Russian Membership of the Council of Europe

Mark Field Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me to speak.

It is a great pleasure to play a part in this thoughtful debate. It has been particularly interesting to be part of a debate in which a diversity of views has been expressed. Often, our relationship with Russia is seen in a monochrome way.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on bringing this matter to the House. As he pointed out, the Council of Europe was established in the embers of the second world war and inspired by the need at that juncture to rebuild our continent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) pointed out, it was Sir Winston Churchill himself who recognised that only shared standards and values on the law and human rights, alongside democratic development, would help to stitch Europe back together. However, I do not think there was any great naivety at that stage about those ideals. There was a recognition that the ideals would be perhaps honoured in part in their breach, but it was still important to be able to talk and to have some sort of relationship.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) made it clear that there are a number of glaring situations in our continent at the moment that do not pass muster, and that if we take this draconian step against Russia it would be very difficult to see that we would not do so against a number of other nations, given some long-standing issues. One that he did not mention that comes to mind is, as the Spanish would see it, the occupation of Gibraltar, which might also become an issue. However, perhaps it is better that we move on from that to something closer at hand.

The Council of Europe as currently constituted consists of 47 member nations, incorporating nearly all the European countries as well as the outliers in the Caucasus. It has, of course, become best known in this country for the European Court of Human Rights, which sits within its auspices. As hon. Members mentioned, it was almost 20 years ago, in 1996, that the Russian Federation was formally admitted as a Council of Europe member. Even then, its relatively dubious human rights record was overlooked, on the basis that it was making progress on implementing the rule of law alongside free and fair elections. That decision symbolised the west’s optimism, at that juncture, that Russia was on its way to a normalisation after the collapse of the Soviet Union only five years before. People were saying, “Give it time and patience. If Russia is brought into the international fold, it will eventually begin to act like an open, democratic state.” Or so we thought.

Since then, the relationship between the Council of Europe and Russia has at times been testy, particularly with regard to questions about legal supremacy. In 2014, the ECHR made more judgments against Russia than against any other country. The ECHR has been used by many enemies of the Kremlin, most notably the Yukos founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, to bring cases against the Russian state.

After President Putin’s intervention in Ukraine, the Council of Europe deprived Moscow’s delegation of its right to vote, a move that has sparked wider discussion among Russia's ruling class—not just the wives of those in the Duma, I suspect—about whether Russia would wish to continue its membership of the Council. Many in Russia believe it has a negative influence on their nation and would like Russian sovereignty restored on matters such as the death penalty. If Russia withdrew from the Council, that would likely sound the death knell for some of the naive idealism that has guided western policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I had a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said in quite a brave contribution that was not something one necessarily hears on the Floor of the House. He is right: the simplistic way in which Putin is portrayed as a dictator and a tyrant in much of our press fails to understand some deep-seated issues in Russia.

I have long cautioned against assuming that Russia is on a steady path to becoming a functioning, multi-party democracy. We have always failed to understand that many Russians, to this day, see the Gorbachev and Yeltsin era as a time of chaos, uncertainty and utter humiliation. Putin has been able to maintain some domestic popularity by retelling a more traditional Russian story, filling the vast ideological vacuum left by the disintegration of the communist ideal with the notion of a Russian civilisation based upon patriotism, selflessness and deference to an all-powerful state. In doing so, he continues to tap into a pool of resentment that goes beyond Russian borders, to encapsulate many of those who dislike the global dominance of the USA over the past two decades. Specifically in relation to Georgia, there is no doubt that the Georgian leadership in that period, up to 2007-08, was little more than a CIA front. That was going on in Georgia and it is perhaps one reason why we have rapidly moved on from discussing that issue.

We are now faced with the Crimean crisis—let us be brutally honest: there is no going back from Crimea’s being returned as part of Russia—and the ongoing hostilities in eastern Ukraine. This continues to baffle many here in the west who fail to grasp why Vladimir Putin would wish to re-engineer an old-fashioned, imperialistic land-grab that risks western ire and Russian company balance sheets. The Russian President may well be a nasty piece of work—I am not in any way defending what he is doing—but he is a master at fashioning strength from weakness. From a position of fragile financial and geopolitical clout, Putin has boosted his profile with a domestic and global audience as a champion for the interests of Russia and, more worryingly, the Russian diaspora, which we have touched on in relation to Latvia and Estonia. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said: there is a fundamental difference between the way that we will look at Latvia and Estonia in years to come—they are members of NATO, and therefore protected under article 5, and members of the EU—and how we view Ukraine. The “one step forward, one step back” approach that has characterised western diplomacy in Ukraine in the past 18 months will endanger the countries beyond and give Putin a sense that we will not be serious about where a line is drawn to defend countries that are in NATO.

I should not be too surprised if Putin were now to engineer a similar victory by pushing for Russian withdrawal from the Council of Europe, making the case that continued membership is untenable now that the institution has become a vehicle through which western policy alone is exercised. Mr Putin has already suggested that neighbouring countries’ membership of the EU and NATO is equivalent to those nations existing in a “semi-occupied state”. He may also try to present an exit from the Council as a proud declaration of the supremacy of Russian sovereignty, as well as a defence of his nation’s distinct world view and political culture when it is under grave threat. In doing so, Putin will hope to sow the seeds of discord among remaining Council members, particularly when it comes to the ECHR, already a subject of hot debate on these shores. Why not try to fracture the consensus on human rights by suggesting that the ECHR has diminished national sovereignty, blunting members’ ability to tackle dangerous terrorists and the like? That argument is made on these shores and I suspect it may be made by Putin’s Russia as well.

For nearly two decades, the ECHR has enhanced Russia’s domestic legal system and provided an important outlet of dissent for those most at risk in Putin’s Russia. Without it—we should remember this in debates that we will, no doubt, have in this country on the ECHR in years to come—many opponents of the Kremlin would not have been able to gain the same level of publicity for their day-to-day plight. Naturally, if Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe, the repercussions for such individuals would be considerable. Many colleagues have spoken about those issues in detail this morning.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful contribution, but where does that leave us in relation to the enforcement of judgments? For example, it is clear that the Russian Federation is not going to comply with the Yukos judgment against it. What sanction will there be when it does not?

[Mark Field]

I accept that. That is, I am afraid, part of the frustrating battle of diplomacy, which we can look at from afar, but which my right hon. Friend the Minister has to deal with day to day. I think diplomacy within the Conservative party is bad enough, let alone having to deal with the other 46 members of the Council of Europe, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is the nature of the steadfast, patient way in which we approach these issues. We need to approach the issue of Putin in a steadfast and patient way.

My long-term belief is that, looking at what is happening geopolitically, including with the rise of China, for example—I know it pains many to even think in these terms—our relationship with Russia has to be part of our solution, not part of our problem in the longer term. Putin will not be there for ever. We need to recognise the importance of Russia as a place with which we have to have a working, workable relationship. That is in no way to justify what is going on. It is right that we should try to work with whoever is leading Russia to ensure that, if we cannot solve the real problems that we face, diplomatically, at least we are able to move steadfastly in the right direction.

My main concern with a Russian withdrawal is that President Putin will use it as a sparkling opportunity to stoke division and sow doubt among remaining members of the Council of Europe. No nation has ever resigned its membership, just as no country has ever left NATO, the eurozone or the European Union, and I hope that will continue for the foreseeable future, although one or two of my hon. Friends do not take a similar view. I fear that, by demonstrating that the post-cold war consensus on democracy, human rights and rule of law might be shattered, Putin could challenge at a stroke other international institutions that have so painstakingly been built to serve our best interests and foster freedom in our continent over the past 70 years.

EU Reform

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Robertson, to serve under your chairmanship. In 1997, shortly after the Maastricht rebellion, Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt wrote a pamphlet entitled “Crossroads and Roundabouts” about Germany and the United Kingdom in Europe—the contrast between the German vision of Europe and the UK’s commitment to its Parliament and its own national interest. We have done the roundabout; now we are truly at the crossroads of the EU and perhaps even of our relationship with Germany. Is it really the case that in this country we are disproportionately preoccupied with our own national concerns?

I am introducing this debate about the UK and Germany in the EU—the first devoted specifically to the subject, I think—about which, in the interests of our mutual relationship, we must be both realistic and straight with each other, as we were yesterday in discussions with the Bundestag European affairs committee.

I warned John Major before Maastricht that the treaty, which I urged him to veto, would lead to a European Government and a German Europe. I campaigned for a referendum on that and the petition to Parliament received many hundreds of thousands of signatures. In my book of that time, “Against a Federal Europe”, I wrote:

“The answer to the German question lies primarily in Germany itself and that to hand her the key to the legal structure of Europe with a majority voting system gravitating around alliances dependent on Germany simply hands her legitimate power on a plate.”

That is now becoming clearer by the day. I also wrote then:

“Britain wants to work together with Germany in a fair and balanced relationship, based on free trade, cooperation and democratic principles. She does not want to be forced into a legal structure dominated by her. Plans for a united Europe stray into the darkest political territory, and must be firmly rejected.”

I wrote that in 1991. In 1990, I had written that

“if Germany needs to be contained, the Germans must do it themselves…now is the time for the Germans to prove themselves”.

In the words of the German philosopher, Thomas Mann, in 1953:

“We do not want a German Europe, but a European Germany.”

I argued that we were embarking on

“a European Germany and a German Europe”

because the two ran together after Maastricht. As Bismarck himself said:

“I have always found the word ‘Europe’ on the lips of those politicians who wanted something from other Powers which they dared not demand in their own names.”

He meant their own national interests. It is also to be recalled that, as Friedrich Karl von Moser stated:

“Each nation has its main characteristic. In Germany it is obedience. In England it is liberty.”

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend and I have talked many times about these matters, for obvious reasons. Does he accept that a British exit from the European Union would be the single most likely thing to provide the German dominance of Europe to which he refers? Is it not very much within the modern German mentality to see the European Union as a way of containing elements of some chapters of their history—of which, understandably, they are not proud? They see a strong European Union as being the way in which the dominance of Germany can be kept at bay.

[Sir William Cash]

I understand that point and my hon. Friend has made it to me before. All I can say is that it depends on the structure being created and the irreversibility established by the treaties themselves as put into legislation. As I shall explain in a moment, the consequence of the existing structure is to create an imbalance in favour of Germany and a disadvantage for the United Kingdom in several areas. That is what we must evaluate because we want a peaceful and stable Europe; unfortunately, however, what is happening now is creating instability, and I believe the European Union as it was conceived will ultimately be undermined. Our parliamentary system is the bulwark of the liberty and democracy that saved us and Europe. That is no anachronism today.

The problem we now face in an increasingly assertive German Europe is one increasingly at odds with British national interests. For me, that was one of the mainsprings of the Maastricht rebellion and it has been exacerbated by successive treaties, including Lisbon—against which, notably, the Conservative party was united.

The situation is getting worse. For example, we are told that the single market is the prime reason, or certainly one of the prime reasons, for our engagement in the European project. Although more than 40% of our trade is with Europe, our trade deficit with the other 27 member states is £56 billion, whereas the German surplus with the same member states is £51.8 billion. At the same time, we have a substantial surplus with the rest of the world with the same goods and services. I fundamentally disagree with the CBI’s analysis.

A host of individual problems give rise to concern—for example, the regulatory system in the City of London. I wrote about that in the Financial Times, warning the City against the consequences, and we have lost case after case in the European Court of Justice. There is the ports regulation, opposed by port employers and the trade unions. There is the change in the patent courts system. There is the lack of a reciprocal policy of liberalisation in relation to energy, professional services and other matters. There is over-regulation, particularly of small businesses, on which no substantial progress is ever made, and which is calculated to cost about 4% of EU GDP.

The effect on our economy is deep. Our growth is being dragged down by the sclerotic eurozone, whose problems in many countries, such as Italy and Greece, are blamed on German currency and export manipulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

The short answer is that in the German constitution, in the preamble to the Basic Law of 1949, an assumption is built in for a united states of Europe. Unfortunately, therefore, a change in the German constitution would be required to enable the Karlsruhe court to override the provisions of the Basic Law. Therefore, Germany faces a real constitutional question that we do not, because we do not have a written constitution and we have the inherent right, within our own Parliament, to make the kind of adjustments that we want in this area.

To refuse to accept our Committee’s proposals—I say this with great respect to the Minister—is not merely walking away; it is not even engaging with the real problem, which is the dysfunctional structure created by successive treaties and the disadvantages that that creates for the United Kingdom.

All that demands a direct return to democratic accountability at Westminster—not the Maastricht-based co-decision with the European Parliament, which I opposed at the time, and not the manner in which the majority voting system and the so-called consensus have led to us being put at significant disadvantage from time to time in matters of our national interest. Those are increasingly becoming a matter of concern following the change in the voting system as of 1 November.

[Mark Field]

Does my hon. Friend not accept that many in continental Europe would say that Britain has a permanent exclusion from the single currency, is not signed up to the Schengen agreement, and in fact, under Maastricht, was also exempt from the social chapter, although that exemption has now gone? He talked about the fiscal compact, which technically speaking was not a veto, but essentially was done at eurozone level.

If we are going to continue to opt out, does my hon. Friend not recognise the concern that, as we become ever more marginalised from the centre of Europe, the case for staying in the European Union will become ever weaker? Is that the path down which he now wishes to take us, and if so—

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have the chance to make a speech later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

We are all indebted to my hon. Friend for his time in the Ministry of Defence. What he said is well known to me, but ought to be better known outside the House. This is crucial. The question, whether we have an EU military headquarters moves us into very dangerous territory. I will show my hon. Friend the full transcript of the exchanges between me and the German delegation on this matter. I do not have time to go into it now, but I can assure him that I set out some very powerful arguments, including by making reference to article III of the 1990 treaty, which dealt with the question of the restrictions on Germany in relation to the manufacture and distribution of nuclear weapons, which went back to the original NATO treaty of 1949. Also, of course, I mentioned in particular the role of NATO in relation, for example, to the Baltic states and the rest of it. NATO is there; it is the cornerstone, as my hon. Friend rightly says.

[Mark Field]

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said and with the intervention by our hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), but does he not think that we would be greatly assisted in making the case for ensuring that there is no change in the European defence mechanism if we honoured our own commitments to ensure that at least 2% of our GDP is spent on defence and, given the insecurities of this world, rather more in the years to come?

[Sir William Cash]

I very much agree with that. Of course, there is this wave of counter-cyclical agreement and disagreement between my hon. Friend and me. Actually, that is encapsulated in a personal matter. We were, through our respective families, involved in the battles in Normandy, which I will not go into now, but which he knows about and I know about and which were extremely poignant and extremely relevant to what went on at that time.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is far too modest to go into great detail or perhaps did not want to embarrass me, but I should point out that although his father served in the British Army, my great-uncle was serving in the Panzer regiment for the opposite side during that particular battle.

[Sir William Cash]

That was on 10 July 1944. My father got the military cross, and my hon. Friend’s great-uncle was on the other side, but there we are.

We must also—this is very delicate territory—remain clear that the United States, which has for more than 50 years impressed on the United Kingdom the importance of a more integrated Europe, must not be allowed to persuade us against our national interest in relation to the question of defence. However, this is not by any means only about defence. As I have explained, it is also about our economy and our trading relationships, which are punctuated by constant tensions embedded in our European relationship that, to a greater or lesser degree, are based on our alleged obligations under European law.

Most recently there was the budget surcharge issue, but there are also disputed areas of policy such as the European arrest warrant and, of course, the current wave of concern over immigration and freedom of movement, on which we are warned against infringing European law and on which we had very interesting exchanges with the Bundestag’s European affairs committee yesterday. It takes the view that one has to distinguish between workers and people, and that it is our fault that we have ended up where we are now, but as the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), heard me say last night, of course we believe that that was the consequence of decisions taken by the former Labour Government. But there we are.

It must be said, however, that the European rule of law is itself a moveable feast at the whim of certain states. For example, in 2003, Germany and France themselves broke the stability and growth pact with impunity when it suited them. We are currently reminded by a proliferation of articles and books about the collapse of the Berlin wall that the German question, and its embodiment in European and our own and their political history, remains a constant national interest. In fact, very rarely do we talk about Germany in this country, but in Germany and in France they talk about it almost incessantly. Indeed, I recall taking part in a debate on the future of Europe in the then dilapidated Reichstag when the Berlin wall was still up, and putting my hand against the wall itself, and I recall a member of the German delegation vigorously waving his arms as I heard him through the Bakelite headphones vociferously remonstrating that, as he put it,

“my heart and soul rages with fervour and passion at the thought of a single government and a single parliament in this Reichstag.”

I warned the meeting that such language would merely rekindle old tensions—and that was before the wall came down.

As Peter Watson, who rightly reminds us in his book “The German Genius” about the great contribution of Germany to industry and art, said in a book review last week,

“no one has yet succeeded in explaining the collapse into barbarism that followed the First World War.”

I would add that nor has sufficient attention been given to the question of how to deal with a European Union—created to avoid everything that had happened in the aftermath of the first and second world wars—dominated, as it now is, by a peaceful but assertive Germany, based on a framework delivering supposedly irreversible policies that have delivered instability throughout Europe and vitally affected our own economy, our national interest and Westminster democratic accountability. Insufficient attention has been given to how we deal with that problem, and it is not just for us but for all the European member states, and Germany in particular.

Furthermore, far from containing German domination of the EU, the treaties have stimulated it. For all the protestations, the European Union has morphed into an increasingly undemocratic Europe, with Britain unacceptably relegated to the second tier and with Germany largely predominant over the whole, as well as the low-growth eurozone.

The Prime Minister was entirely right to state in his Bloomberg speech:

“Our national Parliament is the root of our democracy.”

We must address the question of a fundamental change in our relationship with the EU and the reassertion of sovereignty at Westminster and in our democracy. Those are the reasons why we were able to prevail in the dark days from 1940 to 1945, and we must not underestimate their importance today. Now we must do so again on those principles, but in very different circumstances. It is not enough merely to reform at the margins. We must resolve the European, and therefore the German, question in our own time. If negotiations for that purpose, above all else, cannot be resolved, we must leave the treaties and lead Europe on the right road to stability and peace, both for ourselves and for Europe—including Germany—as a whole. We must be, as Churchill said, “associated, but not absorbed.” For that purpose, we must pursue a policy of an association of nation states.

The Prime Minister’s purported renegotiations do not, at present, tackle the fundamental structural question of the treaties. The Foreign Secretary is right to indicate that we must never go into a negotiation unless we are prepared to get up from the table and walk away, but it is essential that we are told what our red lines are, and that they address the fundamental changes that we need within the EU. Immigration is, of course, a major issue, but the question of our borders is not simply a question of immigration. It is a question of parliamentary democracy and jurisdiction, and therefore it is about more than the symptoms of our problems with European integration and its impact on our entire political and economic national interest. Trade alone is not the arbiter of freedom and democracy; it flows from them, as do the laws that affect our economy and that have been so disadvantageous to us, as I have indicated already, in many areas.

The renegotiations cannot be successful in our national interest without a fundamental change in the architecture of the European Union. If we do not renegotiate and achieve such fundamental change, Germany’s predominance in the project will increase and the United Kingdom will be required to leave the EU. We must not be continually subjected and subordinated to being in the second tier of a two-tier Europe.

We are now at an historic moment at the crossroads of the European Union, which can be evaluated only on a broad historical landscape. I voted yes in 1975, and I attempted to reserve our Westminster sovereignty in the Single European Act in 1986. Maastricht and European Government changed all that. Britain and Germany have historically had, and still have, very different visions of Europe. We look to our borders, and Germany looks towards a broad, roaming European vision—a political union without borders.

Not so long ago, I referred in the book I mentioned, “Against a Federal Europe”, to Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who was Foreign Minister of Germany for 15 years and was one of the most powerful architects of reunification and the current European Union. Although he repudiated his former loyalties, Genscher stated:

“We Germans can be the architects of a united and indivisible Europe”

and that a strong Germany was good for Europe. In my analysis in 1999, from which I do not demur, I said that the assertion of a strong Germany being good for Europe

“begs many questions. Germany’s economic strength derives from the fact that she saturates the EC”—

as it was then—

“and Eastern Europe with her exports; if as seems likely, she consolidates this position via the single market, while gaining de facto control of the single currency, one could well envisage a scenario in which a strong Germany was bad for Europe. If industries in other countries were weakened or depleted by German domination and if the single currency removed the competitiveness of weaker economies, while the social charter…insulated German workers from competitively low wages abroad, then one could well imagine economic decline and rising unemployment on the periphery of the EC financing the German stranglehold.”

Who would argue today that that has not happened? I noted that at the 25th anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin wall, when Dr Michael Stürmer was asked on “Newsnight” how Germany had achieved such predominance, he indicated that it was “by default”. I reserve judgement on that.

Furthermore, we are not simply talking about Germany’s economic impact on other member states, whatever subsidies or defensive alliance through NATO they may receive in return. As I have said, the preamble to the German Basic Law of 1949 includes a policy leading to a United States of Europe as one of the constitutional foreign policy goals of Germany. As all those factors have aggregated, it has become ever more important for the United Kingdom to look to its own future. To that we must turn our determined attention, while seeking peaceful co-operation and trading relationships within Europe and with Germany. There will be no peace in an unstable Europe, which will implode with disastrous consequences. Such instability is inherent in the imbalanced structure of the whole, not only of the eurozone. We all want peace in Europe, but to ensure such peace we must restructure the treaties, not simply tinker with them.

We must clearly put this to Germany and the EU as a whole. The United Kingdom cannot and must not allow our democracy, in this Parliament, from which all political and economic action flows and which has saved Europe and herself for generations, to be in any way compromised. As William Pitt stated in his Guildhall speech in 1805:

“England has saved herself by her exertions and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

Cyprus

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on introducing this debate. It is always important to debate Cypriot affairs. Those of us who represent London seats, particularly those in north London, will have large Greek and Turkish Cypriot populations; as one who contested such a seat in the last millennium, I recognise that. There are significant numbers of people of Cypriot heritage living even in my part of central London to this day. On the 40th anniversary of the division of Cyprus, one might argue that the debate comes at a time when both Turkey and Greece are at the forefront of some important international events, which I shall touch on.

The truth, to be brutally honest, is that Britain’s place in the world is not as strong as it was 40 years ago. It is probably not as strong as it was even a decade or so ago, not least given the decisions that have been made by Governments of all colours—by the current coalition Government and by the previous Labour Government—to make the cuts in defence that make us less of a world power. However, we are still a guarantor for Cyprus, as we were a guarantor for Ukraine, which is one reason why our voice cannot be entirely ignored, nor indeed our responsibilities relating to those affairs.

However, I do think one thing very profoundly. It is all very well to talk about our responsibilities, but there is an ongoing responsibility that, in my view, has been sadly lacking in political leaders on both sides of the Cypriot divide. They, too, have a responsibility to look to the future, rather than simply hark back in a negative way to the past. The Turkish and Greek Cypriot people have not been well served by their political class over the past four decades. They need leadership with a firm focus on where the future should lie. I say that as someone with heritage from eastern Europe: my late mother was an ethnic German from what is now Poland. It is thankful that many of the millions of people from that background do not constantly hark back to lands in what is now Poland. The biggest message I have, which I hope is a robust message, which should be put across by the UN, the US and British politicians to politicians in Cyprus is, “For heaven’s sake, you owe it as a responsibility to the people who live in your islands not to constantly hark back to slights and difficulties of the past, but to try to ensure the world is a better place and one in which Cypriots, of Turkish or Greek background, can benefit in the future.” The children and grandchildren of those living there today will hopefully have a better time, not simply because of the mineral resources that we have mentioned.

As I have said, the eurozone crisis clearly is not behind us. It is entering a new phase, and the Greek economy still requires a boost from the European Central Bank to buy its own bonds. I hope Cyprus can be an element of that thinking. It is timely that political leaders in this country now recognise that what is happening in Iraq and Syria will not be over in a matter of weeks or months; it will be there for years to come. We have to ensure that Turkey is a part of that discussion and a part of that coalition: Turkey is, of course, a member of NATO, as is Greece. Turkey also has a significant Kurdish minority. If we are to make common ground with Kurds in Iraq, we have to recognise the sensitivities in Turkey. One hopes that, in bringing them together, Cyprus can be part of the solution for the long term, rather than an ongoing problem.

It is fair to say—perhaps understandably, given the relative populations in Enfield Southgate and in Edmonton—that criticisms have been made of President Erdogan, but there has been intransigence on both sides. It is important that we progress. I have had the opportunity to visit both sides of the island. Most recently, I spent a few days last September as a guest of the representative office in London of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, to see that part of the island, having seen parts of what we would call Greek Cyprus in previous years. There are tremendous opportunities there. The economy is clearly having its difficulties, but potentially could thrive, not just on the back of mineral resources. Tourism or the educational offering that can be provided on both sides of Cyprus are important ways forward. I would like Turkish Cyprus not to be seen as a pariah state. An important way to encourage some cross-fertilisation across the island would be to ensure that more flights go directly from the UK to the northern part of Cyprus, rather than going via Istanbul, as they are currently obliged to do. That would be an important economic first step.

These debates in Parliament are important. As I say, we are a guarantor power. A significant number of Cypriots feel strongly about this issue. From my experience as a London Member of Parliament, it strikes me that many of the Turkish Cypriots I encounter—this applies to many Greek Cypriots as well—do not harp on the past. They are looking to make their lives here in the UK. They are proud of their Cypriot heritage. They have family in Cyprus and often have business interests there. I hope the UK can play a small part, but that has to be by having a firm eye towards a better future, which is clearly in the grasp of the people of Cyprus. Above all, it has to be by ending a sense of grievance and blame. I hope we can play a small part in pushing it further forward, but that future ultimately must be in the hands of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot political class. If there is one small message that can come from the debate—whether from the Front or Back Benches—it is that we hope they will take their responsibilities seriously to ensure that better days lie ahead in the whole of Cyprus.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Winding-up speeches will begin no later than 20 minutes to 4. There are two speakers left.

Bangladesh

Mark Field Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the current situation in Bangladesh.

I am pleased to see that this debate will be well attended despite the fact that it was arranged at very short notice. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who originally tabled it, with my support, at the Backbench Business Committee, but cannot lead it because of previous commitments. I am pleased to share the debate with him, and I know how actively he takes an interest in the subject.

We could not possibly look at the current political situation and sense of instability in Bangladesh without briefly revisiting what has happened in the past, which has helped to form the situation. I was in Dhaka in 2006 when the previous Government led by Khaleda Zia, the Bangladesh Nationalist party and various coalition parties were proceeding with an election in which the Awami League was not participating and which was deemed unfair and undemocratic. The non-participation and civil unrest that ensued led to a takeover by the army. Dhaka was under curfew and chaos ensued as a result.

There has now been another election that both parties came back and contested having spent two years out of the country and out of political engagement while the caretaker Government led by the military were in place. The Awami League won a landslide victory. That was not disputed; the voting was considered to be perfectly within the rules of the electoral process. However, it appears that nothing was learned from those two years in the wilderness or from the grievances expressed against the previous Government. The Government led by the Awami League carried on with an election but there was not full voter participation, to put it mildly—it was about 30%—and there was non-participation by the leading opposition. There were all the similar complaints of non-engagement in Parliament because microphones were switched off, and so on.

I am sorry to say that the democratic process improved by nothing between 2006 and the latest election in 2013. That is deeply disappointing given the amount of the British aid budget that goes into supporting the strengthening of democracy in Bangladesh, such as the training of civil servants.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

All of us who have Bangladesh close to our hearts are deeply worried by the situation, particularly, as my hon. Friend rightly says, over the past seven years. There seems to be a sense that that country is again plummeting towards the prospect of some military takeover and martial law. Does she agree that while one inevitably has to look at the history, going back as far as partition in 1971, it is also important that there is a responsibility in the hands of today’s Bangladeshi politicians to draw a line under the past and look with a firm eye to the future?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must have shorter interventions. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to speak in the debate, but he cannot make a speech in an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have met Amnesty International and other groups that watch the human rights situation, and I know that that situation has, sadly, been a major source of concern over the years.

When I was in Bangladesh in 2006, I was pretty depressed to read comments in the press about the BNP Government, who were then limping along, giving undertakings to introduce sharia law as part of a coalition deal. That was before the army stepped in. A legal system based on sharia law would certainly disadvantage communities that do not follow that law. The belief espoused in the constitution that Bangladesh should be a secular country and respect other religions was a fantastic aim. It is just sad that on many occasions it has not been delivered.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned that people are in fear of their lives. There has been significant violence on the streets, with petrol bombings, and the leaders of opposition parties have felt intimidated since the election, while the poor are suffering. According to The Guardian, the recent data are that more than 500 people have died and 20,000 people have been injured in the past 12 months, and that more than 100 people have died since the election.

Other issues are intimidation, disappearances, crossfire and whether the rapid action battalion is out of control. I went to pay my respects to the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, who gave firm assurances that such issues would be investigated. Whoever leads the Government in Bangladesh needs to take them seriously. When we were there, the members of the all-party group made it clear that we do not have any truck with or particular preference about how the election was conducted, so long as it was fair, or about who is in power, so long as they represent the people and do the best for the people, which is not happening at the moment.

[Mark Field]

I very much agree with most of what my hon. Friend is saying, but will she put it in context, because many people may wonder why we are talking about Bangladesh? It is a member of the Commonwealth and there is a big Bangladeshi diaspora in this country, but we also spend more than £150 million a year of DFID money on Bangladesh, much of which is handled very well by Bangladeshis on the ground in Sylhet and Dhaka. Will she tell us more about that and about this country’s commitment to the long-term stability of Bangladesh?

[Mrs Main]

I will not speak for too long, because other people want to take part in this important debate. I am sure that we will all have second bites of the cherry during other Members’ contributions.

A parliamentary answer that I received this week stated:

“Violence and instability are damaging to Bangladesh’s reputation, economy, and to people’s livelihoods. As the largest cumulative investor in Bangladesh, and the largest bilateral grant donor, the UK supports the people of Bangladesh in their aspirations for a more stable, democratic and prosperous future.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 525W.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is therefore right that we are a hugely important partner for Bangladesh. That is why we are hearing the views of so many hon. Members, even on a day when many Members, and particularly Opposition Members, have an important event to attend after the death of their colleague. Bangladesh really must take this matter seriously. These are not idle concerns.

There was a report in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday about aid budgets being under threat of being curtailed, cancelled or put on hold. From talking to the Minister of State, Department for International Development, I understand that that is a total misrepresentation. I am glad to have that assurance. Some 70% of our aid to Bangladesh goes to non-governmental organisations, many of which do a fabulous job. The APPG saw some of the projects when we went to Bangladesh. However, the British public, who are also facing tough times, will find it questionable that 30% of our aid goes, in various forms, to the Government. If the Government do not show that they will speak up for and do what is right for all the people of Bangladesh, I do not believe that we should be giving them 30% of the aid. We should give it to the charities and NGOs that are doing a great job and that are accountable. I do not think that we, as one of the largest aid donors, should continue to send money directly to a Government who were elected on 22% of voter participation—some voters felt too intimidated to participate and others that they had no choice—until there is a return of democratic accountability.

Syria

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Gulf states also provide humanitarian assistance. For instance, Saudi Arabia has provided $373 million to the UN appeals, and of course in Kuwait on Wednesday we will be looking to some of the Gulf states to make huge contributions to the humanitarian appeal so we will be reinforcing this point. At the meeting we had in Paris yesterday, those states—including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—were very clear about channelling their support through the National Coalition and making sure it is fighting for people who want a democratic and pluralist Syria, and that is what we always look to it to do.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s confirmation that the UK has made a substantial contribution to humanitarian aid and also in relation to chemical weapons decommissioning, but notwithstanding the strength of feeling we have heard across the House today, will he accept that it is the settled will of this House that there should be no military intervention by the UK in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend can gather from what I have said, I am not proposing that. There was no mention in my statement of military intervention in Syria. We are addressing this crisis in many other ways. I do not want to anticipate what the settled will of the House will be months and years into the future, but the Government are not planning for, and are not proposing, any military intervention of our own in Syria; he can be assured of that.

Persecution of Christians

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House is concerned that the persecution of Christians is increasing in the 21st Century; notes that there are reports that one Christian is killed every 11 minutes somewhere on earth for their faith; further notes that Christianity is the most persecuted religion globally; bears in mind that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a human right stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and calls on the Government to do more both in its foreign policy and through its aid work to defend and support people of Christian faith.

It is a pleasure to bring this matter forward for consideration. The number of Members in the Chamber is an indication of the level of interest, and I look forward to outlining some of the issues.

I believe that the persecution of Christians is the biggest story in the world that has never been told, and its importance cannot be underlined enough. The subject burdens me, and many other Members, judging by the number here. Each day we pray for Christians who are suffering persecution. It is important that we use the powerful tool of prayer to help them.

I am reminded of the story told about Charles Wesley addressing his congregation in church. He was calling out a hymn and said to the congregation, “I want you to sing lustily. I want you to sing moderately. Most of all, I want you to sing in tune.” I believe that this House will be in tune today, because we are all united on the importance of this issue. Today’s debate will make that clear.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is greatly to the credit of the Democratic Unionist party that it has secured this debate. Let us be honest: if this were happening to almost any other religious group it would be something of a national scandal. That makes it all the more important to put the ongoing persecution of Christians in many parts of the world on the political map. This debate will do that in the next two and three quarter hours.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think the rest of the debate will reflect that tone.

One hundred thousand Christians will be massacred this year because of their beliefs. Two hundred million Christians will be persecuted due to their faith. One and a half billion Christians live in what can be termed as dangerous neighbourhoods. That shows the magnitude of the problem of persecuted Christians.

There are Christians in the world today who cannot attend church as we do on Sunday and they cannot pray to God as we do—indeed, as we did before we started our business in this House today. There is an example of the importance of the Bible and our prayer time. These Christians cannot tell their friends that the Lord Jesus gave his life for them, and they cannot read their Bible as we read our Bible. They cannot carry out their own businesses; they cannot be involved in civic life; they face discrimination in education.

Let us go right across the world from North Korea, where it is estimated that some 100,000 Christians suffer in horrific prison camps, to Eritrea where 2,000 Christians are in jail for their beliefs and 31 died in custody last year. Then there are countries in which Christians are in a minority—Sudan and Somalia, for example, where they are pursued relentlessly. Christians are also persecuted in countries where they are of equal numbers, while in countries where Christians are in larger numbers or in a majority, they are subject to radical Muslim teaching and abuse, as exemplified in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. In Algeria, it is impossible to register church buildings or to legalise meetings.

In Africa, due to Islamic extremism, the persecution of Christians has increased significantly in 2012 and 2013, most notably in Mali, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Niger. Sharia family courts have been introduced, which ignore Christians and their beliefs. The north of Mali is similar to Saudi Arabia in that Christians are simply no longer allowed to be there or to practise their beliefs. In the Maldives, one cannot read one’s Bible; indeed, people are not allowed to have one. If people are caught reading their Bibles on holiday in that beautiful country, they will be arrested, jailed and deported. I hope you will think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, the next time you decide to book a holiday to the Maldives.

In Sri Lanka, Christians are subject to persecution. In Burma, Christians and ethnic minorities are bombed by Government aircraft and attacked. It would be helpful to hear in the Minister’s response some indication of how those issues were presented at the Commonwealth summit and what response the Prime Minister got. I understand that he brought the issues to the attention of the people attending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and that is clearly an issue and China needs to understand that as well. As many Members wish to speak, if I may I will not take any more interventions.

Foreign Office Minister Baroness Warsi has an important role to play. She recently drew attention to the persecution of Christians. I commend her for speaking out so boldly and clearly. In her speech she noted that,

“the parts of the world where Christianity first spread, is now seeing large sections of the Christian community leaving, and those that are remaining feeling persecuted.”

She has set the focus and attention where it should be: on the mass exodus of Christians from the middle east, which is very evident in Egypt and in Syria. In Iraq, Christians fled the cities of Baghdad and Mosul in 2005 after persecution intensified. These are the facts, but the increasing use of violence against Christians in the previously safe north has largely gone unnoticed in the outside world. On 22 September, a suicide bomb went off in the Kirkuk province, injuring 19 people, including the Christian politician Emad Youhanna. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. How are the UK Government working with Iraq to address this worrying development in northern Iraq?

In Syria, Christians are caught between opposing sides in the conflict. There are an increasing number of missile and mortar attacks in Christian neighbourhoods in cities such as Damascus and Aleppo. Jihadists are now widely understood to have infiltrated the rebel movement in Syria. They specifically targeted Christian villages such as Maaloula, in September, and more recently Sadad, where 45 people were killed. Such incidents demonstrate what is happening.

Now that the United Nations has set the date for Geneva II—22 January 2014—what are the British Government doing to ensure that the Christian community in Syria has a voice at the negotiations? Will the Government do everything possible through Geneva II to protect all the people of Syria, to safeguard the Christian community, to guarantee access for humanitarian assistance, and to establish a new Syria that respects the right to freedom of religion for all?

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Jim Shannon]

I am sorry but I cannot; I want to give Members a chance to speak.

I turn to Pakistan and the killing of 85 people and the wounding of 150 others in a suicide bombing attack. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan—the TTP terrorist organisation—is specifically targeting Christians in Pakistan. What will the British Government be able to do about that in their discussions with Pakistan? In Libya, Christians have been murdered for failing to agree to convert to Islam. The fall in the number of Christians across the region is very evident in Iraq.

In Iraq, the violence is increasing. It is the Sunnis against the Shi’ites; the Kurds against the Turks, against the Arabs; the federalists against the separatists; the nationalists against the international jihadists; anti-Government versus pro-Government. Underneath all those levels of disagreement, the region’s indigenous, long-suffering, besieged remnant Christians will be the victims of every contact targeted by all forces. They are the target of every one of those groups. That is happening in Yemen, as well, and Christians are being attacked and murdered across the whole of Mexico, Lebanon, Colombia, Guatemala and Sudan.

I turn to Nigeria, a country very close to my heart. We have had debates on it in this House, and we have raised the important questions and issues that we must try to address. The persecution of Christians in Nigeria takes multiple forms. We are all familiar with the horrifying fatalities resulting from the Boko Haram attacks. First, I would like to highlight the all-pervading pressure placed on Christians in the 12 northern sharia states, where they are effectively second-class citizens and converting to Christianity is a dangerous act not only for the convert, but for anyone who tries to help them. In the northern states, great pressure is exerted on the Christian community. They cannot bury their dead in public cemeteries. In public primary schools, Christian children are forced to attend Islamic studies and are beaten and/or expelled if they refuse. Teenage Christians struggle to gain access to secondary schools or higher education institutions. Christian girls were under serious threat of abduction, forced conversion and marriage. Access for Christians to development projects in these states is also severely restricted. What are the British Government doing to address this all-pervading social pressure on Christians in the 12 northern sharia states in Nigeria?

Boko Haram is the militant group that targets Government and Church activities. Church leaders are often specifically targeted by this group. Many have been killed in Nigeria, and attacks against Christians in Nigeria have also reportedly been perpetrated by militants crossing the border from Chad and Niger. There are further examples of attacks upon Christians. A Catholic minister and his two sons were murdered in the northern state of Yobe. Their home and church were then set ablaze. The town of Gamboru was attacked twice. Six people were killed in the first attack, and a further 21 in the second. Militant cross-border terrorist groups are also fomenting religious strife in other African countries. Christians in Somalia and Kenya are being targeted by the group al-Shabaab. In the Central African Republic, the Seleka forces—involving members from the CAR, Chad and Niger—have been involved in the killing of at least eight Church leaders. It has also been noted by observers that the conflict in the CAR is developing a worrying sectarian element.

Have the Government identified the increase in the activity of, and the persecution of Christians by, cross-border militants in Nigeria as a problem? If so, what are they doing to help the Governments in that region to address the issue effectively? I urge the Minister to respond to those and the many other questions that will emerge from the debate today. I thank hon. Members for their patience; I hope that I have been able to set the scene and to explain what this issue means to me personally and what it should mean to the House and everyone in this country. The persecution of Christians is an important matter. Let us pray for them and let us do our best for them as elected representatives in this House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I should like to set out the Government’s position on this important matter. A little later, I will sum up the debate and answer the questions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and those that other hon. Members will no doubt ask. I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing this important debate, and I echo the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that the party deserves enormous credit for choosing this topic, which is of significant importance to many people in our constituencies.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford on his measured, detailed and thorough analysis of the many areas around the world in which Christians are suffering persecution. I am sure that he would be the first to admit, however, that in the Central African Republic, Nigeria, Syria and elsewhere, it is not just Christians but people of other religions who are suffering such persecution. That should be a matter of deep concern to all of us, whether we have a religious faith or not, because freedom of religion and belief is a gateway to other human rights and a litmus test of other fundamental freedoms. When people are persecuted because of the faith that they profess, the freedoms of expression and assembly and other human rights will often also suffer.

[Mark Field]

I accept that view, but would the Minister acknowledge the depressing paradox that some of the worst persecution is taking place in notional democracies? In some cases, the Christian population would be better looked after under a dictatorship—such as in Syria under President Assad—than in a country that is notionally democratic. This is not simply a matter of saying that a whole load of democratic rights will follow on from religious freedoms. We must ensure that religious and individual freedoms go hand in hand and that they do not find themselves in conflict with each other.

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, although he will be aware that we believe that President Assad’s regime in Syria has engaged in a deliberate attempt to stir up tensions between religious groups in order to hold on to power. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that these issues are extremely complex, but there is a direct correlation between the rule of law, human rights, transparency and freedom of expression as it relates to religion, whether it be Christianity, any other religion or no religion at all.

Persecution of Christians (Middle East)

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I am very concerned about that and the problem has global implications. I hope that, as a result, we will have many more debates in the House on the persecution of Christians in other regions of the world.

The ACN report discusses how, in virtually every country in and around the middle east region, Christians report suffering either high, high to extreme or extreme persecution. That includes Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. In virtually every one, the situation has worsened since ACN’s last report in 2011, except in Iraq, but only because the attacks in 2009-10 were so large in scale.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

In this context, it is important to recognise that there is one state in the middle east with a proud record of allowing a large degree of religious freedom, irrespective of other elements of the problems that it faces within its borders: Israel. I hope that my hon. Friend will say a few words about how religious freedom, at least, is protected in Israel, not just for the 2% of its population who are Christian, but for the 16% who are Muslim.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend is quite right, which is why I did not include Israel in the list that I read out. The report does not include it among the areas of extreme persecution. I respect what is being done in Israel, although I must say that concerns are now being expressed in Palestine about increasing persecution there.

The report says:

“Christianity may yet remain the largest world religion, but its claims to universality—a truly global presence on all five continents—may soon be lost as it becomes the prime victim in the emergence of theocratic states where minority faith groups—most especially Christians—have no place, except perhaps as third-class citizens.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

In January 1945, my mother, who was too young even to attend school, joined millions of other ethnic Germans who were fleeing westwards from Breslau as the red army advanced. My forefathers had lived in that region for at least nine generations, as far as I am aware. That forced repatriation—a process that might now be called ethnic cleansing—of my mother’s family and millions of other civilian groups would in future be inextricably linked with their ethnicity, which was largely overlooked at the time in the euphoria that swept across Europe at the end of the second world war. Of course, my mother’s generation never returned.

We are now witnessing another wave of largely unnoticed civilian displacement in the middle east, with hundreds of thousands of Christians being forced to flee as they are banished from their often 2,000-year-old homelands in today’s remarkable surge in Arabian people power.

Others have talked about Iran and Egypt, so I hope that I will be forgiven for saying a few words on the Syrian situation. Global media attention has moved from Egypt and Libya to Syria, and is focusing on the crimes of the Assad Government and the mission to neutralise his chemical weapons, but innocent people on all sides are enduring awful hardship, death and torture. Civil war does not discriminate between young and old.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said in her superb contribution, there are more than 2 million Syrian followers of Christ whose lineage goes back literally 2,000 years to St Paul’s proselytising in the first century AD. For those people, these are incredibly desperate times. The unspeakable truth is that a sizeable Christian community in war-torn Syria is now at a greater threat of being ethnically cleansed from its ancestral home than it has been for generations. That threat is often posed by self-styled freedom fighters who have been fêted by the western press. Those fighters—increasingly rent-a-mob jihadists with no real stake in the affairs of Damascus—do not see those in the enclaves of Christians as genial neighbours whom they have lived beside for centuries. I am afraid that the sad truth is that religious minorities often find their most assured protection under dictatorships, and often it pays not to rock the status quo, but that should not be a convenient excuse for destroying ancient churches and holding populations to ransom.

I know others also want to speak, so I will end my comments, but we should all recognise that there are major issues. The plight of Christians across the world is all too often overlooked. We have rightly focused today on the middle east. The problems are going on, hour by hour, before our very eyes, and I am interested to hear what the Government will do, in practical terms.

European Elections 2014

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I have no quarrel or disagreement with the hon. Gentleman on that count.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Much as I think it would be quite wrong for anything to be mandated—the decision should be made locally—the so-called tradition of Thursday elections in the UK goes back only about 100 years. Perhaps it would be more sensible to consider a weekend election, for all the convenience factors that would come with that, but also because, in the case of these elections, it might allow us to hold elections on two weekend days some three or four weeks apart, rather than having to change our day for local elections, as we have, from the traditional first Thursday in May to 22 May, which is what is now envisaged for those elections and the European elections next year.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right that it used to be the case that general elections in this country took place over a number of days. Indeed, it was not completely uncommon for candidates to put themselves forward for election in more than one constituency. If the House were to consider a change of the sort that he and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) suggest, it ought to be debated in the context not solely of European parliamentary elections, but of our electoral practice more generally, covering general and local elections, as well as European elections. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be interested to hear any proposals that Members wish to make.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Croatia’s accession treaty provides for it to join the Schengen area and the eurozone, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, if Croatia is to join either it will be required to meet some further tests. It is already understood in Zagreb and throughout the Schengen area that it will be at least two years before Croatia can contemplate a successful application. I know from the debates on the bids by Bulgaria and Romania to join the Schengen area that the current members look carefully at the strength of internal and external controls over immigration and asylum before they concede the much greater rights of freedom of movement and freedom from all kinds of border checks that go with Schengen membership.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The Minister referred to Romanian and Bulgarian accession. He will recall that before they joined the EU in 2007 they had to clear various hurdles and various parts of their economy had to be shown to be compatible with the EU, but at that juncture there was only a very limited stipulation stating that, if they failed to do so, their accession would simply be delayed by 12 months. Will he go into detail about precisely what hurdles Croatia will have to clear, particularly any penalties if it fails to meet economic requirements?

[Mr Lidington]

I want to come to that in greater detail later, but I can say now that the process that Croatia has gone through has been much more demanding than what was expected of Romania and Bulgaria or earlier accession states. One lesson that EU member states drew from the experience of Romanian and Bulgarian accession was that we needed to invent an additional category of accession conditions covering justice and fundamental rights measures. That is now embodied in chapter 23 of the accession process. Those things that, in the case of Romania and Bulgaria, ended up being addressed—in my view, rather unhappily, in terms of the actions of all sides—through the co-operation and verification mechanism post-accession have, in the case of Croatia, been addressed upfront.

We have learned further lessons from Croatia’s accession process. Although chapter 23 has been a significant advance, we recognise that, as we look forward to an accession process that in the Government’s view should embrace all the countries of the western Balkans, we need to find a way of ensuring not only that the accession process provides incentives for, and insists upon, rigorous reforms of the administrative and judicial life of an applicant country but that the applicant country has the opportunity to establish a clear track record of implementing those reforms. With the decision earlier this year to open accession negotiations with Montenegro, a new approach has been introduced under which those chapter 23 measures—and, for that matter, the chapter 24 measures applying to home affairs matters—will be dealt with first. The objective is to open those negotiating chapters early on, to see those reforms under way and then to hold those chapters open until the end of the process, so that it becomes a question not only of seeing reforms enacted but of seeing a consistent track record.

[Mark Field]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but his answer prompts a further question. He referred to the coalition Government’s support for other nations in the western Balkans joining the EU in due course. Would the same apply to Serbia, assuming that Croatia was happy about it and assuming that Serbia wished to join and met all the guidelines? Would the Government approve that too?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, we have made it clear—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary repeated this in Belgrade in the past couple of weeks—that we support Serbia’s ambitions to join the EU. It is also, however, important that while remaining vigorous supporters of EU enlargement we remain committed to rigorous accession criteria. That is in the interest of the candidate countries and of the integrity of the EU.

Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus

Mark Field Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I am lucky enough to be the chairman of the all-party group on Azerbaijan, and I was also on the trip that the previous two speakers attended in recent weeks. In addition, in recent months I have been board adviser to the European Azerbaijan Society.

We had a tremendous trip to Baku, Nagorno-Karabakh and Quba during the Whitsun recess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate. Like him and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), I was particularly moved by being at a war memorial that faced and was yards from the Parliament building. It was a particularly important war memorial because, as those who are familiar with the history of this region will know, fighting took place in areas such as Baku during the great war. Such areas were part of the Ottoman empire at that juncture.

I very much hope that the Minister will take the opportunity when he is next in Baku to visit that memorial. Clearly, I suspect that work has been carried out by the war memorials body to keep the memorial in reasonably good shape. What struck me was that the memorial is an important part of what is called Martyrs’ Alley, which is the memorial for various conflicts that have taken place in Azerbaijani and, indeed, Turkish history over recent years. In particular, there were problems during 1990 when there was a move by the then USSR, which was on its last legs, to try to put down conflicts on the streets of Baku. There was also the conflict with Armenia, which started two years later. What struck me was that, given the importance of pride and face in what one might broadly call the Muslim world, we should be intensely proud of the fact that a small corner of this sacred ground is in the hands of a British war memorial.

I reiterate both previous speakers’ words. There seems to be a tremendous opportunity in relation to Azerbaijan. It is essentially a secular Muslim state. Some 94% or 95% of its inhabitants are Muslim, and the remainder are a few Jewish and some Christian inhabitants. Given Azerbaijan’s strategic importance between Russia and Iran and the daily security concerns that we face in this country from difficulties in that part of the world, fostering closer links with Azerbaijan seems to be an extremely sensible way forward.

Although we had a tremendously interesting visit and we felt it was very open, it would be wrong to be ludicrously idealistic and not to recognise that Azerbaijan faces some issues. It is not a functioning democracy as we would understand the term here in the UK. However, it has made tremendous strides forward both politically and economically in recent years. That should be recognised and rewarded as far as our relationship with the country is concerned.

I became involved with Azerbaijan immediately after the previous election, when there was a move to reconstitute the all-party group. I did so partly because local Azerbaijanis who have business interests in the UK and other parts of Europe have had a big impact in trying to ensure that the country is not just seen as another oil and gas state. It would be all too easy to put the country in a box as being one of the “stans” of that region, as if such countries are somehow similar in history and outlook to other countries strong in the oil and gas area.

However, it would be wrong to understate the importance of oil and gas and of the tremendous trading links between the UK and Azerbaijan that go back some 20 years to the signing of long-term contracts by BP, which is and remains tremendously committed there. Some 4,000 or so permanent UK expats live in Azerbaijan. They are predominantly Scottish, but a significant number of people from other parts of the United Kingdom also live there. They make a good living and play an important part in developing the economy.

The Azerbaijani economy has grown. There has been compound growth of 7% or 8% in recent years, partly on the back of oil and gas. However, Azerbaijan is keen to promote to the world that it is about other things. In particular, it is looking to develop its financial services expertise. Obviously, I hope that my background as a Member of Parliament for the City of London will assist in that regard. It is also looking to develop areas such as high quality agricultural produce—some significant manufacturing goes on—and the tourism industry. Baku was always regarded as the third city within the Soviet Union after Moscow and St Petersburg. It has tremendous tourism opportunities in a quasi-alpine area in the north of the country. Benefits will arise there in the coming years and I hope that the tourism trade begins to assert itself.

I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Bradford South said. There is clearly an issue with visas. It is probably fair to say that there is a two-way issue and that there is a problem at this end, too. I hope that people will begin to learn more about Azerbaijan. We can laugh about the Eurovision song contest, but it will provide a phenomenally important showcase for that country. On that particular weekend, Azerbaijan will have an opportunity to open itself up not just to the United Kingdom, but to the other countries of Europe to show what it is all about. I hope that Azerbaijan will use that opportunity to say more about some of its great beauty. As I say, Baku is a very cosmopolitan city. Obviously, it has benefited in recent years from oil and gas, but it is clear that it has a lot of architecture and history that goes back many centuries and shows what an important city it was.

It is only fair to say a few words, as other hon. Members have, about the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. That is understandably close to the heart of many political leaders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned, we were very fortunate to have a 40-minute audience with the President. As mentioned, he was very keen to talk extremely openly about all the issues that have been touched upon already in this debate, but he also wanted to stress the importance of Nagorno-Karabakh. There is an understandable feeling in what one might call the moderate Muslim world that perhaps it is all too easy to look at UN resolutions that are immediately acted upon, particularly UN resolution 1973, when other resolutions—there were four resolutions between 1992 and 1994 on the ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia—have, to a large extent, been ignored. Lip service has been paid to trying to put those resolutions in place. I hope that the Minister will have something encouraging to say about the ongoing work that is being done not just within the UN, but as part of the bilateral relationship.

I totally agree with that the hon. Member for Bradford South said. It is in Armenia’s interests for the matter to be resolved as soon as possible. That country does not have the benefit of oil and gas and its people are becoming increasingly impoverished by its being regarded as a pariah state. As I say, it is evident that significant wealth from Azerbaijan’s oil and gas fields is going into building up a good life, even for those who feel themselves dispossessed in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. It would be in Armenia’s interests to recognise that there are tremendous advantages to being part of an area—albeit a little-known area as far as people in the UK are concerned—that has its eye on the future.

Finally, I wish to mention student visas. On a number of occasions I have made it clear that I have some concerns about the Government’s policy in that regard. We must recognise that education is a tremendous earner for this country and that our gold standard is recognised across the world—the English language has a part to play in that. We should also look to encourage the brightest and the best young people from across the world—not only Chinese and Indians, but Azerbaijanis—to spend time studying in this country. They could do two years of a postgraduate degree or part of a sandwich course, and they could, indeed, work for a year or two in this country afterwards. Such citizens from some of the less well known but fast-developing countries will be ambassadors for this country for the rest of their lives if they spend time here.

I recognise the political constraints that we are under in terms of getting our immigration numbers down, and there are, of course, great financial constraints on all our educational establishments, but it is self-defeating for this country to make coming to this country difficult for students and for highly skilled individuals from countries that are not members of the European Union or the British Commonwealth. We need a much more serious debate about that, and it behoves the coalition Government to be quite up-front about the issue. Immigration should not be about just headline figures and seeing such things as a great success going forward.

As I said, that issue is particularly important in developing countries, including not only Azerbaijan, but other south Caucasian countries, and I hope the Minister will be able to play some part in making a case on that issue. Indeed, I know he does that, and, like me, he probably believes that if Britain’s place as a trading and mercantile country is to be maintained, we need to make sure that we have as much free movement as possible for some of the best and brightest labour in the world.

Thank you for allowing me to contribute to this important and interesting debate, Mr Hollobone. I hope that the Minister and the Opposition Front- Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), will take on board some of the positive impressions that we have all gained from our brief introduction to Azerbaijan.