European Union Referendum Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend’s sentiments. I hope that he recognises that I have sought to reassure colleagues who have such concerns, and that the Government will continue to seek to reassure colleagues.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I want to ask the Foreign Secretary a particular question about the renegotiation. I think that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the House that the import duties currently imposed on cane sugar coming into Europe are unfair. Will he confirm that that item is on the list for the renegotiation that he has been telling us about?

[Mr Hammond]

I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is robust in his defence of the interests of Tate and Lyle—his constituents—and I will take that representation and put it with the many others from both sides of the House about particular areas that we need to raise in the course of the discussion.

Shaker Aamer

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes the central case that we are discussing.

Let me add a few words to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said at the start of the debate. Shaker Aamer has been detained for 13 years. He has twice been cleared for release: once in 2007 by the former US President, George Bush, and, more recently, in 2009, by President Obama. Our own Prime Minister has made vigorous representations, if one is to believe the press, in respect of Shaker Aamer, and the United States has made it clear that there is no evidence against him, and yet he is still incarcerated in the conditions that were described by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on another point that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made in his speech: that Shaker is not being released because of what he has seen in Guantanamo, and the authorities do not want that to be known more widely? If there is a mystery here about why he is still being detained, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is the answer?

[Mr Mitchell]

That might or might not be so, and it is an important matter, but it is not central to the case I am making, which is this: here is someone whose release has been cleared by two US Presidents, and against whom the US authorities have made it clear there is no evidence, yet he remains incarcerated, after 13 years.

There have been numerous British requests, the most recent of which was made by the Prime Minister during his highly successful visit to America. Jacqui Smith, when Home Secretary, made the request, as did the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), and other Foreign Office Ministers, including my right hon. Friend to my right—geographically, at least—my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who engaged in the case energetically. The failure to make progress fuels the theories referenced in the most recent intervention. Nevertheless, those British requests cannot be treated with apparent arrogance by the American Administration and just cast aside with glib words while that man remains incarcerated with no case against him.

Tamil People in Sri Lanka

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing the debate at what is a really exciting time in Sri Lanka, given Maithripala Sirisena’s stunning victory in Sri Lanka’s recent presidential elections. The welcome demise of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime has removed a serious impediment from the prospect of securing truth, justice and reconciliation on the island.

President Sirisena has a laudable programme for reform, and I hope that, as he has stated is his aim, he is able to lay the foundations of a

“disciplined society rich in cultural and moral values where all could live in harmony irrespective of differences”.

However, Sri Lanka will be truly set on the path to a sustainable and lasting peace only if the new Government take meaningful steps on several key issues: first, they must address the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from the end of the country’s armed conflict; secondly, they must end the culture of impunity that has blighted the country for so long; thirdly, they should negotiate a comprehensive political settlement to the Tamil national question; and, fourthly, they must ensure that the rights and freedoms of all Sri Lanka’s citizens are respected and protected. However, Sirisena has already rejected the mandate of the current UN investigation into war crimes allegations in Sri Lanka and has given no indication that he would be willing to grant greater autonomy to the Tamil and Tamil-speaking Muslim areas of the north and east of the island.

I agree with the assessment of the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice that a democratic mandate for President Sirisena

“cannot be any more a mandate for impunity than was the previous election victory of Rajapaksa. Only if he makes a firm commitment to dealing with war crimes allegations—with the support of the international community—can he hope to secure a just and lasting peace”.

I therefore intend to discuss why the British Government must remain eternally vigilant with regard to the situation in Sri Lanka. International efforts to ensure accountability and reconciliation on the island deserve our full and unwavering support. With the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights close to publishing its comprehensive report on war crimes allegations, the British Government, in concert with other countries and members of the United Nations Human Rights Council, must be prepared to hold the Government of Sri Lanka to account if they reject the report’s findings and fail to co-operate with its recommendations.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. Does she agree that it is hard to understand how Sri Lanka, under its new Government, can be admitted as a full member of the family of nations, and regarded as such around the world, if it does not co-operate with the UN’s work to investigate the war crimes at the end of the civil war?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend.

I make no apologies for expressing my delight at seeing the end of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s brutal decade-long reign. This is a man who presided over the slaughter of 40,000 Tamils at the end of the country’s civil war, whose contempt for human rights and the rule of law further intensified a culture of impunity, and who led an increasingly autocratic, nepotistic and corrupt Government. Right up until the end of the election campaign, violence and threats were being meted out against his political opponents and, since his defeat, serious allegations have emerged regarding both an attempted coup to remain in power and alleged complicity in the death squads of his brother Gotabhaya, the Defence Secretary. Those are yet more issues that require full, credible and independent investigation.

After years of misrule, Sri Lanka was crying out for new leadership. I applaud those who, in the face of much intimidation, voted Rajapaksa out, especially the Tamils and Tamil-speaking Muslims who had been so badly treated by his regime. In fact, the votes from the Tamil and Muslim communities were absolutely pivotal in securing Sirisena’s victory. Although Rajapaksa swept almost all Sinhala-dominated provinces, Sirisena received the support of about 80% of the Tamil vote and gained an even greater number of votes from Muslims.

I believe that the outcome of the presidential election raises two important points. First, it reaffirms the fact that Tamils warmly embrace democracy. The spurious assertions by Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Government of attempts to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Tamil-majority areas were complete nonsense. Tamils want not a return to armed conflict, but the opportunity to live with dignity in a peaceful, democratic society. Secondly, given the support that Sirisena received from Tamils and Muslims, they have every right to expect him to engage with them constructively and to address their long-standing grievances about war crimes, human rights violations, political marginalisation and religious intolerance, among other important issues.

Sri Lanka’s new leader has shown a willingness to reach out to Tamils on several issues. For example, he has removed the military governor of Northern Province, who did so much to undermine the work of the provincial council, and replaced him with a civilian, Mr Palihakkara, even though it must be noted that Mr Palihakkara was a senior Government representative during the conflict and defended them against accusations of war crimes committed against Tamils. Sirisena has also stated an intention to review the seizing of Tamil land by the army and has ordered the release of some Tamil detainees against whom no case has been brought. I hope that means that the likes of Jeyakumari Balendaran, a Tamil mother of one of the disappeared who has been detained without charge for 300 days, will soon have a taste of freedom again.

Sirisena has ambitious and worthwhile plans for government. His proposals for his first 100 days in office include notable pledges to abolish the executive presidency and to restore independence to the judiciary, police and other bodies. However, he will ultimately be judged not by his words, but by his deeds. The key constitutional reforms may prove difficult to enact, given the need for a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the possibility of needing to seek the support of aggrieved Rajapaksa allies. Significantly, although Sirisena may have stated that his Government’s priority will be “ethnic and religious reconciliation”, it is deeply unfortunate that his 100-day plan provides no explicit measures to address the key concerns of minority communities.

It is on that issue that the British Government, through their bilateral relations with Sri Lanka, and as part of multilateral organisations such as the UN, must make their voice heard. We should do all that we can to ensure that President Sirisena’s Administration understand the importance that we attach to Sri Lanka’s addressing the outstanding issues arising from the armed conflict and its aftermath.

A matter of days after Sirisena’s presidential election victory, Pope Francis arrived on the island. Addressing the crowds at Colombo airport, His Holiness said:

“Sri Lanka for many years knew the horrors of civil strife, and is now seeking to consolidate peace and to heal the scars of those years. It is no easy task to overcome the bitter legacy of injustices, hostility and mistrust left by the conflict. It can only be done by overcoming evil with good and by cultivating those virtues which foster reconciliation, solidarity and peace. The process of healing also needs to include the pursuit of truth, not for the sake of opening old wounds, but rather as a necessary means of promoting justice, healing and unity.”

I agree wholeheartedly with His Holiness’s sentiments, and his statement is an implicit endorsement of the UN inquiry.

President Sirisena has spoken of how his Government intend to

“have a foreign policy that will mend our ties with the international community and all international organisations in order that we derive maximum benefit for our people.”

The perfect way for him to show that he is sincere in his intentions is for his Government to accept the mandate of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and co-operate with its war crimes investigation. However, people are right to be sceptical about Sirisena’s sincerity, given that he is not prepared to engage with the work of the OHCHR and has vowed to protect Mahinda Rajapaksa and other senior Government and military figures from possible future war crimes charges.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister is in Sri Lanka at the moment and we hope he will take up the baton laid down by the Pope.

There are no legitimate reasons to delay the pursuit of truth and justice for the victims of the conflict, yet some have already called for President Sirisena to be given more time and space to deal with issues of reconciliation and accountability, given the job that lies before him. His Government have even indicated that they intend to establish yet another domestic investigation into the allegations of war crimes during the final stages of the civil war. Experience tells us where that will lead: nowhere. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission that was set up in 2010 by Mahinda Rajapaksa was “deeply flawed” and failed to

“satisfy key international standards of independence and impartiality”,

according to the UN Secretary-General’s panel of experts on Sri Lanka. Impunity has been the rule in the country for too long and, as the UN high commissioner has said, the consequence has been that national accountability

“mechanisms have consistently failed to establish the truth and achieve justice.”

It is important to remember that Sirisena is not some innocent party to the situation. He was not plucked from the purity of opposition to become President. He is a former ally and colleague of Rajapaksa’s. He served as a Defence Minister during the final stages of the conflict, when tens of thousands of civilians were killed. He has also spoken out against those who have questioned the Government’s actions in the final stages of the war. In 2010, when Karu Jayasuriya MP wrote that the country should investigate “the many allegations” against it, Sirisena said the Government would identify “patriots and traitors” in the country and act accordingly. President Sirisena may also be implicated in some of the alleged crimes that took place during the armed conflict. His statement from 2010 suggests strongly that he was willing to play his part in helping to foment the culture of impunity under the rule of Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Many members of the Government of Sri Lanka, past and present, see the UN investigation as some pernicious attempt to damage the country and undermine its sovereignty. However, the investigation seeks only to uphold the values and precepts of international humanitarian and human rights law. Given the evidence, it is clear that it is the only credible and independent process available that can get to the truth about what happened. To paraphrase His Holiness, the pursuit of truth, and the realisation of accountability and justice, are the only means by which to lay the foundation for a better future in Sri Lanka—a future where the rule of law and respect for human rights replace the culture of impunity. Without that foundation, it will be virtually impossible to reconcile the different communities on the island, and Sri Lanka will continue to suffer as a result.

In the weeks and months ahead, I therefore call on the British Government to undertake a number of measures. They should urge the Government of Sri Lanka to co-operate with the war crimes investigation by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and engage constructively with the UN Human Rights Council’s concerns about the promotion of reconciliation and accountability. They should also state what the consequences would be if President Sirisena’s Government continued to snub the UN process and reject any criminal investigations that arise from the findings and recommendations of the war crimes report by the Office of the High Commissioner. Given the seriousness of the issue, no measures should be taken off the table, including possible sanctions and travel bans, if Sirisena’s Government fail to comply.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Earlier, she quoted the new President’s words, which indicated that he wanted to make sure that Sri Lanka made the most of its participation in a variety of international organisations to benefit the people of Sri Lanka. Is it not the case that that ambition will be possible only if Sri Lanka starts to co-operate with the UN’s work?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely and wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend.

The UK Government should also: make a formal request that the Government of Sri Lanka join more than 150 other countries by finally signing the declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict; place conditions on aid and inward investment into the island, specifying the need for accountability, and the promotion and protection of human rights; urge President Sirisena to publish a long-term plan, along the lines of his road map for his first 100 days in office, stipulating how he intends to address the concerns of minority communities, and to ensure truth, justice and accountability; and call on the Sri Lankan authorities to address the Tamil national question, and enter into immediate and meaningful negotiations with elected Tamil representatives and others to ensure a comprehensive and permanent political solution.

In addition, the British Government should request that President Sirisena, as an act of good will to the Tamil community: revoke the proscription of Tamil diaspora groups and individuals, which was implemented under the rule of Rajapaksa; call on Sri Lanka to demilitarise the Tamil majority areas of the island, release all political prisoners who have not been charged with any offence and revoke the draconian measures in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which allows for 18 months’ detention without charge; and closely monitor the human rights situation on the island, particularly in relation to religious and ethnic minorities. I look forward to the Government’s response, and I apologise to hon. Members for speaking for so long.

Palestine

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), a friend, on securing the debate.

At this troubled time in the region, what is needed above all is a de-escalation of tensions and the renewal of direct peace talks—the only way to achieve a lasting peace agreement. We should do all we can to make that possible, but isolating Israel through unilateral measures, threats and boycotts will certainly not contribute to reaching the peace that all of us in this place so strongly want to see.

Unilateral measures by the Palestinian Authority to seek early recognition of a Palestinian state are both premature and counter-productive. To endorse such actions is to reject the peace process entirely, and it certainly does nothing to ensure stability or to revive it. The Palestinian Authority and President Abbas have repeatedly threatened to apply to UN bodies for sanction as the state of Palestine, and PLO officials have stated their intention to resume accession to more than 500 international conventions and treaties as the Palestinian state. I can understand their keenness for such recognition, but in the absence of a willingness fully to recognise the state of Israel, those involved in the Palestinian authorities and organisations perhaps need to be a little more realistic.

Additionally, in October this year, in defiance of calls to return to direct talks, the Palestinian Authority issued a draft text of a resolution for the UN Security Council to pass; they reportedly intend to submit it formally in the near future. Worryingly, the draft resolution makes no reference to any of Israel’s legitimate security concerns and completely fails to address the recognition of two states for two peoples. Whatever side of that particular fence we sit on, surely that is a worrying standpoint for them to have. In neglecting to mention both those vital issues, the Palestinian Authority have further demonstrated attempts to bypass and undermine direct negotiations. That is more than unhelpful; it is the most obstructive and destructive course of action.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman called at the outset for a de-escalation of tensions in the region. Does he agree that the announcement of the intention for a new settlement has precisely the opposite effect and that if new settlements were to proceed, that would make the two-state solution totally unviable?

[Karl MᶜCartney]

There are many ways in which we can say that neither side is blameless. The right hon. Gentleman has his point of view, and I am sure I have mine.

In pushing for the premature recognition of a Palestinian state, the Palestinian Authority are refusing to face up to the difficult compromises necessary for a lasting agreement to end the conflict and are undermining the accepted framework of direct negotiations, in direct contravention of the Oslo peace accord. I am sure that the hon. Member for Easington is aware—I also presume that the Minister is—that the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas are still yet to respond to the United States framework document for peace, which Israel accepted, presented by Secretary of State Kerry in March this year. Israel’s historic peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and with Jordan in 1994 were a product of direct negotiations. A final agreement with the Palestinian Authority must be agreed through the same means, for the sake of all sides—and especially for the sake of innocent families and children.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral actions also predetermine the borders between Israel and the Palestinian state. That is simply a non-starter for Israel, as I learned when I visited Israel and Jerusalem recently with hon. Members from both sides of the House.

The Prime Minister recently stated that

“I look forward to the day when Britain will recognise the state of Palestine, but it should be part of the negotiations that bring about a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 295.]

That is a very sensible position. It is one that I fully endorse, and I am sure many other hon. Members do.

The sudden announcement of the Hamas-Fatah unity Government was a further set back to the peace process and played an important role in the collapse of talks with Israel. I hope the hon. Member for Easington—and the Minister, when he replies—recognises that it is unfeasible for Israel to accept a Government who contain an organisation committed to its destruction.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and for the kindness and generosity he has shown to me. It is no accident that my Bill exactly replicates the Bill he took through this House in the last Session, which was frustrated elsewhere. I am doing that deliberately so that we can return to the issue and make sure that others here and elsewhere put up or shut up, which is how trust comes about.

Trust is critical. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) and I have a further link to the EU. Both our constituencies were, at different times, represented by Harold Macmillan, the late Earl of Stockton, the person who, of course, initiated our negotiation with the European Union’s predecessor body. He described that negotiation as a

“purely economic and trading negotiation and not a political and foreign policy negotiation”.

The change to that provides yet another important reason why the British people need a fresh say.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that this debate is not about our future relationship with the European Union. It seems to me that it certainly is. Does he accept what John Cridland said recently—that it is the settled view of British businesses that the EU

“remains fundamental to our economic future. Our membership supports jobs, drives growth and boosts our international competitiveness.”

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is the settled view of British businesses on this point?

[Robert Neill]

No, I do not accept that proposition. What the issue is about is giving people a choice, 40 years on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The Prime Minister has set out clearly our agenda for EU reform. I am now touring the capitals of Europe, talking to colleagues across the European Union, explaining Britain’s position, hearing their positions, understanding how the ground lies ahead of what will be a great negotiation, starting next summer.

[Stephen Timms]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hammond]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who defeated me in my first ever attempt at public office.

[Stephen Timms]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of that occasion. Does he accept, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) in moving the Bill did not, that the director-general of the CBI is speaking for British business as a whole when he says that membership of the European Union is fundamental to our economic future?

[Mr Hammond]

What business needs more than anything is certainty. So long as we do not allow the British people to have their say, we face continued uncertainty around this question. We need to settle this once and for all for the sake of Britain. Once it is settled, we can get on with our business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I want to set out the settled view of British businesses that we should remain in membership of the European Union. I find it puzzling that so few Conservative Members are willing to set out those arguments today, and why it falls to Labour Members to do so. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who started to set out the case a moment ago, but his is a very rare voice on his side of the House.

[Mrs Main]

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that he is completely missing the point. That is not what the Bill is about. When the Bill is passed and the decision is made to have a referendum, we will listen to the voices of everyone, not just business, and an informed choice will be made. It could be “in” or it could be “out”, but the choice will be with the people. It will not be a case of listening beforehand to businesses which say “Do not give them a choice.”

[Stephen Timms]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave.”

That is my position, but, in fact, all that I am doing is quoting to the hon. Lady what the leader of her party said on 5 January 2010, when he was Leader of the Opposition. When he was setting out his case for becoming Prime Minister he rightly identified the question of whether we should remain in membership of the European Union as being central to the determination of whether we should have an in/out referendum. He was speaking at an event called “Cameron Direct” in Hammersmith. Voters were given an opportunity to see what sort of person he was, and to put questions to him. He drew attention to the central connection between question A, “Should we remain in membership of the European Union?” and question B, “Should we have an in/out referendum?” , and he made his view absolutely clear: because he did not think that we should leave the EU, he did not think that we should have an in/out referendum. I am simply setting out the view that he took then. Of course his view has since changed, and we may well want to discuss in this debate why the Prime Minister’s position has changed so radically, as it undoubtedly has. Perhaps the lack of trust among his Back Benchers has led to that change.

[Mrs Main]

We do not know whether Labour Members are in favour of an in/out referendum, because they are not going to vote on it today—they have said they are not—but those of us on the Government Benches would like to give the people the choice. We do not care if there are different views—and there are different views on the right hon. Gentleman’s side, too—because we all have one vote, and the public will decide.

[Stephen Timms]

Well, I want to defend the view set out by the leader of the hon. Lady’s party. On 5 January 2010 in Hammersmith, shortly before he became Prime Minister and when he was leading the efforts of her and her hon. and right hon. Friends to be elected in the general election. He said:

“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave”.

I think he was absolutely right.

[Robert Neill]

I have not intervened before because I have made my speech and I do not want to take up time, but may I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that the reason why everything has changed is that his Government welched upon signing up to the Lisbon treaty without having a referendum, and from that point on the bets were off and trust was destroyed? That is why we need the referendum now.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman may have missed the date of the comment I have just read out. It was 5 January 2010, when he and his hon. and right hon. Friends were campaigning for election. The leader of the Conservative party, at an event that was called “Cameron Direct”, which was an opportunity for voters to find out exactly what sort of person was seeking to be elected Prime Minister and to understand what made him tick, said:

“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave.”

That was in January 2010, long after the debate about the Lisbon treaty, and I happen to agree with the view set out then by the current leader of the Conservative party, and one of the things we should be discussing in this debate is why the leader of the Conservative party has changed his position so dramatically.

The Scottish referendum has been referred to several times in this debate, and that is appropriate because there are some telling lessons for us to learn from it. That also illustrates how dramatically the Conservative party has changed in recent years. It was called the Conservative and Unionist party; I do not know if it is still called that, but that certainly was its name in the past, and it was a defender of the Union. It was absolutely clear in the Scottish referendum debate, however, that the only influence of the Conservative party was on the side of the yes campaign. I spent some time canvassing in Glasgow and a voter said to me, “Who wants to be part of a country where the next Prime Minister might be Boris Johnson?” One can understand that view. The Conservative party is no longer, in effect, a defender of the Union. Only my party is a national party; it is the only party that is able to stand successfully for election in every part of the United Kingdom. The Conservative party is no longer the defender of the Union.

Equally, the Conservative party is no longer the defender of the views of British business, and I personally regret that that is the case. The views of British businesses are extremely important in this debate, and we ignore them at our peril. When the Government were elected they said they would eradicate the deficit in this Parliament, but the Prime Minister acknowledged in the Chamber this week that the deficit has only been reduced by one third. We have seen the fall in markets around the world this week. The Chancellor himself has warned about the prospects for the recovery over the coming months. The chief economist of the Bank of England this morning has been pointing out that people in the UK on moderate incomes are continuing to see their incomes fall in real terms. The average wage is down over £1,600 per year in real terms since 2010. Surely that should be the central preoccupation for the Government elected next year. We should not have two years of paralysis, which is what would happen if we were to go down the road envisaged in the Bill. Surely the economic interest of the country should be the focus of our attention, and we need businesses to be successful in order for the deficit to be eradicated. This Government have fallen so far short of the goal they set out for doing that.

The views of British businesses are clear. In response to an intervention from me the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) was unwilling to accept that the view set out by the director-general of the CBI was the view of British businesses. If I heard him correctly, he said that we should be cautious about listening to the big battalions.

[Robert Neill]

Correct.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that that is his view and I imagine it is the view of most Government Members in the Chamber today. They feel that we should not be listening to the views of the CBI, but I believe we should. Its director general has said that the EU

“remains fundamental to our economic future”.

He continued:

“Our membership supports jobs, drives growth and boosts our international competitiveness.”

That should be a central concern for this House and for the Government elected next May.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashford for a number of the points he made, and he drew attention also to the views of the Engineering Employers Federation. Its chief executive said just last month that

“manufacturers remain overwhelmingly of the view that our economic wellbeing is inextricably linked to the EU and we must stay in membership.”

In a poll of its members, it found that 85% of member companies indicated that they would like to stay in, rising to 90% of those with more than 250 employees.

[Sheryll Murray]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill is not about whether or not we are members of the European Union, but about trusting the British people to make that decision?

[Stephen Timms]

I say again to the hon. Lady that the question of whether we remain members of the EU is a central one in determining whether we should have a referendum. That was the view set out by the current Prime Minister—the leader of her party—when speaking in Hammersmith on 5 January 2010, while he was campaigning for election and she was supporting him. He said:

“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave.”

That was his view then and I think he is right to link, as he did so explicitly in those remarks, the question of whether or not there should be a referendum with that of whether we should remain a member of the EU. I am saying that instead of two years of political paralysis with the kind of navel-gazing debate envisaged and supported by Government Members, we should be focusing on addressing the economic challenges that face the UK, tackling the cost of living crisis that millions of people across the country are suffering. They have seen their wages fall in real terms since 2010. That should be the focus for the Government elected next May.

[Mr Bone]

The right hon. Gentleman normally makes sensible comments in this Chamber, although I do not agree with the point he is making. Putting party politics to one side, does he not agree that what business wants is certainty and that until a referendum is held there will be a debate about whether we stay in or come out of the EU? Is it not better for business to have that referendum and so have that matter finally decided?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that what business needs is certainty, a point that was made by the Foreign Secretary just a few minutes ago. If we were to embark on a referendum campaign, however, that would unleash two years of total uncertainty. Investment projects would not go forward and economic improvements would not take place. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the dangers of uncertainty, as his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did, but this Bill will create more uncertainty than any other measure currently being proposed.

[Mr Bone]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that the further away we are from the referendum, the more uncertainty there is. Of course, there has been a lot of misunderstanding in the Chamber today. The Bill says that there will be a referendum by the end of 2017; it does not say that it will not be earlier.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I think that he would probably agree with the views of Sir Martin Sorrell, a supporter, as I understand it, of his party, who said:

“Having a referendum creates more uncertainty and we don’t need that…You added another reason why people will postpone investment decisions.”

Surely what we should be doing in this House is encouraging investment decisions and encouraging people to bring them forward rather than putting them back. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an enormous danger in creating unnecessary and unwanted uncertainty, which would lead to serious economic risk for the UK.

[Mr Thomas]

Further to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), in which he suggested that a referendum on this question would somehow deliver certainty, I wonder whether he has seen the remarks made by the Prime Minister at Hammersmith on 5 January 2010. The Prime Minister said:

“I don’t think it would put an end to the argument, I think you would just—you’d have a neverendum not a referendum. You’d just get one answer then you would have another one…The pressure wouldn’t go away.”

The Prime Minister went on to say that, secondly, he did not think we ought to leave the European Union. He thought that it was not a good idea and that it would be bad for Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. The idea of the neverendum that the Prime Minister introduced to the debate is very telling. If a referendum were announced in 2017, that certainly would not end the uncertainty. Quite the reverse. It would unleash at least two years of grave uncertainty with serious risks to the UK economy as a result. In my view, we should not be going down that road as we cannot afford it at a time when the Government, in five years, have reduced the deficit by only one third having promised to eradicate it over the lifetime of the Parliament.

I agree with what was said by Stephen Odell, the European chief executive of Ford:

“don't discuss leaving a trading partner where 50% of your exports go”.

That is what the Conservative party is proposing.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has already told us that he rates his constituents less than he rates Scottish constituents and that he would give them fewer powers. Which industries is he trying to pick? He is cherry-picking. Would he have followed the lead of those industries that said in the past that we should join the euro? If it was easier for big business to join the euro, would he go down that route? Surely the biggest threat to business is the uncertainty that any Labour Government would bring; businesses would certainly be leaving in droves if Labour were elected in May.

[Stephen Timms]

I simply think that the hon. Gentleman should listen to people such as the CBI and the EEF, who are very clear. He wants me to refer to a different industry, so let me quote Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, who said earlier this month that

“Britain pulling out of the EU would be a blow to business, without question.”

Conservative Members should listen to what businesses say, not insult them, not deprecate them and not ignore the views they express, particularly at a time of such grave difficulty in our economic circumstances, when people’s wages are going down, and millions of people across the country are facing a cost of living crisis.

I wanted to set down in a little more detail the concerns I see, representing as I do a constituency on the east side of London that shares a lot of interests with the constituency of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst who introduced this Bill. Given the extent of the debate during my speech, I will not be able to do so. I also want to apologise to the House that because of commitments in my constituency later today, I shall have to depart before the winding-up speeches.

I make no apology for setting out in the debate what is the settled view of Britain’s businesses—that we should remain in membership of the European Union. Members on the Government Benches should listen to those views, not ignore them. It is surprising that it is necessary for Opposition Members to present them here because Government Members are so unwilling to do so, but that is where we are. I have taken a consistent view in supporting our membership of the European Union. I have done that in my constituency as well as in the House, and on the basis of the views that I have set out in my constituency I currently have the largest majority in the House. I therefore have great confidence in setting out those views again today, and confidence about the view that my constituents will express about my endeavours when the election comes next year.

I want to end on this point: those who support UK business should not be supporting this Bill.

Palestine and Israel

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is an honour to follow such an eloquent speech by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I hope to find just a fraction of the eloquence and sensitivity of my distinguished predecessor Daniel Lipson, who was MP for Cheltenham during the horrors of the second world war. He was also mayor of Cheltenham, and president of the Cheltenham synagogue. He said as long ago as 1946 that

“the solution I want to see is a just solution—a solution which shall be just to both Jews and Arabs. I do not want a one-sided solution”.—[Official Report, 21 February 1946; Vol. 419, c. 1374.]

It is in recognition of the one-sided nature of the various status quos that have prevailed ever since that our party finally voted last week to support recognition of Palestinian statehood alongside Israel. I very much sense that the House will take the historic decision to do exactly the same tonight. Of course, recent events in Gaza and the continued, determined pursuit of illegal settlement building by the Netanyahu Government must influence us, but there is a deeper reason to support the motion, especially as crises escalate across the region.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to illegal settlement building. Does he agree that the proliferation of illegal settlements is one of the biggest threats to the viability and possibility of a two-state solution?

[Martin Horwood]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He makes a valid point. I will come back to the message that we need to send to the Government who are responsible for that.

The deeper point to which I was referring was that if we are to tell Arabs across the region to reject extremism, rockets, bombs and massacres that are deliberately aimed at killing defenceless civilians, we must also do more to support the moderate, democratic, pluralist leaders, such as Mahmoud Abbas, who have painstakingly pursued the diplomatic path towards peace and self-determination. In answer to the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), if the only practical outcome of passing the motion is to strengthen the hand of Mahmoud Abbas against extremism and intransigence, however imperceptibly, we should do it. If we can tell the Iraqi Government of Nouri al-Maliki that it is not enough to be elected—even to be elected and face an existential threat—but that Governments must also be inclusive and demonstrate a commitment to peace, we have to deliver the same message, loud and clear, to the Government of Binyamin Netanyahu.

To those who suggest that it is wrong to recognise a new state whose borders have not been finally determined, I say that this House did exactly that in 1950. In case Members have any doubt, I refer them to column 1138 of Hansard on 27 April 1950, when Kenneth Younger, the Minister of State in the Attlee Government, announced:

“His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points…First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.”—[Official Report, 27 April 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1138-1139.]

We have been waiting for those final settlements—indeed, the middle east has been waiting for those final settlements—for 60 years and more. We have seen occupations by Jordan and then by Israel. We have seen wars and uprisings, but the Palestinian territories are closer in practice to statehood now than they have been at any other time in that entire period. If we are to reward the diplomatic path to peace, the time has come to recognise the state of Palestine, as we did the state of Israel all those years ago.

We should join the 350 Israelis who today wrote an open letter to my noble Friend Lord Alderdice—former Members of the Knesset, former Ministers, former Government officials, former winners of the Israel prize and the Nobel prize, a former Attorney-General, artists, playwrights and soldiers—who said:

“We, Israelis who worry and care for the well-being of the state of Israel, believe that the long-term existence and security of Israel depends on the long-term existence and security of a Palestinian state.”

We should support them and we should support the motion tonight.

Iran

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I hope so. There have been several questions about that topic. As I have said, it is too early to conclude from this agreement that other aspects of Iranian foreign policy will change, but of course we should like that to happen. I have said to Foreign Minister Zarif that if Iran—along with nearly all the rest of the world—were to accept last year’s Geneva communiqué on Syria as the basis for future discussions on the subject, many countries would be much more open to its involvement in those discussions. That is up to the Iranians, and I hope that they will respond positively to such suggestions.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome this breakthrough. The Foreign Secretary has referred to Iran’s appalling human rights record and to the prospect of future bilateral discussions about it. What prospect does he see of some movement on issues such as the Iranian Government’s practice of imprisoning church pastors?

[Mr Hague]

I think that we all hope that there will be movement on those issues, irrespective of anything relating to the nuclear issue. The right hon. Gentleman gives just one example of a truly appalling human rights record. Of course we will wish to discuss human rights with Iran as part of our bilateral discussions, and we will impress on the Iranians not only the importance, in our opinion, of universal human rights, but the positive impression that they would make on the world if they were to deal with those issues as well. Let me stress again, however, that it is much too early to say that we can read from this agreement a change in Iranian policy on other matters.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess, and to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing this timely debate. It is incredibly important, and we have heard two very moving speeches already. I take on board what my hon. Friend said about the need for peace and reconciliation, and I agree with him that before that can be achieved, there has to be justice and transparency. Although, in my humble judgment, significant progress has been made in the peace process and in all the work that has been done since the peace in 2009, there is still significant unfinished business and many questions remain unanswered. There is a vital need for justice, transparency and accountability.

I think it was a grave mistake to give the CHOGM the go-ahead to meet in Colombo. In 2009, I supported putting on hold the decision on whether the summit should go to Colombo, and having Perth as the venue for 2011 as an interim measure. That whole discussion should have continued apace. I would like the Minister to comment on the decision-making process within the Commonwealth, and particularly within the secretariat, which does the heavy lifting work behind the process of selecting the venues, because a similar situation may occur in the future. Not many Commonwealth countries are totally unsuitable for hosting a CHOGM, although one can think of a few, but it certainly should not be going to Sri Lanka.

Having said that, although the CHOGM should have been postponed—it should have gone to Mauritius this year, and the stream of work on whether Colombo was a suitable place to host it this year should have continued— since the Commonwealth has decided to go firm on Colombo, the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the heir to the throne are right to go; I disagree with the hon. Lady on that point. What would be achieved by the son of the head of the Commonwealth, and the Foreign Secretary of a country that is seen as central in driving the Commonwealth agenda, boycotting the meeting?

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Is there not a terrible problem, in that the Prime Minister will give a big propaganda coup to a Government who really ought to be brought to book?

[Mr Bellingham]

I certainly accept that, and it is one of the downsides. On the other hand, the signal must go out that the Commonwealth is an organisation that is growing in stature and strength, and becoming more relevant in the world. The Commonwealth is bigger than one country, one city and one President, which is why it would be a mistake for our Government to boycott next week’s CHOGM.

Persecution of Christians (Middle East)

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I also welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing it and on her consistent attention to this pressing and important topic.

We have already heard the statistic, which I think comes from the International Society for Human Rights, that 80% of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. Like others, I shall use my brief contribution to refer to the persecution of Christians in Iran, drawing on a visit that I made last year to Turkey, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr Benton). While we were there we briefly met the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who was in the country. My hon. Friend and I were guests of Elam Ministries, a UK-based charity that supports Iranian Christians. Our visit contributed evidence to the Christians in Parliament report, which has been referred to and was published last October, and which was put together by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate.

Iran has a population of 74 million. We do not know how many of those people are Christians, but it seems clear that the number of Christians in Iran is increasing, perhaps quite quickly. Some estimates put the number as high as 1.5 million, or 2% of the population. The regime in Iran has certainly retaliated against the growth of Christianity with a concerted propaganda campaign. It is strictly forbidden for Christians to talk with others about what they believe in, and Churches that reach out to non-members have had leaders executed and members imprisoned and tortured. Congregations live under the constant threat of arrest and violent interrogation.

The situation has not always been like that, though. We were told that, after the Islamic revolution in 1979, the regime was, on the whole, tolerant of Christianity and of other minority religions—those religions are protected under the Iranian constitution—but things changed rapidly for the worse, as the evidence gathered for last year’s Christians in Parliament report showed. Christian Solidarity Worldwide has also noted since the beginning of 2012 an increase of harassment, arrest, trial and imprisonment of converts to Christianity in cities across Iran.

The renewed wave of repression has affected both the house church movement and approved denominations. There are tight restrictions on officially recognised Churches. We were told that, with few exceptions, churches can no longer hold services in Farsi—the first language—and that services are not allowed on Friday, which is the official day off. That means that going to church is likely to involve taking time off work and possibly giving up half a day’s pay. Those who attend services are closely monitored. Churches must submit lists of members, with their identity card numbers, so that churchgoers can be easily traced. Recognised Churches find it increasingly hard to obtain permission for maintenance work on their buildings.

While in Turkey, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle and I were told that the harshness of the Iranian regime contrasts starkly to the warmth and tolerance of the Iranian people. Iranians are proud of their rich history of poetry and literature. Despite the persecution, the Church in Iran is growing rapidly. The Iranian Christians whom we met in Turkey made the point to us that the regime’s propaganda against Christians is widely disbelieved. That was demonstrated dramatically when we spoke to some remarkable Christians we met, who had gone to Turkey for safety.

One of our destinations was Kayseri—a big, modern Turkish city of about 1 million people, with an ancient fortress at its centre. We visited an Iranian church there, one of quite a large number of churches made up of Iranian exiles that meet in Turkey. This one meets in a modest flat at the top of a low-rise block above shops. We met there a man who, with his wife, was imprisoned on a charge of

“action against the security of the nation”,

which can carry a six-year sentence. He was in prison for three months, which included a month in solitary confinement. It was a grim experience. For a while, he was in a cell with 10 others, including a journalist, an academic and other professionals. They shared minimal facilities between them.

Many of the Christians we met knew Pastor Farshid Fathi, whom we have heard about in the debate. I, too, pay tribute to him. A critic of the Iranian Government—a political critic—Mehdi Khazali, who shared a cell with Farshid last year, spoke of him in an interview:

“Farshid was a polite young man with a warm smile always on his face. All prisoners in ward 350 remember nothing but kindness from him. He had an exemplary behaviour. We never saw him lose his temper. He was a kind person.”

He is serving a six-year sentence, which began in December 2010.

We met many people who had suffered in Iran for their faith. Some had suffered terribly, but had not given up. Instead, they appeared to be even more determined to tell their fellow countrymen what they believed. One church in Istanbul, which offers copies of the New Testament to visiting Iranians—admittedly, it is quite a small church—told us that it had recently had to stop its evangelism because it could not fit any more people into the building.

I welcome the high priority that has been assigned by the Government, among their foreign policy concerns, to freedom of religion or belief. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for the work that he did as a Foreign Office Minister, and I hope that this Minister can reassure us that that priority will be maintained.

I hope that Ministers making overseas visits will continue to make a point of meeting religious minorities, like some of those I met in Turkey. A Minister visiting a country such as Iran or the others that we have heard about is in a privileged position, and such visits to religious minorities in those countries are a source of huge encouragement for groups that are being persecuted. At the same time, they can help to draw much-needed attention to the injustice that so many people are suffering.

There are perhaps grounds for optimism in Iran: we have not yet seen much change, but at least some of the right words have been said. I hope that the Minister might be able to encourage us with the prospect that some of those words will indeed be fulfilled and that in the months ahead there will be change for the better for Christians in Iran.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

UK-Colombia Bilateral Investment Treaty

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting this debate.

Bilateral investment treaties are a long-standing mechanism to protect foreign firms and investors undertaking risky overseas investment from the danger of expropriation or policy changes in the destination country that could reduce the financial return from those investments. Bilateral investment treaties have generally been seen as benign, technical instruments, but developments in their use in the past 10 years or so have raised doubts about their benign character. Those doubts certainly arise in the case of the UK-Colombia bilateral investment treaty, which I understand is due to be ratified in the next few weeks. I will air some of those doubts in this debate and press the Minister to clarify the Government’s thinking in response to some of the concerns that are being raised.

Bilateral investment treaties allow investors to sue elected Governments if policy changes adversely affect their profits, but neither the host Government nor the communities affected by the investment have reciprocal rights. There is at least a question on whether that balance is correct.

Last October, under a bilateral investment treaty, a tribunal established by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which is part of the World Bank, fined Ecuador $1.8 billion—a sum equal to Ecuador’s entire annual education budget—for terminating a contract with Occidental Petroleum Corporation after reaching the view that Occidental broke Ecuadorian law when selling its production rights. I notice that on 30 September 2013, the tribunal decided to stay the enforcement of that fine for the time being, but it is not clear that handing a technocratic tribunal the power to impose fines in that way is necessarily the right thing to do.

By the end of 2012, corporations had launched more than 500 cases under bilateral investment treaties against 95 Governments. Compared with the preceding three decades, the number of disputes since the year 2000 has risen two-and-a-half-fold. The treaties seem to be evolving into something rather different from what they were originally intended to be. We need to reflect on how we want the treaties to be used, on what is appropriate to put into them and, indeed, on when it is appropriate to enter into such a treaty.

Governments across the world are now reviewing their policy on bilateral investment treaties. I understand that Norway and South Africa are terminating their treaty, and Australia and the US have decided to restrict the scope of their treaty. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place this afternoon as I know he has other pressing business, and I hope he will use this debate to set out the British Government’s thinking. I would welcome a review in the UK along the same lines as we are seeing elsewhere.

The UK-Colombia bilateral investment treaty will be laid before Parliament shortly and will provide far-reaching rights to foreign investors in Colombia. I am worried that the treaty might not take into account the potential risks it poses to securing human rights in Colombia. The Minister knows very well the human rights position in that country. In the first six months of this year, 11 trade unionists and 37 human rights activists were killed—nobody has been charged in relation to any of those killings. Over the summer there were strikes and protests across Colombia, and 16 demonstrators were killed by the police and the army, with more than 90 people imprisoned. Paramilitary groups continue to operate widely. There is already substantial opposition on human rights grounds to the ratification of the EU-Colombia free trade agreement.

I ask the Minister to take the opportunity presented by the forthcoming ratification, and indeed by other negotiations for new investment treaties at EU level, to consider whether it is appropriate to have a general review of UK policy towards bilateral investment treaties.

I have three areas of concern about the current use of bilateral investment treaties that I think make a review necessary. First, it is not clear that the human rights impact of such treaties is in line with the UK Government’s policy. That is a particularly pressing concern in the case of Colombia, where the human rights situation is so precarious, particularly in relation to workers’ rights and land rights.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Colombia has the largest number of internally displaced people in the world after Sudan—there were 5.7 million internally displaced people in Colombia by the end of the 2012—largely due to land-grabbing around mineral and resource-rich sites. Colombia has enacted a land restitution law to restore more than 2 million hectares of land to people from whom it had been wrongly taken, but that restoration has not yet taken place. Human Rights Watch reported last month that only one family have to date had their land returned.

There is serious concern that a bilateral investment treaty could make the implementation of land reform even more difficult; it could trigger demands from foreign investors for compensation if, for example, cases were brought forward in which land occupied by an investor that had previously been appropriated from someone else and then sold to the investor was restored to its original and rightful owners. Such processes could potentially scupper the prospects for land restitution, which is widely recognised as key to Colombia’s future stability.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, for the powerful case he is making and for bringing this debate to the House. The recent UK action plan on business and human rights was strongly welcomed because of some of the difficulties that he raises, but it is unfortunately silent on remedy and redress for victims of such abuses. Indeed, recent legislation has restricted the ability of victims of actions by UK companies overseas to access justice through the UK courts. Does he agree that it is essential that we build on the momentum that the Government and others have created to ensure adequate redress when bilateral investment treaties are breached, and that otherwise we risk undermining the host country’s ability to meet its international human rights obligations? Would he also welcome a response from the Minister on that, either today or at a later date?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I will address the action plan on business and human rights in a couple of moments. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the need for people to be able to obtain redress, and I would certainly welcome a comment from the Minister on that topic.

ABColombia, the consortium comprising Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Oxfam and others, is particularly worried about the potential threat to land restitution. The UK-Colombia treaty risks making it impossible for Colombia to restore land that has been stolen from its previous owners, thereby potentially restricting the implementation of future peace agreements with the guerrillas and limiting reparations to victims of human rights violations. Land injustices have been at the centre of the long-running conflict in Colombia, as the Minister knows. I gather that a treaty with Ethiopia is likely to come up next, which raises a similar set of issues on land and rights, so there is a pressing case for carrying out a policy review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) has reminded the Chamber of the action plan on business and human rights, which the Government published last month and which, as she says, has been widely welcomed. The action plan makes the point that investment agreements should,

“incorporate the business responsibility to respect human rights, and…not undermine the host country’s ability to…meet its international human rights obligations or to impose the same environmental and social regulation on foreign investors as it does on domestic firms.”

That is welcome reassurance. The review that I am suggesting would enable the Government to make good on that commitment in the specific context of bilateral investment treaties.

Secondly, there is a worry that investment rules in bilateral investment treaties could restrict the ability of Governments to set policies in the interests of their public. The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism allows foreign firms to sue Governments when and if they feel that their interests have been violated by a new law or policy. That is a pretty big limitation on the right of citizens to elect a Government to change the policy of the preceding Government.

I am chair of the trustees of Traidcraft, the fair trade organisation, which has drawn the issue to my attention—I declare that interest, although the role is unpaid. I share that concern about the restriction on the ability of developing country Governments to pursue policies that have worked elsewhere—such as land reform or requiring investors to give preference to local suppliers.

The concern, however, does not apply only in developing countries. The US tobacco firm, Philip Morris, is suing Uruguay and Australia over their anti-smoking laws. The company argues that warning labels on cigarette packs or plain packaging prevent it from displaying its trade mark effectively, causing a loss in market share. The threat of legal action against the UK under a bilateral investment treaty might be a factor in thinking about the introduction of plain packaging proposals here, so developing countries are certainly not the only ones in the frame. The US company Lone Pine Resources Inc. is demanding US $250 million in compensation from Canada for introducing a moratorium on fracking, because of environmental risk concerns. Corporations have used investor-state settlement provisions to challenge environmental, land use, energy and other laws.

Thirdly, I am worried that such claims bypass domestic courts and are heard in private—behind closed doors—in tribunals made up of three arbitrators, behind closed doors at the International Centre for Settlement of Investor Disputes. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan reminded the House that any such decision is extremely difficult to change. In some instances, the existence of the cases is barely known at all; even when they are known, the reasons for decisions or the level of awards by a tribunal are not always disclosed.

There is concern that the system has led to bad decisions, which is particularly important given that an arbitration tribunal can make unlimited monetary awards. In 2012, dispute settlement compensations awarded to corporations ranged from US $2 million to, in the Ecuadorean case that I mentioned, nearly $1.8 billion; lots of pending claims total billions of US dollars. Disputes between multinational companies and Colombia under the UK-Colombia treaty would be confidential and heard by the international tribunal, despite the growing recognition worldwide, not least on the part of the UK Government, that transparency is vital to democratic processes, good governance and the rule of law.

Finally, there is at least a question mark about whether the treaties do, in fact, succeed in attracting additional foreign investment into signatory countries. A number of studies suggest no significant correlation between a country’s level of foreign direct investment—we all want to increase such levels in developing countries—and the decision to adopt treaties that include those broad investor protections.

I hope, therefore, that the Government will review their policy on bilateral investment treaties, in view of the lack of transparency, the use of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, the imbalance of rights and responsibilities, and the potential to undermine human rights in countries where investment is taking place. I am grateful to the Minister for his readiness to respond. I accept that part of the responsibility on the subject rests with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office clearly has a key role as well. I look forward to what he has to say in response.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The right hon. Gentleman timed that to the second!

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful for the way in which the Minister is responding to the debate. Will he explain the significance of the timing, given that he said that competence has moved to the European Union? I am told that the Colombia treaty was drafted almost 20 years ago. What is the significance of the timing, given that ratification will take place shortly?

[Mr Swire]

The right hon. Gentleman has more confidence in these matters than me. He referred to the next few weeks. I am reliably informed that it will be shortly, which is not necessarily in the next few weeks, but no doubt my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will bring the matter to the House at the appropriate time and will be able to explain exactly, if I cannot. It is worth saying that the UK received authorisation from the European Commission to enter the Colombia treaty into force, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in spring 2013 and the Colombian note confirming its ratification in the summer.

The treaty is an important symbol of the close relationship that the UK has enjoyed with Colombia in recent years. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of such treaties to the countries with which they are contracted, it is worth saying that the Government of Colombia is actively looking forward to the treaty being ratified. I believe that it is a positive move. It will cover all existing British investments in Colombia, which currently total £2.5 billion. The Government hope that when the treaty enters into force it will provide a further incentive for additional investment in Colombia by increasing the level of legal protection.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised a concern about the human rights situation in Colombia, including land rights. I assure him, as I have the House on a number of occasions when we debated the matter, that progress has been made, as noted in our 2012 human rights report. Around 170,000 victims have been provided with reparations under its victims and land restitution law and the Colombian Government are taking steps to reform the judicial system. We continue to press them to speed up the processing of cases and to eliminate impunity.

In 2012, experts from the Land Registry provided technical advice to the agriculture Ministry on land registration issues. Security for claimants and those returning to their land is a key concern, and our embassy in Bogota has funded a security risk analysis in potential restitution zones. However, almost five decades of conflict have caused many people to be displaced, as the right hon. Gentleman said. We welcome the significant progress made to date in the peace negotiations, in which provisional agreement on land reform has been reached.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns. The Government want bilateral investment treaties to provide a high level of protection for British companies investing in Colombia, but we also want to strike the right balance between providing protection for investors and giving Governments the space they need to regulate in the public interest. We are committed to supporting international efforts to increase transparency. We recognise that the current system of tribunals is not perfect, but it generally provides a dependable way for investors to achieve justice.

Competence for foreign direct investment has now transferred to the EU and the UK has not negotiated any new treaties since 2009, so we have no plans to review our policy on investment protection. However, in ongoing EU negotiations and any new treaties the UK negotiates, we will push for the right balance between investors and the public interest.

Question put and agreed to.