Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Debate between Baroness Jowell and John Bercow

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

I was a member of the Cabinet that decided in good faith that this country should join the invasion of Iraq, and I know how heavy the burden is on those who are charged with such a decision. I also agree that, in many cases, doing nothing is as much a decision as doing something and that the present catastrophe in Syria demands a decision of us. As has been said, the use of chemical weapons is prohibited by customary international law and binding conventions. Short of the use of nuclear weapons, it is the most heinous crime a country can commit, made even more dreadful when chemical weapons are used in civil war on its own people.

I am therefore unhesitatingly in favour of taking the step that will deal as effectively as we can with Assad. But what is that step? What is our locus? How can we be effective, and at what cost? I want to deal with the last question first. The cost in human suffering and human life is clear, but there is another long-term cost—the damage that we may do to the rule of international law in international affairs.

It is obviously deeply frustrating that Russia and China have formed a blocking minority in the Security Council, and I know that Members will want to reinforce the importance of diplomatic initiatives to seek to engage Russia, in particular, in negotiation with the Syrian Government. However, it is also clear that to go to war with Assad—that is what it would be—without the sanction of a UN Security Council resolution would set a terrible precedent. After the mission creep of the Libyan operation, it would amount to nothing less than a clear statement by the US and its allies that we were the arbiters of international right and wrong when we felt that right was on our side. What could we do or say if, at some point, the Russians or Chinese adopted a similar argument? What could we say if they attacked a country without a UN resolution because they claimed it was right and cited our action as a precedent? Legal rectitude may not amount to much, but it is all we have. It remains our best hope, and we cast it aside at terrible peril, hence the importance of the route map set out in the Opposition amendment.

I welcome the decision that the Government have now made to take no action until the UN inspectors have delivered their report, but if or when it is proved conclusively that Assad has used chemical weapons on his people, what can we do to prevent him from doing so again? There will perhaps be time in the future to bring him before the International Criminal Court, but in practical terms, what can we do, even if we are able to get a UN Security Council resolution?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) mentioned, the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote to the Senate armed services committee last month—we are all grateful for the excellent briefing by the Library—about having examined five options. He said that controlling chemical weapons would involve billions of dollars each month and involve risks that

“not all chemical weapons would be controlled, extremists could gain better access to remaining weapons, similar risks to no-fly zone but with the added risk to…troops on the ground.”

The situation is parlous, and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness Jowell and John Bercow

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to her new position; she has one of the best jobs in Government. I congratulate the Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, the Olympic Delivery Authority, all the public servants across Government, the Government Olympic Executive, the city authorities and the thousands of people who gave their all to deliver a summer that the people of this country will never forget. A special congratulation goes, of course, to our Olympic and Paralympic athletes and to the games makers, who embodied the feeling of the people of this country that these were their games and that they mattered in the contribution to making them such a success. They really did belong to the people of our country.

In congratulating the Minister on his well-deserved promotion, I invite him to take forward one of the important means of delivering the success of the Olympics by continuing the commitment to cross-party working with a plan for sport that will survive for a decade. It should include more primary children playing sport in physical education, more children competing, and adults, throughout their lives, enjoying the pleasure of taking part in sport at all levels. A cross-party approach will guarantee stability. I commend that approach to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady, whose courtesy is equalled only by her comprehensiveness.

Olympics and Paralympics (Funding)

Debate between Baroness Jowell and John Bercow

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Jowell]

May I just deal with that point, which is tediously technical? When we compiled the budget, the status of the delivery organisation had not been settled. The definition of status could have placed the delivery authority on one side or the other of liability for VAT. If it had been, in effect, a local authority, it would not have been liable for VAT. It was judged not to be a proxy body for a local authority and was therefore liable for VAT. That was not clear until, having won the bid, we were able to nail down the role and function of the delivery authority.

[Mr Speaker]

We are now clear.

Point of Order

Debate between Baroness Jowell and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Questions 1 and 3 on the original future day listings for oral questions to the Minister for the Cabinet Office concerned proposals to abolish the Youth Justice Board and the office of the chief coroner—vital bodies scheduled to be removed under the Public Bodies Bill. The Government transferred the questions to other Government Departments. Do you, Mr Speaker, not agree that the Opposition should be able to hold the Minister for the Cabinet Office to account on these specific and unpopular proposals?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. I certainly agree that Ministers should be held to account. The House will know that transfers are matters for the Department concerned, not for the Speaker, although I am concerned that such transfers should be made in good time. The right hon. Lady’s point will have been heard and noted on the Treasury Bench.

Bill Presented

European Union Act 2011 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr William Cash, supported by Mr Bernard Jenkin, Mr John Whittingdale, Mr John Redwood, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Graham Stuart, Mr Richard Shepherd, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Chris Heaton-Harris, Zac Goldsmith, Mr Peter Bone, presented a Bill to apply the terms of the European Union Act 2011 such as to require approval by Act of Parliament and by referendum of provisions for creating a fiscal union or economic governance within the Eurozone.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 228).