Syria

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I go back to what I have referred to before. What we are seeking—the basis of the invitation letter from the UN Secretary-General—is a transitional governing body formed by mutual consent. Such a thing, drawn from regime and opposition, would naturally guard against the extremes, as each side would have to agree to the representatives of the other. That would not be a recipe for Assad to continue, as I mentioned earlier, or for the al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists to have a role. Again, that shows the importance of our sticking to this principle and this formula in the forthcoming negotiations.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what support his Department is providing to individuals working for aid agencies, and their families, to ensure that they are getting all the information and support they need to keep as safe as possible while carrying out their vital work, for which I am sure the whole House will wish to thank them?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the people working for the aid agencies do an extraordinary job. They are often in danger, and quite a number have lost their lives in the Syria conflict. They are the unsung heroes, and she is right to refer to them in the House. Of course we do everything possible to provide the information and equipment they need, but if at any stage she or any other hon. Member thinks there is more we need to do on that, we are always open to ideas.

Syria (EU Restrictive Measures)

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

I welcome this evening’s debate on the Council’s decision and commend the Government on securing the flexibility that we and other countries need to step up the pressure on the Assad regime. I am especially pleased that the Council document explicitly sets out the humanitarian context that underlies our rationale for action. The urgency for a political or, reluctantly, a military solution is the humanitarian imperative on which I want to focus for a few moments. We cannot talk of aiding the Syrian opposition without stressing the urgent need and plight of the Syrian people, who live in constant fear for their lives and who in their hundreds and thousands are fleeing every day.

The Syrian crisis is entering its third year, and while we hope for a political solution, a humanitarian tragedy continues to unfold before our eyes. The situation for Syrians is desperate. Life for those caught up in the spiralling violence is unbearable. As ordinary civilians fall into ever deeper despair, the humanitarian need is growing more urgent by the day. According to the United Nations’ estimates, the death toll is now 80,000; 8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance; and more than 4.25 million people have been driven from their homes by the fighting to other areas of Syria, with now well over 1.3 million refugees in neighbouring countries. The majority of these refugees are women, children and the elderly, more than half of whom are children below the age of 11, suffering first and foremost from psychological trauma. These figures are alarming, but from my own experience having visited two camps in Turkey, I can say that they do not capture or convey the full extent of the crisis.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees conceded that the total numbers are far higher than have officially been accounted for. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate rapidly as increased fighting and changing of control of towns and villages, in particular in the conflict areas, is driving more and more people out of the country.

Beyond Syria’s borders, the problems continue. For the countries that have taken in those refugees—Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey—the burden that they face in economic, security and social terms, on their energy, water, health and educational facilities, is huge and proving a serious challenge that far exceeds their capabilities to cope with.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says about the burdens put on Jordan in particular. Does he agree that more pressure should be put on the United Arab Emirates to contribute more to humanitarian relief?

[Mr Walter]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I want to make a point about the international community’s responsibility, and that includes the Gulf states.

If the scale of the humanitarian needs continues to outstrip the support available, the risks will only soar. The pressure on Jordan’s already scarce water, energy and education resources is enormous. Approximately 40,000 Syrian students have started attending classes in Jordanian schools, and health services are strained by the average daily influx of 3,000 refugees into Jordan alone. If that influx continues at that pace, we will be looking at 1 million refugees in Jordan by the end of the year.

Where is the European Union and the rest of the international community in this devastating and desperate hour? Many promises have been made, but not enough have been delivered. I find it dispiriting that we have collectively fallen so far short of our obligations to help the Syrian people caught up in the turmoil and to alleviate the burdens borne by the neighbouring host countries. Appeals for funding to provide food, water and other humanitarian aid inside Syria have received only meagre support, while the UN Refugee Agency says that its appeal for half a billion dollars was only one-third funded. As a result of the woeful state of funding, the UN and other aid organisations can reach only 1.5 million of the people in desperate need, of whom there are probably around 3 million.

Syria

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There is no mystery about the position of the United States. In public as well as in private, the US is driving the initiative put together with Russia on 8 May to have the Geneva conference. Secretary Kerry is therefore working very hard on the diplomatic side of all this work. The US is very sympathetic to any means of putting greater pressure on the regime ahead of the conference, including the European Union matters I have been talking about, while fully recognising that it is for EU states to decide on that. It is the view in America, as it is our view, that it is important for the facts on chemical weapons to be established in the eyes of the world. We have sent our evidence to the UN team, and particularly after what happened in the last decade it is important for our claims about the existence or misuse of weapons to be established, preferably by the United Nations.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the United Arab Emirates regarding its funding of decent facilities and medical care for Syrian refugees in Jordan, and the contribution that it has made to the humanitarian effort to date?

[Mr Hague]

The UAE makes a big contribution. I have had many discussions with the UAE Foreign Minister and will do so again in Jordan this year. It has given substantial assistance—I do not have the figures with me and it does not necessarily publish all the figures—to setting up humanitarian camps, including in Jordan. We encourage it, as we do all other countries, to increase such work.

Sergei Magnitsky Case: Visa Restrictions

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Once again, Google manages to set in stone important words that lead inexorably to a wealth of evidence linking individuals to the unlawful killing of that lawyer.

I was saying that Mr Magnitsky’s trial is truly out of the theatre of the absurd. In fact, it is redolent of the ninth century, when a posthumous trial of a pope was held by his successor—Pope Formosus was already dead when he was tried for his crimes. We have moved on 1,100 years, but Russia seems to be going backwards.

Outside Russia the situation has also moved on. In December last year President Obama signed into law the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which removes United States travel and banking privileges from those identified as involved in the persecution and eventual death of Mr Magnitsky. It also penalises those involved in the fraud uncovered and other human rights abuses. I was pleased to learn that only last Friday the United States Treasury publicly listed the first 18 Russian Government officials to be banned from the United States under that law.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. Does he agree that although our relations with Russia are complex and delicate, we should never shy away from condemning human rights abuses and removing privileges from those associated with them?

[Mr Buckland]

I entirely agree. That sums up the thrust of the approach that I believe we should be taking in this case.

The European Parliament passed another resolution on the Magnitsky case in October last year, recommending that sanctions be enacted on the Russian officials concerned following the lack of progress in Russia and what we now know to be the effective closure of their investigation. In this House, the Foreign Affairs Committee has issued recommendations asking for the list of banned human rights violators to be made public, with specific reference to the Magnitsky case.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We have never sought to shift away from a friendly and constructive relationship with Argentina, whether political or commercial. It is Argentina, under its current leadership, that has chosen to walk away from the prospect of a fruitful relationship with the United Kingdom. We will be only too willing to have the sort of warm relationship with Argentina which ought to exist, but in order to seek that we are not prepared to sacrifice or to put at risk the self-determination of the people of the Falklands.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

What discussions have the Government had, specifically on the referendum, with Argentina’s neighbouring countries, many of which are becoming increasingly embarrassed by President Kirchner’s actions?

[Mr Lidington]

We are in frequent contact, at both official and ministerial level, with other countries in the region. Although most countries of south America support the Argentine claim to sovereignty, they also make it clear that they do not want to be participants in any trade boycott or effort to bully the people of the Falkland Islands.

Somalia

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). I want to praise her for raising the issue of female genital mutilation, and not just in today’s debate. I am sure that all Members are aware of her considerable work on the issue, which is incredibly important and a credit to her.

The first principle of a stable state is the rule of law. Our most famous expression of that is arguably found in Magna Carta, which states:

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful Judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Without that foundation, there can be no sustainability and no democracy.

Somalia has spent two decades in the grip of a lawless malaise as its people have been borne on the violent ebbs and flows of competing warlords, yet there is a break in the cloud. The Foreign Secretary spoke of the window of opportunity which currently exists in the country, and that opportunity must be taken. Mogadishu has recently been forsaken by al-Shabaab; the strengthened African Union and transitional federal Government forces have been acting to force out the remaining guerrilla operatives, and are even poised to tackle al-Shabaab in its crucial port stronghold of Kismayo, from which it runs the kidnap, drugs and piracy operations which are its lifeblood and which sustain it in control of swathes of central Somalia.

While those struggles for control rage, the Somali people suffer unbearable degradations. Lamentations at the decline of law and the collapse of civil structures and infrastructure are easily forgotten when supplanted by a daily struggle for simple survival. The bald statistics of the famine suffered in that part of the world have already been spoken about, and I shall not repeat them.

It is clear, then, that the prevailing conditions in Somalia are not conducive to the establishment of a viable nation state. However, the challenge to the forthcoming London conference is at least to show that there is a pathway to a stable Somalia, secure in the rule of law and representative of its people, who are reconciled to the systems of regional and federal government that are put in place. An end to famine, the rule of law and democracy are the ultimate objectives. The prerequisite for the achievement of those objectives is security, and in that respect Britain is again in the lead.

The Royal Navy leads the joint European Union enterprise Operation Atalanta, is in overall control of NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield, and supports the separate US-led Combined Maritime Forces. Away from the “pointy end” of the Royal Navy is Maritime Trade Operations, a capacity-building organisation that trains merchant seamen. The Royal Navy has been at the forefront of the development of counter-piracy operations, including most recently increasing the speed of access to plans of merchant ships that have fallen foul of pirates. It has also played a great role in advising companies on how to keep their crews safe. It was as part of the NATO operation that the Royal Navy, operating from Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort Victoria, captured 13 Somali pirates last month.

It is, of course, all to the good that apprehended pirates are no longer at large. However, in the absence of a legal structure making it possible to prosecute them in Somalia, neighbouring countries have had to take on those cases, with the Royal Navy tasked with providing much of the damning evidence.

My hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) have already spoken about the difficulties the Royal Marines face with rules of engagement and the requirement to have a legal officer on board. This is not just some bureaucratic problem; it is leading to people being hurt and killed. When the Royal Marines or the Royal Navy come across a pirate vessel or an act of piracy, there is a time delay affecting their ability to act, which means that hostages are often taken out on deck and tortured. As a result, it is often not possible to undertake an assault.

I have often rehearsed in this Chamber the point that the work of the naval service—the Royal Navy and Royal Marines—is not well understood by parliamentarians. At last year’s Trafalgar event, one of our colleagues approached a member of the Royal Marines and asked him why he was there, as he was not aware that the Army had a role in Trafalgar. I am happy to say that he walked away from that exchange with no limbs broken. We expect the Navy to be there when the Falklands must be defended or Libyan tyrants contained, almost as though Her Majesty’s ships are moored in Portsmouth—or indeed Plymouth—waiting for the call. The fact is that the Navy is constantly working, constantly advancing and protecting British interests. Day and night—while we go about our daily business and while we sleep—the men and women of the Senior Service are at work, keeping the fuel flowing and the shelves stocked, tightening the grip on terrorist activities and undertaking counter-piracy operations to help keep trade routes open.

If the Navy is to fulfil these tasks it must be properly resourced, so I rejoiced when I heard the Prime Minister speak enthusiastically of the Royal Navy yesterday. The new Type 26 frigates—the global combat ships—will be a vital tool in the protection of British interests around the world. The 13 that will enter service will be the workhorses of the fleet and will complement the six Type 45 destroyers currently doing such a good job in demonstrating Britain’s instinct for resolute defence. The qualities of the Type 26 will be directly applicable to the Somalia operations. It is ideal for service in the Indian ocean to tackle piracy and illegal trade, keeping our trade routes open, cutting off the supplies of terrorists, and protecting British citizens home and abroad.

The Royal Navy’s contribution to Somalia is considerable, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport: the Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel involved in those operations really do qualify for a medal. They are often in harm’s way.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and is rightly praising the role of the Royal Navy. Does she agree that former members of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines play an important role in private sector companies in protecting shipping? Many of the companies are members of the Security Association for the Maritime Industry, which plays a really important role—perhaps the greatest role—in world shipping.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. The former head of the Royal Marines said on this subject that it is a big ocean and we will have to work much more with private companies and navies in order to protect those trade routes. It is positive that many of the people working in the private sector know how the Royal Navy and Royal Marines work.

The Foreign Secretary has articulated Britain’s will to bring Somalia within the comity of nations, and in so doing we will not only be doing the people of Somalia a service but advancing our own interests. It is to the Prime Minister’s and the Foreign Secretary’s credit that the forthcoming conference will be held in London, at which we hope some light can be shone on the shadowy path leading to the clear objectives of stability, rule of law and democracy. I hope that the participants in the conference, and the British contingent especially, will bear it in mind that these ends cannot simply be willed; they must be brought about by the investment of time, resources and effort. The Royal Navy is ready to supply all three, and I trust that its critical role will provide yet further evidence of the need for a strong, well-resourced, and large Royal Navy.

Falkland Islands

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman]

I have great respect for President Obama, and he is truly a groundbreaking politician and a leader of men; he is taking things forward tremendously in America. On this particular issue, however, I do not respect his decision, and am most concerned that it appears to have been made without full assessment of the UN rules on self-determination.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Britain asserted her sovereignty over the Falklands in the 1830s, about 50 years after she had been forced out of her sovereign territory in certain parts of north America. Despite the US stance on the Falklands, one very much doubts whether the US Government regard their administration of the east coast of America as simply de facto.

[Guy Opperman]

One could ask whether the Americans will return Hawaii or other places such as Diego Garcia to the original occupants. Ongoing, I do not believe that President Obama’s holiday home will stop being part of America.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. I pay tribute to all our servicemen and women who are serving overseas, protecting our interests and striving to preserve other people’s freedoms. Most importantly, I pay tribute to the thousands of troops, led by the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, who are working on the Islands at this time. I know that many hon. Members here today represent constituencies with regiments that served or are still serving in the Falkland Islands.

[Penny Mordaunt]

People in Portsmouth whom I represent would want no hesitation in marking the 30th anniversary of the British victory in the Falklands war, and the posting of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge to the Falkland Islands should not be underplayed. He will be there to do a job, but his destiny as a future king and the man to whom the Islanders will one day owe their allegiance, should not go unacknowledged in Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee year.

[Guy Opperman]

Argentina has described the royal visit as an inflammatory act, which is ridiculous. The gentleman involved, who happens to be the future king, is going as a search and rescue pilot. Were he to save the life of some hapless Argentine sailor, I hope that Argentina would be equally as grateful as, I am sure, the individual saved by the presence of the Duke would be. I support the fact that the Duke of Cambridge has been asked to go and that he intends to do just that.

I pay tribute to Able Seaman Derek Armstrong from my constituency who was a pupil at Prudhoe community high school. At 9 o’clock this morning I met with students from that school who are visiting the House of Commons today—all hon. Members know of schools that visit the House in order to understand its history. On 22 May 1982, Derek Armstrong was 22 years old and serving on HMS Ardent. He was sadly killed in the attack that sunk that ship, and Prudhoe community high school now presents a Derek Armstrong memorial award each year to the best sportsperson at that school. It was amazing to see the students this morning as that living history, and the relevance of the Falklands war to individuals and to their school, was explained to them.

When the Duke of Cambridge goes to the Falkland Islands later this year, I regret that he will find an island that is under a degree of trade blockade. The Argentine President has upped that blockade by taking the slightly unbelievable step of blocking ships that are flying the Falkland Islands flag from their ports, and she has persuaded other members of the south American trading bloc, which includes Brazil and Uruguay, to do the same. A ship is not allowed access if it shows the so-called “defaced” Falkland Islands red ensign. Provided it removes its flag, however, and denies its true origins, it is given access. Such denying of a recognised international ship that is carrying a recognised international flag runs contrary to international law and is, I suggest, a protectionist and retrograde step. There is no justification for such petty actions that are done only to intimidate a small civilian population and, with respect, such things are beneath the Argentine people. Let us be blunt: such actions merely harden the resolve of this House, strengthen that of the Islanders, and do nothing to endear the Argentines to the Islanders. It is hardly about hearts and minds.

Are we in 2012 really going down a route that sees civilised countries make ever increasing efforts to block free trade? This is about protectionism. Will the Minister update the House on the efforts made by our diplomats to end the trade blockade? I accept that the Foreign Office has done—and continues to do—a great deal to support the Falkland Islands over the past few years, but I hope that it will do yet more to increase support, both financially and in terms of manpower, in the Foreign Office itself and on the Falkland Islands.

I will attempt to address the principle of self-determination, which is set out in article 1.2 of the charter of the United Nations, and article 1 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. The Argentines continue to say that we should negotiate on sovereignty, but about what?

Let us analyse the claims. In 1965, UN resolution 2065 noted

“the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands.”

It invited the Governments involved

“to proceed without delay with the negotiations...with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands.”

UN resolution 2065 must therefore be read in line with UN resolution 1514, which states:

“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

It adds—and this is key—that all peoples have

“the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

The argument that anything other than self-determination is supported by the UN agreements is completely wrong. Self-determination is enshrined within the resolutions and supports our case.

UN resolution 1514 continues:

“All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected…Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

I could continue with an analysis of the various UN conventions and protocols, but under any interpretation, the argument supports the right to self-determination for the Falkland Islanders.

Thirty years after the Falklands war, we should be celebrating the culture of those special islands and investing in them in a variety of ways. We should also be promoting the fantastic tourism opportunities they could provide. The Mercosur countries of the south American bloc are our friends, just as we would like Argentina to be. We wish President Fernandez a full recovery from her operation. I am an MP from the north-east and my local football team, Newcastle United, is led by one Argentine and includes another, and those players are revered by thousands of people who support that team. In no way is Argentina our enemy; we wish to be trading partners and friends, and to take the relationship forward. This world has so much strife, but I say to the Argentines: let us work together for prosperity, not fall apart as fools.

The Argentine Government must understand that the future of the islanders does not lie with Argentina.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

In my first year in this place I have often boasted of Portsmouth’s assets: its superb natural harbour, which will soon host our magnificent aircraft carriers; its heritage; its high-tech industries; its entrepreneurial and hard-working people; and its remarkable natural history—after all, a third of the world’s migrating Brent geese cannot all be wrong.

Given those advantages, one wonders why we have not made more progress in regenerating parts of the city. In fact, there have been serious obstacles to growth in Portsmouth, but happily they are not insurmountable. However, we might need the Treasury to give us a leg up. We have suffered from the lack of a clear and articulated vision, which is unforgivable when one considers the heritage on which we can build a strong narrative for future development.

Portsmouth is the maritime heart of this country. We have the wonderful historic dockyard and the recent developments at Gunwharf and the Spinnaker Tower, but that cannot be the limit of our aspirations. We must think about the whole area; not only Portsmouth, but Fareham and Gosport. What do we want the harbour to become? We should aim high, because with the list of assets I have mentioned we could be one of the world’s premier destinations for historical tourism and maritime pursuits. I believe that the key to unlocking the potential of the harbour and to achieving a step change in regeneration for our city lies in the various surplus defence estates in Portsmouth and the surrounding areas.

One of the challenges we face is the cost of maintaining the number of historic and often listed buildings in the dockyard. That is necessary but expensive work. Pleasingly, the Government have reiterated their commitment to all three naval bases, which strategically is the right thing to do, but it is vital that those defence assets have the financial wherewithal to “wash their faces”, as the burden of heritage maintenance is an unwelcome expense when the Royal Navy has so many other commitments. Those wonderful buildings should be preserved, used and enjoyed, and there is the commercial interest and the willingness of the Ministry of Defence to make that happen locally. Alas, rules designed to ensure fair competition demand such a huge investment from would-be developers, without any guarantee of success, that Portsmouth’s historical dockyard continues to stand empty. Local residents and tourists lose out, as they cannot enjoy beautifully restored historic buildings, facilities—homes, hotels, shops and museums—or the jobs that would be created; the city loses out, as it is denied the economic growth and investment that would obviously result; the MOD and the Royal Navy lose out, as millions that might have been spent on the naval dockyard are being spent on the historic estate; and English Heritage loses out as precious listed buildings drift into decay.

I am sure that Portsmouth will not be an isolated case, and the Treasury needs to realise that investors will not hold their millions in reserve, waiting for the day when common sense prevails. They will take their money elsewhere, and not necessarily in Britain. We must make investment easier, and that will require a strategic alliance of industry, civic authorities, the Royal Navy, the MOD, the heritage sites and other organisations. On the current rules of engagement, however, such a vision and alliance is not possible.

A full competitive tendering process for such developments is not practical: the costs would be prohibitive, because it is so complex, and it would require the co-ordination of many stakeholders. It is not realistic for such a chain of contributors to commit themselves without any assurance of success, and the project stands a much better chance of being delivered successfully if, from the start, a close relationship can be established between the stakeholders and such a strategic alliance.

To insist on the full competitive tendering process would inevitably mean the project being broken down into smaller schemes, and that would be the death knell for integrated regeneration in the north and south of the city and through to Gosport. It would certainly remove any hope of coherent integration between military and civil needs. That is an important part of the regeneration programmes for cities and towns where the Royal Navy is the central employer, estate owner and provider of further employment and opportunity. Development needs to be undertaken on such a scale to achieve the necessary regeneration that will drive changes in residential and visitor perceptions.

Today, I ask the Treasury to consider increasing the geographical scope of the national insurance contribution holiday to some areas of the south-east, where extra help is needed and the potential for growth is considerable. In my view, Portsmouth is top of the list. I ask the Treasury also to recognise the damage that out-of-control business rates are doing in Portsmouth and elsewhere, and to work to provide incentives for local authorities to address the problem; to work with the MOD to ensure that bureaucracy and costs are reduced for potential development of surplus MOD estates; to examine how it can support the emergence of strategic alliances throughout all sectors in order to make such regeneration affordable and achievable; and finally to meet me and potential partners in such an alliance in Portsmouth to discuss those issues in more detail. I hope that that meeting can take place in Portsmouth, so that the Treasury can see the energy, drive, vision and potential of our city.

Hindi Radio Service (BBC)

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

That is precisely the point. The false argument that the BBC makes is that there is a revolution in India and elsewhere—as indeed there is—and that more and more people have television, but the poorest of the poor in those states depend on shortwave radio. We provide a relatively cheap and effective service, and we should maintain it.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

As a former director of Diabetes UK who was involved in setting up health care programmes in India, I would echo that point. Quite often the service is the only way that messages about health care or things that are happening in a particular province can reach people.

[Mr Leigh]

That is absolutely right.

Let me read out a couple of quotations by ordinary people from an article in The Times:

“Vijay Kumar Pandey…every day at 6 am, takes his battered transistor radio and places it on a small table outside his house. Through the shortwave crackle a burst of familiar Indian classical music announces the beginning of a half-hour news bulletin.

Other villagers arrive to listen to the world’s most important events. They have been doing this since 1940, gathering at dawn and dusk to hear BBC Hindi’s twice-daily news programmes.

‘I am in shock,’ said Mr Pandey, a farmer in…Uttar Pradesh. ‘It’s like a family member departing from me.’”

The article continued:

“My life would lose its meaning if BBC Hindi stops its service,”

said Tarachand Khatri from Rajasthan.

“Can you imagine living with somebody throughout your life and, suddenly, that person is gone? BBC Hindi was a person; we used to interact with it through its programmes; we used to share our happiness, feelings, thoughts and concerns.”

The respected Indian news weekly Outlook reports that some villagers have threatened to burn David Cameron in effigy—something that we would all deprecate. Mohammed Hasnain Khan, a schoolteacher from Ghazipur, has threatened to immolate himself if BBC Hindi is shut. Ravindra Chauhan of Assam says that hearing that BBC Hindi will close was as if

“someone tells you that your parents will die in March.”

And so the arguments go on. This decision is an attack on people who have no way of hitting back, and I think that we should protect them, especially as the Department for International Development is set to continue funding the poorest states in India to the tune of £250 million.

Oral Answers to Questions

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, we said at Lisbon that NATO would remain a nuclear alliance to meet current and future threats, which does not directly address his point. The statement at Lisbon recognised the role that the alliance can play in supporting wider disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. We agreed at the summit to reviewing how NATO implements those principles. It will discuss all the strategic threats facing the alliance, and the capabilities that we need to meet them, including nuclear deterrence and missile defence. The argument that my right hon. and learned Friend presents will be part of that review.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has with his US counterpart on co-operation under the north Atlantic treaty; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Secretary Clinton and I worked together closely prior to and during the NATO summit in Lisbon in November. During the summit, we worked together to agree with other allies the new strategic concept as well as the way forward on Afghanistan. The United States remains a firm ally of the United Kingdom and we will continue to work closely with it in NATO.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Could the Secretary of State elaborate on what discussions he has had with the US on the gap in our defence capability, and the implications of that for international relations? I am thinking in particular of the gap in our carrier strike force.

[Mr Hague]

The United States has been very supportive of the conclusions of our strategic defence and security review—[Hon. Members: “What?”] It has been extremely supportive, and Secretary Clinton reflected that in her remarks. The US is pleased that we will continue to spend more than 2% of our national income on defence, and that we will continue to have the fourth largest military budget in the world. The fact that we are such a strong member of NATO, and that we have the strong alliance of which I have been speaking and work so closely with the United States and France, will help us to work through some of the difficulties in the coming years while we get to an orderly state in our defences, which we certainly did not inherit and we have now to bring about.