UK’s Relationship with the EU

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Ten weeks before the date of the referendum, the Government will be required to publish information including their opinion on the outcome of the negotiations. If they go for 23 June, that information will hit the doorsteps three weeks before elections that are vital to almost 20 million people on these islands and will quite possibly arrive at the same time as people’s postal ballot papers. Will the Minister give an absolute undertaking that that would be unacceptable and that it will not happen?

[Mr Lidington]

We are certainly aware of our statutory obligations. As I have said, no decision has been taken by the Government about the date of the referendum and no decision can be brought to Parliament for approval until a deal has been secured.

UK and Kazakhstan

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Davies. Bliadhna Mhath Ùr dhuibh uile an seo. Happy new year to all those present. I commend the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for securing the debate, and I apologise for the slight confusion about the speaking order. I do not think that either my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) or I have got over the shock of discovering at 8 o’clock last night that we would be on now, rather than at half-past 4, but we got here on time.

It is interesting that most of the speakers agree on what we are looking for. Kazakhstan is clearly a country of enormous strategic importance, but it is not our country; it is theirs, and we have to be careful about interfering too far in someone else’s country. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, it is a country that has not yet managed to shake off the chains of the dictatorship its people lived under in Soviet times. It is a country with massive mineral wealth, and that inevitably means that everyone wants to be its friend. The judgment call that the UK Government and other Governments have to make must be this: where do we balance out the desire to ensure development in a way that matches our interests with not ignoring the serious human rights issues that continue to emerge?

Other speakers have commented on some of the more serious cases, so I will not repeat the details, but it often seems that if a country’s press is not genuinely free, its human rights record will never be all that good. If no one is allowed to criticise, even if the criticism turns out to be unjustified, human rights abuses, corruption and the abuse of power will carry on, and even those who feel they should draw attention to and expose such criminal acts are scared to because they are worried about what the consequences might be for them.

It is noticeable that Kazakhstan as a whole is already starting to reap the economic benefits of the massive natural resources at its disposal. Economic growth is significantly higher than in many other countries. Its GDP per capita places it well above average and pushes it just about into the top quartile of the world’s countries—according to my good friends at the CIA, who I find are good sources of information on any country I want to check up on. By comparison, however, the lot of the typical Kazakhstan citizen is not all that great. It is 152nd in the world for life expectancy—almost into the third quartile—and 157th and 138th for health and education expenditure respectively. Those are figures we would expect to see from a country that did not have the resources to invest in its people. Compared with many parts of the UK, Kazakhstan has a relatively young population, with the majority of its citizens of working age—between 25 and 55—and a significant number of young people as well, so by investing in education and health it can start to improve life expectancy.

It may be that life expectancy has been reduced by the appalling environmental legacy of the former Soviet masters. There is no doubt that taking advantage of the oil and mineral wealth has left behind pollution on a catastrophic scale. Kazakhstan borders the Aral sea, which has been described by some as the world’s worst ever man-made environmental disaster. Because of a number of misguided policies of previous Soviet Governments, the sea is down to a fraction of its previous volume, which means that the pollution that flowed into it has now been left to blow around, affecting the health and lives of both the people and the livestock on which the agricultural economy of parts of the country greatly relies.

Some 59,000 children under the age of 14 are in employment in Kazakhstan. Why is that happening in what is a wealthy country?

Hon. Members have commented on the fact that there is, at first glance, a democratic society in Kazakhstan. People are allowed to vote in elections, but I do not think one needs to be too cynical to wonder whether elections are genuinely free and fair if between 95% and 97% of people vote for the same party. It is possible to get 95% of elected politicians from the same party without that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire and I can testify—but that is because of a flaw in an electoral system that is far from perfect. However, any election in which such a high proportion of the electorate is said to have voted in the same way makes one wonder whether they had a proper choice. The result is possibly partly explained by the enormous personal popularity of the President. If he is seen by his people as someone who has done a lot to manage the transition from what was effectively a colony of Russia to an independent nation and they are enormously grateful to him for that, we must respect that and their decision to vote for him.

Just a few weeks ago, Kazakhstan became the first and so far only country in central Asia to sign an enhanced partnership and co-operation agreement with the European Union. Interestingly, in the early stages of negotiation, the EU made it clear that progress towards such an agreement would depend on progress in Kazakhstan’s human rights record. If anything, that record has deteriorated over the time of the negotiations. The European Scrutiny Committee, on which you and I serve, Mr Davies, might want to return to that when the agreements on closer co-operation between the EU and Kazakhstan start coming through for UK Government Ministers to ratify or not—that is, if the EU is still relevant to the UK Government in a few years’ time. Will the Minister indicate what view the Government take on the agreement? Do they feel that Kazakhstan has made sufficient progress on human rights for us to sign up to that agreement, or should we be looking for more?

We have to recognise that progress has been made, but we also have to recognise that that progress has been far too slow. If anything, we have been regressing rather than progressing. I hope that we will get an assurance that, as well as looking for trade deals that would benefit our economy and provide export opportunities for the United Kingdom, we will set an example of what used to be termed an ethical foreign policy. I hope the Minister will assure us that we will not allow UK investment power or the desire for economic growth in the United Kingdom to come at the cost of the abuse of human rights and the exploitation of child workers in some major industries in Kazakhstan, or at the cost of our turning a blind ear or a deaf ear to the cries of religious minorities who are not allowed to practise their faith in peace, or of journalists and other media workers who are not allowed to express fair criticism and are effectively not allowed to disagree publicly with the party line. I am interested to hear what he has to say about that. I am also very interested to see what comes before the European Scrutiny Committee in the presumably not too distant future. It would be good to look into the area in more detail.

I understand the strategic concerns of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about Russia and China wooing Kazakhstan hard. If we have a country that would not match our definition of a full democracy, but which has a substantial Muslim population and a leader who is absolutely determined not to allow his country to become a breeding ground for Daesh and its preaching of hatred and death, there are clear reasons why we should want to speak to that country and be friends with it. We may at times have to be critical friends, and sometimes that criticism may need to be severe indeed.

Saudi Arabia

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

First, I acknowledge the work of the all-party group, which I would be delighted to meet if that would be of help in looking into these matters in more detail. This prompts the question of how we best exert influence. Do we shout from afar; do we back away from any relationship that we have, right across the piece, and expect change to happen in that way; or do we follow our current strategy, which was articulated and shared by the Liberal Democrats when they were in government as well, of being able to work behind the scenes to get elections so that women are now elected, and NGOs and charities are now represented, to allow this very young nation state to take the necessary steps towards the place where we want it to be?

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

This very young nation state is about the same age as the nation state of the Republic of Ireland. I do not think we would excuse murder by the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on the basis that it was a young country, nor indeed in the nine member states of the European Union that did not exist in the early parts of the 20th century.

We are discussing a brutal and violent outrage perpetrated by an unelected dictatorship against its own citizens, and the public record will show that the Minister chose to say that he was very concerned about the reaction to that outrage before he even mentioned the outrage itself. Given that we are dealing with a regime that has made it perfectly clear that it is more than willing to murder its own citizens, not, in a phrase that will be familiar to the Minister, because of anything they did but because of who they were, does he accept that if the rules on arms sales allow such a brutal regime to receive arms from the United Kingdom, then those rules have to be changed with immediate effect?

[Mr Ellwood]

Again, this goes to the strategy of how we can best influence what is going on. We condemn state murder wherever it takes place, whether in Saudi Arabia or any other countries across the world. I have made that absolutely clear. We stand firm in wanting to advance the global abolition of the death penalty, and that will not change.

Daesh: Syria/Iraq

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I regularly talk to my Turkish colleagues, in particular. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Turks have long promoted the idea of creating safe havens in the north along the border with Turkey. However, all such previous proposals have foundered on the question of who will provide the defensive air cover, given the presence of a very sophisticated Syrian air defence system, and now the presence of Russian air-to-air offensive capability in the area.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The MOD has confirmed that the RAF Typhoons operating in Syria have, on occasion, not only carried air-to-surface missiles for attacking targets on the ground but have been armed with air-to-air missiles designed to shoot down enemy aircraft. The Government have said that the only enemy we have in Syria is Daesh. There is no indication whatsoever that Daesh has any aircraft. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us which specific countries’ aircraft the RAF thinks it might have to shoot down in the skies over Syria?

[Mr Hammond]

The posture that we adopt to protect our aircraft is a matter of operational security and I cannot comment on it in the House.

Middle East

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Latha naomh Anndra sona dhuibh—I wish everyone a happy St Andrew’s day. That includes the 90% who claim direct Scottish descent and the 10% who actually have it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) for coming to the Chamber just in time to give me the correct translation.

For a number of people, tomorrow marks the first day of Advent, which is seen as a time to guzzle chocolates out of an Advent calendar. For a billion or more people around the globe, however, Advent started yesterday. It is a time of reflection and preparation, to celebrate the birth of a convicted and executed criminal, a Palestinian Jewish refugee whose message of peace and good will to all is as desperately needed today as it ever has been at any time in the 2,000 years since he walked the very lands we are speaking about this evening.

I do not pretend to be an expert in any, or indeed all, of the complexities of the middle east, and perhaps it would be better if none of us did, because I suspect that many of the problems in that troubled region have their root cause in the fact that so many experts from other countries thought that they knew what was best for someone else’s country. I approach this with the simple belief that there is right and wrong, morally defensible and morally indefensible, in foreign policy just as there is in everything else. I want to see the United Kingdom adopt a foreign policy that is morally right, rather than simply what is right in terms of political, economic or diplomatic expediency.

Against those measures, it has to be said that the United Kingdom’s record has not been particularly impressive. We have heard talk about our ally Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a ruthless and merciless abuser of the death penalty. We supply that country with weapons and then pretend not to know that those same weapons are being used to kill innocent civilians in Yemen. We honour the Israeli Prime Minister with a full state visit despite the fact that the UK Government’s position is that the Israeli Government are acting against international law by occupying Palestinian territories. We allow weapons and military hardware to be sent to Israel and then pretend not to know that they could be contributing to the deaths of hundreds of innocent women and children in Palestine. We set a cap on the number of desperate refugees we are willing to accept from Syria, but we will set no cap whatsoever on the number of missiles and bombs we are prepared to send there, and we will set no cap on how long that military bombardment will last.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Saudi Arabia. As I am sure he is aware, his hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee, was with us in Saudi Arabia last week and heard extensive briefings on the campaign in Yemen. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) will spend time with his hon. Friend to find out about the Saudi perspective on this.

[Peter Grant]

I have no doubt that there is a Saudi story, but that story is not the only one that deserves to be told.

My point is that if we continue to operate a policy in the middle east that is based on the interests of UK citizens, businesses and investors, to the exclusion of all else, we will continue to get it wrong.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

Today is St Andrew’s day, and I note that he was another welcome middle eastern immigrant to Scotland. On the point made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), I think that there are two sides to any story. Of course, if there have been any proven breaches of international humanitarian law, I am sure that all of us in this House would welcome an investigation. I think that would be best for everybody so that we have clarity.

[Peter Grant]

I would certainly welcome such an investigation, although perhaps it should have taken place before we started to supply the weapons in the first place. It is a bit late to discover afterwards that they have been used for the wrong purpose.

I fear that the international arms trade may have become so entrenched as part of the UK economy that an awful lot of people in the UK, whether they know it or not, or like it or not, have, in effect, a vested financial interest in not finding peaceful resolutions to conflicts the world over. That is not a good position to be in. I accept that we have to be prepared to defend ourselves. I have a problem not with the fact that a business in my constituency is involved in the military industry, but with what that technology is being used for. The willingness sometimes to provide technology without asking too many questions and without getting assurances about what it will and will not be used for has certainly not helped to bring peace to the middle east or to a number of other troubled spots around the world. This debate is clearly primarily about Syria, although it is badged as being about the whole of the middle east.

It is quite likely that within the next few days this Parliament will be asked to take the gravest and most serious decision that any body of people can be asked to take. I am greatly troubled by the idea that a key consideration for some Members might be the impact that that may or may not have on maintaining or undermining individual politicians in this Chamber. The very fact that the media believe that it will be a factor should give us all cause to stop and think. If we genuinely believe that this Parliament is seen as a beacon of integrity and democracy around the world, what kind of message does it send out if we allow for even the possibility that a decision to go to war could be influenced by domestic political considerations back home? I desperately hope that that will not be a consideration for any one of the 650 people who will be charged with making this decision, but I have a horrible feeling that my hopes may not entirely be realised.

[Mr James Gray]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I will give way once more.

[Mr Gray]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about whether the twists and turns of political fortune in this Chamber should affect what we decide to do about going to war. Does he agree that with the sole exception of the occasion in 2003 when Mr Blair took us illegally to war in Iraq, there has never before been a vote on the matter in the Chamber, and that he is describing a very good reason for returning to the old system, which worked extremely well with regard to Libya, for example, whereby there was no vote at all until after the action had taken place?

[Peter Grant]

My comments are not about whether individual groups of MPs apply a whip or respect a whip that may be applied to them. It is up to the conscience of each and every one of us whether we follow a party whip. I take the view, although it has never been tested in 25 years in party politics, that if the whip contravened a direct instruction of my conscience I would follow my conscience. That is a decision for every Member to take. My concern is that there is a feeling throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere that for some people—and the vote could be close enough that they are a decisive element—considerations about the impact on positions taken in this Chamber will be a factor. A decision to go to war should never, ever be affected by such factors.

In looking at the justification that has been given so far for involvement in an aerial bombardment in Syria, I continue to have very serious concerns. In order for a war to be just, for those who believe that there is such a thing as a just war, one of the absolute requirements is that it must have a reasonable prospect of success. Aerial bombardment cannot achieve its aims without troops on the ground. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) suggested that those troops will eventually have to come from the United Kingdom, despite the fact that the UK Government have said, “Not under any circumstances.” Yet if they do not come from the UK, they have no idea of where they are going to come from. This will not work without a complete ceasefire between all the different warring factions in and around Syria, and there is no indication whatsoever of any ceasefire between any combination of those factions just now.

My fundamental concern about the idea of airborne military action in Syria is simply that it will not achieve its stated objective. To me, military action that has little chance of achieving its stated objective cannot be justified.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I said that I would give way only once more, but since it is the hon. Gentleman, I will.

[Rehman Chishti]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Military action can degrade, control and contain Daesh, but it cannot defeat the evil ideology that this evil organisation pushes and panders to at every level, so our strategy has to look at dealing with that ideology as well as at taking military action.

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. The question I asked of the Prime Minister last week was based on that very point. It is one thing to remove Daesh—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I was going to let the hon. Gentleman finish his sentence, since it is St Andrew’s day.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I finished at that point as I was expecting to be told that my time was up, but that did not seem to materialise.

It is one thing to remove Daesh; it is quite another to remove the circumstances where organisations such as Daesh, the Taliban and al-Qaeda can continue to flourish.

Iran: Nuclear Issues

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I do not intend to go into the complexities of the foreign policy implications, because that would warrant a much longer debate and involve not only the Minister for Europe but the Foreign Secretary —with respect to this Minister’s pay grade. This is vital to our security. One needed only to witness the discussions as they unfolded in Switzerland, at which the Foreign Secretary was present, the to-ing and fro-ing and the analysis that was brought to bear to realise the importance of this issue. That was the point I wanted to make about the timing. It is important, when we say a European document is of legal or political importance, that the matter is debated on the Floor of the House in the appropriate manner and at the right time. The UN Security Council voted to adopt resolution 2231 on 20 July, and these documents have been pouring out ever since. There is a more recent document, dated 18 October, which is getting nearer to now, but we are at the end of November. But I have made my point clearly enough.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I know that the hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, agrees that all major European matters, even those which we might eventually agree or give a cautious welcome to, deserve the full scrutiny of the House. As he points out, these documents were considered on 9 September, and the Committee recommended that they be brought to the Floor of the House as soon as possible after the October recess. It is seven weeks later. Has he had an explanation from the Government about why it took so long, and has he been given cause to believe that the remaining 21 scrutiny documents will be brought forward for debate, either here or in Committee, within a reasonable timeframe?

[Sir William Cash]

This is the first opportunity we have had to put the point about the timing to the Minister. It is because we recommended it for debate that we can raise the question in this context. On the logjam of documents, to which the hon. Gentleman, who sits on my Committee, rightly refers, it is the constant and persistent determination of the Committee to get issues debated as early as possible, as he knows. I will not go down that route now—it is for another occasion—but I take very seriously what he says.

Because this is such a controversial matter, others have made observations on it, and I would like to quote what Roger Boyes, the diplomatic editor of The Times, said on 15 July. The Minister might think that circumstances have improved since then in terms of bringing Iran and Russia nearer to the negotiations and getting a better result in respect of ISIS/Daesh, but I will quote what he said anyway, because it is of some interest. He says:

“There is nothing game-changing about teaming up with a wobbly Iran. The accord with Tehran can then only be judged narrowly as to whether it is a success as a piece of arms control statecraft—and whether the release of sanctioned funds makes Iran more or less menacing. Consider what would happen without a nuclear deal, President Obama said yesterday: no limits on the nuclear programme, on centrifuges, on the plutonium reactor. But the president has to consider this too: how does one maintain leverage on Iran once the sanctions have been lifted? Denied access to a suspicious nuclear site, inspectors will be able to appeal to a joint commission that includes delegates from Iran, Russia and China. Delays are thus built into the verification system and the idea that sanctions can come crashing quickly down again is over-optimistic. Parts of the deal read like a cheater’s charter; there is too much wriggle room.”

I put that forward not in my own name, but because I think it important for the House to hear the views of an experienced diplomatic editor such as Roger Boyes. He continues:

“What happens in ten to 15 years when the deal has run its course, restraints are lifted and a wealthy Iran which has retained its nuclear expertise, which has grown in zealous confidence, decides to remind a small Gulf state who is boss? The deal is an open invitation to Sunni princelings to invest in their own nuclear deterrent. In the meantime Tehran will have the money to throw into the subversion of its neighbours and expand its arms exporting business.”

On the other hand, to illustrate the controversy and importance of all this, Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Tehran who obviously knows a lot about it, argued that there were good reasons to believe that it will stick, including

“the ‘snap-back’ provisions to restore sanctions in the event of violations”

and the fact that

“Iran will not want to risk a military attack, which would grow more likely if the deal fell through; no viable better agreement available and no international support for more sanctions if the US were seen to have vetoed the deal”.

Then there would be an Iran, he says, that

“is tired of being punished for something that it has not intended to do since the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s ban on nuclear weapons, which dates from 2003, the year Saddam Hussein was toppled.”

He goes on to say that Iran

“has recognised that it cannot develop sustainably as a nation without allaying international concerns.”

It also “values its reputation”, and

“reneging on its commitment not to build nuclear weapons, or withdrawing its agreement to the utmost transparency, either during or after the agreed 15-year limits on its enrichment activities”

would

“demolish that reputation, with no appreciable gain to its security because of the retaliation and regional arms race that would follow.”

That just gives an indication and a flavour of the complexity and controversy that lies behind all this.

Renegotiation of EU Membership (Devolved Administrations)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to sum up for the Scottish National party. I commend my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), for securing the debate and for the eloquent way in which he presented the positive case that the SNP will continue to push for our continued membership of the EU.

The events of yesterday and today make me convinced of one thing and very unconvinced of another. I am convinced that in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, Scotland will still be playing a full part as a member of the EU. I am increasingly convinced that it will not be doing so as a member of the United Kingdom. We may, in fact, see a reverse of the situation described by my hon. Friend. In the not-too-distant future, the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the EU may well have to be done through Scotland because we could be the only part of the current UK that is left in it.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly highlighted the fact that the experts on matters such as fishing and agriculture are very often the people who work in those industries. If we do not listen to them from the very beginning of the process, we will get it wrong. The Prime Minister got it wrong by not even including those important economic drivers anywhere in his list of demands. Possibly, if he had spoken to the devolved Administrations earlier, he would have realised that he had to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) presented the positive case and benefits of EU membership. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) had been listening, he would not have had to hope to goodness that the SNP was in favour of EU membership. Indeed, if he had spoken to the ambassadors of any one of the 21 EU member states who came to a reception in Portcullis House about a week ago, he would have heard that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife explained as clearly as possible that the SNP wants to remain in the EU because that is where Scotland’s future lies. The hon. Member for Caerphilly did his country one service because, having listened to him, I am convinced that he has significantly shortened the odds on Leanne Wood becoming First Minister of Wales next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) highlighted the fact that there are very distinct views, not only on Europe, but on lots of other matters, across the nations that make up this Parliament and this Union. We only have to look at the fact that the devolved Governments are all held by different parties. No party leads the Government in any two of the four nations. Different parties won the general election in each of the four member states of this Parliament.

The separate identity of Northern Ireland is recognised by the fact that it has its own political parties. It does not operate with the same parties as we do. The parties that won the election in Northern Ireland do not exist to any great extent in other parts of the United Kingdom. Having said that, the parties that won the election in England and Wales are in serious danger of ceasing to exist in Scotland if they continue to present the kind of patronising, disrespectful, contemptuous view of our ancient nation that we have seen far too much of over the past couple of days.

The reason for this debate is that we want the Prime Minister’s negotiations to succeed, not because we like the Prime Minister or because we have ever had any intention of running a coalition with the Tories to persuade any nation how to vote on its own future, but because, if the Prime Minister fails—it looks increasingly likely that he will fail—we will go into a referendum based on a promised reform that has not been delivered. That referendum is likely not only to result in us being dragged out of the EU—[Interruption.]

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Grant, would you wind up your comments so that we can have a meaningful debate with comments from the Opposition and Government Front Benches?

[Peter Grant]

I will, Ms Dorries. My real concern is not only that a failure by the Prime Minister will lead to a vote to take the devolved Administrations out of the EU against our will, but that it might lead to a debate that is not about the benefits of EU membership but about an antipathy to immigration and an antipathy to anyone who was born outside these islands. It may become a referendum on the popularity of the Prime Minister, and that is a referendum that the Prime Minister cannot possibly win.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Would you keep to five minutes please, Mr McFadden?

Europe: Renegotiation

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. For as far ahead as I can see, some EU member states will be part of the single currency and a significant number, not only the United Kingdom, will be outside it. I believe that those in the eurozone will need to integrate their fiscal, economic and, to some extent, political arrangements more closely. The stability of the currency union is in the interests of the United Kingdom, even though we are not going to join it, so getting that relationship right between euro-ins and euro-outs is an important strategic challenge, and it is a central feature of our negotiation for that reason.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Minister’s statement understandably consisted largely of significant chunks quoted from the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk. One section that the Minister did not repeat, though, was the Prime Minister’s closing remarks, in which he said:

“I am ready to campaign with all my heart and soul to keep Britain inside a reformed European Union”.

Why did the Minister not include that? Is it because, instead of campaigning with his heart and soul with his own party leader, he intends to campaign with the leader of UKIP?

[Mr Lidington]

Despite the challenges ahead, I remain confident of a successful outcome to these negotiations and of joining enthusiastically with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in favour of continued British membership of a reformed European Union on the basis that my right hon. Friend set out in his speech this morning.

Human Rights (Egypt)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend articulates the exact question that many Governments have to ask themselves—how best do we influence and exert change in those countries that need encouragement to take steps forward to a more open and democratic space. One way of doing that is by shouting from afar in the hope that we can exact change. The other way to facilitate change is by engaging with those countries, having private conversations with them and providing assistance and expertise. I am afraid that that way is not so open or overt, but it is, I believe, a better way to achieve change than by shouting from afar.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I, too, commend the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. In his comments, he suggested that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may believe that democracy and respect for human rights are less of a priority than financial prosperity and stability. Does the Minister not accept that those priorities are the wrong way round? Any Government who are founded on democracy and respect for human rights will see that stability and prosperity inevitably follow. A Government who are founded on oppression and denial of human rights will never be stable and will never govern a prosperous country. Will the Minister assure the House that the FCO will review its priorities and will, in all cases, put democracy and respect for human rights at the top of its list of priorities?

[Mr Ellwood]

At the beginning of this year, I had the honour of taking 50 companies on a delegation to Cairo, and we visited the new Suez Canal as well. It was during the private meetings there that we were able to raise many of those issues. Companies will not invest in places if they do not feel secure and that there is an advancement in human rights, the rule of law and the judicial process. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I make it very clear that I never shy away from any opportunity in any country to raise concerns on human rights. It will not necessarily make the front pages of the local newspapers or even here, but I can guarantee that these matters are raised by us, by the Department for International Development and, where appropriate, by the Ministry of Defence.

China (Human Rights)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I do not regard as ridiculous more than £30 billion-worth of investment from China into the UK, let alone into our nuclear industry. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that if the previous Government had paid more attention to the gap in our energy provision, we would not find ourselves in the position we are in.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I welcome a lot of the words we have heard from the Minister today—when they are turned into actions we start to get somewhere. As well as making the point that the nations represented here give a good example of the fact that dissent and disagreement from official Government policy does not represent a threat to national security, does he agree that the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights and so any nation that carries out wholesale executions of its population is in breach of fundamental human rights? During this week’s visit, will the Government be specifically encouraging the Chinese Government to take steps towards the complete abolition of the death penalty? When was the last time the Government made similar representations to the Government of the United States of America, which executes more of its citizens than almost any other nation on the planet?

[Mr Swire]

We are getting a little wide of the mark there, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is not in his place but who goes around the world restating British policy against the death penalty. That is our official policy; it is what we use as such at every meeting and we will continue to do so.