming majority of Palestinian people want peace. They were told that they would get justice on several occasions throughout several different presidential Administrations in the United States, but the United States, which still has the most clout, has failed to deliver the powerful pressure on Israel that would force it to look again. It is manifestly unfair for our Government to continue not to apply as much pressure as possible. If that means preventing our industry from selling weapons and other goods to Israel, so be it. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, the one thing that wakes up the Israeli public and Israeli politicians is when they are hit with financial implications, which is something that we must explore.

If anything is to be learned from today’s debate, let the real expression of concern in this House be included in Hansard so that others can read it. All of us have concerns about rockets being fired and about people being killed by tanks mowing them down on the streets where they live. The situation is horrific and everyone condemns it, but that is not good enough, is it? Condemning something does not change anything.

What we need is a positive, hard punch that says that Israel needs to change. If not, it will become a pariah, similar to South Africa during the days of apartheid. Only when there was concerted effort against South Africa did it know that its time had run out. The Israelis have to be careful that they do not run out of time, because sooner or later the Palestinians will say, “There is no future for us here. We have no alternative but to continue what we have been doing.” That cannot be right, and it is not the solution that we want.

What we need is pressure from all the Governments who say that they want to support a two-state solution. Some 128 of them have now signed up, but what have they done since then to say that they would recognise a two-state solution? Very little—

European Union (Referendum) Bill

John Hemming Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I will give way in a moment, but let me make this point first. I actually agree with that last proposition. It is time that the British people had a say, and—I say this in response to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)—my Bill is about giving the British people the mechanism that will enable them to have that say. It is not about the detail of what should or should not be in a negotiation; it is about providing a mechanism whereby the British people are guaranteed, in primary legislation, an opportunity to have their say.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way, on that point?

[Robert Neill]

Out of courtesy, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[John Hemming]

Although, as my hon. Friend will recognise, I did back the earlier Bill—[Interruption]—I must admit that I have not been present on every single occasion, and my hon. Friend should not necessarily read into my colleagues’ absence the nature of their views.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the 1688 Bill of Rights, our fundamental constitutional law, was established by popular consent and not by being imposed on people, a substantial change to that, which is implied by the use of regulation rather than directive, is something that also requires popular consent?

[Robert Neill]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would be the first to recognise his consistency on his point, and I am delighted to see him here.

At the end of the day—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

I, too, think it is a question of trust. We know how all the parties have let the public down on promises made in the past about referendums on Europe. I always feel confident that when I am in a minority among my Labour colleagues on this referendum Bill, although some are here supporting it, I am not in a minority among Labour voters in the country. I am very confident that my party will have a change of mind on this issue, even between now and the general election. I think that the Liberal Democrats, who usually change back and forward—[Interruption.] I have the greatest respect for the Liberal Democrat Member who is here, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), although I do not think he is formally representing them. If he is, I am sure he will have a different view on this. It is important that the public feel we are really listening to them.

[John Hemming]

rose—

[Kate Hoey]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have referred to him.

[John Hemming]

I just make the point that I have been very consistent on this issue.

[Kate Hoey]

I was about to say that I do not want my party to be the only one going into a general election not supporting a referendum, and I feel that the Liberal Democrats will definitely have this measure in their manifesto, too. I am not a friend of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) as such, but I imagine that it will be in their manifesto. The Labour party could be the only party going into the election not supporting it, and that would be very wrong indeed.

I wish briefly to discuss some of the issues that will arise if the negotiation happens. I am a bit of a cynic about these negotiations, because I do not feel we will be able to negotiate very much, as the establishment within the European Union does not want the changes that we wish to see. If we end up still part of the agricultural policy and the fisheries policy, and if we still pay billions of pounds into the European Union and get a small amount back, I cannot see that the negotiations will have succeeded in doing anything other than tinker around in a few places, so that somebody can come back from Europe and say that this has been a success.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Article 9 of the Bill of Rights states:

“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

Believe it or not, Brussels is a place. If we have a regulation rather than a directive, the regulation automatically overrides domestic law. Because the Bill of Rights was established as part of the Glorious Revolution, which was a popular revolution, certain changes to our constitution should inherently warrant a referendum. Hence I was pleased to support the previous version of this Bill, which is the same as this version, and having a referendum on our continued membership of the EU.

A particular strength is that the Bill puts a timetable on changes. Some changes need to happen. For instance, when this was all initially brought together, nobody would have thought that we would be encouraging people to come here to sell The Big Issue, yet by selling that paper or running a nonsensical or otherwise unprofitable scrap metal deal, people qualify for tax credits and get a lot more money from them than they do from The Big Issue or whatever it may be. People migrate here to be officially poor. Nobody would ever have thought that was sensible, and that sort of thing needs to change.

Having seen the difficulties caused by the previous Labour Government’s not maintaining interim rules on migration from eastern Europe, I doubt whether anyone here would accept that if we added Turkey and Ukraine to the EU, we should add them with the same rules on freedom of movement that apply elsewhere. I do not think anyone argues for that, so changes are obviously needed in the operation of the EU.

My personal view is that if we are going to have a Common Market that is really a common market, we need systems for determining the rules. When Margaret Thatcher introduced a federal Europe by introducing qualified majority voting as a result of the Single European Act, it was in many ways a rational process because we needed a system for working out the rules. I personally support having a more democratic process through the European Parliament, but I do not support an ever-closer union, because I do not believe that is what we want. We do not want to homogenise the European area.

There are debates and problems that arise from the way in which structures have been set up. One relates to human rights, for instance. I am a supporter of civil liberties and human rights, but I think the judicial activism in the Council of Europe—a different body, of course, from the EU—has been quite problematic. The solution, however, is democracy: using the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to control the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights. It is not just to try to find some way out of a system that, apart from in some limited circumstances—prisoner votes, for instance—worked reasonably well. There are cases where it clearly does not work, but there are ways of dealing with them.

A referendum is definitely a very good way forward because it will enable us to have that debate. UKIP has recommended being in the European economic area, but the difficulty with that is that control on membership of the EU is completely lost because members of the EU have the right to veto additional members, but members of the EEA have to live with whatever comes out of the EU. At the end of the day, if we were not in the EU, we would be part of some other structure. It is unlikely to be invented as a new exercise; it is more likely that it would be based on the EEA. I do not necessarily believe that we always have to remain within the EU, but I am inclined to support the EU and its structures, while wanting definite changes to their operation.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but if the fifth largest economy in the world pulls out of something, surely a different structure would need to be created to accommodate it.

[John Hemming]

It is a question of buyers and sellers. Normally, selling something is a bit harder than buying it. People will sell things quite happily, but it is one thing to sell to Germans in German and another to buy them in English. There is some difficulty with the idea that our exports would simply be taken as read. I do not accept that people so want to purchase our exports that they would do exactly what we wanted. If we look at the EEA, we find that Norway contributes a lot of money to the EU through its EEA membership. The argument that not being in the EU would save us money is not necessarily a valid one. I do not take the view that suddenly everybody would bend over backwards to do exactly what we want, but that does not necessarily mean that we should go into the negotiations saying that we will swallow whatever comes out of this. The Opposition’s view that we should never stand up for anything because we might lose is not mine.

I was very pleased when the Government pulled us out of supporting the eurozone financial arrangements beyond supporting the International Monetary Fund. That was a sensible decision. In the dying days of the last Government, when Labour lost the election, they underwrote things, but doing so is actually taking on a big risk.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Norway. People make a lot of the fact that Norway collaborates substantially with the EU, but is it not more that its political classes are trying to get round the fact that they are not members of the EU by going along as far as they can with it? They have three very good reasons for not being in the EU: fishing, because they have their own fishing rights; oil, which they understandably want to keep and sell themselves; and agriculture, which they still protect for their own benefit.

[John Hemming]

Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland are members of the EEA but not of the EU. If we look at the pattern of different memberships, we find that some countries are members of the Council of Europe, but others are not. It is quite complex. The Vatican, for example, is a member of nothing, yet it can print euros. [Interruption.] Strange, isn’t it? But for whatever reason, Norway happens to be a member of the EEA, and we need to think about what the alternative would be if we had a choice about being or not being in the EU. That would be an important decision, but if we want to remain in it, it does not mean that no changes to how it works should be made.

Perhaps the error among some in my party has been not to drive for change. As I said, we cannot have a situation whereby people are encouraged to migrate here to be poor. That just cannot be rational; we cannot have that. When people started work on the treaty of Rome and other arrangements, nobody thought that that would be a sensible outcome. It involves using taxpayers’ resources to achieve a negative rather than a positive. Rather than rescuing people who have been marginalised, we create more marginalised people.

The Opposition raised concerns about the wording of the question. I am very supportive of it. I campaigned against having a directly elected dictator in Birmingham when such a role was proposed. About 5,000 people found that their votes had been disqualified because they wrote the word “No” on their ballot papers. I think that it is quite a good idea for there to be questions that allow the answers “Yes” and “No”, because these campaigns are always fought on a “yes or no” basis. I have not looked into how many ballot papers were spoiled at the time of the Scottish referendum, but there was a big problem in Birmingham. People were writing “No” on their ballot papers because they understood how they wanted to answer the question, but there were two boxes to be ticked, and it was not entirely clear which box they should tick in order to express their view. I think that the Electoral Commission got things wrong in that regard.

We are where we are today. We are exerting some pressure for the adoption of a time scale, and we are moving towards change and towards trusting the British people.

[Mr Nuttall]

The hon. Gentleman says that we are where we are today. I seem to recall that when, three years ago, standing probably on this very spot, I moved a motion that there be a national referendum on whether we should stay in the European Union, his hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) voted for the motion, but he voted against it. Perhaps he will enlighten the House on what has caused him to change his mind.

[John Hemming]

This is my record of voting on the issue of referendums concerning the European Union. I rebelled in the vote on the Lisbon treaty: I voted for a referendum on that. I voted against the hon. Gentleman’s motion. I voted for the amendment to the Queen’s Speech calling for a referendum. I voted for the private Member’s Bill that was presented during the last Session, and I shall be voting for this Bill. That is because I think we need to secure some changes and then vote on them. I do not think that we should just vote today; I think that we should negotiate some changes and see what we can get, because I think that change is needed. If we have a vote today, we shall have to have another vote later, and I do not think that we need to have too many votes.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if, after we have tried to negotiate, it turns out that no one will agree to any changes, there should still be a referendum?

[John Hemming]

Yes. That is the whole point. The Bill—which I am going to support, just as I supported the last Bill—says that there should be a referendum by a certain date, which puts pressure on the system to deliver change. The reason I voted against the hon. Gentleman’s motion is that I think we need to negotiate for change, because the system needs to change. I do not take the view of the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who believes that the structures are so appalling that they could never be modified or improved; I take the view that the structures need modification and improvement, but that we shall then need the authority of the British people. I shall not commit myself as to exactly what my view would be in that process, but I have already explained that I am sympathetic to the adoption of a democratic structure for the handling of trade agreements, which is essentially what we are talking about.

There are questions to be asked about, for instance, how the transatlantic trade and investment partnership should be managed. All trade agreements involve the same difficulties in relation to management. If we are talking about how straight a banana is, that is a trade issue. If we are talking about what names should be used for Cornish pasties, or about how types of food can be localised, that is a trade issue as well. There needs to be a democratic structure of some kind, and there must be an accountable system for management purposes, but what we need to do is secure change, and then have a vote.

Kashmir

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ward]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s words about Raja Najabat Hussain. There are also many others who have stuck at this issue for a long time. I will focus on self-determination a little later.

This debate is long overdue. Thousands of parliamentary questions have been asked about Kashmir in the House of Commons, but I believe that the last time there was a comprehensive Kashmir-dedicated debate on the political and humanitarian situation in Kashmir was, believe it or not, in 1999, 15 years ago. The conflict in Kashmir was discussed in a debate in the main Chamber a few years ago in 2011—I believe that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) was behind that—but it was a shared debate.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

In respect of the debate in the Chamber, my hon. Friend should note that occasions such as this are part of the reason for having a Backbench Business Committee that allows Back Benchers to drive what is debated by Parliament. This debate was not allocated in Government time.

[Mr Ward]

Indeed; the Backbench Business Committee has proven to be extremely valuable because we can raise issues that may not seem to be vastly important but are none the less important to focus on for particular groups. I am reminded of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who secured an Adjournment debate on the Kashmiri involvement in the census. Without these debates, we would not have the opportunity to raise such issues. A three-hour debate on Kashmir is justified and, as we can see by the attendance, welcome.

The conflict in Kashmir is long-standing and complex. The former princely state is divided: approximately one third is Azad Kashmir, or AJK, and approximately two thirds is administered or controlled by India. Other parts include Gilgit-Baltistan, which is administered by Pakistan, and the Chinese-administered disputed regions of Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract. That much we know.

More than 24 years ago, I stood as a candidate in a parliamentary by-election in the seat I eventually managed to win. I asked my party for a briefing on Kashmir, and it was provided to me. I had already been a councillor in the area for six years. I knew of the issue, but I thought that I had better be on message, which shows how young and naive I was. The response that came back was safe and predictable. If asked on the doorstep or at a public meeting about the Kashmir issue, the safe things to talk about were the United Nations resolution, self-determination and the plebiscite, and I suspect that all candidates from all parties receive that briefing. I have probably attended more than 300 meetings on this subject—many of them largely the responsibility of Raja Najabat Hussain—in Bradford and here over the past 30 years, and the message has not changed much at all. Many Members will have attended meetings in their own areas where a succession of speakers turn up and say more or less the same thing to a round of applause. They are followed by another speaker, who is followed by another speaker, and then we go and have a meal.

[John Hemming]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that one of the difficulties with long-standing conflicts is that the temperature is raised by human rights abuses and that a focus on dealing with human rights abuse is not only good in itself, but assists in resolving the political problems in the long term?

[Mr Ward]

I regard human rights abuses as being a constant cause of conflict. As I will mention later, we have had periods of calm and progress, but then something happens that freezes that good progress. Often, that is because of the abuse and violations that have taken place.

The prevailing view on this debate—certainly in India and, from what I have read in the press, in the Indian high commission in the UK—is that the debate is not welcome and the House of Commons should not be poking its nose into someone else’s business. The House of Commons briefing paper includes a quote from the state president of the Bharatiya Janata party referring to this debate as

“a brazen interference in the internal affairs of India”

and

“that Jammu and Kashmir is a settled issue and cannot be reopened under any pretext whatever.”

It does not seem to be a settled issue to me.

I kindly received a message from Mr Balwinder Singh Dhillon, who wrote to me yesterday or the day before. He said:

“I am very concerned why our Members of Parliament are wasting their valuable time and resources to promote these key ring leaders of these terrorist organisations”.

I am not aware that I have done that. In fact, I know that I have not, but that shows something of the degree of emotion that surrounds this area.

A press release came out in the Asianlite newspaper, supported by the Indian high commission. It names the deputy high commissioner. It says that I have called this debate because—I have heard this one before—I have many Muslims in my constituency who have pressured me into doing so. I have to tell the Chamber that I am not very good at responding to pressure. It is offensive when people make such comments about me.

The Times of India quoted the Deputy Prime Minister as saying—it was originally quoted in August, but it has been resurrected—that

“Britain does not want to be a mediator between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.”

I accept that, and I do not think I have ever suggested that it does. There is a massive difference, however, between mediation and the offer of help, to which I will return. I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister making it categorically clear that he did not oppose the debate in itself and that we had a right to discuss whatever we want to discuss, although I will further justify that later.

I have no qualms about raising the issue of Kashmir in Parliament. We cannot escape the British legacy on the matter. We have a responsibility. We have not so much a right as an obligation to take an interest in Kashmir. We should not take a mild interest from a distance; we should offer help to resolve the conflict. I do not take the view that Britain is interfering. We are highlighting the importance of resolving the issue, not for one side or the other, but for all inhabitants of the region. Ultimately, given the propensity for terrorist acts to be undertaken anywhere in the world as a result of conflict in one part of the world, resolution is of interest to us as well.

Efforts to resolve the conflict have so far been unsuccessful. We have to be honest about that. India and Pakistan have always maintained that this is a matter for them alone, and that might be suggested today. We know about the Simla agreement and the Lahore declaration. We know that that is the line that has been taken, all the way from Sir Owen Dixon through to the improvements and progress made post-2003 right up to today, including the 15 boxes of mangoes that were sent recently as a gift from Pakistan to India. Perhaps we need more mangoes. We need positive moves, even if they might be regarded just as gestures.

We have had so many false starts on reaching agreement, which have faltered for various reasons, including awful, atrocious terror attacks in India, infringements across the line of control—even with the flood devastation facing people on both sides of the line of control—domestic politics in India and political instability in Pakistan. For whatever reason, just as progress is made towards some sort of normalisation, there is a freeze.

The constant cry from Kashmiris is that they have been overlooked as major stakeholders. Their exclusion from peace talks has led to frustration and growing disenchantment, particularly for those seeking independence from India and Pakistan. I welcome the contribution I received from the Kashmir Initiative Group, which made the observation that, while it is common to hear about the trust deficit between Delhi and Islamabad—we are all familiar with that—the trust deficit that has developed in Jammu and Kashmir over the years is seldom discussed. There have been periods of calm when greater progress could have been made. There have been opportunities and there was fertile ground for greater progress to be made, but the danger is that the absence of genuine political initiative in Kashmir will leave the region susceptible to a resurgence of violence at any time. Other Members might refer to that. I am not the first to comment on the withdrawal of NATO-led forces, the international security assistance force, from Afghanistan and the added challenges that that could bring to Kashmir.

Barrister Sultan Mahmood Chaudhry, the former AJK Prime Minister, met MPs here this week through the all-party parliamentary group for Kashmir. With the rise of extreme jihadists and NATO forces leaving Afghanistan, there is a real danger that what he called “unemployed jihadists” will look for new opportunities within the unresolved Kashmir conflict, whether they are invited to take part or not. Further escalation of the conflict through acts of terror could be perpetrated in the name of the unresolved issue over Jammu and Kashmir. That means that the situation is of interest not just in that area but internationally.

On the removal of article of 370 of the Indian constitution—others may comment on this—it has been eroded over time, but it does grant Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir autonomous status within the country. Removal is a controversial and decisive step, even the discussion of which could be a catalyst that sparks an uncontrollable and dangerous escalation in the conflict. It could be a magnet—I have already referred to one possible source—for disenchanted jihadists.

If further justification for Parliament’s interest in the conflict is necessary, I return to my constituents. Each time I meet members of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front or the Jammu Kashmir National Independence Alliance, it becomes clear to me that the Kashmir conflict is not a mere matter of interest to them or just something that they read about; it is an anguish that burns within them and never leaves. They do not just in the newspapers occasionally follow events that happen a long way away; news gets fed directly to them through strong family links. On visiting the area—I know that many hon. Members have—I might be asked by shopkeepers on the high street in Mirpur whether I know their cousin on Nottingham street in Bradford. That helps us to understand the links and why the matter is so important.

Seeking a final resolution to the Kashmir question is hugely important for world peace—it is that serious—because the potential still exists for India and Pakistan to go to war. We only have to think back to December 2001 when we were on the brink of something terrifying as both armies mobilised along the international frontier and maps were drawn up of where a potential nuclear strike might occur, or November 2008 and the atrocious Mumbai attack, to realise that the longer the issue remains unresolved, the more dangerous it becomes in this already dangerous world.

Despite criticism from various quarters, this debate is actually timely. Following a long period of relative calm and with new political leaders in both India and Pakistan, we now find ourselves in a period of opportunity to discuss new and perhaps more fruitful avenues to achieve peace and security for the Kashmiri people. It may sound controversial to some, but I long ago ditched the party line that peace can be attained through a plebiscite. I just do not think that that will happen. The long-awaited plebiscite seems no longer to be a route towards a solution, but instead a contributor to the ongoing conflict. What is the point of a referendum when the outcome will not be accepted by the loser? Would we be having a Scottish referendum if we believed that whoever lost would take up arms? Was a referendum the answer in Northern Ireland? We knew that the result of a Northern Ireland referendum of whatever form would not have resulted in people saying, “Well, we lost.” It is crucial to accept the reality.

Let us not forget that the plebiscite did not propose to offer the third option of an independent state of Kashmir. However, it did offer Kashmiris a say in deciding their own future. That was its value and that vital element can still be achieved. If it is to happen, a plebiscite needs to be viewed as a means to an end and not the end in itself. Surely the end should be peace and security in Kashmir and for the people who live there. The question then is, how can those within the former princely state, who have suffered for so long, have some say in what their future should be? Sometimes to get to what can be, we have to accept what cannot be.

Bangladesh

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

The chair of the all-party group makes a powerful point that adds to this picture of a sequence of actions that were impacting on political and everyday society in Bangladesh. It was the responsibility of the Government of the day to handle and manage that, but they failed to do so. With the elections and the situation in Bangladesh, a clear thread can be drawn through all activities and actions up to the present day.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

On the point about the war crimes tribunals, when representatives of the Awami League in Birmingham came to see me, I made the point that they were responsible for the rules that enabled the death penalty to be used for an Opposition politician. It is clear that that fits within the pattern that has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate that intervention from my hon. Friend.

The fourth aspect that the House needs to consider is the issue of the caretaker Government system, which other Members have mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said that that works in other countries. It is perfectly legitimate for countries to determine how they want to handle their own elections, and it is not for the House to tell another country how it should handle its elections, but it is certainly a responsibility of this House to say how effective those systems are in maintaining and promoting democracy, because we have an interest in promoting freedom and democracy around the world, and certainly in countries that are fellow members of the Commonwealth.

The all-party group has persistently called on the current Government in Bangladesh to install a caretaker Government system. Again, the decision was taken by the Government, not the Opposition. The Opposition leader wanted to see that system, but it was the Government who refused to introduce it—there was an obstinate refusal to accept the caretaker Government system. We did not need to have the wisdom of Solomon to understand where we were heading two years ago into this election, and to know that if Bangladesh did not have a caretaker Government system, it would end up in its present situation. That, again, is a responsibility of the current Government in Bangladesh.

[John Hemming]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Fuller]

I will not, as I know that other Members wish to speak.

My final point is about political arrests and detentions. In circumstances in which there were just one or two instances, and if they were connected to a particular crime, a functioning democracy could operate an election—that can work. However, if such a thing is persistent and not tied to a particular criminal act, and if the leader of a political party is detained in their own home, how on earth can an effective election be held? People might say that locking up some of our political leaders here might help our election chances—my hon. Friends might think it could help them in the 2015 election. Seriously, however, how on earth can we believe that the international community is going to say that there has been a free and fair election if the leader of the leading opposition party is not permitted to leave her own home?

These are a series of indictments against the current Bangladesh Government: the failure to secure and limit the extra-judicial killing by the Rapid Action Battalion; the failure to follow up the disappearances of a wide range of people involved in politics; the tainting of what should have been war crimes trials that could have brought the country together; the obstinate refusal to permit a caretaker Government; and the arrest and detention of political opponents.

Let me finally talk about some actions that I would like to see. It is appropriate for the Department for International Development to review its expenditure in Bangladesh, but I urge the Minister to ensure that our response to the political turmoil in Bangladesh does not harm the interests of ordinary Bengalis who need support through the alleviation of poverty. Secondly, despite what I have said, I urge the UK Government to continue to work with the Government of Bangladesh to pursue a solution to the current turmoil. Four steps are required, however: the full release of political detainees; the installation of a caretaker Government; the disbanding of the Rapid Action Battalion and an external investigation into its activities; and more work and more investment from the UK to strengthen business and trade with Bangladesh, in order to promote entrepreneurship and the growth of business, because that can be the strongest bulwark in the defence of freedom in countries around the world. If we can achieve those four things, they will provide a more effective transition to a peaceful future and a new election in Bangladesh than hoping that somehow, after decades of hostility, the two political leaders themselves will miraculously come up with the solution through discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

That is a genuine concern. The right balance must be struck in regard to political freedom and the free expression of ideas through democracy, argument and reasoning, and the possible defeat of those ideas at the ballot box. Jamaat has not been prohibited in Bangladesh, although it has been accused of being a terrorist organisation. One would oppose the ambition of some in Bangladesh to create an Islamist republic, but I understand that it is something that some people want. However, they form a tiny minority. In the last election, I think Jamaat got less than 4% of the popular vote. That demonstrates Bangladesh’s great support for its democracy and its secularism.

I do not think that the political parties in Bangladesh need to be frightened or provoked by Jamaat, or stampeded by it. Arguments can be made that will beat it through the electoral process. The BNP has been in alliance with it, and many commentators are calling on that party to dissociate itself from Jamaat in order to create more political space. I understand that, historically, the Awami League had an alliance with Jamaat. These days, however, Jamaat is putting forward a much clearer political point of view, and the main parties should all dissociate themselves from it and let it stand on its own two feet.

[John Hemming]

I endorse what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) have said so far. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in order to build trust and ensure that there are fresh elections, the institution of a caretaker Government will be necessary?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I believe that the calls for new elections are premature at this point. Holding elections immediately would only play into the hands of those who have tried to sabotage the recent ones. The international community has a job to do in stabilising relations within Bangladesh, in giving support to the BNP and the Awami League, and in creating a climate in which elections can take place. I cannot see the Awami League staying in power for a full five-year term; that would be against the spirit of what has happened so far, and against the spirit of what has been said in the Chamber today. It will be very difficult to get to a situation in which elections can take place, however.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

John Hemming Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Sheerman]

I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker.

I will conclude my remarks and hope to be called later in the debate. I am in favour of the new clause, which fits in with the whole tone of the discussion that we had in Committee. The Opposition acted very positively in relation to this Bill in trying to refine it and to be supportive. All of us, as a team, tried to work together. We disagreed, but we disagreed in a rather pleasant way.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I rise to support new clause 1. The absurd proposal in this group is obviously amendment 43, which seems to suggest that everyone across Europe will vote on this issue, whatever their nationality.

As somebody who supports a referendum on our membership of the EU but would probably vote in favour, I think it very important that UK citizens who live abroad should be entitled to vote. Obviously that is allowed, but people who live in Gibraltar also need to vote. We will eventually need to consider the wider issue of what representation the Crown dependencies have, but that is for another day.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate.

As I am sure the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) will recall, I intervened on him to raise the issue of Gibraltar when we first gathered here on a Friday to discuss this Bill. I think I am accurate in saying that he was rather dismissive of my concerns about the people of Gibraltar and accused me of merely trying to wreck the Bill. I very much welcome the fact that he has had a conversion along the way from here to the Whips Office to get his instructions and back again, and now supports giving the people of Gibraltar the right to take part in this referendum.

We heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is one of the leading experts on the overseas territories. I was slightly disappointed, however, that he did not explain the precise reason why it is vital for Gibraltar to have its voice in the referendum. The reason is that under the treaty of Utrecht, which—he may correct me—took place in 1713, the United Kingdom has ownership of Gibraltar for as long as we and the people of Gibraltar should wish it, but should we ever renounce our ownership of the Rock, ownership automatically passes back to Madrid. Therefore, under the treaty, the people of Gibraltar have no ability to seek their own independence. If they were not given their chance to have a say in the referendum, if the United Kingdom chose to leave the EU, they would be placed in the ridiculous situation of having to choose whether they wished to remain part of the European Union or to become Spanish.

That is why I very much welcome the fact that eventually, after six months, the hon. Member for Stockton South and his colleagues have accepted the argument that I tried to make back in July. I look forward to his explaining why it has taken him so long to come to the conclusion that was obvious to us at such an early stage.

Arms to Syria

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The House owes the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) a debt for securing the debate, and I was pleased to support him in the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that it would take place. I hope that the House will agree with the motion, even though the Minister has already indicated that a Government motion will be tabled before any arms are sent to Syria. I look forward to his confirmation of that when he responds.

This really goes to the heart of the power of Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, because anyone outside this place, and indeed anyone outside this country, would find it extraordinary that in the 21st century we still do not have a war powers Act and that the Prime Minister can still use the powers of the royal prerogative to take us to war, supply arms, sign treaties or anything else. Surely a democratic Parliament and democratic accountability of the Executive require a vote in the House of Commons before any major decision can be taken that would have enormous implications for our foreign policy.

Indeed, the vote on whether to intervene in Iraq was not the first consideration of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He came to that conclusion somewhat later, and I expect as a result of expediency on his part, because he wanted to corral a lot of MPs into backing the war and because many of us were demanding that a vote be held so that we could register our opposition. We have had 10 years since to pass war powers legislation, but we still have not done so. I note that next week we will debate the progress of the Wright report. It was a very good report, but perhaps we could make it a little more progressive and a little faster by making some progress on this matter.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

A Minister who did not follow the terms of such a resolution that had been passed could be referred to the Privileges Committee for contempt of Parliament.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That presupposes that we pass the resolution and that the Government do that but do not consult us, so we are about four stages away from a Minister being in contempt of Parliament. If a Minister was to be held in contempt of Parliament, the House would have to deal with it. It is more important that we get to a point at which there is proper consultation.

I believe very strongly that any decision of the House must be made well in advance of any action. I remember the House being recalled in January 1991 to support the Government’s intervention in the Gulf war, at which time a large number of British and American troops were already in the area preparing to go into Iraq, so the die was already cast. We do not want to be brought back here in August when the Government have arranged large shipments of arms to go to the Syrian opposition, which will all be stacked up at Stansted airport ready to go, and we will be asked to approve it. We want a serious decision well before any such action is even contemplated by the Government.

Death Penalty (India)

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Like everyone else, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for sponsoring and supporting this debate, which is important not only internationally, but to many people in the UK. I have busily been trying to edit my comments to avoid repeating what previous speakers have said and to save a bit of time, so what I say today will not be the only thing I have to say on this issue; it will be the bits that are left. I may avoid repetition, but there may be a few pauses in my speech as I try to make the best of what I have.

We have had an overwhelming response to the petition, with well over 100,000 signatures nationwide. Some of my constituents have travelled all the way from Bradford for this debate, and I hope they are viewing it in the Chamber. We are going to No. 10 to present the Prime Minister with an additional petition of 2,000 signatures from local people in Bradford and the surrounding area, calling for the abolition of the death penalty in India. Many people in Bradford East feel strongly about this issue, and it is important to highlight the fact that those signatories are from all walks of life. They find the death penalty abhorrent, and the issue speaks to everyone, no matter what community they are from.

There are many long-established arguments for and against the death penalty, some of which have been mentioned today. I do not intend to go through them again. We have all been well briefed for the debate by Amnesty International and other organisations, and the evidence shows that despite the comments by the Indian Supreme Court in 1983, there are nearly 500 people on death row in India today. For the record, it is important to note that we do not condone the actions of people who illegally take or endanger lives, no matter what their cause, but it is also vital to highlight the fact that the death penalty is wrong and should not be part of any judicial process in any part of the world.

A matter that has not been touched on, apart from in a passing reference by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), is the difficult question of a nation criticising another nation. We need to be careful not to appear holier than thou, especially when we are criticising other democracies. Yes, we have abolished the death penalty and we can therefore speak with some authority on that matter, but we must be careful none the less, because I believe that such events as the Iraq war reduced our moral authority. It had many tragic consequences, one of which was that it reduced our moral authority in the eyes of the international community. Whether we are talking about arms sales, foreign interventions or prevention of terrorism legislation, we need to be sure that we can speak with authority, and we therefore need to be careful about what we do. I was delighted to see the Prime Minister’s statement about the deeply shameful event in Amritsar in 1919, but we are still waiting for Tony Blair to make an apology for what has happened far more recently.

My key point is that we must be ever vigilant about what we do and how we behave. The message from this debate needs to go out not just as a message from a relatively small group of Back Benchers on a Thursday afternoon; it needs to be a message from the Government. If it is to have any authority, however, we must constantly watch what we are doing, to ensure that we are above reproach ourselves. When I was in the west bank recently, I challenged the forcible removal of Bedouins from the land that they had lived on for hundreds of years, but the question was thrown back at me: “What about how you treat the Travellers at Dale Farm?” We are debating this matter here in the Chamber today, but we are also being listened to by the world, and we must take care not to appear righteous when we have not earned the right to do so.

As a liberal, I believe that it is our intrinsic right and, more importantly, our fundamental duty to speak up for all people, and especially for minorities who do not have suitable champions for their cause and who face persecution, wherever in the world that might occur and no matter what entrenched views or self-interest they might be battling against. The oppressors often have powerful weapons at their disposal to stifle debate. For the whole of my political career, I have fought and campaigned against prejudice and injustice, at a local level in my constituency and internationally, and I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides today. I thank other hon. Members for turning up in such numbers today—there were more here earlier—because it is crucial that this “small-l liberal” issue should be raised.

I have touched on the necessity for India to uphold the basic human rights that are espoused in the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is an important issue for my constituents, especially those in the Sikh community, who have long borne the brunt of judicial and societal discrimination in parts of India. We are fortunate to have more than 5,000 people from the Sikh community living in Bradford. They make a vital contribution to the social, religious and economic fabric of the local area, and it is appalling that those vibrant and flourishing communities are not treated with the same dignity and respect for human rights in all parts of the world as they are in Bradford.

The number of states that still have execution as part of their judicial process is thankfully now relatively small, but there are still far too many. It is an outdated and barbaric penalty, and although only a handful of states now use it, there are still too many.

Over the past few years, I have been approached by a number of constituents about the cases involving Balwant Singh Rajoana and Professor Bhullar. I know those cases well, and I am sad that those people are still on death row. I must be honest and tell the House, however, that on researching this issue more thoroughly, I was deeply shocked to discover the sheer scale of the human rights abuses that the Indian Government have not acted against, over many years. I am a member of Amnesty International, and I regularly receive the evidence that it produces. It is shocking to learn of the extensive use of forced evictions, the excessive use of force, arbitrary arrest and detention, and the fundamental lack of due process that are still prevalent in India. Amnesty states:

“Impunity for abuses and violations remained pervasive.”

The continuing existence of India’s controversial Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act gives the Indian army arbitrary powers and near-immunity from prosecution. I have been vocal in the past on the subject of Kashmir, and I was aware of the scale of human rights abuses in Indian-occupied Kashmir, but not of their prevalence in wider India, especially against members of the Sikh community.

India is the third largest economy in the world, and will be an indispensible trading partner for Britain and the EU.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. For the hon. Gentleman just to walk in and intervene in this way is discourteous to everyone else in the Chamber. I understand that he wants to make an intervention, but he must be in the Chamber for at least five minutes before he does so. I am not making a personal attack on him, but he must show good manners to everyone else.

[Mr Ward]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

India’s growing status in the world, its growing economy and its importance to Britain and the EU are no excuse for not doing anything about this matter. They provide an imperative for ensuring that the crucial link between our two countries can be used as a lever to bring about change in India. When we are seeking to improve our own economy, particularly through exports and international trade, the temptation is there, but there is a danger that we hold back for fear of offending a foreign economic power with which we feel we need to develop closer links. It would be immoral, in my view, if growing trade links were used as an excuse for holding back on deserved criticism.

It is crucial for today’s debate that pressure is placed on the Indian Government— not by a group of Back Benchers or petitioners, but by this Government—to uphold basic human rights as a fundamental policy and procedure. We need to outlaw this terrible death penalty once and for all. It is one of the most inhumane and abhorrent punishments used in today’s world—and it needs to end.

[John Hemming]

When I listened to my hon. Friend’s speech on television earlier, I noticed him stressing the importance of our role as a Parliament in commenting on what happens in other countries. Does he agree with me, however, that on issues such as the death penalty in India or the rule of law in Kashmir, it is right for all Parliaments to be committed to improving human rights throughout the world?

[Mr Ward]

That is essential. My earlier point was that if we are to make criticisms, particularly of other democracies, we need to be cleaner than clean and we need to ensure that our record is clean in all respects so that we can speak with moral authority on these crucial issues affecting so many parts of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for initiating this valuable debate. Like the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and every other Member who has spoken, I regard myself as a friend of India. I have been privileged to go there twice, and would have gone again this month had not a certain by-election and other distractions forced me to postpone my third visit.

India is a wonderful country. One of the things that is so great about it is that it is not only the largest democracy in the world, but a democracy that has devolved power to its states. It is also very diverse, and it is a place where many faiths, and none, are equally valid, respected, enjoyed and appreciated. It is a melting pot: in my experience, it is the only place in the world, apart from Israel and Palestine in the middle east, where so many different strands of culture, history and faith come together.

We have come here with that attitude, but some of us have come here with, also, a lifelong commitment to fighting the death penalty. I held that position and argued that case before I entered the House, and have continued to do so throughout my time here. I first joined Amnesty International when I was at university, and campaigned on cases individually. I was in Amnesty’s Southwark group before I was elected, and we made representations to Governments around the world asking them not to exercise the death penalty.

For many of us, this is part of a traditional campaign. I pay tribute to the Members who have spoken so far, and spoken extremely well. The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) made a very effective contribution, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). We heard an intervention from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is no longer in the Chamber, and I also greatly appreciated the contribution of my friend the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), with whom I travelled to India a couple of years ago.

Several of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), have signed the motion that we are discussing. For obvious reasons, some of my colleagues are not present in as large numbers as they might be, and they send their apologies. As the deputy leader of my party, I want to associate them with the motion. I should mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming)—who is present, and who intervened briefly earlier—my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who has campaigned against the death penalty for many years.

It is good that this is not the only occasion on which the issue of the death penalty has been raised this week. A number of questions about it were asked in the other place, including one from Lord Low which specifically concerned the death penalty in India and which was answered by Baroness Warsi on behalf of the Government.

I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has already contributed to the debate. I do not want to make a long contribution myself, but I do want to make a few comments about the logic of the case that we are making to the Indian Government—while respecting the Indian Parliament and Government, and the office of President—before asking the Minister some questions and suggesting ways in which we might proceed. I realise that the Minister will not make another speech today, but I would appreciate it if he could think about those points, and reply later to me and to my colleagues.

I understand why countries have the death penalty, I understand why countries have had the death penalty, as we did until relatively recently, and I understand the difficulty of moving from having the death penalty to not having it. Not having the death penalty looks like a sign of weakness, and may be thought to make it more likely that people will commit serious offences and “get away with them”. I understand that events such as those of the 1980s involving the golden temple, for example, have led to a culture in which it is felt that people must not be allowed to get away with activities of that kind. I understand how terrible terrorism is, in India as in this country and anywhere else, and I understand why people who are involved in and convicted of terrorism are thought to be in need of the ultimate punishment.

However, we should also reflect on the fact that, since India gained independence in 1948, the death penalty has not deterred such people. It did not prevent any of the events of the 1980s, and it did not prevent the events referred to by the Minister when he was in India only the other day. Bomb blasts, revenge killings and assassinations have continued, as they have in other countries where the death penalty operates. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar made the telling point that Europe, where most countries do not have the death penalty, is the safest place in the world. There is no link between a lack of crime and the death penalty. Indeed, according to the most recent evidence that I have seen, in the United States of America the states with the death penalty generally do not have a lower rate of crime than those without it.

[John Hemming]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key aspect of deterrence is detecting and identifying criminals, rather than the nature of the punishment?

[Simon Hughes]

It is—as is ensuring that justice is done and is seen to be done, and that justice is done promptly.

A real problem for our friends in India, and for the Government of India, is that justice has often ground to a halt there. That is not just my view. The other day a bench of the Supreme Court in India spoke of how slow the processes are, and in January last year a Supreme Court bench said that people’s faith in the judiciary was dwindling at an alarming rate, posing a grave threat to constitutional and democratic governance of the country. It acknowledged serious problems such as the large number of vacancies in trial courts, the unwillingness of lawyers to become judges, and an inability to fill the highest posts. Dealing with the backlog in the courts is one of the difficulties in India, although it is not unique to that country; we have been dealing with it in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

There are matters that need to be addressed—matters that can be addressed—which could change the culture in India and give people more confidence. There is, for instance, the need to deal with corruption, which is sometimes a problem in our own country. We have just seen an officer of the Metropolitan police convicted of corrupt activities. Like other Members who have spoken, I am not trying to pretend that we are perfect. However, corruption needs to be dealt with in India and other countries where it undermines democratic values and principles and international credibility. I agree with those colleagues, including the hon. Member for Slough, who have said that if India—its Prime Minister and President—were brave enough to move to abolishing the death penalty, they could be the leaders in their part of the world. They could change the culture of other, smaller democratic countries and later, we would hope, of currently non-democratic countries such as China, so that they could all move on and we would end up not with 110 or 111 countries voting in the UN against the death penalty, but with the remaining countries understanding that there is a better way to proceed—that there is a better and fairer way to punish people.

The ultimate argument is this: not only is it not a deterrent to have the death penalty, but, as the right hon. Member for Warley said, it is a final solution which all too often through history has proved to be wrong. If an injustice is done and the convicted person has been in prison for 20 years, that is terrible but at least they can come out and enjoy the rest of their life, but if there is an injustice and the person is executed, it is too late to undo that, of course.

I want to make the specific case for people like Professor Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana, as I did when I was last in India. I add my voice to those of others calling for the relatively new President of India to return to the moratorium his predecessor followed. I hope that can be a first, or interim, stage before abolition. I understand, too, that having people on death row is a dreadful and inhumane punishment, so a moratorium is not an adequate answer, and I hope that, collectively, we can help India understand the arguments for moving forward.

I have a specific proposal. Later this year there is to be a Commonwealth Heads of Government conference. It is currently scheduled to be held in Colombo, although that is controversial and has been the subject of discussion. Ministers have recently been to Sri Lanka, and our country has rightly not decided what level of representation we will give because of recent human rights issues in Sri Lanka. I assume that there will be such a conference this autumn, however, either in Sri Lanka or somewhere else, and I would like our Government to see whether we can put on its agenda the remaining issues to do with the death penalty in Commonwealth countries, and see whether that could be linked with questions of justice and the speed of justice. I ask the Minister to discuss that with his colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary.

There is a commonality of interest. I do not come to this debate because I have a huge number of Sikh constituents. In fact, I have very few constituents of Indian origin. I have no gurdwaras or temples in my constituency, but I have a large Muslim community and large Roman Catholic Irish and Latin American communities, as well as the largest African community in Britain. Although I have no constituency interest, however, I have worked a great deal with the Sikh and other minority communities in India, and the Commonwealth needs to step up to the plate and do better in making sure these issues are on the Commonwealth agenda. I would like Her Majesty’s Government to put failures of justice and the issue of the death penalty on the agenda this year.

I also ask Ministers to reflect on how we might be more effective more immediately, in the UN Human Rights Committee meeting in Geneva which will take place in the next few weeks, and on whether we might take forward further initiatives there. Sri Lanka is on its agenda, and we might be able to ensure that these death penalty issues are addressed at it, too.

It would be helpful to keep these issues at the top of the EU priority list, too, but not in an old empire way, but because it is good to seek to work with our friends in all countries of the world, as well as our friends in the Commonwealth. The Minister told us he raised these issues when he was in India with the Prime Minister and the UK delegation last week, but it would be helpful to know whether the Prime Minister raised them in his meeting with the Prime Minister of India or with other Ministers. If he did not, would he be willing to do so, because I am sure the increasingly good and frequent links between UK Ministers and Indian Ministers would allow the point to be put respectfully? I also ask Ministers to reflect on whether, irrespective of the Commonwealth conference, there might be an initiative from the UK and other Commonwealth countries asking the Indian Government to return to the moratorium while these issues are under consideration.

May I end by making one final suggestion through you, Mr Deputy Speaker? The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union can be influential on occasions, and you, as well as Mr Speaker and his other deputies, can be influential in that regard. There may be a case for a parliamentary initiative. Will you, Mr Deputy Speaker, speak to Mr Speaker and your colleagues about whether we and other Commonwealth Parliaments might seek to convene a gathering or conference on this matter, perhaps to be hosted here, or in India? There is an opportunity for this Parliament and the Indian Government and Parliament and the Commonwealth to be seen to be taking the initiative. I hope this debate does not merely flag up our concerns and our desire to change things; rather, I hope it is a stepping-stone to more practical interventions, so that there can be this change in the largest democracy in the world in the very near future.

Judiciary and Fundamental Rights

John Hemming Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I aim to be very quick. I found chapter 23 very interesting, as it is the first time that that chapter has been used for the accession of a country. We have perhaps now hit the Groucho Marx threshold for Europe—that we would not be allowed to join the EU because our standards are not high enough to do so. It is somewhat complacent to imply that the standards of our judicial system are always higher than those in Croatia. I spent some time comparing and contrasting the case X v. Croatia and RP and Others v. the United Kingdom. If I have enough time, I will come back to that later.

If we look through the document outlining the EU’s response, we find the following statement:

“The EU underlines the importance of Croatia improving publication of and access to final court decisions both in the interests of the development of case law and consistent judicial practice, and in view of wider public dissemination.”

Well, the UK has a massive problem here. Many judgments are not handed down by the judge—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That is not relevant to our debate, which concerns the documents before us about Croatia. I would be grateful if, in the few minutes left to him that will enable the Minister to reply, the hon. Gentleman stuck to this evening’s subject of debate.

[John Hemming]

I think it important to examine the issues raised by chapter 23, however, and to compare X v. Croatia with RP and Others v. the United Kingdom. In the former case, a mother’s mental capacity was removed from her and she was told that she had no locus in the Croatian courts. She had a second opinion, which was taken through the whole Croatian court system. The domestic court system was involved in exactly the same way in the latter case, but the woman had no second opinion. In my view, the Croatian system is far better.

I highlighted the issue of judgments in the accession document. There is also the question of the anti-corruption commission. The document states:

“The EU also calls on Croatia to ensure full implementation of its system for monitoring and verification of assets declarations of public officials and judges”.

According to the Groucho Marx test, this is now a club that we would not be allowed to join, because we do not operate that sort of system here.

I think it complacent to assume that countries such as Croatia are behind the United Kingdom. The chapter 23 requirements have already pushed Croatia into doing things that we do not do here. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) may be pleased to find that in future years we might be expelled for not complying with the conditions with which Croatia complies, but I do not take the same view as him on the European Union. I think that extending the EU is a good idea. Most of the people who argue that we should leave it argue that we should be in the European economic area, which allows freedom of movement throughout Europe. I also disagree with the hon. Gentleman about whether people qualify for habitual residency as a consequence of declaring self-employment, because I do not think that such a declaration qualifies people for habitual residency immediately.

I think that we should consider not just Croatia but whether we satisfy the conditions in chapter 23, but given that I cannot cite any examples of how we fail to satisfy those conditions, I will leave that to the Minister.

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. If the Court is to continue to be treated with respect, it is important for it to find a way of getting on top of that grotesque backlog of cases, which is in nobody’s interests. I will say more about that later.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

There have obviously been concerns about some of the ways in which the convention’s basic rights have been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Will the Government consider during their chairmanship proposing that certain resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly should assist the Court in interpreting the basic texts?

[Mr Lidington]

I am sure that my hon. Friend’s suggestions, and indeed proposals from the Parliamentary Assembly as a body, will be considered seriously in the course of the debates and conversations that we will have during the six months of our chairmanship and beyond.

National Referendum on the European Union

John Hemming Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

The situation we find ourselves in is rather like that of someone who has boarded a slow train going in one direction and finds, just as they are settling in, that the train starts to career off at high speed in a completely different direction, with carriages being added on left, right and centre, and they are locked in and have no way of getting off. Worse still, the longer people are on the train, the more the fare goes up, but there is absolutely nothing they can do about it because any negotiation with the guards or the driver is almost impossible. This motion would simply allow the train to stop for a while so that the passengers can decide whether they want to continue the journey or even disembark.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

A lot of changes are happening throughout Europe. Does my hon. Friend accept that we need to add some junctions to the track in order to identify whether alternative routes are available? Does he agree that we should not wait for a referendum before doing that?

[Mr Nuttall]

I believe that now is the time to start—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Berry]

I am aware of that polling, and that is why I do not support today’s motion.

[John Hemming]

I understand that the e-petition has only 36,000 signatures, but a paper petition has more than 100,000 signatures.

[Jake Berry]

In my home town of Liverpool people would be burned for witchcraft for signing anything on the internet. The general petition had 100,000 signatures.

I am constantly told that the EU is not a doorstep issue, but when one scrapes the surface and goes out and talks to people, as I did in my constituency last weekend, one finds immense anger. People in my area regard the EU as remote, undemocratic and, more often than not, working against our national interest, instead of in favour of the UK. There is a perception among the people I speak to out there that Brussels is elite and is ramming through a federalist agenda while mere voters, such as people in this country, are onlookers. On the rare occasions that we have within the EU been given a chance to make our views heard, if we have voted the wrong way, Europe has simply dismissed our views.

Five of the last eight referendums in the EU have been against a proposition. When countries and people—for example, Ireland—vote against a proposition, they are told to vote again until the right result is achieved or, as with the EU constitution, we are told that it has only been fiddled around the edges with a change in only a few words or a couple of paragraphs, or that it has been changed and is only a treaty so there is no right to a referendum. That is why there is so much interest in today’s debate. The hon. Member for Vauxhall made a good point when she said the issue is not party political, or a matter of left or right, or not even Eurosceptics versus Europhiles. There is a huge appetite in this country for a genuine conversation about where our relationship with the EU should go.

That brings me to my views on the motion, which I will not support. It is absolutely right and proper to have this debate, and I am delighted that we are having it. I take this opportunity to put on record the fact that we must have a fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with Europe, but we do not live in a bubble, and we must pay attention to the crisis in the eurozone and to politics in our own country. The crisis in the eurozone is like a spark in Pudding lane. If we do not continue to support member states in supporting the euro and in sorting out the Greek problem, the fire will rip through the City of London and our entire economy. A vote today to put in doubt our membership of the EU for up to 18 months would fuel market speculation, fatally wound the eurozone and its economies, and have exactly the same effect here in the UK.

My second reason for opposing the motion is that the mainstream policy, which is supported by my party, to repatriate powers is the right way forward. Now is not the time to tell people that we are taking our bat and ball home. We must fight from within the EU to repatriate powers. There is a coalition behind that point of view beyond this Chamber. The UK Independence party fought the last general election on a policy of withdrawing from the European Union, but it did not win the election. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats together won with a mainstream policy of repatriation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

With the increasing ratchet of the terms and conditions of European Union membership, that is now a condition of membership for new entrants to the club.

[John Hemming]

I do not agree with ever closer union, but I do believe in remaining in the EU and will oppose the motion.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to do that. Thanks in part to his good offices, we are having this debate about the future of Britain and Europe, which we would not be having without the Backbench Business Committee.