Commission Work Programme 2014

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman might like to go into a bit more detail with the CBI about its calculations. It appears from the detail of its work that it has weighed up the benefits of European Union membership and the “challenges”, as it describes them, such as the cost of regulation.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

Okay. Why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Is it not part of the CBI’s rationale that to have access to the single market even countries outside the European Union need to pay a significant amount, as Norway does? Countries do not escape the cost, even if they leave the European Union.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and perhaps I should have been more enthusiastic about his intervention. It is not just Norway that has a problem. A number of countries find themselves outside the EU with very little influence on what EU regulations are approved, and they often still have to accept 75% to 90% of them

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I shall try to be at least as economical as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David).

On that theme, 90 minutes to debate the European equivalent of the Queen’s Speech, long after the event—the beginning of the work programme—is not adequate. Government business managers need to consider more effective scrutiny of the work programme in future. I would have liked more time to discuss the Commission’s interesting proposals to promote jobs and sustainable growth across Europe, including: the completion of the single market and important sectors such as digital services, which I am sure Conservative Members would agree with; the ambitious trade negotiation process; and—my personal favourite—the fourth rail package, to try to bring the stiff breeze of competition to our own rail industry, apart from anyone else, and to try to reduce some of our notoriously high rail costs.

I would have liked more time to look at the Commission’s programme on cross-border crime, including the attack on money laundering; at the Commission’s environmental measures, including the 2030 framework, bringing aviation into the emissions trading scheme, and a safe and secure framework for fracking; and at efforts to promote both the reduction of waste and resource efficiency in the European economy. I would have liked more time to look at consumer rights and the benefits to consumers across Europe of increased competition. I would have liked more time to discuss external action, including important action against piracy and to promote peace in the western Balkans and elsewhere.

I am disappointed that Members such as the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) could find absolutely nothing good to say about the work programme, which is regrettable, but I do not want to fall into the opposite trap of saying that everything that comes out of the European Union is good. At the risk of my future career with the Liberal Democrats, I agree on a limited basis with the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Stone (Mr Cash), as there are examples of regulations that are a burden to business. A business in my constituency, Premiere Products, has pointed to the impact of the biocidal products regulation—a brand new regulation that should have been there to facilitate access to markets across Europe for small and medium-sized enterprises, increase competition and reduce authorisation costs, but seems likely to do the exact opposite. I say to Ministers that the biocidal products regulation is a prime candidate for inclusion in REFIT, as we must consider whether we can do more to lighten the burden of regulation, especially on small businesses.

The Commission’s programme is a fascinating and important one. The modest motion before us asks only that we take note of the document and regard it as “a useful tool” for looking at that programme, so I am happy to support it.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his succinctness.

Bangladesh

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure and, in this context, an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), whose remarks struck exactly the right tone. I also compliment the hon. Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate and note the wide interest in it, including from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is unusually silent. He has to remain quiet, being on the Treasury Benches, but I know he has been a great friend to the Bangladeshi and Bengali communities in his constituency.

Today’s debate reflects the traditionally strong cultural, political, business and diplomatic ties between Bangladesh and the UK. We are fellow sovereign states within the Commonwealth, we are allies in the battle against climate change, in the UN framework convention talks and elsewhere, and there remains the strong relationship fostered by the work of the British Government as part of their historic achievement of spending 0.7% of national wealth on overseas development assistance. The £238 million that DFID spent in Bangladesh in 2013-14 has had an enormous impact: 205,000 more births attended by skilled carers who would not have been there otherwise; 295,000 women giving birth more safely and with better care for their infants; 24 million people benefiting from better protection against floods, cyclones and the impact of climate change, thanks to early-warning systems; and millions benefiting from better water and sanitation. This is a proud record and a demonstration of this country’s commitment to the success of Bangladesh. I should also mention our assistance with transparency and anti-corruption measures, supported by the Bangladeshi Government, and championed by the previous Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). It is right to pay particular tribute to his commitment to getting value for money for the British taxpayer from that spending in Bangladesh.

It is also right to point out the contribution of the Bangladeshi community to this country. About 500,000 people of Bangladeshi origin live in the UK, employing millions and contributing massively to the British economy and, in particular of course, contributing to British digestion and cuisine. My constituency does not have a huge Bangladeshi community, but its presence in the restaurant trade is still significant. We have the Krori family’s Curry Corner, which rose to national fame through Gordon Ramsay’s television programme; we have Mohammed Rahman’s Spice Lodge, which was a national finalist in the British curry awards and the Tiffin cup, organised in this place; and we have Abdul Mannan’s Brasserie Group, which owns 20 businesses in the Gloucestershire area, employing many people and contributing massively to the local economy. Those people are active members of the local area, supporting communities not only in Cheltenham and Gloucestershire, but back home in Bangladesh—remittances are an important part of the relationship between the two countries. Mr Rahman contributes to primary education, helping students to remain in education, while another constituent, Mr Arosh Ali, has founded a charity to help the Nowder district, and only recently, the wonderful new Koloshi restaurant hosted a fundraising event for victims of the Rana Plaza disaster and for advocacy of their rights—another important aspect.

I recently attended the first Bangladesh victory day celebration in Gloucestershire, which saw 300 people gather at Cheltenham race course to remember the history of Bangladesh and to remind people, especially the young generation, of the country’s difficult birth. Millions were displaced and hundreds of thousands—perhaps as many as 3 million—lost their lives in that terrible conflict, which was the birth pang of the state of Bangladesh. Despite its difficult beginnings and years of political violence, however, there are enormous achievements to Bangladesh’s credit: it still has the institutions of democracy and the rule of law, it has, as hon. Members have said, enormous economic potential, and it has achieved a lot in development.

The UN development programme has highlighted the achievements of Bangladesh in reaching many of the millennium development goals—targets set in the 1990s that many people at the time thought were unrealistic for many countries. Bangladesh has reduced the poverty gap ratio from 17% to 6.5% since 1990; attained gender parity at primary and secondary education; reduced under-fives’ mortality; contained HIV infections through access to antiretroviral drugs; reduced the prevalence of under-weight children, which has nearly halved from a staggering 66% to 36.5%, virtually meeting the 2015 target of 33%; seen increasing enrolment in primary schools; reduced the infant mortality rate, and so on. Many challenges remain—the incidence of poverty is still enormous; hunger and poverty reduction, primary school completion and adult literacy rates are still a challenge; and the creation of a decent wage economy, particularly for women, is also an enormous challenge—but much has been achieved.

As hon. Members have rightly said, this progress will be threatened if a fundamentally peaceful and democratic environment is put at risk. There is no simple solution to this problem and no simple blame to be attributed—I have been lobbied by constituents with views on all sides of the debate between the political parties—but I am afraid that the current election situation fits into a pattern of distrust bred by worrying developments in Bangladeshi democracy. The Foreign Office’s latest human rights report emphasises that politics is still done in a violent and confrontational atmosphere, as has been true for many years, as the hon. Member for St Albans said. The situation has echoes of 2006. Human Rights Watch makes it clear that the Awami League Government have many questions to answer, not just about the controversial decision to abandon the system of caretaker Governments during elections, but about press freedom and the imprisonment of political opponents. The decision to suspend the system of caretaker Governments at election time might have been technically justified—after all, there is an independent electoral commission in Bangladesh supported by the British Government—but it clearly further undermined the confidence of civil society and political parties that the elections could be conducted freely and fairly.

[Rehman Chishti]

A country that I know well, Pakistan, which shares much history with Bangladesh and many of the sad stories of military takeovers and political parties with bitter differences, agreed on a caretaker Government last year and saw its first transition from one civilian Government to another. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the caretaker system, with the support of the electoral commission, has worked well in Pakistan, it can work well elsewhere, including in Bangladesh?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not just about the technical merits of electoral commissions or caretaker Governments; it is about building confidence and consensus across the political spectrum.

The Bangladeshi Nationalist party and other opposition parties have to tread carefully too. Boycotting elections, abandoning the democratic high ground of participation and calling for the overthrow of elected Governments is a dangerous path to tread. Opposition groups and activists have clearly been involved in violence, and there have been accusations, particularly against some of the most controversial members of the opposition, including parties such as Jamaat-e-Islami, of violence against Christian and Hindu minorities, which is particularly concerning. However, hon. Members should avoid taking sides too clearly. I spoke to a Bangladeshi constituent this morning who said that the provision of a caretaker Government was no panacea and not necessarily a solution, as the hon. Member for St Albans pointed out. In a lovely phrase, he said that the two ladies, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, held the future of Bangladesh in their hands. It is for those two women to come together and try to overcome this history of hostility and distrust. He said that dialogue was the only solution and that all the progress and potential would be put at risk if it did not happen.

Let me finish by asking the Minister a couple of questions about what practical steps the UK is taking to put pressure on both sides to get that dialogue going and to engage in meaningful negotiation. In particular, are we collaborating with the Government of India in trying to exercise that kind of pressure? Given its success in negotiating issues between Serbia and Kosovo—almost equally unpromising at the time—will we use the offices of the European External Action Service to exercise that pressure? What more can be done for us to make some practical impact on the situation? It would be a tragedy if a country that has suffered so much, yet which has such potential and has achieved so much in many ways, descended into violence yet again.

Bilateral Relations: Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and I commend not only the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing this timely and appropriate debate, but all the members of the all-party group who have spoken. It is clearly an active and effective group.

The division of Kurdistan, fixed almost by historical accident after the first world war, has posed enormous challenges for the Kurdish people. However, the defeat of Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf war in 1991, which paved the way for the no-fly zone and the autonomy and self-government of the region of Iraqi Kurdistan, delivered to the Kurdish people an enormous opportunity that they have made good use of. They have built a democratic, peaceful and stable society—a nation, really—in Iraqi Kurdistan, which is an example to many other parts of the middle east.

The situation might not have been that way. In the 1990s, the PUK and the KDP were virtually fighting a civil war between different armed peshmerga groups. If we, as Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, think that our coalition is a little bumpy and was difficult to put together, imagine if one of us had been drawing support from Saddam Hussein and the other had been drawing support from Iran, and we had been at war only a few years before. Even so, the PUK and the KDP, for many years, put together a successful coalition. They put aside their differences. They built strong institutions in Iraqi Kurdistan, with help and input from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which assists with institution-building in Kurdistan. The two parties encouraged significant investment in the region, even from investors such as Turkey that might once have been its enemies—as hon. Members have said, Turkey has now become very engaged. The governing coalition also invested significantly in infrastructure. In many ways, the approach was a model one. The two parties managed to achieve all that while respecting the rights of minorities, both religious and ethnic.

When the PUK suffered a setback in recent parliamentary elections in Kurdistan, its supporters did not take to the streets or challenge the results. They did the traditional democratic thing of having a go at their own leaders and looking to their own resources to do better next time. That is a real example to other areas of the middle east. An independence referendum was even held in Kurdistan that garnered virtually 99% support for independence, but Kurdish politicians saw the bigger picture and stepped back from the brink of pressing that case, which is perhaps an example to another political party not a million miles from here.

We should not look at the region through rose-tinted spectacles, however, because there are problems. It might be better for Kurdistan’s image if the Prime Minister were not the nephew of the President. The dominance of the Barzani family is something of a cause for concern, although I stress that both the President and the Prime Minister are respected figures who have attracted a great deal of praise for the way in which they have behaved in office. There are concerns about the human rights situation, particularly the treatment of journalists. I heard what the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said about the movement towards freedom of expression going in the right direction, but there are some real causes for concern, which have been highlighted by Reporters without Borders. In December, for example, Kawa Germyani, editor of Rayal magazine, was murdered. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the British Government will take that matter up with the Kurdistan Regional Government. Female genital mutilation is prevalent, and I know that tackling it is a big priority for the Department for International Development. The Kurdistan National Assembly has made great efforts to tackle violence against women in all its forms.

Another problem, to which hon. Members have referred, is the refugee situation. I believe that DFID has committed some £18 million from its large budget to help refugees and host communities in the region, and it is doing fantastic work with organisations such as UNICEF and Save the Children, but the situation is complicated. Most refugees from Syria who enter Iraq are going into the Kurdistan region. There are even refugees from Iraq in Syria who are trying to return to their homes in Iraq; they have become secondarily displaced because they have not been able to return to their home regions. In camps, settlements and urban areas across Iraq, but mainly in the Kurdistan region, there are still Palestinian refugees who were granted asylum by the previous regime. We can do only so much through aid budgets and assistance. In a sense, the ultimate solution to all these problems is to press the peace processes for Syria, for Israel and Palestine, and across the region.

It is right that we should accentuate the positive in a debate such as this, and I would entirely endorse the requests made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley for greater diplomatic links, reciprocal visits, better trade links, and visa relaxation, particularly in respect of student visas. Of course, I must add to the chorus by recommending the university of Gloucestershire as a potential destination. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is in the Chamber, would endorse that.

The security situation must be addressed, as the hon. Member for Harlow mentioned. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is already helping the Kurdistan Regional Government to address that, but more can be done. We should do as much as we can to help with the refugee situation on the ground, but there are many things happening in Kurdistan to praise and applaud. It is now an example of what many nations and communities in the middle east could achieve, given peace, democracy, and self-determination.

Syria

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is clear from what I have said that the UK has a strong record on the humanitarian side. Our donation, of £500 million so far, is the biggest ever in our history and one of the biggest in the world. We are the second most generous nation in the world in this regard, and we are trying to help people, as the hon. Gentleman says, in situ. On the question of refugees, last year between January and September, we accepted 1,100 Syrian refugees into the United Kingdom for asylum, treating them on their individual merits, as we do people from other nations. That fact is sometimes neglected and overlooked.[Official Report, 16 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 14MC.]

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I support the Foreign Secretary’s plea to the Syrian moderate and peaceful opposition to vote on Friday to take part in the Geneva II talks. However, if they show that willingness to overcome their genuine qualms and participate, can we reward them by stepping up support, in practical and operational ways, for the peaceful opposition, as called for in the letter by many honourable colleagues in The Times today?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we can. I hope we can, and my hon. Friend will understand from what I am saying that I would like to be able to do so. I stress, however, that because of the difficulties that arose and the loss of control at the main depot in Bab al-Hawa, we had temporarily to put on hold the supplies of communications and logistics equipment we were sending in December. We will need to be assured that the restructuring of the supreme military council that is meant to be taking place over the coming days has satisfactorily addressed those problems, so that we can receive a high level of assurance in respect of the equipment we send.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes. Although the issue has not been asked about in questions today, it is actually our top foreign policy priority. It has now been agreed that a Geneva II peace conference will be convened on 22 January, and we are encouraging all concerned to attend. In the meantime, the United Kingdom continues to be one of the biggest contributors to the humanitarian relief effort and to helping to ensure the stability of neighbouring countries. We will also strongly support the donor conference being held in Kuwait next month to raise more international funds to assist the plight of the Syrian people.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Recent developments in the East China sea are adding to many other concerns about China, including those being expressed about cyber-attacks, Sri Lanka, Syria, climate change and intellectual property rights. Does not this suggest that the west needs a co-ordinated, holistic policy towards China, rather than just a scramble for trade and investment?

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Friday 29th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will certainly do that. There was a lot more that I wanted to say, but I will try to draw my remarks to a close as quickly as I can. There were many other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South that I support and on which I wanted to comment, but I will comment only on amendment 17, which related to the threshold that would need to be reached to declare any referendum outcome valid.

Validity is essential, and I have touched on that. We have referred to the PCC elections. We do not want a situation in which a small percentage of the population participating in the referendum determine the future of our country. It is sensible to have a threshold figure that would make the referendum valid, properly democratic and orderly. Another important issue is the different outcomes in the different nations of the United Kingdom. If we are to take such a fundamental decision to leave the European Union, it is important that the decision is reflected in each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom to ensure the democratic validity of it. If we were not to do that, there would be significant ramifications for the validity of the outcome, and that would not be helpful to the future of the United Kingdom. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my remarks and thank you for giving me the time to contribute.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate at last. I thought for a minute that it was never going to happen. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that we can now make rapid progress. Having failed sensibly to amend the Bill so far, it will now fall to our noble friends up the corridor to try to improve it. The sooner we press on to Third Reading the better.

I would quite like to attend the European congress of Liberals and Democrats, which I am proud to say is happening in London this week, where 1,000 Liberals are gathering from 30 or 40 countries, 12 of them countries in which we are in government, to plot a positive, constructive and collaborative future for Europe. I realise that might sound like a vision from hell to some Conservative Back Benchers, but I find it rather inspiring and would quite like to drop in. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not being present for the whole of today’s debate as a result.

Moving swiftly on to the amendments, I will not address all of those tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). He is right that they are not frivolous, and they would not have been in order if they had been, but some are a little superfluous, if that is not an unkind remark. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) would impose compulsory voting on us, which is not a principle that Liberals generally support. Voters reveal a lot when they abstain from a democratic election or a referendum and it is important that we understand what they are telling us when they abstain or do not turn out to vote.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the scenario I touched on, in which the percentage turnout is very low—say, at the police and crime commissioner level? Would he be content if we withdrew from the EU on that basis, because we had not accepted my amendment?

[Martin Horwood]

The principle of turnout in British elections has always been that whatever the quantum of votes, we accept the result one way or the other. I would not be happy in that situation, but it would be down to those of us who are putting the pro-European case to ensure that people turned out in sufficient numbers to defend British jobs, to defend our ability to fight cross-border crime and to defend the protection of the environment across European borders. That would be our responsibility and we will not solve it by forcing people who do not want to vote to turn out. We do not have to share Russell Brand’s variety of celebrity nihilism to believe that voters reveal important information about the health of our democracy and the levels of detachment and disenchantment when they do not turn out to vote.

[Mike Gapes]

rose—

[Martin Horwood]

I will give way once to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mike Gapes]

I do not intend to intervene again. I just want to point out that in the 1970s this House introduced a threshold for the Scottish referendum, so thresholds are not an unprecedented proposal. There might be a strong argument for it in a case of this kind.

[Martin Horwood]

That brings me neatly on to amendment 17, which seeks to impose a threshold of 60%. The suggestion that a turnout of less than 60% means that the result is not legitimate is intriguing, because if we applied that to Westminster constituencies we would have some interesting results. Let me pick one at random: Ilford South had a turnout of 58% at the last general election, and I would find it surprising if the hon. Gentleman was arguing that that meant that the result was invalid in some way. We have not applied that principle, certainly not at such a level, to previous referendums and we certainly do not apply it to Westminster votes. When the referendum comes, I hope that those in favour of remaining in the European Union for the benefit of jobs, fighting cross-border crime and protecting the environment will win it on a simple majority.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

No, I will not, I am afraid. We need to make progress on this Bill today.

[Mr Thomas]

rose—

[Martin Horwood]

I will give way once to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and understand his appetite to move on. I hope that when he reaches the other amendments he might be willing to comment on the two that I have tabled. The first suggests that there should be a separate but linked declaration of the result in Gibraltar, and I hope he might be tempted to support that. I would also welcome his views on amendment 84, which suggests a post-referendum audit.

[Martin Horwood]

I am certainly more sympathetic to those amendments. The idea of an audit is, I think, a little superfluous. I am not sure that it is a bad idea, but I am also not sure that we need it in the Bill. We could leave it to the Electoral Commission’s good judgment.

Amendment 64 is more serious. We debated the subject at some length when we discussed the Conservative amendments on our first day on Report. There is a question about Gibraltar that has not been resolved by enabling Gibraltarians to vote in the referendum, which has now been incorporated into the Bill, because we still have the problem that Gibraltar is only a member of the European Union by virtue of its status as a British territory. If the UK and Gibraltar vote yes, we will have no problem. If the UK and Gibraltar vote no, it would be a catastrophe for jobs, the fighting of crime, the environment and so on, but it would not be a problem for Gibraltar’s constitutional position.

We have problems, however—I have not yet heard Ministers respond to them satisfactorily to defend the Bill—with what will happen if Gibraltar and the UK vote in different ways. If the UK votes to remain in the EU but Gibraltar votes no, I would assume that that would be taken as an indication of Gibraltar’s desire to leave the EU. Would we then accommodate that desire? Would we, for instance, pursue the Greenland option, where one territory from within a realm leaves the European Union? It would be interesting to hear what Ministers have to say in reply to that. If the reverse happens, and Gibraltar votes yes and the UK votes no, would we really proceed in effect to expel Gibraltar from the European Union against the clearly expressed wishes of the Gibraltarian people? What message would that send to Spain about our desire to respect the will of the people of Gibraltar in determining their own future? It would be good to hear the Minister’s replies on those two scenarios.

Let me conclude by talking about my amendment 65, which suggests the separate declaration that I think would be appropriate for any country that has voted to leave the UK, has formed an independent country or is in the process of negotiating such independence or holding a referendum on it. It is pretty clear which country I am talking about and I have obtained from the Library a copy of a document called “Scotland’s Future”, which was published in the past few days and contains some interesting aspirations, including for Scotland to remain a member of the European Union and to achieve independence, if it is voted for in autumn 2014, by 24 March 2016.

I am no expert on the Scottish independence debate and I do not know whether either of those aspirations is guaranteed—I suspect that neither of them is—but it raises the important question of what will happen if the Scottish people vote yes to independence and no to Europe. Will the Scottish Government pursue membership of the European Union even though their people have voted the other way? It will be equally bizarre if England votes no or yes by a narrow margin but Scotland tips the balance the other way despite having already voted to leave the United Kingdom. What would be the constitutional situation for England, Wales and Northern Ireland then? If Scotland votes yes to independence and to EU membership but the UK as a whole votes to leave the European Union, we will then have the bizarre situation of Scotland negotiating entry while the Government of the UK simultaneously negotiates exit. That is one of those timetabling issues that shows what an arbitrary and ill thought out notion it is to have a fixed deadline that cannot take account of changing political and constitutional realities, whether on the European scale, in relation to Scotland or in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Thomas]

rose—

[Martin Horwood]

I will not give way, because I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and I think the Bill needs to make progress.

I will not press the amendment to a vote and I will not move it, but it raises important issues and I would like to hear the Minister’s response to them.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute briefly to the debate. I should say at the outset that I support the Bill but I also support the European project and the European Union. I do not think that we have anything to fear from a referendum, whenever it happens.

Let me run through the amendments. I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) that I do not support everything that he has proposed. I support amendment 52, oppose amendments 53, 55 and 17, support amendment 5, and say no to amendments 6, 7 and 16, and yes to amendment 61. I would be interested to hear the explanation from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who is on the Front Bench, for amendments 64 and 84, which we have not heard yet. I am not entirely convinced by the proposed wording. I oppose amendment 85. As for amendment 65, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), which he has said that he will not press to a vote, I think its tone was defeatist about Scottish independence and the referendum so I was going to vote against it in principle, as I think we will win the referendum for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Mike Gapes]

I will give way briefly, then I must make progress.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about how absurd it would be for the referendum—or even the campaign—to take place during the British presidency. The best of his amendments is amendment 58, which would appoint a commission to look into the date and arrangements of the referendum. If that amendment were accepted, could we not do away with most of his other amendments, which one might be tempted to think were rather spinning out the debate?

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman makes my arguments for me on amendment 58, so I will not repeat them. There are strong arguments to get the correct date through consultation, rather than there being an arbitrary decision put forward by elements within the Government. Better for there to be a commission and, as my amendment 12 says, for there to be consultation with faith organisations to make sure that the dates do not clash with religious festivals and holidays. We are a multicultural, multi-faith country now, so the Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Zoroastrians, Muslims and Christians will all need to be consulted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I stand to speak briefly against any amendments, no matter how well intentioned, designed to bring forward the referendum date from 2017. Having campaigned hard with many other colleagues for a referendum in the next Parliament and legislation in this one to make sure that those outside this place really do believe our intent, I very much welcome this referendum Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on bringing it to the Floor of the House.

Only a few years ago, the word “referendum” had hardly passed the Government’s lips, and certainly not the Prime Minister’s, yet here we are today pushing for legislation. I have already sent my thanks to all colleagues on these Benches who supported that campaign. It involved a number of letters signed by 100 colleagues, and also an amendment to the Queen’s Speech, which was well supported on the Conservative Benches and by principled Members on the Labour Benches. Many Members on both sides of the House and, in particular, people outside this place have campaigned on this issue long and hard over many years. It has been a long journey. Indeed, the British people have waited too long to have their say on our continued membership of an organisation that has fundamentally changed since we first joined. As chairman of the all-party group on European Union referendum, I can say that it is a shame that the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties still do not support the idea of a referendum. I suggest to Members on the Front Benches that they should trust the electorate.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Mr Baron]

I will not give way, because time is short. [Interruption.] All right, I will give way briefly.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman must not keep repeating this idea that the Liberal Democrats are against referendums. We supported a referendum at the time of the Lisbon treaty. We made it quite clear at our party conference that we support the concept of an in/out referendum, and we want the British people to have their say at the right time.

[Mr Baron]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman made that intervention, because it is clear to everyone, both inside and outside this place, that the Liberals are very good at promising referendums when it comes to a general election, but do not deliver the goods when the time comes. I am afraid that they talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

Briefly, let me address the central point of the date of the referendum; I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. Pulling the date forward from 2017 would not make for a fair referendum. There would be less time to marshal the facts and to have a true consideration of them. The Prime Minister could rightly say that he has not had time fully to repatriate any powers. If the referendum was held next year, the political establishment would close ranks and push the case for an “in” vote—to remain in the EU—in addition to which we do not have a full explanation of the merits and otherwise of our membership. We need time to nail the lie that leaving the EU would cost 3 million jobs. We need time to allow small businesses, which tend to be more sceptical of EU regulations than big businesses, to find their voice. We need time for the eurozone crisis to play out. We do not know what sort of Europe or European structures we are dealing with in the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the report, he will see that the commission stated very clearly that it believed that the question drafted by my hon. Friend met pretty much all the tests it would expect. There was a debate on the degree of clarity, and the commission drew attention to the fact that there were different views among the people they consulted and from whom they received representations about both my hon. Friend’s wording and the various options that the commission invited Parliament to consider.

[Martin Horwood]

Surely the whole point of having an Electoral Commission is that we do not settle for referendum questions that are just about satisfactory and that we certainly go for those that it decides are the best and clearest. On a matter of such critical importance, surely the Minister should accept that.

[Mr Lidington]

An interesting feature of the report is that the commission did not come up with a firm alternative recommendation. Rather, it posed a number of questions and stated that it thought it should be for Parliament to consider whether those recommendations would meet the desire, which I think everyone shares, for maximum clarity and fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his helpful intervention and clarification.

[Martin Horwood]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that Mr Speaker stated that if someone speaks from the Treasury Bench as a Minister they are speaking as a Minister, but that does not necessarily mean that they are representing Government policy, and the Minister is certainly not doing so on this occasion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman has certainly made his point as well, so we can return to Mr Gapes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I am sorry, I cannot answer that question either. Perhaps the Minister can, or the Liberal Democrats when they speak on behalf of the Government. I simply do not know the answer.

The issues of consultation and identity are important. Given that the referendum could have different outcomes in different places, it is possible, for example, that England might vote to leave but Northern Ireland might vote to stay in. Given the economic, personal and family links north and south of the border, Northern Ireland might prefer co-operation to leaving. If that were the case, there would clearly be implications if the question were disputed.

We should ensure that we see the potential difficulties coming over the horizon and remove them in advance rather than come across them because of a badly worded question, a lack of proper consultation, or a lack of translated versions or translations, whichever we decide on. If we remove those difficulties, it will make political or legal challenges and difficulties at a later stage less likely. As the democratic Chamber, this House has a responsibility to do that, although I suspect that if we do not, the other place will examine the issue in some detail.

I hope that the Scottish Government and Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive will make clear representations on those matters. They have a right to be heard on behalf of the people of those nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

I will end my remarks there because I know that many other Members wish to contribute. The amendments cover vital issues that need proper consideration, and I think we need to vote on the wording of the question.

[Martin Horwood]

There are a number of interesting amendments in this group, although mercifully, rather fewer than in the last group.

Amendment 72, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), is interesting and highlights one of the extraordinary omissions from the Bill. It is extraordinary that there is no reference to Gibraltar, to the only referendum Bill that the coalition has passed—the European Union Act 2011—or to the Electoral Commission and the Political Parties and Referendums Act 2000. In a small way, the amendment is an antidote to the last of those omissions.

However, it seems to me that the amendment makes rather a meal of the problem by asking for a six-month consultation. I am not convinced that it is necessary to specify in the Bill a broad consultation, let alone for six months, simply about what the question should be. The crucial omission from the Bill, which we need to remedy, is any reference to the Electoral Commission and its role, as properly set out in the 2000 Act, as the body that should advise Parliament on the wording of referendums.

I am not sure that anyone will be under any illusion about what is really at stake in a referendum, should one come to pass. There certainly seems already to be a great deal of public interest in the matter. Not long ago, 1,000 people packed an event at the Cheltenham literature festival at which I took the platform opposite—I would not say alongside—Nigel Farage of the UK Independence party. I was pleased that, after a heated debate, the majority of the people at that event, as far as I could see, voted for Britain to remain in the European Union.

I do not think we need a six-month consultation on the question for the CBI and other opinion-formers to make clear what they think is at stake in a referendum campaign. After all, the CBI has just produced a report that makes its position clear—it understands what is at stake. It says that, after the second world war,

“it seemed clear that the main opportunities for UK trade and growth were with our nearest neighbours”

but that the

“current circumstances have thrown that conclusion into doubt to the point that some in the UK are questioning the value of our membership of the EU, and some are even advocating withdrawal…For British business, large and small, the response to this is unequivocal: we should remain in”.

Without dwelling on the precise nature of the question, which is addressed in the amendments, it reinforced that point, stating:

“The European Union supports UK business in realising its global ambitions by providing significant influence over the rules, policies and priorities that allow British based firms to seize opportunities across the globe. It anchors UK trade around the world through the signing of high-quality, ambitious Free Trade Agreements and the creation of globally recognised standards that open markets. And in a world of competing ideas and ideals – where international action is increasingly the avenue for addressing problems across the globe – UK membership of the EU amplifies Britain’s voice internationally.”

The CBI is not alone. Environmental organisations increasingly understand what is at stake. While being suitably tactful as a registered charity in not coming down on a political side in the debate, the World Wide Fund for Nature has described the importance of the EU to the environment. A recent WWF leaflet, “What has Europe ever done for the environment?”, states:

“EU environmental legislation and policies have raised the bar in Europe and beyond to improve management and protection of landscapes, natural habitats and wildlife…EU legislation includes the world’s most comprehensive set of environmental measures. It accounts for more than 80% of environmental law in Europe…But it hasn’t been a one-way street, with ‘diktats’ from Europe that must be obeyed. The UK has played a leading role in shaping the EU standards that protect the environment”.

It did not need a six-month consultation to reach that conclusion. Thirteen former police chiefs and a former head of MI5 did not need such a consultation to write to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister emphasising the importance of European Union measures on justice and home affairs, including the European arrest warrant and Europol. Whatever the precise wording of the question, more opinion formers are clear on what will be at stake in that referendum. What is at stake is Europe’s and Britain’s ability to fight crime and protect the environment. Above all, British jobs, jobs and more jobs will be at stake. I am not sure whether we need the device of a six-month consultation on the question for people to understand what is at stake.

Having said that, the hon. Member for Harrow West made important points on the role of the Electoral Commission. As I said in an intervention on the Minister, the whole point of the commission is that we have not only an adequate question or one that meets most of the requirements of a referendum question, but the best possible and clearest question. Even if we do not have the six-month consultation imagined in amendment 72, there is a good argument for amending the Bill to allow the Electoral Commission’s preferred question to be the one that is put to the British people.

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has tabled two amendments—amendments 35 and 36—that address the two possible phraseologies of the question from the commission’s initial report. The possible answers to the first question—

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”—

are yes and no. My reading of the report is that the commission’s clear preference is for another question—

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”—

to which the possible answers would be “remain in the EU” or “leave the EU”. Although the Minister has said that the commission had not reached a firm conclusion on whether that was the best possible question, it was clear in the report that it is a better option than the one in the Bill. For exactly the reasons set out in detail by the hon. Member for Harrow West, which I will not repeat, the commission gave a clear direction on that front.

Of course, the commission could not reach an absolutely firm conclusion because it believed that it had not had time fully to consider it, and that there was room to take more evidence and further refine and improve the question.

[Mark Hendrick]

I am following the flow of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but does he think that a yes/no referendum would be better than an either/or referendum, purely and simply because there is clear polarity between the arguments?

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I think was raised in evidence to the Electoral Commission by the Plain English Campaign. It pointed out that in response to a yes/no question, as is traditional, there would be a yes campaign and a no campaign. In response to what appears to be the Electoral Commission’s preferred question, we would have to have a remain campaign, and a leave campaign—I do not particularly fancy carrying placards stating, “Remain”. There are some problems with the preferred wording in the commission’s report, and the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point that underlines the fact that the issue requires more consideration. I would like that consideration to be led by the Electoral Commission and to inform the wording of the Bill. If the Minister is unhappy with the wording from the Electoral Commission, and thinks we are being rushed into a decision on that—just as the Bill appears to be rushing us towards even less adequate wording—the solution is in his hands and those of the Conservative party and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). They could pause the Bill and wait for the Electoral Commission to consider the question more fully, and satisfy itself that it has the best possible question to put to the British people.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. Would it not help the House and the debate if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) made a contribution to the debate or was in the Chamber to hear it?

[Martin Horwood]

It is rather extraordinary that only one Conservative Back Bencher and one Liberal Democrat are in the Chamber at the moment. Perhaps Members are following the Prime Minister’s injunction not to bang on about Europe—at least at the moment, if not generally.

Amendment 37, tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South, would replace a Welsh “version” with a “translation”. I think that is a little superfluous; I am not really sure of the precise difference between a version and a translation, and even after listening to the hon. Gentleman I did not quite pick up the nuanced difference. I think the Minister made a reasonable response to the amendment, which is that we are following precedent by using “version”.

There is more of a problem with amendments 39 and 40 which mention Gaelic translations, and a bit of a linguistic pickle is going on. As I understand it, Gaelic covers a family of languages that include Manx and Irish, and not just Scottish Gaelic, which is the normal term used to describe the Celtic language in Scotland. The Scottish Government are promoting the status of Scottish Gaelic on the basis that it should have equal respect with English, and that there should be language rights for its tens of thousands of native speakers, but not that it is based on a perceived lack of understanding of English. No one is really expected not to understand a question in English—for instance, there is no requirement to have a Scottish Gaelic version of the independence question in the independence referendum, and that appears to be the intention of both the Scottish and UK Governments. Amendment 39 is a wee bit superfluous.

The hon. Member for Ilford South gets into even more of a linguistic pickle with amendment 40. It mentions Gaelic, although I think the accepted terminology in Ireland is Irish, not Gaelic. This is becoming a bit of an attempt to find various things to talk about, which obviously I am not sure we in this place would entertain.

Amendment 38 has slightly more weight because the hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to include in the Bill the requirement to consult

“with the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government.”

There is much more precedent for using the Welsh language, but then the Welsh language is already mentioned in the Bill, and I am not sure whether we need that sensible requirement for consultation in the Bill too. Such a consultation is something that the Government would seem to be perfectly capable of doing, and if the Electoral Commission is looking at the wording of the question, it should be the body that leads on our Welsh version of the question, as well as the English language version.

That leaves amendment 71, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). His amendment is an attempt to tackle a fundamental problem with the Bill, namely its curious approach to the timing and the curiously delayed nature of the referendum question that it would put to the British people. Amendment 71 provides a small antidote to that by emphasising that we are not binding our successors. [Interruption.]

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last week we had the Government advisers in the Box communicating via Back Benchers and even with the Bill’s promoter. Today I notice that another Back Bencher is doing the same thing. Is this really in order?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

People are allowed to come and speak. I think everything is in order. If it was not, we would have stopped it.

[Martin Horwood]

As I was saying, in amendment 71 the hon. Member for Glasgow North East is attempting to remedy the strange issue with the timing and the attempt by this Parliament to bind its successor through this referendum Bill. Of course, we pass legislation all the time that carries forward into future Parliaments, but when it comes to referendums, we normally want to take the decision at the time that we want to hold a referendum. That was the debate we had about the Lisbon treaty—whether it was a proposed constitution and whether we should have at that stage a referendum on the treaty or a referendum on membership, which is what Liberals Democrats supported at that time. We were quite happy to hold a referendum on the question of membership—not in four or five years’ time, but right then and there—because of the clear statement about what the Lisbon treaty contained and what our relationship with Europe would be. We are not in that situation now. The future relationship between the UK and Europe and the rest of the European Union is now less clear because of the economic crisis, the need to restructure the eurozone and the potential treaty changes that are in the offing because of that crisis. It is therefore odd to be discussing a Bill that talks about a referendum four years in advance. Amendment 71, which would provide for an order to be made under the affirmative resolution procedure in a future Parliament, is perhaps one way of tackling that issue.

That is certainly preferable to what I see as the Prime Minister’s position on the referendum, which is what I would describe as an Augustinian position. St Augustine famously said:

“Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.”

Of course, the Prime Minister has an interest in creating paper unity in the Conservative party on the matter of a referendum, but it would be a political disaster for the Conservatives if they got the referendum, because they would be split absolutely down the middle. The Prime Minister made some impressively pro-European statements in his Bloomberg speech. I do not have them at my fingertips, but he talked about the European Union delivering peace in Europe and about it being essential for prosperity and jobs. Indeed, he made a speech of which, in some respects, any Liberal Democrat would be proud, with its explanation of the value of the European Union to both Europe and the UK. However, it is clear from today’s debate and the debate a few weeks ago that many Members from his own party would be campaigning on the opposite side in that referendum.

In a funny way, there is a sort of sub-Orwellian process going on in the Conservative party, in that the Conservatives would rather have a constant campaign for a referendum, which allows them to create some kind of unity, yet they would be rather shocked and disappointed if they got it—indeed, they would be in a bit of a crisis—because then they would be split down the middle. However, although many speakers from the Labour Benches today have answered the big question by arguing in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the European Union, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) popped up briefly, and there are certainly Labour Members who are far from clear about what their answer to the big question in this debate would be.

This referendum Bill is, at heart, a device to dodge the big question. I suppose there are two parties that are absolutely clear on the answer to that big question of whether Britain should remain in or out of the European Union: UKIP is pretty clear that we should be outside the EU, while the Liberal Democrats are clear that we should be in it, because it enables us to fight cross-border crime more effectively, to protect the environment more effectively and, above all, to protect British jobs and support a sustainable economy in this country. There is confusion among the other two parties. The Conservative party is split down the middle, and the Labour party is, if not split right down the middle, at least split a little down the left-hand side. We need to move on from the minutiae of referendum questions and arcane debates about the precise wording of the question to the big issue of whether Britain should remain in or out. That is what many opinion formers, such as the CBI, are starting to do.

Amendment 71 makes a reasonable attempt to tackle the rather peculiar issue of timing in a quite imaginative way. I am not sure that it resolves the issue, but I would be happy to support it in the meantime.

[Mr Bain]

I am pleased to speak to amendment 71, which stands in my name, and to other amendments in the group.

An unusual aspect of this Bill is that it purports to hold a referendum on the question of whether to remain part of the European Union, without specifying the date on which such a referendum would be held. That is most unlike the practice that we have seen when this House has passed similar legislation to create the opportunity for referendums to take place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and, indeed, for the referendum held two years ago on the alternative vote. It is also unlike what is happening in the process for a referendum in Scotland. The great danger that the Bill in its current form presents is that it gives the Executive too much power in the setting of the referendum date. The Bill gives the Government a blank cheque for the setting of that date, and who knows what sort of factors will be considered when the Government come to set it.

Gibraltar

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware of the private Member’s Bill to which he refers. My understanding is that it is not required, because under international law the three-mile limit in British Gibraltar territorial waters is already in place. Indeed, my understanding is that it may be possible to extend that to 12 miles, but we have not chosen to do so. The three-mile limit is already enshrined in international legislative structures.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Gibraltar’s Member of the European Parliament, Sir Graham Watson, has emphasised that the authorities would be quite within their rights to board and impound Spanish vessels, should there be a further incursion. Does the Minister agree that the Royal Navy has so far shown admirable restraint, emphasising Britain’s unwillingness to escalate the crisis on our side?

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The simplistic answer to his question is yes, but we will ensure that the Spanish and those vessels that make any incursion into British Gibraltar territorial waters are under no illusion about the fact that they are not welcome, and that those are British waters and do not belong to Spain.

UK Relations with China

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this debate. I agreed with the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) when he said that the hon. Gentleman had got the tone of the debate exactly right. His speech was measured and balanced.

We can talk about many positives when discussing China. According to market research, 86% of the Chinese population are happy with their Government, which is a rating that many of us in democracies around the world would be happy to achieve. In many ways, it is clear that China is a wealthier, more liberal, diverse and, in some respects, freer society than it has ever been before.

There are some examples of extraordinary tolerance of democratic systems. We must remember that it was widely feared that Hong Kong might lose its multi-party system, independent judiciary and freedom of expression when it became part of the People’s Republic, but all have been preserved. The country may not be democratic in quite the way that we would like to describe ourselves and other countries around the world, but those things have nevertheless been respected.

There is, of course, the phenomenal economic achievement, which benefits this country enormously. In the first two years of the coalition Government, British exports of goods to China increased by 40%. The Foreign Office estimates that Chinese investment is worth as much as £8 billion a year to the British economy, which is not to be sniffed at. Companies such as Huawei are making an important contribution to telecommunications and, however controversially, they are also investing in such things as nuclear power stations.

There are, however, many alarm bells. The hon. Member for The Wrekin was right to point out that China does not do itself any favours or earn a good reputation in many areas. I will quickly run through seven alarm bells. Domestic human rights is only one of them and is still a major problem. Reports in the last year from Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Amnesty International, Pen International and Reporters Without Borders have put China in the bottom few countries of the world in terms of respect for human rights and for freedom of expression. Many of them put Tibet in the worst category of all. The most recent Foreign Office human rights report, issued in 2012, still mentioned the

“use of unlawful and arbitrary measures to target human rights defenders… These included enforced disappearance, house arrest, restrictions on freedom of movement, communication and association, extrajudicial detention (including ‘re-education through labour’ (RTL), ‘black jails’ and involuntary psychiatric committal) and harassment of family members. Human rights defenders also continued to be subjected to criminal charges and procedurally flawed trials, often involving the poorly defined category of offences encompassing ‘endangering state security’. Diplomats and media were repeatedly refused access to their trials.”

That kind of active physical oppression is mirrored on the internet, where, as hon. Members have said, access to sites such as Google and the BBC is restricted. It is clear that China is far from being a good example to the rest of the world on human rights.

As China’s economic power grows, so does its influence in many other parts of the world. Its record on its impact on human rights in other countries is also pretty terrible. Regimes such as Sudan and Zimbabwe have benefited from Chinese patronage. Despite supposed international trade sanctions, China provides a large amount of funding to the North Korean state, which has an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 political prisoners detained in concentration camps, where they perform forced labour and risk summary beatings, torture and execution.

Topically, the Chinese Government have been friendly towards the Government of Sri Lanka, openly providing weapons and military equipment, which was used against the northern Tamil population—perhaps legitimately during the civil war, but perhaps not so legitimately since then—in the way that has been much discussed in this place recently. There is also, I am afraid to say, the close relationship between China and Syria, which we have also discussed at length.

It is not only that there is tolerance of dictatorial regimes; China has enormous economic power that it is now beginning to wield in Africa, where Chinese investment has overtaken that of the USA and is proving quite controversial in many respects. Chinese demand for ore, timber and oil is forcing African states to specialise at the bottom of the value chain, meaning that they are not developing their economies in a positive way. There is large-scale Chinese immigration into many African countries, which, in places such as Ghana, has flared into violence with many Chinese being brutally beaten and some 200 being deported. This frankly pretty careless attitude towards its impact on other countries is a matter of grave concern.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin mentioned the environment, specifically animal welfare. Again, it is not only animals in China that are affected; rhino and elephant populations around the world are affected by the demand for ivory and other products and shark-finning affects shark populations. Within China, there are ill-planned hydrological engineering projects, which interrupt the natural flow of rivers. The conversion of wetlands for agriculture and unsuitable construction and infrastructure projects on flood plains have destroyed ecosystems and driven species out of their natural homes. That most iconic of species, the panda, has been left fighting for survival in many places as its habitat has been cleared to make way for agriculture, timber and fuel wood.

It is not that we can always stand in the way of economic development or that it is possible to develop a country economically without some disruption to the environment. However, other countries have learned that they must protect the environment as they grow and develop—India has certainly recognised that—and that if they do not, they lose something enormously precious; indeed, in biodiversity terms, it is precious to the whole planet.

To those concerns, we could add others about intellectual property rights. Businesses that try to do business in China still have to struggle with problems over the respect for patents and intellectual property. There are also problems with cyber-attacks, including the toleration of repeated attacks on commercial and governmental institutions, which seem to originate in China. Finally, we have the worrying picture of militarisation in east Asia, which must be giving some of the democratic countries and some of our traditional allies in the region real pause for thought.

The overall picture is one of an enormous global power awakening and becoming a superpower once again. All its potential partners appear to have a working assumption that it will always exercise its power benignly. We are somewhat like rabbits caught in the economic headlights: we see the enormous value of trade and business, and we are so worried about any risks to it—particularly after the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister met the Dalai Lama, resulting in the freezing of relations with top officials for several years—that we try to brush the complex picture of policy I have described under the carpet in the pursuit of economic relationships.

It was rather sad that the coalition agreement, of which I am, in many respects, very proud, had only one line about China. It said:

“We will…seek closer engagement with China, while standing firm on human rights in all our bilateral relationships.”

In other words, we will pursue trade, and we will perhaps go through the motions of the rather formulaic human rights dialogue we have with the Chinese Government. However, we do not seem to have appreciated the complexity of China’s impact on democracy, the environment, human rights, trade and peace all over the world.

The Government need to have a more comprehensive and holistic China policy, and we need to encourage the European Union to have one, too. We probably need to encourage the Commonwealth to develop a China policy, given China’s deep involvement in Africa and fact that some of its membership comes from Africa. Democracies around the world, including Japan and other countries in eastern Asia, might also need to develop a comprehensive and holistic response to this emerging superpower. Simply pursing trade at the expense of everything else could be quite a dangerous policy in the long run, and we have to be a little cautious about that.

UK Relations with Gibraltar and Spain

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she makes a powerful point. Hopefully, the House recognises that the UK Government have made the strongest protestations to the Spanish Government, both about the issues on the border highlighted by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton and about the incursions into Gibraltar’s territorial waters, which are completely unacceptable. We have made official complaints. We are maintaining significant pressure on the Spanish Government and, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted, we have called in the Spanish ambassador.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Simmonds]

I will give way in a moment; I want to complete my response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage). We need to find a mechanism to de-escalate, not escalate, the situation. We are working on that, while making it clear in the strongest possible terms that the current situation continuing is not acceptable.

[Martin Horwood]

I accept what the Minister says about de-escalation. Will he welcome the support given to the people of Gibraltar by their MEP, Sir Graham Watson, and urge the European Commission to step up or repeat its border monitoring exercise to see what is happening on the border, perhaps without giving the Spanish advance notice this time?

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is certainly unsurprising that the Commission has been unable to conclude that EU law has been infringed; the border operated much more smoothly than normal during the Commission’s visit. That is not the same as confirmation that Spain has acted lawfully. We continue to provide information and evidence to the Commission. We do not believe that it backs Spain’s claims that the checks are not politically motivated. Actions for Spain were up front in the Commission’s statement and we hope that the Spanish will make public the letter that they received from the Commission. We fully expect Spain to act on the Commission’s recommendations.

The Commission is clearly concerned about the situation. It is committed to remain engaged and to follow up in six months’ time. It has reserved the right to reconsider its position and has explicitly offered what the hon. Gentleman suggests: a further visit to the border. He makes a good point about Spain not being notified so the Commission can see what is going on. The Commission has made it clear that it is concerned and will revisit if required.

The Chief Minister of Gibraltar has welcomed the recommendations made to Spain on areas that could make a difference at the border and stressed that the Government of Gibraltar will work closely with the Commission to deliver against the recommendations made to Gibraltar. It is true that the Commission has at this stage been unable to conclude that EU law has been infringed, but that is quite different from confirmation that Spain acted lawfully.