Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the implications for the governance of Equatorial Guinea of the recent constitutional referendum in that country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

We do not have an ambassador based in Equatorial Guinea, but we have an ambassador based in Cameroon who visits regularly and takes a close interest in developments there. He often raises directly issues such as human rights, good governance and lack of social development. We also raise those issues through the EU and the UN.

[Steve Baker]

As the Minister knows, hon. Friends and I published an excoriating report after our visit to Equatorial Guinea in the summer. Does he agree that certain principles of good governance, such as democracy, liberty and the rule of law, are universal and eternal?

[Mr Bellingham]

I agree that those principles are vital and they are ones on which we will focus and put a huge amount of emphasis. I thank my hon. Friend for his report, and I pay tribute to him and his colleagues for their energy and open-mindedness in reporting back to the Foreign Office on that visit.

National Referendum on the European Union

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I said that I would give way again, and I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker).

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Surely my right hon. Friend must know as well as I do that preferential systems are used in this House for certain votes. Is it not equally the case that for some elections, first past the post is appropriate, and for others, a preferential system is appropriate? Why not have this three-way referendum on the basis of the single transferable vote, as we do in this House for other elections?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend’s argument is that he would have a preferential voting system, but not everybody would, and I am pointing out the difficulties with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

A few months ago the Prime Minister asked me after a debate to write to him about my views on the European Union, so I wrote him a pamphlet called “It’s the EU, stupid.” That was a reference not to him, but to Bill Clinton’s recognition that the economy is at the heart of the issue. In just the same way, I believe fundamentally, as I have set out in the pamphlet—I will quickly encapsulate some of the thoughts it contains—that this is first of all a matter of principle. The referendum issue has been going around since before the Maastricht referendum campaign. I voted yes, as it happens, in 1975, but since then we have seen the accumulation of powers and the broken promises, betrayals and prevarication. The argument is that it is never the right time to deal with these issues, but that is the problem, and the British people feel that they have been betrayed by a failure to deliver on those promises.

[Steve Baker]

I would have voted yes in 1975, but does my hon. Friend agree that the EU has gone far beyond that which is necessary to guarantee peace and prosperity?

[Mr Cash]

Yes, indeed, and I will go further: the EU has created a situation in which it actually damages our economy. That is the problem, and that is the reversal of the situation, with massive over-regulation—£8 billion a year, according to the British Chambers of Commerce—over the past 20 years in this country alone.

As I said earlier in my interventions on the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, we are running the single market on a deficit that has gone up in the last year alone by as much as £40 billion, so it would be inconceivable for us not to take a rain-check and say, “We cannot just continue with this and pretend that nothing is going on.”

If ever there was a time to tackle the issue in principle, it is now, and that is what the motion is about: whether there is a case for renegotiation or for leaving the European Union. On renegotiation, we must establish the fact in line with the wishes of the people of this country—not because the Whips have said, “You’ve got to do this, that and the other” or, with great respect, because the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary have said so, but because we have a sacred trust, as elected Members of this House, to do what is right, in the interests of the British people as we see it for our constituents, and in the national interest. This is exactly that issue tonight.

The Prime Minister has given two speeches over the past year or so—one was about rebuilding trust in politics, and the other was about a European policy that we can believe in. I strongly recommend that people tonight, tomorrow or at some point read those speeches again and ask themselves, “What is going on in this debate today?” We know that the Whips have been strongly at work, but I had all that over Maastricht, we have had it over the years and it becomes something that we have to get used to. The reality is that we are doing the right thing for the right reason. That is the point.

Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent

Steve Baker Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the issue of Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent.

I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for making this debate possible. My predecessor, Paul Goodman, took this issue extremely seriously and I am sure that had this mechanism been available he would have called such a debate. I am also extremely grateful to the Members who turned out to support me at the Committee: my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) who spoke about Sri Lanka, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin).

The origin of this debate was my request for a debate on human rights in Kashmir and the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North for a debate on Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, some commentators mistakenly thought that we sought to conflate the two issues. That is not the case. It suited the Backbench Business Committee to bring the issues together under the heading of “Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent”.

I have a simple purpose: to give a voice to the thousands of British Kashmiri constituents who demand and are entitled to representation in this place, their Parliament. I am aware that many Members wish to speak about Sri Lanka, so for the sake of time I will rely on my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North to cover that issue. I will say only that I support my Tamil constituents’ demand for an independent international investigation.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend rightly said, I will speak more about the issues relating to the Tamil community later. Does he agree that what is needed is justice for the Tamil people?

[Steve Baker]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. When I come on to my later remarks, I think he will share my view that this issue is part of the legacy of the British empire and its withdrawal from the world.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the importance of this debate is that it will give a voice not only to parliamentarians, but to the people of the countries that are affected, such as those in the disputed region of Kashmir?

[Steve Baker]

Not for the first time, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is absolutely our reason for being here: to give a voice to those people.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I genuinely congratulate all the Members who have got this matter on to the agenda of our Parliament this afternoon. There are many people in Stoke-on-Trent from Kashmir who feel strongly that the issue of civil rights and justice needs to be on the diplomatic agenda of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that it must negotiate on this issue. We need to deal with the human rights abuses and it is important that this debate is followed through.

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am pleased that there seems to be a cross-party consensus on the nature of this conversation, and I hope that will continue throughout the afternoon.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that seeking a judgment on behalf of one side is a bit pejorative and that what we really need is to create healing between two groups of people that have both been harmed by a very damaging terrorist war?

[Steve Baker]

My hon. Friend will find as I make progress with my remarks that I agree with the thrust of what he has said. I certainly do not wish to be divisive.

The status of Kashmir and the history of events leading to its division have long been contested and have led to at least three wars between India and Pakistan. India claims that the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir legally acceded to it in 1947. Pakistan claims that Kashmiris were denied their choice of which state to join and holds that the status of Kashmir can be decided only by a plebiscite in line with UN resolutions. Kashmir has been divided since 1948 by a ceasefire line, known as the line of control. It is not my intention to rehearse the whole history of events as time does not permit it.

The region remains one of the most militarised in the world, with thousands of troops on both sides of the line of control. Further to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), I do not think that is in the interests of either country. Various peace negotiations have taken place, leading to a number of practical, confidence-building measures, but I am afraid that the Mumbai attacks interrupted them.

For me, the history of Kashmir emphasises an absolutely vital point—the importance of peace and comprehensive non-aggression, because when violence begins, despair is not far behind. There are those who say that we should not be discussing these matters today, but for me the ghosts of empire have left us with an inescapable paradox. On the one hand, India is entitled to make its way in the world; it is the largest democracy in the world and there should be no echoes of paternalistic colonialism. On the other hand British Kashmiris, for whom the Kashmir issue is of deep, abiding and passionate concern—for the world is a small place—demand and are entitled to a voice in this place on this issue.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

On that point, the British Kashmiris in my constituency are asking for justice for Kashmir—for investigation and action to stop human rights abuses. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a key thing to do?

[Steve Baker]

Absolutely, and I shall come to that point.

I do not intend any lazy demagoguery, as that would be too easy—no cheap condemnation of India and, I am afraid, no false hopes for Kashmiris.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Steve Baker]

No, I am sorry; I must make progress.

I wish to discuss Kashmiris’ rights to life, liberty and democratic self-determination, and to connect those issues. My Kashmiri constituents have brought to me allegations that I scarcely believed of killing, mass murder, rape, brutality and arbitrary detention. Having visited Mumbai and found India a mature country with a sophisticated democracy and institutions modelled after our own, I found those allegations hard to believe, yet the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights report of May 2011 confirmed that reports of human rights abuses on both sides of the line of control in Kashmir continued in 2010. Indian Prime Minister Singh has said that human rights violations by security forces in Kashmir will not be tolerated and he has instructed security forces to respect human rights. We must hope that his words are honoured by those in Kashmir.

Human Rights Watch this year called for a repeal of India’s Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. It says that soldiers found responsible for serious human rights violations remain unaccountable because of immunity provided under that law. There might be propaganda on both sides—indeed, I am sure there is—but no one should allow themselves to believe that allegations of human rights abuses in Kashmir are unfounded.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just received a communication from an Indian paper called Daijiworld. The headline reads, “India reacts strongly to British parliamentary debate on Kashmir”. We have not even had the debate and already a parliamentary democracy is telling us that we should not be having it. That is not quite a point of order, but this really is an insult from the Indian journalists who say we should not even be debating this in our own House of Commons.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Mr MacShane. Perhaps you have just introduced a new practice in which people stand up and say, “Nearly point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.” You are quite right: it was nearly a point of order but it certainly was not one for the Chair. However, it has been put on the record.

[Steve Baker]

I am most grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution.

As I was saying, we must not deceive ourselves. Moving on to issues of freedom of movement, of association, of speech and so on, I want to mention a report by Amnesty International entitled, “India: A ‘lawless law’: Detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act,” which contains a number of allegations regarding the use of preventive, administrative detentions. The contents include:

“Violations of the principle of legality…Delayed and secret reasons for detention…No access to judicial authority…Restrictions on access to legal counsel…Indefinite detention of foreign nationals…Immunity of officials…Incommunicado detention …Torture…Detention without any legal basis”.

That Amnesty International report deserves an answer.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the suffering of the people in Kashmir and the problems that they face daily. Does he share my concern that the international community has not put this issue high enough up the agenda by seeking to reach a resolution that brings peace to such a beautiful part of the world?

[Steve Baker]

The hon. Lady is right, and I am most grateful to her. Of course, I share that view, which is why we are here today.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman be characteristically even-handed and mention the Amnesty report, “As if Hell fell on Me: the Human Rights Crisis in North-west Pakistan,” given that this debate is about human rights issues on the subcontinent as a whole?

[Steve Baker]

I am most grateful—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I remind him of the guidelines about the length of his contribution.

[Steve Baker]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have taken my last intervention. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) makes a good point, although I have not read that report. I am seeking to be even-handed, but even so, I have to enter this into the record for the sake of discussion. The “lawless law” report states that by using the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act

“to incarcerate suspects without adequate evidence, India has not only gravely violated their human rights but also failed in its duty to charge and try such individuals and to punish them if found guilty in a fair trial.”

I wish to express considerable humility on this point, because the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act is very much in line with the principle at least of our own control orders and terrorism prevention and investigation measures. The House should therefore not be too quick to condemn the principle of what India is doing. It is very much in line with what we have done. In my Second Reading speech on TPIMs, I condemned administrative detention outright and then withheld my vote from it, so I hope that I will escape the accusation of hypocrisy.

We need to consider how these measures arise. Why do democracies turn to such measures? I suggest that when democracy is denied, people turn away from it and end up seeking violence. I am proposing, for the people of Kashmir, a comprehensive policy of non-aggression, peace and democratic self-determination under the terms of the UN resolutions. I accept that the situation in Kashmir can only, and must, be resolved by Kashmiris, India and Pakistan, but we must acknowledge in this place the absolute moral, legal and political equality of the Kashmiri people and take whatever steps are appropriate to secure demilitarisation, democratic self-determination and a prosperous and secure future for Kashmir. I hope that the Government are listening and will take whatever steps they can.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind Members that there is a five-minute limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

May I join other Members in paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Ilford North (Mr Scott), who helped to secure the debate? I also pay tribute to the previous Member for Wycombe, who did a lot of work on Kashmir. He came to my constituency to speak to my Kashmiri community on a number of occasions, and he continues to help and offer assistance. I also pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee. In holding this debate, it has sent a clear message to both the Kashmiri and the Tamil and Sri Lankan communities that this Parliament is listening, and that Members are prepared to debate the issues that are of greatest concern to our constituents.

[Steve Baker]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great things about the Backbench Business Committee is that it chooses issues for debate thoroughly independently of Government policy, as has been shown today?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I could not agree more. I was initially sceptical about the Backbench Business Committee and what it could achieve, but I only have to look up at the full Public Gallery and consider the number of e-mails and letters I have received over the past few days, to be reminded that the subjects it chooses for discussion are highly relevant to our constituents.

I also want to thank the Minister. In our dealings on the Kashmir issue, he has always been helpful, and his door has always been open. He has also laid at our disposal the help of his officials, who have done a great job in providing us with information and assistance. I am grateful for that.

I speak on this subject as vice-chairman of the all-party groups on both Pakistan and Kashmir, and, most importantly, as an MP who represents more than 4,500 Kashmiri constituents. When I first became the parliamentary candidate for Burton, I went along to the local community centres and mosques to talk to the Kashmiris in my constituency. Although we addressed all the issues that matter to them, such as education and policing, time and again they would return to the burning issue of Kashmir and ask for our help. It was with that experience in mind that I pledged to be the first MP for Burton ever to visit Kashmir.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend is right, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend knew precisely that when he made his “nearly a point of order”, as Mr Deputy Speaker called it.

The UN resolution attached a condition to the holding of the plebiscite—the withdrawal of the Pakistani forces that had invaded that part of Kashmir in 1949 when the maharajah of the state of Jammu and Kashmir had vacillated over whether to become part of India or part of Pakistan. The invasion precipitated the maharajah to jump towards India, with the consequences that we have seen since.

Of course, it is absolutely right that this House should always take a keen interest in the protection of human rights around the world, but hon. Members and members of the public watching this debate must think there is a certain irony in the fact that although the hon. Member for Wycombe sought to raise his concern about human rights issues in India, it is not India but five of India’s closest border neighbours, including Pakistan, that the 2011 “Failed States Index” lists among the 50 most failed states in the world.

[Steve Baker]

I tried to approach this with considerable caution. I am not sorry if the Indian media pick up on this issue, as I would like our constituents’ concerns to be given the widest publicity. I paid tribute to India as the world’s largest democracy and a country with institutions based on our own which seek to reinforce the rule of law, and noted that Indian Government institutions have recognised many of these human rights abuses. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, on the whole, the House has sought to be balanced.

[Barry Gardiner]

I accept the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman says that he has contributed to the debate, and I would not wish to challenge that. However, if one looks at the immediate neighbours surrounding India, one will often find that there is far greater cause for concern in those jurisdictions than in India.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

As so often, I am surprised at the degree to which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree, however, that one of the problems of the legacy of empire is that, although it gives us a special responsibility, it is also in many ways a curse because that very legacy is often what makes our word so very unwelcome in various countries, including in India?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Indeed. I am short of time, but I hope to come on to the point that Robin Cook said when he was Foreign Secretary that he wanted to embark on a process of ethical foreign policy.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank all colleagues for their participation in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for his thanks to the British Council, which does such excellent work for us abroad, and for his reminding us of the increasing importance of the diaspora in British politics and the contribution that they can make, not only to debate here but, in many instances, to reconciliation and support in the communities from which they originally came.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Ilford North (Mr Scott) for securing the debate and to the Backbench Business Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe spoke in measured tones on a difficult subject, plainly putting to the House the views and anxieties of his constituents. I shall of course deal with Kashmir during the next few minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North spoke with passion in support of his Tamil constituents and reminded the House, as did one or two others, why we have such an obligation to speak here, without fear or favour, on the matters that concern us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), in describing his colourful arrival in Pakistan and Kashmir, reminded us of how we are seen in many parts of the world—an honour to this House that we respect by the way in which we conduct ourselves here by dealing with difficult subjects in moderation, sometimes in tricky areas.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) reminded us that, before we get too moralistic and righteous in what we say here about other countries, we should acknowledge our own human rights failings, both past and present. The fact that the House listened with respect to voices that challenged some of the more popular sentiments represented by many who are watching the debate shows that the House can listen to both sides of a complex debate. That should reassure any Government looking at the work of the House of Commons that they should not fear our debates, if transparency, accountability and justice are as close to their hearts as they are to the hearts of parliamentarians here today.

The Government have been clear since they took office that the protection of human rights is crucial to both the values and the interests of the UK. When the Foreign Secretary set out his vision for the future of our foreign policy in a series of speeches last year, he said that those values were part of our national DNA and that they would be woven into our foreign policy decision making. We cannot achieve long-term security and prosperity for the UK unless we uphold them.

Few parts of the world are as important to the promotion of our values and our interests as south Asia. The region's giant, India, is the world's largest democracy— vibrant, pluralistic, secular and multi-ethnic—but it has faced significant problems with domestic insurgency, communal violence and caste discrimination. Some of the toughest human rights challenges in the region are exacerbated by the dispute between India and Pakistan. The latter country, which has only recently come under civilian rule, is facing arguably the greatest existential threat from terrorism of any nation in the world. To the north and south, Nepal and Sri Lanka continue to grapple with the legacies of decades of destructive insurgency. Bangladesh is affected more than almost anywhere else by the pressures of population, poverty and climate change. The smallest country in the region, the Maldives, is the world's newest democracy.

Despite that challenging context the UK does not shy away from engaging frankly with our partners in the region, holding Governments to account when human rights standards slip. The UK is all too familiar with the challenges of balancing personal freedoms and the rule of law, with the first duty of Government to protect their citizens. Our approach is idealism tempered with realism. We are absolutely clear about what is right and wrong and what foundations are required for truly free societies, but we also recognise the limitations on our ability to enforce change anywhere in the world. Societies progress at their own pace and the UK will continue to work with them, utilising our strengths but without arrogance, on what can be a long and difficult road to freedom, security and prosperity for all.

Let me make a few remarks about the two main issues that have come up today—Kashmir and Sri Lanka. I fully understand the sense of frustration felt by many people in the UK about the situation in Kashmir. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) reminds me, the context of that is the years I spent both growing up and living in Bury North and representing many Kashmiri citizens and friends there.

I have answered a number of questions tabled in the House asking for the UK to take a more active role in resolving the dispute. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) accurately described the cost over the years of the long-running problem to the communities in that area. The position of successive British Governments has consistently been that any resolution must be for India and Pakistan to agree, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. As India and Pakistan are currently making efforts to build confidence in all aspects of their relationship, I believe it is important that they be given space to determine the scope and pace of that dialogue. No matter how well intentioned, any attempts by the UK or other third parties to mediate or prescribe solutions would hinder progress.

We continue to monitor developments In Kashmir closely, especially as reports of human rights abuses on both sides of the line of control continue. We are all aware of the violent protests that occurred in Indian-administered Kashmir during the summer of 2010. More than 100 civilians were killed and a number of security forces personnel were injured. During the unrest there were allegations of excessive use of force by security forces against protesters and allegations that protesters themselves had used violence. We are also aware of the large number of detentions that have since been the subject of an Amnesty International report. However, we welcome the renewed engagement by the leaders of India and Pakistan to grope towards, perhaps for the first time in a long time on a personal basis, answers to this issue. We also note that the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that human rights abuses by security forces in Kashmir would not be tolerated, and we welcomed his appointment of three interlocutors to engage with a wide range of interested parties to help to resolve the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir. We understand that those interlocutors will publish their recommendations soon.

Our officials in our high commissions regularly discuss and regularly raise difficult issues in Kashmir with both the Indian and Pakistani Governments and with contacts in those areas. Our resources from the conflict pool also support work promoting human rights, conflict prevention and peace-building efforts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) reminded us.

I thank hon. Friends for raising various issues relating to Sri Lanka. I assure the House that I have a regular and very frank relationship with Foreign Minister G. L. Peiris. We discuss all the significant issues that have been raised today. The allegations of war crimes and other human rights violations committed by both sides in the military conflict are of great concern to us. The UK has consistently made its position clear: Sri Lanka needs to address accountability through an independent, thorough and credible process that meets international standards and allows the people of Sri Lanka to move towards reconciliation and lasting peace and security.

Sri Lanka has faced enormous challenges during the many years of war and its aftermath. Its Government have made important progress in some areas. We hope that all those displaced by the conflict who have returned to their home areas will be resettled in permanent accommodation in the near future. De-mining and reconstruction of key infrastructure in the north is progressing. However, just as it is fair to note progress, so it is fair to note that it has not been complete everywhere and that serious challenges remain, as I saw when I visited Jaffna earlier this year.

[Steve Baker]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alistair Burt]

No. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to speak in a moment.

We believe that further action is required to make peace sustainable. In particular, minority political grievances need to be resolved, the mechanisms for protecting and promoting human rights need strengthening, and Sri Lanka’s communities must collectively deal with the legacy of such a long conflict. Sri Lanka has begun to address some of these issues. We hope that the Government will set out their view of a political solution to the causes of the conflict and rapidly demonstrate their commitment to resolving minority concerns sustainably. The LLRC report, which will be published in November, must set out clear steps towards accountability in respect of allegations of war crimes.

Under international law it is the primary responsibility of the state concerned to investigate and, where necessary, prosecute credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. Experience has shown that countries that take concrete action to address conflict issues through a process of truth, justice and reconciliation are more likely to achieve long-term peace. By corollary, those that do not take such action will not achieve peace. We want to see Sri Lanka take those actions. While we share international concerns about the credibility of the LLRC, it is a Sri Lankan-led process and we want the Sri Lankan Government to use it to address allegations effectively and allow their communities to live and work together.

The international community can also provide support to Sri Lanka. The comprehensive report of the UN panel of experts is most welcome, and we welcome the UN Human Rights Council’s consideration of those recommendations. We understand that this, and the disturbing Channel 4 footage, on which I made some fairly straightforward comments at the time, will be considered by the LLRC before it produces its report in November. It is a step in the right direction that we wish to encourage.

The passion and commitment of Members who have spoken in today’s debate and the balance achieved through different Members speaking their truth on difficult areas should, I hope, persuade any constituent that we care about these issues, that they matter to the UK Government and that foreign Governments have nothing to fear from our honest inquiry springing from the values that we know they profess to share.

[Steve Baker]

It is an incredible honour and privilege to open and close the debate today. It has been a debate on the most exquisitely sensitive of subjects, and I think that Members on both sides of the House have at least sought to be even-handed. I know that some Members perhaps felt that the balance swung one way or another, but I think today we can all be proud of Parliament. As happens so often, I found myself agreeing with the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker). I find myself recognising that although we in this House often disagree on means, we so often agree on ends. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) made a passionate call for action—a call that I confess I did not have the courage to make. I congratulate him on making it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) reflected powerfully on his visit to Kashmir, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), in talking about his long involvement, demonstrated his passionate commitment to the issue. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mounted a passionate and even-handed defence of India. The hon. Member for Brent North was absolutely right to talk about the structure of the resolution. In the end, in this House and elsewhere we need to move away from fault and look at how prosperity, peace and progress can be delivered for people, wherever they may be. I am proud of Parliament today because we have represented all our constituents in the best possible way.

[Mr MacShane]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order to ask you, sir, to pay a tribute on our behalf to Sir Malcolm Jack, as he rises for the last time in the chair as chief Clerk of this our House of Commons? That funny triangle of you, Sir Malcolm and his colleagues is one that the public do not know much about, but I certainly pay tribute to the fact that Sir Malcolm has been a constant source of advice, friendly help and courteous consideration. I am sure that his successor will be every bit as good.

Sir Malcolm is an expert on Portugal and has written a very fine book on it, which I can recommend to everybody who wants to understand mediaeval and renaissance Portuguese history—undoubtedly very helpful as he tries to steer his way through our Standing Orders and “Erskine May”. I invite you, Mr Speaker, as one of the last acts of this two-week session, to say just a word of thanks to him on behalf of all of us.

European Union Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

In a sense, this whole group of amendments is a con trick and an illusion. The test to be applied in regard to the number of people who vote in an election is a matter on which I spoke very strongly in the AV referendum debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) said, many of the people who tabled amendments on thresholds were not the slightest bit interested in them at that time. There is therefore an inconsistency of principle involved. What they are promoting, and everything that they have been doing over the past 27 years since I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee, during which time I have had the pleasure of watching their perambulations and machinations, is designed to force us further and further down the route towards European integration. They have advised Governments of all hues on the Maastricht treaty, the European Government, the exchange rate mechanism and the Nice and Amsterdam treaties.

I must have tabled the best part of 1,000 amendments against those treaties over the past 27 years, and with great pleasure. I have devoted, I suppose, almost a political lifetime to opposing every single thing that those noble Lords have put forward. I do not need to specify them individually; all I will say is that I regard them as having conducted a process that has led to the destruction of the European Community and, now, the European Union. One has only to look at what is happening today and to ask who is responsible for what has occurred. It has been a concert party—a concert party involving not only the United Kingdom establishment but, worse still, the European establishment alongside the United Kingdom establishment—that has led to the mess that the European Union is in now. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he came back from the European Council the other day, although we are glad that he felt obliged to deny that we would be involved in the Greek bail-out—having conceded, I am sad to say, that we would be involved in the bail-out of Portugal—he now has the opportunity, as the Prime Minister of this country, to go forward in the national interest and renegotiate the treaties, to get us out of the mess that those noble Lords, individually and collectively, have got us into.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

We are all grateful to my hon. Friend for his lifelong service on this issue, but on the esoterica of this group of amendments, can he clarify for me that, taken as a whole, they are simply spoiling amendments?

[Mr Cash]

They are, and it is for that reason that I will not be able to vote for them, even though I happen to have some sympathy for the idea of a reasonable test for referendums. However, these amendments are a blind—an attempt to get people to go along with the 40% test for the electorate on the one hand, but also to associate them with a whole range of matters that are entirely inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom. I am not particularly interested in the list that the Government have produced; as I said at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill, I think that it is a mouse of a Bill. The issue on which we now need to concentrate is the big landscape and the fact that, as the European Council on Foreign Relations paper argued the other day, Maastricht has to be revised. We will have to return to the question of what kind of Europe we want.

This list of proposed matters—which will never come up in this Parliament, as we know—is, therefore, a blind in its own way, but to reduce it to three core issues really makes it an absurdity. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that on the big landscape, this is the time for us to take a bigger, more responsible and more statesmanlike view, in the interests of the people of this country, to see the European question as the failure that it is and to get down to the serious business of renegotiating all the treaties and moving to an association of nation states, so that we can work together co-operatively, rather than by co-ordination, to deal with the real, practical problems that this country faces—the Brazils, Indias and Chinas of this world—instead of dancing on the head of a pin, as we are with most of this Bill.

My argument to my right hon. Friend is very simple. He may have the advantage of having come forward with a few proposals that touch at the margins of this issue, but the real question is what is he—or, indeed, the Prime Minister—going to do to get us out of the mess that those treaties have got not only us but the people in Europe into? Indeed, young people aged between 18 and 25 in several countries are now suffering unemployment of 47%. It is absolutely impossible to accept that, and as I said in the 1990s, when this whole system collapses, it would not surprise me to see the rise of the far right and massive unemployment, destabilising the entire European Union, with the most devastating consequences for the international order. That is the problem that we are faced with, and that is why these amendments are not to be accepted.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 4 agreed to.

Lords amendments 5 to 13 disagreed to.

Clause 18

Status of EU law dependent on continuing statutory basis

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The explanatory notes were changed when they were reprinted before the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, just as I gave the House an undertaking that they would be. We amended the notes to make it clear that the references to common law in the relevant section were meant in contradistinction to statute law and that we were not commenting, as a Government and in either the Bill or the notes, on the important but much broader philosophical debate about the origins of parliamentary sovereignty.

Let me deal first with the point of general principle to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in particular, referred. It has always been the Government’s position that clause 18 is declaratory of the existing state of our law in making it clear that European Union law has direct effect and application in this country for one reason and one reason only: namely, Parliament has given it that effect through primary legislation. I differ from my hon. Friend in that I continue to believe that it is valuable for us to have this declaratory clause on the statute book to serve as a clear expression of Parliament’s will and as an abiding point of reference for the courts if they are invited in future to consider again the sort of arguments that have previously been brought before them, most notably by the prosecution in the metric martyrs case, to the effect that European law has acquired over time an autonomous authority of its own that does not derive from Acts of Parliament.

[Steve Baker]

May I say how grateful I am that my right hon. Friend has given this clear statement of the Government’s and Parliament’s intent? We appear to have disappeared into such esoterica that even for one who takes a close interest in the clause it is almost impossible to understand the debate. Will the Minister confirm that should judges need to rule on this clause, they will be able to refer to Hansard to be absolutely clear what Parliament’s intent was?

[Mr Lidington]

Judges will of course look first at statute but it is also the case, following the Pepper v. Hart judgment, that if the courts are in any way uncertain about the meaning of a piece of legislation, they can look at what the Minister of the day said on behalf of the Government, as recorded in Hansard, as an aid to interpretation.

European Union (Amendment) Act 2008

Steve Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

First, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). Too often, when addressing questions such as the one under discussion we get bogged down either in procedural matters or, matters that verge on the nationalistic, but this evening he has transcended that old territory and talked about what is good for the UK and Europe in broader terms. I shall attempt to add to his remarks.

If we wish to say something about what is going on in Europe today, we must talk about the broader sweep of political economy, and I therefore also refer to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). We must say something about the EU, and I say this:

“It is the last gasp of an outdated ideology, a philosophy that has no place in our new world of freedom, a world which demands that we fight this bureaucratic over-reach and lead Europe into the hope and potential of a new, post-bureaucratic age.”

That is how the BBC reported the remarks my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in Prague in November 2007, which, coincidentally, was the month when I joined the Conservative party and approached my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to discuss becoming a Member of Parliament.

[Mr Lidington]

indicated assent.

[Steve Baker]

I see that my right hon. Friend remembers that, but I suspect he regrets giving me the reference.

[Mr Lidington]

indicated dissent.

[Steve Baker]

I am most grateful for that.

We have talked about political economy, and great matters are at stake. It seems to me that there have always been two visions for Europe: a classical liberal vision and a vision of a so-called social Europe—an interventionist Europe. A classical liberal Europe would enable free movement of people, services and goods, all of which are to be applauded because we know that human flourishing depends on free trade and peace. The big question is: when did Europe become a social Europe, a socialist Europe and an interventionist Europe? Is it right that we put our faith in the omnipotence of government to solve all our problems and to deliver stability and prosperity?

With this measure, the European Union becomes explicitly a transfer union and is explicitly moving money and wealth around from one member state to another, and I suspect that Germany has very nearly had enough of it. We should not persuade ourselves that this is an entirely new phenomenon. I was most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone for giving me the opportunity to write in his European journal with a colleague and friend of mine, Professor Philipp Bagus, a German economist at a Spanish university. We explained how the European Union is inherently a monetary transfer union. By monetising their debts, profligate countries have been able to appropriate for themselves wealth from the productive nations such as Germany. This has been going on in a way that very few people understand for a very long time, and I believe that it has substantially contributed to the crisis that we are in. Having lived with this principle of redistribution by subtle means for a long time, we now seem to be explicitly adopting the notion of fiscal transfer union and direct economic governance.

[Mr MacShane]

May I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the Hansard record from 1984 when Mrs Thatcher brought back the rebate? My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that she had hauled down the Union Jack and hauled up the white flag of surrender to Brussels. She replied that that was quite wrong, that it was right that we should transfer, and right that we aid Portugal and the poorer members of the EU. At times, I feel like a Thatcherite.

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, but the question is not whether we should help our friends in Europe, but how we should do so. Everybody here is interested in securing the maximum of human flourishing right across Europe—I do not doubt that—but the question is how to do that. Should it be done through the omnipotence of the state or through free trade, free markets and peace?

I believe in stability and prosperity for Europe, but I do not believe for one moment that the European Union is capable of delivering it. I finish by reading a quote from a great French liberal statesman. He said:

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”

If this measure goes through, Europe will indeed have adopted that idea and it will have done so very much to its disadvantage.

European Union Bill

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I should begin by apologising to the House for being so keen to table a number of new clauses and amendments at this late stage. It is not as if there is anything better going on in my life. It is not that Arsenal are playing Barcelona tonight, and I could have been watching that. Actually, as a referee I do not like Arsenal that much, but I could have been refereeing the football game between the Press Lobby against the Crown Prosecution Service—and I have a family, and there is a dinner that I could have gone too.

However, I did want to point out to the Minister that there are some fairly big gaps in the Bill, which came to my notice rather later than they should have. New clause 3 concerns the emergency brake, especially in the context of criminal justice matters. New clause 4 concerns the post-2013 financial framework. New clause 5 concerns own resources decisions and EU taxes. I have also tabled a range of complementary amendments.

New clause 3 deserves some explanation. Certain European laws proposed under the treaty on the functioning of the European Union are subject to the emergency brake procedure. Such proposals are adopted by qualified majority voting in the Council, and relate to social security and procedural and substantive criminal law. When an EU law on social security is proposed under article 48 of the TFEU, a member state can declare that the proposal

“would affect important aspects of its social security system, including its scope, cost or financial structure, or would affect the financial balance of that system”,

and, having done so, can request that the proposal be referred to the European Council. The proposal is then so referred, and the Council suspends its consideration of the measure.

When an EU law on procedural or substantive criminal law is proposed under article 82(2) or article 83 and a member state considers that the proposal

“would affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system”,

that member state may request that the proposal be referred to the European Council. The proposal is then so referred, and the Council suspends its consideration of the measure. A member state’s ability to stop the adoption of a proposal subject to qualified majority voting in that way is known as the emergency brake.

After the proposal has been referred to the European Council, the Council may refer the proposal back to the other Council, which then resumes consideration of the measure, taking decisions by qualified majority voting. However, there must be a consensus in the European Council for the proposal to be referred back. That means that any member state can block the proposal. Under United Kingdom law, the decision on whether to invoke the emergency brake lies solely with the Government. Parliament cannot insist that this happen, and the Bill, alas, will not change that. In contrast, the German Parliament can oblige the German Government to press the emergency brake on any of those matters. New clause 3 would cover all EU proposals subject to the emergency brake except for the proposals that would fall under clause 9(4) of the Bill. It would, however, require the final draft of the proposals to go before both Houses of Parliament, either of which could require that the emergency brake be pressed.

Back in January, in response to a letter that I had sent dealing with various aspects of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe wrote to me that there was nothing to prevent a member state from pressing the emergency brake repeatedly on a proposal. That means that, should Parliament remain dissatisfied with the proposal after it has been referred to the Council by the European Council following a use of the emergency brake, Parliament could insist that the brake be pressed again.

Subsection (4) of new clause 3 is intended to accommodate the possible scenario in which the European Council seeks to come to a consensus on a final draft of the proposal, which would be referred back to the Council for formal adoption straight away. It seems to make sense that the Government should be able to ask Parliament at that point whether the final proposal is acceptable, rather than the Government’s simply agreeing to refer it back to the Council and not insisting that the emergency brake be triggered.

I have been discussing new clause 4 with the Minister’s officials, and have been told that its provisions are probably covered in the Bill. A handful of proposals subject to the emergency brake would appear to be covered by clause 9(4). I would appreciate the Minister’s confirming that, at the end of a convoluted process—during which the British Government might know that a proposal under QMV is to be adopted so they do not vote for it or abstain, but vote against—we in this Parliament could still have our foot firmly on the emergency brake.

[Steve Baker]

I admire my hon. Friend’s tenacity, but I am only a simple engineer, so may I confirm that he has said that this House is unable to assert its sovereignty in relation to criminal justice?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I was not asserting that, although we have given away lots of justice and home affairs powers, and I do not think many Members or many of the British people fully appreciate how much we have potentially given away. This is an important point. Although the Bill has many problems, the referendum lock would ensure that we do not go down such a route in respect of the European public prosecutor and other matters to do with the criminal justice system. The measure I am talking about came in under the Lisbon treaty. No country has pressed the emergency brake yet. I would like to think that the Government would trust Parliament sufficiently for Parliament to have its foot on that brake, rather than for the Government alone to have their foot on it.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 5 addresses a concern that many people share. In September, the President of the European Commission, President Barroso, started reigniting the flame on what is called in Europe own resources decisions, but which is essentially a European tax. I strongly believe that any tax imposed at the European level should be subject to a vote of the British people. That is not only a massive transfer of sovereignty, but it changes a fundamental relationship between us and the EU.

[Steve Baker]

(Wycombe) (Con): Does my hon. Friend not agree, however, that the fact of the situation in which we find ourselves is that the British people have no say about their EU budget contribution?

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The President of the Commission made his comments in the context of the forthcoming negotiations about the new financial perspectives. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will be leading the Government in our approach to those negotiations, has made it clear that we will seek cuts in the European Union budget for the protection of the British rebate and no new European-level taxes.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

8. What steps he plans to take to promote self-determination for Kashmir.

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

It is not for the United Kingdom Government either to prescribe, or mediate in, a solution to the situation in Kashmir. It is the long-standing policy of the British Government that this is a matter for the Indian and Pakistan Governments, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Does he agree that many British Kashmiris, particularly those in Wycombe, hold this Government to account for the actions of our forebears in relation to Kashmir and its predicament?

[Alistair Burt]

I hear the sentiment from my hon. Friend. I must say that the British Government work on, and devote resources to, assisting with conflict resolution in Kashmir, tackling human rights concerns and helping to build confidence on both sides of the line of control. With that confidence, we then continue to ensure that there is a dialogue with the Indian and Pakistan Governments, because the resolution of this long-standing situation is for them, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.