Syria

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

11:12

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

In recent days there have been several major developments relating to Syria. I thought it would help the House if I provided an update on those developments before the House rises.

I will cover our objectives in three crucial areas: our response to the humanitarian crisis; our efforts on the political process, including relations with the Syrian National Coalition; and our support for a strong international response to the use of chemical weapons.

First, we are determined to encourage and lead international efforts to alleviate human suffering in Syria and the region. The United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to the humanitarian relief effort after the United States. The Prime Minister’s announcement at the G20 in St Petersburg of an additional £52 million in assistance brings our total support to £400 million so far, and we are encouraging other countries to do much more. As a result of the meeting convened by the Prime Minister during the G20, Canada, Italy and Qatar have made new funding commitments, and 10 countries agreed to lobby for unfettered humanitarian access for international humanitarian organisations inside Syria, and to provide medicines, contamination tents, and medical training against chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

Secondly, we remain committed to helping bring about a political settlement. The basis for a political solution was agreed in Geneva last year, namely the formation of a transitional Government, with full executive powers, drawn from the regime and the opposition, by mutual consent. We are in close touch with our partners about convening a second Geneva conference to make that a reality. It is absolutely clear that no lasting or meaningful political solution can occur without the moderate Syrian opposition. The Syrian National Coalition has committed itself to a secular, democratic and pluralist Syria that ensures equal rights for all Syrians. That is a vision that the whole House and our country can support.

Last Thursday I held talks in London with the president and senior leadership of the Syrian National Coalition. We are providing more than £20 million in non-lethal support to the opposition, including 4x4 vehicles, body armour, generators, communications equipment, water purification kits and equipment to protect against chemical weapons attacks. This includes 5,000 escape hoods, detector paper, and a stock of nerve agent pre-treatment tablets which have already been delivered. President al-Jarba, of the national coalition, and I discussed ways the UK could provide further non-lethal support to the opposition to help save lives, alleviate humanitarian suffering, provide services in areas no longer under regime control, and prepare for Geneva II.

This support is made all the more urgent by the appalling crimes being committed in Syria. The UN Human Rights Council’s independent international commission of inquiry issued a harrowing report yesterday describing crimes against humanity and war crimes being committed by the regime and its forces, including indiscriminate shelling, sieges, massacres, murder, torture, rape and sexual violence, enforced disappearances, execution and pillage, and serious violations committed by some extremist anti-regime armed groups, which we also condemn.

On top of this, we have now seen mass murder inflicted by the regime’s use of chemical weapons. So our third objective is to ensure a strong international response, so that these barbaric weapons are not used again and that those responsible are held to account. The House debated this subject on 29 August, and we have made it clear that we respect the view of the House.

The UN team is expected to report on its investigation into the 21 August attack early next week. We await their findings, but there should be no doubt in this House that all the evidence continues to point in one direction: the Government confirmed last week that UK experts at Porton Down have tested samples from a victim reportedly treated as a result of that attack. Both the clothing and soil samples tested positive for sarin.

Human Rights Watch issued a report this week stating that, based on its own independent evidence and assessment,

“Human Rights Watch finds that Syrian government forces were almost certainly responsible for the August 21 attacks, and that a weapons-grade nerve agent was delivered during the attack using specially designed rocket delivery systems.”

It went on to say:

“The scale and coordinated nature of the two attacks…the presence of government-controlled potential launching sites within range of the targets; the pattern of other recent alleged chemical weapon attacks against opposition-held areas using the same 330 mm rocket delivery system; and the documented possession of the 140 mm and 330 mm rocket systems able to deliver chemical weapons in the government arsenal—all point towards Syrian government responsibility for the attacks.”

The international consensus that the regime was responsible is growing. During the G20, 11 nations, including the UK, signed a statement condemning the regime’s use of chemical weapons and supporting efforts by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons use. A week later, that statement has now been signed by 25 countries.

On Saturday I attended the EU Foreign Ministers meeting in Vilnius, which unanimously agreed that there was strong evidence of regime culpability, and that

“in the face of this cynical use of chemical weapons, the international community cannot remain idle”.

This growing international pressure, including the threat of military action by the United States, has had an impact. On Monday, I hosted Secretary Kerry for detailed discussions on the way forward. On the same day, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, announced that Russia would urge the Syrian regime to sign up to a proposal which would place their chemical weapons stocks under international control for destruction. In response, the regime announced that it supported the initiative and was ready to co-operate, and that it intended to join the chemical weapons convention, open up its sites and give up its chemical weapons.

Given its track record, any commitment made by the Syrian regime must be treated with great caution. This is a regime that has lied for years about possessing chemical weapons, that still denies that it has used them, and that refused for four months to allow UN inspectors into Syria. Nevertheless, as the Prime Minister has said, we have to take this proposal seriously and we have to test its sincerity. If the Syrian regime verifiably gave up its chemical weapons stockpiles, this would obviously be a major step forward. We agree with President Obama that this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force. Intensive discussions are now taking place about how to achieve this, and Secretary Kerry is meeting Foreign Minister Lavrov in Geneva today to discuss the proposal.

Our diplomats in New York are in close discussion about a draft Security Council resolution, and the five permanent members of the Security Council met for consultations last night. A resolution must establish a binding commitment for the Syrian regime to give up its chemical weapons within a specific time frame. We will hold further discussions in the Security Council once the UN inspectors have reported. The United Kingdom will make every effort to negotiate an enforceable agreement that credibly, reliably and promptly places the regime’s chemical weapons stocks under international control for destruction.

The House should be in no doubt of the scale of the challenge and the immense practical difficulties that would need to be overcome. It would require the genuine co-operation of a regime that denied until recently that it possessed these weapons and has used them ruthlessly against its own people on at least 14 occasions, killing many hundreds of people, including women and children. The regime has a large number of sites—possibly the largest stock of chemical weapons possessed by any nation in the world—in numerous different locations in a country that is a contested battlefield. We would need to have confidence that all chemical weapons had been identified and secured and that they could not fall into the wrong hands.

These issues can all be overcome with sufficient international unity and good will, and provided there is a complete change of approach by the Assad regime to all its past practices and deceptions. Therefore, we will approach these negotiations with determination and resolve, knowing that if successful it would be an important breakthrough, but that overcoming all these issues will not be easy and that in the meantime thousands of Syrians are dying every month from conventional weapons in this worsening conflict.

It is abundantly clear that this diplomatic opening would not have come about had the international community shown complacency or disregard for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and that pressure on the regime must be maintained. At the same time, we will continue to do all we can to alleviate humanitarian suffering and save lives, we will support Syria’s moderate opposition, and we will make every effort to advance a diplomatic solution to a conflict that has gone on for far too long.

11:21

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and indeed for advance sight of it this morning. Coming to the House ahead of the parliamentary recess acknowledges that there are strongly held opinions and deeply felt concerns on both sides of the House about events still unfolding in Syria.

I welcome the Government’s steps to provide vital humanitarian support to those affected by the conflict and the continuing efforts to secure additional funds from the international community. Those humanitarian efforts are necessary but insufficient to alleviate the suffering. The level of ongoing violence in Syria today represents the greatest diplomatic failure of the international community in the 21st century. We support the Government’s continuing efforts to convene a second Geneva conference, but we remain of the view that a contact group could assist in that endeavour, given the present difficulties in securing the attendance of the warring parties.

Members on both sides of the House stand united in their revulsion at and abhorrence and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in this ongoing and bloody conflict. It is a conflict that means that Syria is disintegrating as a nation state. That disintegration risks destabilising not only Syria’s immediate neighbours but the region as a whole.

Two weeks ago, the votes of this House on Syria reflected real concerns that the country was being pushed too quickly towards military action, on a timetable set elsewhere, without due process being followed and the necessary steps being taken. Moments after the Government motion was lost—a rejection of the Government’s rushed judgment in relation to the use of British military force without precedent since perhaps the case of Lord North in 1782—the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and read from a sheet of paper the following words:

“It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.”—[Official Report, 29 August 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1555.]

The suggestion has since been made that the decisive voice influencing the Prime Minister’s apparently predetermined decision to rule out the use of British military force in Syria if the Government motion was lost was not that of the Foreign Secretary but that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, in his capacity as Foreign Secretary, can the right hon. Gentleman offer the House any examples of circumstances in which the Government will seek to come back to the House on the issue of the use of British military force in Syria? The Foreign Secretary has just told the House: “The United Kingdom will make every effort to negotiate an enforceable agreement”, so he clearly agrees with me that it is preferable, if it is possible, to remove the threat of chemical weapons from Syria without having to resort to the use of force.

Two days after those votes were cast in the House of Commons, President Obama specifically referenced the British Government’s failure to secure the support of Parliament when explaining his decision to delay the use of force in Syria and indeed to take the matter to Congress, so I ask the Foreign Secretary this question. Is it not abundantly clear that if the Government’s motion had been passed by this House two weeks ago, the United States military force would in all likelihood have already been used in Syria and the diplomatic path that he now advocates with such conviction would never have been reached?

None of us has any doubt about the murderous nature of the Assad regime, and no one should have any illusions about the fact that since the start of this conflict the Russians have provided not only weaponry but significant diplomatic cover to the Assad regime. The challenge confronting Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov today in Geneva is indeed daunting. Their task is to find ways to evidence that a goal that is desirable is also doable. That would mean agreeing a credible plan in circumstances not just of low trust but of violent conflict; a means to identify, verify, secure and ultimately remove those weapons from Assad’s possession, with the final goal of destroying them altogether. While these critical negotiations are taken forward, the UK must continue its work to help alleviate the suffering and engage constructively with partners in the Security Council.

[Mr Hague]

There is strong agreement about everything I said in my statement, judging by what the right hon. Gentleman said, although disagreement about one thing that was not in the statement, which I will come back to.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that there is strong unity across the House on the importance of our humanitarian contribution. He said that everything that we and other countries were doing was necessary but not sufficient to alleviate the suffering. That, sadly, is true, because only the end of the conflict will truly alleviate or give us the opportunity to alleviate the suffering of millions of people. He rightly welcomed the diplomatic efforts that we continue to make on bringing about a second Geneva conference. There is no shortage of discussion in the international community about how to do this. We have regular discussions with all our colleagues on the Security Council, including Russia, about how to bring it about. Ideas are floated about different diplomatic groups that might bring this about, but the essence of the problem remains that we need all appropriate parties to be ready to fulfil what was agreed at Geneva. There is no evidence that the regime is in a position to do that as things stand, but we will continue to work on that.

I take what the right hon. Gentleman said as agreement in the House on the approach to the negotiations now taking place about an international agreement on chemical weapons. He said that a credible plan was needed in an atmosphere of low trust and violent conflict. That is correct, and it strikes the same note as the one that I was striking—that we must take this seriously and make every effort to make it successful, but that to be successful it has to be an enforceable agreement that credibly, reliably and promptly deals with this issue and places the regime’s chemical weapons stocks under international control for destruction.

I need to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about only one thing that he said, which is a rather extraordinary claim that none of this would have come about had the Opposition not voted against the Government motion two weeks ago, which is a rather self-obsessed view of world developments. It is like the story of the cockerel who thought its crowing brought about the dawn. He will remember that the motion we put before the House said that, far from being in a rush, the Government would await the report of the UN inspectors, which has not yet come out, before taking any military action, that they would make every effort to secure a Security Council resolution, and that there would be a second vote. That is the basis on which the United Kingdom was proceeding, and there is no sign at all that this development would have taken place had Governments around the world not been debating those issues and had the United States not been debating whether to take military action.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what progress is being made at the United Nations to secure a resolution for unfettered cross-border access for the humanitarian agencies? He will be aware that most of the UN aid is going through Damascus. That means that aid is reaching the areas held by the Government but not reaching the areas held by the rebels. As winter comes on, the danger of starvation and a medical emergency will increase unless the situation is resolved.

[Mr Hague]

This is a very important issue. We are, one way or another, getting aid into all 14 governorates of Syria and into many different parts of Syria. However, the regime has often sought to interfere with that aid and has denied access to some areas. It has even reportedly engaged in removing medical supplies and preventing them from getting to areas where its own people are needing urgent medical attention. The answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is that we have not yet secured agreement on a resolution or action on this at the United Nations Security Council. All attempts so far to agree in the Security Council on statements or resolutions that require the Assad regime to perform any particular actions, including on the humanitarian side, have been opposed by Russia and by China. That does not mean that we should give up on it. At the G20 the Prime Minister discussed with other countries returning to this issue at the United Nations if necessary, and we are standing ready to do so.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

May I wish the Foreign Secretary every success in the attempt to remove chemical weapons from Syria? I am sure he will acknowledge, however, that they account for just 1% of all the casualties in this awful civil war. Will he use his influence to persuade the whole of the opposition, a significant part of which is opposed to the process now going on in the United Nations to resolve the chemical weapons issue, to come to the negotiating table, because it takes two to tango? It will be difficult enough getting Assad and the Russians and the Iranians lining up; it is essential that he use his influence to get the opposition willing to negotiate as well.

[Mr Hague]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is very important that the regime and the national coalition are ready to negotiate in a second Geneva conference on the basis of what was agreed at Geneva last year. A large part of the discussions that I had with the national coalition last week was that they must be ready to do that at any time, and that their own dissociation from the use of chemical weapons must be made as clear as possible. They received that message very, very strongly from me last week, and they will continue to do so.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

When the House debated this matter in August in our response to the chemical weapons attacks in Damascus, we were working on the basis of an extremely short assessment by the Joint Intelligence Committee. Since then, the USA has published a detailed analysis, as have the French and others, and Human Rights Watch has concluded in a very detailed report that the regime was almost certainly responsible for the attacks. To take a requirement cited by the Leader of the Opposition, does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence against the Syrian Government is now compelling?

[Mr Hague]

The evidence is compelling. In my view, it has always been compelling because, as was clear even at the time of our debate two weeks ago, there was no plausible alternative explanation. It is true, of course, that as time goes on and medical and soil samples are analysed, the evidence gets even stronger. The actual evidence is there, so yes, it is compelling. We now await the report of the UN inspectors. As I have explained before in the House, they do not have a mandate to attribute blame, but of course we hope that their findings will nevertheless be of significance.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

France has said that it wants a resolution under chapter VII of the UN charter that threatens serious consequences if Syria breaches conditions. Does the Foreign Secretary support that position?

[Mr Hague]

We are working closely with France, and with the United States, on a text for the Security Council. Last night we discussed with Russia and China how to set about a statement and resolution at the Security Council. As is widely known, the French draft that has been put forward is a chapter VII resolution.

I think it is best at this stage for us to be clear about what a resolution must achieve, rather than set bottom lines and red lines in every direction. The test, as I have set out before, should be a binding commitment for the Syrian regime to give up its chemical weapons within a specific time frame, and an agreement that is credible and reliable and that promptly places these chemical weapon stocks under international control. The main thing is to have a resolution and agreement at the Security Council that fulfils those objectives. We will keep discussing that with other countries.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I welcome the efforts of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over recent days. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that achieving international control of Syria’s chemical weapons will require not only the effective use by Russia of its influence in Syria, but truce, safe passage and ceasefire arrangements, which necessarily link progress on this vital issue with political settlement in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention, as I did in my statement, to the immense practical difficulties involved. Much of Syria is a contested battlefield and chemical weapons are held in numerous locations. Those sites are, of course, all in areas controlled by the regime, not the opposition, so this requires the full co-operation of the regime, and that, in turn, requires the full diplomatic involvement and pressure of Russia. The coming days will test whether they will be forthcoming.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

We must all pray that there will be an international agreement ensuring the peaceful removal of these weapons from Syria. The Foreign Secretary has referred to practical difficulties, one of which is safe access and egress, not only for the inspectors, but for the weapons themselves. Will the British Government argue very strongly that if such safe routes are set in place they can be used for the delivery of humanitarian aid to the 6 million people in Syria, who the most recent report states are dying at a rate of 80 to 150 a day from conventional weapons?

[Mr Hague]

That is a good point. It will be very important, exactly as the hon. Lady says, for there to be safe access. That might open up other opportunities, but it remains to be seen. It is very important that all our work to improve humanitarian access continues in parallel with that to deal with the chemical weapons. We do not yet have an agreement—we are still some way away from one—on how and whether this can be done, so I think the hon. Lady is getting ahead of where we are in negotiations, but this is a question that we will certainly keep in mind.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Whatever side of the argument we are on, I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that things have moved on substantially since the debate a couple of weeks ago, not least with the emergence of Russia as an active player, rather than a constant blocker of any settlement. What does he think has brought about Russia’s change of heart, although we are yet to see the genuineness of its actions as opposed to its words?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right that Russia’s proposals on Monday were a very important change of approach. That is particularly apparent to me, given that I have on several occasions over the past couple of years discussed with Russian representatives whether there is a way of working together on the chemical weapons in Syria. It has always been the Russian position hitherto that the Assad regime would not use its chemical weapons—it did not expect it to use them. I think that the mounting evidence that the regime has used those weapons and the discussions, particularly those in the United States, about whether to take military action have produced a change in the Russian position. Whatever the motives and reasons for that, we should nevertheless welcome it and work with it, which is what we are now seeking to do.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Foreign Secretary has said that under the Geneva agreement, there should be a transitional Government

“drawn from regime and opposition by mutual consent”.

It has been reported that the Syrian National Coalition has said that it will not deal with some figures in the regime. Will there be any preconditions on who may attend a second Geneva convention to try to establish such a transitional Government?

[Mr Hague]

The mutual consent clause refers to the outcome of the creation of a transitional Government. In our view, it should not refer to who comes to a second Geneva conference. It will be up to the regime and the opposition—the national coalition—to nominate their representatives for the conference. They will need a significant degree of freedom in doing that, but they will have to bear it in mind, when nominating their representatives, that they want a successful outcome. Mutual consent is about the outcome, not about setting preconditions on who can come.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

With reference to our ongoing humanitarian response, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the creation of a Department for International Development-funded, land-based British mobile army surgical hospital capability could play a significant part in our response to the Syrian crisis and to any future civil war that might afflict the middle east?

[Mr Hague]

Through DFID’s work, we make a huge contribution to people’s medical welfare. DFID already provides money for about 300,000 medical consultations and a wide range of medical supplies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is constantly reviewing and updating how best we can help. She will have heard my hon. Friend’s question.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Can the Foreign Secretary explain why in 2012, a year after the civil war in Syria started, a UK firm was granted a licence to sell industrial chemical products that, according to the Defence Secretary, could be used in processes to produce poisonous gases? According to the Business Secretary, although the EU sanctions were fortunately tightened, some of those products had already been sent to Syria, despite what the Defence Secretary told me on 2 September. Perhaps I could have an explanation and an apology from the Defence Secretary.

[Mr Hague]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that no such apology is needed. He knows the position on this matter. The licences were revoked before the chemicals were exported. There is no evidence that the chemicals concerned in those licences were exported to Syria. Licences were granted in earlier years under the previous Government, whom he supported. In fairness to them, there is no evidence that those goods, if they were exported, were used for anything other than their declared commercial purpose. When those two things are taken together, there is no evidence that any such exports have contributed to Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

We all want to see chemical weapons removed from Syria’s civil war. However, does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the chemical weapons attacks were unleashed without the authority of the Assad regime, it cannot be credible that the regime can put all of Syria’s chemical weapons beyond use?

[Mr Hague]

That is a good point. That is the test. As I set out in my statement, to make this idea work, we need the genuine co-operation of a regime that has denied that it has chemical weapons and that has used them against its own people. We are looking for its genuine co-operation in ensuring that the chemical stocks are placed under international control for destruction. We have to approach that with great caution. The situation has changed for the many reasons that we have just discussed and particularly because of the threat of military action by the United States. We now have to test to the full whether the Syrian regime means what it says on this issue.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming so promptly, as he regularly does on these matters, to report to the House. I congratulate the Government on increasing and sustaining their large humanitarian effort to relieve the terrible suffering of the 6 million homeless people who are effectively refugees in their own country and in the surrounding area. I do not want to dwell on the problems—they are nothing compared with what would happen if military action went ahead, let me remind him—but is he aware that one of the problems is the composition and attitude of the Syrian national opposition alliance? Can he tell us, on a narrow front, who, to the best of our knowledge, was responsible for the terrible atrocity and pillaging that took place in the Christian communities, where some of the remaining people still speak a form of Aramaic? Who, in his best judgment, was responsible for that?

[Mr Hague]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. On his specific question, it is very hard for us to know, from outside the country, who is responsible for each terrible atrocity. The UN commission of inquiry is clear that atrocities have been committed on both sides—by both pro-regime and anti-regime forces. It is clear that they are predominantly committed by regime forces, and we must not lose sight of that. Are there extremist anti-regime forces that also commit atrocities? Yes, there are. In our judgment, that reinforces the need to support the National Coalition and its allies, who are committed to a non-sectarian, secular, democratic pluralist Syria. That is why we have to bolster them, given the terrible actions carried out by others.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Following the question from the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), it is worth remembering that between 2004 and 2010 the previous Government allowed chemical weapons to go to Syria with chemical weapons licences, and invited President Assad to Britain in 2002 to see the Queen. I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work he is doing on the humanitarian aid going into Syria, and for the work by organisations such as Save the Children. If all the measures he has set out today do not work, and, God forbid, there is another serious chemical attack by the Syrian Government on their citizens, what will be the British Government’s response?

[Mr Hague]

To be clear about licences in previous years that pre-date the current conflict and were granted under the previous Government, they were for cosmetics and health care products with legitimate commercial use. As I said, there is no evidence that they were misused, and the licences were rigorously assessed against the relevant criteria. The fact that they were granted under the previous Government is something that the hon. Gentleman and others should bear in mind, as my hon. Friend says. We have to try to ensure that the full range of policies I outlined succeed. Of course, there are many disturbing scenarios by which the crisis in Syria could become even worse than it is today, but if it does so, the international community and this House will have to consider our response. Our emphasis now is on making these policies succeed.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

If diplomacy and the threat of military action fails, does the Foreign Secretary agree that air strikes, a no-fly zone and sending missiles to various sites in Syria will not, on their own, secure or remove chemical weapons? They could, in fact, give an advantage to the opposition and subsequently fall into the hands of extremists. Is it not the case that to secure the chemical weapons sites, any strike has to go along with a significant ground force?

[Mr Hague]

No, I would not agree with that, and President Obama made it clear in his address to the United States on Tuesday that he is not now, or at any stage, proposing the deployment of ground forces in Syria. That is not something we have proposed or considered at any stage. I think it is possible to deter the use of chemical weapons without the deployment of ground forces, but the House made its decision and we respect that decision. The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the Prime Minister’s statement in response to that. I can assure him that it was agreed collectively by the Government, including by the Foreign Secretary.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary expand on what role British diplomats, particularly UK representatives at the UN, are currently playing?

[Mr Hague]

They are playing a very energetic role. We are fortunate to have an outstanding team at the UN, which has often succeeded against the odds in a whole series of negotiations on UN Security Council resolutions. On this issue, they have, depressingly, often been blocked, including by actual vetoes, by Russia and China, but they are working hard with the other permanent members of the Security Council. A meeting took place in New York yesterday afternoon, and there will of course be further meetings in which they will be intensively involved in the coming days.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Given the contradictory statements from the Government on the issue of chemicals being exported to Syria—seen in responses to parliamentary questions and in the correspondence between the Business Secretary and the Committee on Arms Export Controls—will the Foreign Secretary undertake to do everything he can to ensure that there is full transparency, including over the naming of the British and the Syrian companies involved and the quantities and particular form of chemicals exported, so that we can learn lessons for the future?

[Mr Hague]

The Business Secretary and I are always very much in favour of tremendous transparency on these things, and we make an annual appearance at the Committee on Arms Export Controls. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government also regularly publish the details of such licences and exports. Let me reiterate that the licences granted in the most recent period were revoked, and there is no evidence that exports took place. In the earlier period when licences were granted under the previous Government, they related to cosmetics and health care products for legitimate commercial use, and we have no evidence that they were not used for that purpose. That is the position. All the normal transparency about these issues will apply. The record shows that the system works, that we have strong export controls in this country, and that when licences are revoked, the system works, too. Our strong system should be supported across the House.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that Syria has “possibly the largest stock of chemical weapons possessed by any nation in the world”. Given the size of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, its geographic dispersal and the highly mobile nature of most of it, and given the difficulties of identifying and verifying it, what capability does the UN have to dismantle such a large stockpile of weaponry, and will it not inevitably involve the deployment of a very large number of civilian personnel in-country?

[Mr Hague]

It is a big task, and my hon. Friend is quite right to point to it. There are no reliable or precise estimates of the quantities—some estimates have suggested 1,000 tonnes—and these chemical stocks are likely to be held in very different states. Some may be completely mixed and ready for use, while others may be precursors that could be mixed at a later stage, so it is a very complex matter. There is considerable expertise in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons—expertise does exist in the world—but he is quite right that this would be a big exercise, involving a lot of people. That is why, as I have suggested, there are many difficulties in our way, but we are determined to test to the full whether this can work.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary’s capacity for self-delusion seems almost infinite. Is he not proud that we, this House, led the world—including American popular opinion—in our decision to take not the easy course of an instant military strike, but the difficult and painstaking course of diplomacy and peace building? Did not Iraq and Helmand teach us that thoughtlessly taking the military course leads to great suffering and the loss of soldiers’ and civilian lives?

[Mr Hague]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he was opposing an immediate military strike when he voted against the Government’s motion, he is deluding himself to the most extraordinary extent. That motion called for a second vote, for the House to await the findings of the United Nations inspectors, and for an attempt to be made to raise the matter strongly at the United Nations Security Council. I think that the self-delusion lies with him.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

It has often been said that the international community will hold the Assad regime accountable for the massacre on 21 August in which than 1,400 people were killed. Is that still the case, and, if so, how will the international community hold the regime accountable?

I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to Sir Mark Lyall Grant, our fantastic ambassador to the United Nations, whom I know well, and who does a great job.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right: Sir Mark Lyall Grant does a terrific job at the UN, and is working hard on this issue now.

The question of accountability is very important, not just in relation to chemical weapons, but in relation to so much of what has happened in Syria over the past two and a half years. I think that, in the United Kingdom, we would generally be able to agree that the International Criminal Court should address it in due course, or that the Syrians should be able to address it themselves in their own country, with adequate procedures, in the future. However, we cannot get that option through the Security Council at present, because, again, it would be blocked by Russia.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said that he “got it” two weeks ago when the House of Commons voted, but, following the Foreign Secretary’s remarks today, I am not sure what message he received from that vote. Does he think that it was irrelevant in relation to subsequent events?

[Mr Hague]

I think we are very clear about what we are doing here, and I hope the whole House is united on it. In the last few days circumstances have changed significantly, with the Russian position changing. I take it from what was said by the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are agreed in the House—and there should be strong unity on this—that we should test to establish whether what we are proposing can be successfully brought about. It needs to be credible, it needs to be reliable, and it needs to be prompt. The change in the position has come about because of the international pressure over this issue—because of the pressure on the Assad regime—which includes the debate about military action in the United States. That is what has brought about the change in the Russian position.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

While I welcome the fact that the Russians have come to the table as far as a diplomatic solution is concerned, and their donation of—I understand— £20 million in overseas aid, we cannot forget that they have been partly responsible for the arming of the Assad regime. Can my right hon. Friend tell me how much money we are putting in, and what it is being used for?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the arming of the regime. If he is asking about the money that we are giving to the opposition—to the National Coalition—I can tell him that it amounts to more than £20 million so far, for non-lethal equipment. It is predominantly equipment that saves lives: for instance, water purification kits, generators, communications equipment that makes it easier for people to find out about regime attacks, and body armour. I think that, together with our humanitarian work, shows that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of the attempt to save lives and alleviate suffering in Syria.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is the duty of every Member of Parliament to ensure that every diplomatic avenue has been exhausted before we put our service people in harm’s way, or put civilians at risk. It is disingenuous of the Foreign Secretary to suggest that Parliament was recalled with the intention of our taking military action within days, and to dismiss the vote in the House of Commons and its significance. There is now an opportunity for diplomatic discussions to take place, but is the Foreign Secretary concerned about the possibility that talk of military action will give one side or the other the impression that it may gain an advantage if military action goes ahead? Has he considered what the implications of that are for the success of the diplomatic discussions?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman needs to catch up with events. There was no proposition about military action in my statement today. That is not what the Government are proposing. All our efforts are aimed at relieving humanitarian suffering and pursuing a diplomatic track. Nor have I suggested at any moment that the vote of the House of Commons was insignificant. I said that the Government fully respected the vote of the House of Commons. He should not put words into my mouth, and he should catch up with what is going on in the world.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

The longer the Syrian civil war goes on, the more powerful the extremist elements of the opposition become. We heard from the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) about attacks on the Syrian Christian community. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says that we want to support the Syrian National Coalition to make sure that more moderate voices are heard and remain dominant. May I push him to say what we are doing to make sure that those moderate voices remain dominant?

[Mr Hague]

We do that through the support that we give to the Syrian National Coalition. I set out to other hon. Friends a moment ago the range of the assistance that we give to the National Coalition, which is to save lives, to help it to function and operate, and to give it every possible diplomatic support in pursuing a course that is moderate, democratic, non-sectarian and pluralistic with respect to the future of Syria, and those are things which it greatly values and for which it is very grateful to the United Kingdom. Of course, it has often asked for additional support, including for lethal support from other countries. We have taken no decision to provide that, but we will continue to look at the additional support that we can give it.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Foreign Secretary concerned that despite ongoing efforts, chemical weapons could be moved to Hezbollah in Lebanon?

[Mr Hague]

It is one of the great dangers of any country possessing chemical weapons that they could be moved to somebody else, including organisations that might be prepared to use them. I have no evidence that that has happened, so for the moment I think we can be reassuring about that, but any programme for the destruction of the chemical weapons or for securing the chemical weapons of Syria must bear in mind the risk of them falling into the wrong hands along the way. That therefore places the great premium that all of us in the House are placing on this process if it can be agreed and be credible, reliable and enforceable.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am relatively new here and I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary can explain something to me because I am puzzled. We were called back some weeks ago. If military action was not imminent, why on earth were we called back?

[Mr Hague]

As the Prime Minister made very clear at the time, because we wanted to consult the House at the earliest opportunity about a huge crisis. We did consult the House and the House gave an answer to that in not approving the Government motion, but that is why the House was recalled. Hon. Members have often advocated recalling the House in order to debate something at an early opportunity. Despite being new, the hon. Gentleman might find that he is doing that at some stage in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Prior to any action taking place, what discussion has he had with other Governments in the region, in particular Israel, who have serious concerns about chemical weapons?

[Mr Hague]

We will want to consult all nations in the region. Israel has long-standing concerns, of course, about Syria’s chemical weapons stocks, and for very good reason. I believe that it and, I hope, all nations in the region would be supportive of a reliable, credible agreement for the securing and destruction of those weapons stocks, but it will be important for the permanent members of the Security Council and others to consult all the nations in the region.