UK-Turkey Relations

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chairman of our Select Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), made it clear that during our visit to Turkey we were impressed by the progress it had made in recent years, not just economically but in dealing with long-standing issues of human rights and internal democracy, many of which persist. We were, however, concerned about the legal system, the long delays in the bringing of people to trial, and the continuing difficulties of many people in the Kurdish community.

It is clear that there is still a long way to go before Turkey meets the standards required to join the European Union. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and others pointed out, fundamental difficulties will remain for as long as certain EU countries take their current attitude to Turkey’s potential membership. According to an opinion poll which is quoted in the report, only 35% of the Turkish population now believe that their country will become a member of the EU.

That presents us with a fundamental challenge, because Turkey is growing rapidly, both in terms of its economic growth of 7%, 8% or 9% per annum and in terms of its political and regional influence. Syria has already been mentioned, but Turkey also has borders with Iran, Iraq and other countries. Geographically, it should be a strong partner, and potentially—this is the position of both the Government and the Opposition—a member of the European Union.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Turkey has been a strong partner in NATO and a steadfast friend of this country and the rest of NATO for many years. I share the hon. Gentleman’s wish that we get it into the European Union as soon as possible.

[Mike Gapes]

I shall say something about NATO in a moment.

The position taken by the countries in the EU that are resisting Turkey’s application is, of course, easier for them to take because of continuing difficulties over the resolution of the conflict involving Cyprus. I am disappointed that, although the Greek Cypriots elected a President who was, unlike his predecessor, committed to this process and although the Turkish Government have not opposed it, there has been no resolution. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), my friend from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, said earlier that the position could be viewed more optimistically in the light of Cyprus’s presidency of the Council of Ministers. I hope so, but I myself am not very optimistic, because I think that some of the deep-seated issues are still not easy to resolve regardless of whether Cyprus has the presidency.

We need to look to the future imaginatively. Who knows what the current debates about the future architecture of the European Union and the inner core of the eurozone and the other developments will lead to? It is possible that in five, seven or 10 years’ time, we shall be looking at a completely different structure of European foreign policy and political relations. If that proves so, it is tragic that people in this country should want Turkey to join the European Union while a substantial number of Government Members want the UK to leave it. It seems perverse to want Turkey to be in the EU while we ourselves want to leave it. That revolving-door approach to international relations strikes me as totally illogical and absurd—

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We welcome the peaceful conduct of the second and final round of Egypt’s presidential elections, but this is a critical moment in the move towards democratic, civilian-led government in Egypt. We are concerned by recent announcements of the dissolution of Parliament and the reintroduction of powers of arrest and detention for the military. We want the process of drafting a new, inclusive constitution and the holding of new parliamentary elections to be taken forward as soon as possible and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has today been making those representations to Egyptian Ministers.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the Foreign Secretary when he says that there are similarities between what is happening in Syria now and what happened in Bosnia in the 1990s. I also note that he mentioned “robust action”. If we take any robust action that involves our servicemen, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to ensure that it includes robust rules of engagement so that our servicemen, if by chance they were ever deployed in that dreadful country, would have sufficient means to defend themselves properly?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience and I certainly take that point and agree with it. Should we come to that eventuality, we will try to do that. Having heard our earlier exchanges, he will be conscious that our efforts are devoted to a peaceful political transition in Syria and to a cessation of violence. At no stage have we advocated a military intervention, but we recognise that the situation is so grave and deteriorating so quickly, and that such crimes are being committed, that we cannot take any options off the table at the moment.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Mr Bob Stewart.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Recently the Argentine Government have accused us, the British, of militarising the south Atlantic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why we have strong, effective and deterrent armed forces on the Falkland Islands is that Argentina continues to make threats that might turn to military ones?

[Mr Lidington]

As so often, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

Ilias Ali

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I am delighted that Mr Speaker has given me the opportunity to raise this important subject, and that the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) are here to discuss it.

I applied for this debate following a meeting in Bradford with members of the Bangladeshi community. While they wanted to discuss the current political crisis in Bangladesh, which I will come to shortly, their immediate concern was for the safety of llias Ali, a former member of the Bangladeshi Parliament and a key activist in the main Opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist party. His family and friends are also concerned about his disappearance.

Mr Ali disappeared with his driver, Ansar Ali, less than a month ago on 17 April. Unconfirmed eye-witness reports suggest that they were pulled from a car at gunpoint and forced into a black minibus. The disappearance of Mr Ilias Ali is not the first such incident in recent months in Bangladesh, but it has been the catalyst for widespread protests throughout the country, including a number of general strikes. During the disturbances and protests, there have been further reports of deaths and disappearances at the hands of the police and security services.

Since winning independence from Pakistan in 1971, politics in Bangladesh has been marked by brief periods of democratic government, but all too often they have been ended by military intervention, followed by a period of military rule. Although economic and political corruption have been rife, Bangladesh’s economic growth rates have been among the highest in Asia, and significant progress has been made in education and health policy under former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia of the BNP and the current Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League.

The political rivalry between the leaders of the two main political parties has dominated Bangladeshi politics since the 1970s. However, in 2007, following yet another state of emergency and the formation of a military-backed caretaker Government, both leaders found themselves under arrest on charges of corruption, along with more than 100 other politicians. Both leaders were subsequently freed by the High Court and allowed to lead their respective parties into the general election in December 2008. The Awami League and its coalition, under Sheikh Hasina, won a landslide victory in an election that international observers reported to be largely free and fair.

Following that election, and the attempts to eradicate corruption and clean up politics, there was optimism that a period of political stability would see the emergence of a truly democratic and pluralist Bangladesh. However, the recent political turmoil has put paid to that optimism, and there is concern that it could lead to another suspension of democracy in Bangladesh. The anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International, recently warned that a “growing partisan political influence” was

“eroding the capacity of the state to promote rule of law, justice, equality and basic human rights of the people”.

Although the disappearance of Ilias Ali has largely been the cause of the recent disturbances, it is unfortunately not an isolated incident. On 4 February, two student activists, Al Mukaddas and Mohammed Waliullah, went missing. They have not been heard from since. On 2 April, two BNP activists, Iftekhar Ahmed Dinar and Junaid Ahmed, were taken from their homes by plain-clothes police officers. Their whereabouts remain unknown. Two days later, on 4 April, a prominent trade union activist from the garment industry, Aminul Islam, went missing. He was found dead a day later.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have one question for clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Bangladeshi Government are deeply involved in the kidnappings?

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I am not suggesting that. That is precisely the difficulty that exists in Bangladesh at the moment: there is no clarity about who is responsible, on one side or the other. I just want to highlight the fact that these people are missing, whatever the circumstances. It is the duty of the Government of Bangladesh to investigate those issues. I hope that the Minister—I am delighted that he is here—will exert some pressure, or at least tell us what we can do, because we have a large Bangladeshi population in the UK. I do not want to place blame on any particular body.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is a master of her brief and is completely passionate about her subject, as she has shown again today.

I want to apologise to the House for leaving the Chamber earlier and missing the last two minutes of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech. Thirty-nine of my constituents were having tea on the terrace and were leaving at 5.30 pm. I apologise for the discourtesy and also for missing some of the earlier speeches, but those constituents were from the village I live in so I felt that I had to see them.

I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development on the fact that we are increasing our funding on international development aid from 0.56% to 0.7% from next year. I am delighted that we are doing that. Lots of people have lobbied me to ask why that is not enshrined in legislation and commenting that we cannot guarantee it will happen, but I believe the Secretary of State and the Government that we will deliver the scale of funding that we have committed to achieving next year.

That funding will do much for the people who need it most—the poorest people in the world—but there are one or two worries about the amount and speed at which the Department for International Development is going to have to scale up spending. I hope that DFID is recruiting people from a business background—I am sure it is—because much of the money will fund new start-up businesses and entrepreneurs and go towards skilling people so that they can do that. The only way that people in poor countries can get out of poverty is by having jobs and earning money for themselves. It is no good just giving them a handout every time—we have to give them a hand up by helping them to invest in their own skills and businesses so that they can provide for themselves and their family as well as employing others. That is also the way that this country will get out of this recession. It is important that people in those countries are able to gain skills and come out of poverty, and establishing such a system would be the quickest way of doing that.

I would also like more funding to help women in developing countries. Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to meet some women from Afghanistan and Pakistan through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Those women are very worried that funding is not getting through to women in Afghanistan and they want some ring-fenced money to help women secure their own future. They feel that at the moment it is going to men and is disappearing. A recent report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact found that money is leaching and that no mechanism in DFID is able to track that money. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will have seriously considered that report because we have to stop money disappearing. It has to go to the right places.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my experience, the only way to guarantee that aid gets through to women in Afghanistan is for our agents to give it to the women and watch them use it. Does my hon. Friend agree that as soon as intermediaries are used, money starts leaching away—sometimes mightily?

[Pauline Latham]

Yes, I agree completely. It has been shown that women are much better at spending money. They are much more likely to spend it on their families, their relatives, their homes and their children’s health and education, so it is important to give them the money. As soon as men are in the situation that we see them in in northern Pakistan and Afghanistan, we find that the money does not get to the women. I hope that DFID is looking at ways of helping to support those women because that approach will, in turn, support a secure and stable Afghanistan and northern Pakistan.

The women I met are very brave Members of Parliament. If we lose an election, that is the worst that can happen to us, but the worst that can happen to people in some developing countries is that they lose their life. I hope therefore that we are giving support that enables women to continue to put themselves forward for election and assists projects that help women to help their families. They fear that large sums are not getting through to important projects because money is being siphoned off not just at one level but at every level it passes through. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will have decided to look at that carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

I will be moving on to that.

Our exports to Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain—the so-called PIGS countries—amount to more than 10% of our exports, compared with just 0.7% to Brazil or 1.4% to India, to which even Belgium exports more than we do. In short, the concept of replacing our friends and allies in the Euro-Atlantic trading region with the new so-called emerging powers is not paying off, as the Indian decision to buy French war planes rather than British ones and the view of Indian politicians that they no longer want or need aid from London demonstrate.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

This will have to be the last time, I think; I do not get any extra, injury time.

[Bob Stewart]

I do not think that that is what the Foreign Secretary said. I think he said that we should export wherever we can in the world, including to people to whom we have traditionally exported.

[Mr MacShane]

To export, one has to make friends throughout the world, everywhere, but when we look at Europe we find that that is not really the Foreign Secretary’s speciality. He was recently in Vietnam, and since he has been in office the UK’s trade deficit with that country has almost doubled. Whatever else he is achieving, he is a champion of increasing imports to the UK and the Blackburn Rovers in respect of decreasing exports from our nation.

Let me quote just one analysis, which is out today. The author states:

“It is noteworthy that other developed countries have re-orientated their export profiles more effectively than Britain has done, raising doubts about whether we are keeping pace with our EU partners in promoting British commercial interests in the emerging economies.”

That extremely prescient analysis comes from the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in a new pamphlet published today by Business for New Europe. It is a Conservative condemnation—much like that of his brother, who always condemns whatever the Prime Minister proposes—of the failed key plank in the Foreign Secretary’s policy of promoting trade.

Our genius lies in being Europe’s most open economy. We were creating a niche as the world’s centre of excellence for overseas students. We still have many who came here two or three years ago, as the Foreign Secretary told us in respect of Chinese students, yet the Chinese and Indians are going to other European countries, because they can fill in a simple, short visa application and then travel anywhere in the Schengen zone—while our form is being replaced with the most difficult visa application known to man. We all expect Chinese citizens to complete our visa in English; the Chinese one day might expect us to complete their visa forms in Chinese, and then we will realise just how deeply patronising we have been.

Let us turn to protecting the national interest. Britain has permanent interests not permanent friends—it is an old saying. But our permanent interests are best promoted by making as many friends as possible, and the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister seem to lose friends and dis-influence people whenever they can. The Prime Minister, as we know, snubbed François Hollande when the now President of France came to London in February.

The Government have quietly buried an 80-year-old relationship with Poland through their handling of the current Polish Government and through the Prime Minister’s crude interference in Polish internal affairs, with support orchestrated from No. 10 for the clericalist national right-winger, Jaroslaw Kaczynski. As with the Prime Minister’s ostentatious endorsement of Mr Sarkozy, the curse of Cameron worked its magic and Mr Kaczynski’s opponent was elected.

We should not forget the Deputy Prime Minister’s description of the Prime Minister’s allies in the European Parliament as nationalists, “anti-Semites and homophobes” —a description highlighted by the appalling Waffen-SS commemoration march in Latvia in March, when Jewish people were jostled at an event supported by a party allied to the Conservatives. As with the Prime Minister’s insulting and gratuitous pandering to anti-Israeli Turkish politicians when he called Gaza “a prison camp”, even though it would be more accurate to describe Gaza as a centre of missile attacks aimed at Jews in Israel, the standing of Britain is damaged by such loose-lipped remarks and by the dubious company that the ruling party keeps.

That isolationist approach has been roundly condemned this very week by the Atlantic Council, one of the most prestigious American foreign policy institutes. In a report written by Nick Burns, one of the US’s most experienced diplomats, Mr Burns, who served the George W. Bush Administration with distinction, says:

“Prime Minister Cameron’s coalition government has yet to develop a coherent strategic vision for the United Kingdom’s role in a challenging global landscape.”

The report cites the blunder of the Prime Minister’s veto—the veto that never was—last December, which made Britain a laughing stock among Euro-Atlantic policy makers and opinion formers. It also underlines American dismay at the massive, Treasury-imposed defence cuts, which have left Britain without aircraft carriers at a time when the high seas—from the Strait of Hormuz to the contested Pacific islands where China is ratcheting up the pressure against Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines—are a new zone of tension.

We heard yesterday in the House the Defence Secretary prostrating himself before the smirking Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as the Secretary of State hauled up the white flag of surrender to the Treasury, for which a balanced budget is far more important than a balance of power or Britain’s presence in world affairs.

The Foreign Secretary has also downgraded human rights and democracy promotion. Yes, Britain tailed behind Mr Sarkozy in his Libyan expedition. Gaddafi has gone, but chaos, murder, mass violation of human rights and open warfare in southern Libya now exist. We hear constantly about the end of Gaddafi but nothing about the end of human rights in Libya today.

The FCO human rights report, which was once a printed volume of rigour and authority, has now gone virtual with just a handful of the worst violating nations examined in detail.

The Government are selective in their approach. Syria is condemned, but the torturers of Bahrain are invited to Britain with every honour we can bestow. The Burmese regime was excoriated, but when I repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to raise in public the case of Liu Xiabo, the Chinese Nobel peace prize laureate who now rots in the Chinese gulag, there was only silence. Pakistan is criticised, but the dreadful human rights abuses in Kashmir perpetrated by Indian security forces are downplayed and no pressure is put on India by this Government to change its line on Kashmir.

We have also heard relative silence in the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, although I am glad to say that, thanks to Opposition Members, it was mentioned earlier in the debate. On 12 October last year, when I asked the Prime Minister about Mrs Tymoshenko, he said:

“We completely agree that the treatment of Mrs Tymoshenko, whom I have met on previous occasions, is absolutely disgraceful. The Ukrainians need to know that if they leave the situation as it is, it will severely affect their relationship not only with the UK but with the European Union”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 329.]

In fact, the Ukrainians have made the situation worse by denying her medical treatment, although we are glad that she seems to be out of prison at the moment.

Other European leaders have taken a stand on the matter. The Prime Minister’s friends in the Czech Republic, the Czech President, Mrs Merkel, Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Secretary and Carl Bildt, the Prime Minister’s friend in the Swedish Government, have spoken out publicly on it; we had barely a squeak from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. Britain must stand up for Mrs Tymoshenko—as the Prime Minister pledged to do in this House in October.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening; I expected him to do so. I have spoken on this subject before in the House, and it would be reasonable to do as he suggests. However, Morocco’s concern would be that there was an implicit assumption that its human rights record is not particularly good. In a region that is troubled with its record in that respect, Morocco is something of a beacon, and I would encourage it in the direction of travel that its new Government, and their predecessors, have taken in improving human rights. I would be very reluctant to see that country held out as failing in some way on its human rights record, although I agree that there is every imperative to ensure that it improves in that respect.

I hold out Morocco as having done a great deal in recent years, particularly last year, to take itself further forward on the path towards constitutional democracy. In the middle of the year, there was the referendum on the new constitution, with elections in November. At a time when we have seen chaos sweep through north Africa and the middle east, Morocco has stood as a beacon of stability and relative calm. That is because it has a multi-party tradition. While its democracy is evolving—some of us have had the opportunity to witness that at first hand—it has had a tradition of nascent democracy for some time, and that is what has kept it free of some of the insurgency and mayhem that has enveloped the wider region. The Moroccan autonomy plan for the Western Sahara is undoubtedly imperfect—most plans are—but it does offer a credible and pragmatic way forward. It is supported by France and the US and, in truth, it is the only show in town. Next year marks the 800th anniversary of the first diplomatic contact between England and Morocco. One of our oldest friends deserves our unequivocal support as it tries to stabilise the region and control the ingress of enemies that we hold in common and must do all we can to defeat.

We have heard a great deal today about international development. Charity begins at home, but it most certainly does not end there. I am very proud that the Government have maintained their commitment to international aid. I am perfectly happy to face down populist demands to have it cut, and more than happy to explain to dissenters how it has helped to eradicate smallpox, reduce polio, tackle malaria, and even assist tax collectors, necessary as they are in state-building. If I had a criticism of this Government, and indeed of their predecessors, it would be that they have been insufficiently willing to present aid as being in the UK’s national self-interest. If it is explained in that way, we are more likely to get buy-in from the voting public. At the end of the day, our views are interesting, of course, but we need to represent the views of the public, and it is certainly the case that they are not entirely signed up to granting aid at a time when they are being expected to tighten their belts.

[Bob Stewart]

The public would be greatly more interested in international aid if they realised that we have stopped, as much as we possibly can, money being siphoned off and sent to offshore accounts rather than going to the people to whom it was directed. If we could explain to the public that we have stopped malaria and are doing things to help the little people, that would make international aid much more acceptable.

[Dr Murrison]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s attempt to cut aid to relatively wealthy countries with nuclear weapons, such as Russia and China, together with the UK aid transparency guarantee, should help to reassure a doubting public. However, it is the duty of all those of us who believe in international development to take the message out to our constituents and persuade them that it is in the recipients’ interest and in our own national self-interest that we should maintain our aid programme in very difficult times.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what part of the 0.7% of GNI in aid that we intend to spend will be channelled through the European Union. I commend him for his desire to have transparency in aid, which is absolutely right, for reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) touched on. It would be perverse if, having gone to the trouble of making aid transparent in the UK, the large portion of our aid that goes through the EU and the European Commission was obscure. A lot of EU aid is used to prosecute foreign policy in relation to its near abroad, seemingly as an extension of the External Action Service. As chairman of the all-party group on Morocco, which is the largest recipient under the European neighbourhood policy, I can say that in general terms the money seems to be reasonably well spent.

Israel and the Peace Process

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

This is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship in one of these debates, Mr Walker. I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for securing the debate. I must apologise; I cannot stay for the full debate because of other appointments.

This debate is an important step in rebalancing some of the discussions that Members have had in the House. The debate outside the House is fraught with difficulty and nuances, and it is important that both sides here get a fair hearing. Peace and the two-state solution can be achieved only by direct peace talks. I doubt whether any hon. Member would argue for a single-state solution—Palestinian or Jewish. One of the fundamental barriers to such talks is that Hamas, as part of the coalition that forms the Palestinian Authority, refuses to accept the Quartet principles, which are that the state of Israel be recognised, previous diplomatic agreements be abided by and parties renounce violence. Until Hamas accepts those principles, there can be no lasting peace in the region. There cannot be negotiation when one side at the table seeks to wipe the other off the map.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

A Member from Northern Ireland is here. The peace process there went ahead with the Provisional IRA still on active operations, so perhaps one of those principles is not sacrosanct.

[Mike Freer]

That, of course, is an interesting point of view, but the Governments were able to negotiate with parties that were willing to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Lady. I say quite openly that I have not visited Gaza. That is why I am speaking instead about the west bank and why I made the point I did.

The problem that has emerged with the peace process is that we have, for far too long, had talks about talks about negotiations. We need to get both sides round the table to ensure that there are proper, face-to-face negotiations. In that regard, there is a duty on the Government of this country, which is widely respected in the region, where it has deep historical ties, and which is, in many ways, trusted by both sides.

[Bob Stewart]

The fact of the matter is that good people have been trying since 1967 to bring the two parties together, but all attempts have failed. We can all sit here piously saying that people should get round the table and negotiate, but some Methuselah, perhaps, has to come along and devise a way to bring that about. Until that happens, we will not have progress. That is what we must achieve somehow.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is clear that we need to break the logjam. Mention was made of the peace process in Ireland, and I certainly never thought we would see a peace process there in my lifetime. I welcome what has been done there so that we can have a proper democracy and a proper arrangement between people on that island.

Similarly, we have to break the logjam between Israel and Palestine, but there has to be good faith on both sides. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) rightly reminded us, Israel has, over the years, agreed to put the issue of settlements on the table. To get peace with Egypt, there was an agreement to remove settlements, and they were removed; to get peace with Gaza, settlements were removed; and to get peace with the west bank, settlements were removed. The Egyptian peace treaty was highly successful, but such success has not, sadly, been the case in Gaza, and that is a problem for the Israeli Government.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

That suggests that the Prime Minister’s influence is greater than it is. It is up to the Irish people to decide whether to accept the treaty, whether within the European treaties or outside.

Despite the penny dropping with everyone else, the Prime Minister resolutely clings to his phantom veto. At the press conference after the January European Council, he said:

“There isn’t an EU treaty because I vetoed it; it doesn’t exist.”

That flies in the face of the evidence. The European treaty involves 25 out of 27 of the member states. It involves the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. It sounds like a European treaty; it walks like a European treaty; it clearly is a European treaty. The Deputy Prime Minister is at pains to describe this situation as temporary, but in truth he was powerless to prevent the Prime Minister from putting the Conservative party interest above the national interest, as it was reported he was advised to do by the Foreign Secretary.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does that mean that the official Opposition would be happy with the treaty, leave it as it is and do nothing?

[Emma Reynolds]

We have made it clear that we are not happy with the treaty. We would not have walked out of the negotiations in December when a text was not even on the table. We would have negotiated a different treaty. We believe that this is a fiscal straitjacket like the one that the Government are putting on our country, and it is not in the interests of the eurozone or the UK.

As a result of the Government’s actions, Britain has never been so excluded from decisions affecting its vital national interests. That is bad for British business, bad for jobs and bad for families across the country. No British Government, regardless of political colour, have been as complacent as this Government about the emergence of a two-speed Europe. By putting party interest above the national interest, the Prime Minister has rendered the Government dependent on what could be described, euphemistically, as the Conservatives’ least-favourite institution—the European Commission—to protect the UK from decisions being taken without us even being in the room. Even Baroness Thatcher, a staunch critic of the EU, understood that being in the room was of paramount importance. She would never have relied on the European Commission to defend the British national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am glad that the hon. Lady made that intervention, because I can assure her that the all-party group on European reform, with which her hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife other Labour Members, Government Members and Members across the House are closely involved, is investigating the options for change. It is not a campaign group but an investigative group. It is a disappointment to me and to others that the hon. Lady has not engaged in that debate, because we have turned up some extremely interesting facts.

As the devil in the EU is in the detail, I would like briefly to mention three areas. The first is financial services. Before the financial crisis, the single market for financial services was a very good thing. It significantly added to British GDP, as well as the GDP of Germany, France and Italy. All the change at EU level was about creating a better single market, including in UCITS—undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities, the most successful financial services export from the UK ever.

Financial services had great legislation; however, since the financial crisis the EU has turned to stopping, slowing down, preventing and shutting down financial services, almost in a sort of act of revenge against the bankers. Indeed, I have heard many EU politicians talking about how City-style financial services are to blame for the problems they have found themselves facing. However, that is simply not true, and our Prime Minister did absolutely the right thing for British businesses and the British economy by standing up for financial services and seeking the safeguards that would enable us to protect the industry, which employs a total of nearly 2 million people in this country and contributes 11% of our GDP on an ongoing basis. He therefore did absolutely the right thing, entirely contrary to what the shadow Minister suggested.

Secondly, the shadow Minister mentioned social policy and the working time directive, and said that the all-party Fresh Start group would repatriate those powers. Not true: we are looking at what the options for change are. She will know, as do many people, that trainee doctors in the NHS are severely hampered. In fact, a coroner in the west country recently attributed the death of one elderly gentleman to the working time directive, which had meant that not enough doctors were on call and that the two doctors on duty were seeing 300 to 400 patients between them. Change is therefore vital.

My third and final point is about structural funds, where we now have a genuine opportunity. Back in 2003, the hon. Lady’s Government’s policy was to repatriate the local element of structural funds. In Britain we have been contributing €33 billion to structural funds over the past seven years. Some €9 billion comes back to the UK, but that is decided by the EU. What on earth is the point of that? We can decide best where to allocate that €9 billion. Interestingly, some of our poorest regions are net contributors to structural funds, not net beneficiaries, so the potential for reform is massive.

[Bob Stewart]

Does that mean that we can change quite easily without any further ado, simply by adopting my hon. Friend’s suggestions?

[Andrea Leadsom]

All the changes that the all-party group is investigating would require negotiation. Some things are more complicated than others, although we are setting everything out in the research that we are undertaking. [Interruption.] I have been asked to finish, so I will.

My two final points are these. For far too long we have tried to avoid the EU and not engage with it, so the other thing that the Government are doing that I welcome is engaging far more and far better with EU policy making at all levels. My second point is about better EU scrutiny in Parliament. We have been rather bad at that in the past, so I am glad that the Minister for Europe will be doing far more of it in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

And it is not as if this place is crammed full of legislation, is it, Mr Deputy Speaker? I really wish that the Government would stop continually hiding behind the Backbench Business Committee’s existence to deny their allocation of time for what are important debates.

The hon. Member for Stone made the interesting observation that the EU institutions could not be used for just a group of EU member states, but of course that is nonsense. They are used if there are rows over Schengen, which does not include us, or if there are rows over fisheries policy, which on the whole does not involve Austria, Hungary or other land-locked nations. Also, there have always been groups or clusters of EU member states with particular concerns which the European institutions have to have some regard for.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to give time to other colleagues and do not want to take up my full time.

I should inform the House that I might not be here for the wind-ups, because I have to go and hear Monsieur François Hollande speak at King’s college London. I am excited about meeting Monsieur Hollande, this socialist who is proposing to increase the income tax on people earning €150,000 to 45%—in other words, lower than the business-crushing tax rate that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer imposes on higher earnings. Of course, Monsieur Hollande is not proposing to rip off the epaulettes or the légion d’honneur from bankers he does not like—as our Prime Minister did with Sir Fred Goodwin—nor is he proposing retrospectively to deny bankers their bonuses or to introduce retrospective tax legislation on what bankers earn. We have the most anti-banking Prime Minister in the history of Great Britain. As a low-tax socialist, I will be glad to be at the college listening to Monsieur Hollande, who seems to have a much more moderate and pragmatic policy.

I would be interested to hear from the hon. Member for Stone, who has left his place, why exactly the Royal Bank of Scotland—partly owned by us—and HSBC are running to the European taxpayer, in the form of the European Central Bank, to ask for cheap loans. Why on earth should the European taxpayer bail out appallingly badly run, inefficient British banks that do not lend their money, but continue to try to pad out their bonuses and salaries? I certainly do not object to their doing so; indeed, I hope that the European taxpayer will show some generosity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

With the Single European Act, we had a single market established before the Maastricht treaty. I do not have time, in the seven minutes available, to go over the whole Maastricht treaty, but a very wide body of opinion now suggests that it should never have been signed—I have heard that said from the Government Front Bench. All the safeguards that were put in place have turned to dust. Let us bring things a little more up to date. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his party was so upset about the signing of the Lisbon treaty that it wanted a referendum on getting out of the EU altogether, and Liberal Democrat Members walked out of the House.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in his place, made some apposite points, as did the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), although he was completely wrong. He asked what was wrong with groups of states coming together within the European Union to do something where not all member states are participating, as in the case of the Schengen agreement and many other things. That comes back to my main point, because that was all being done within the framework of a treaty. A completely different treaty is being set up now, but it is one within which member states are still co-operating and operating within the framework of the European Union, using the EU institutions, as we know. It was apparently drawn up by the European legal service, the European Commission has a central role in it, the European Commission is mentioned in the whole of the preamble and throughout every article, and the final decision-making body with arbitration powers over this is the European Court of Justice.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

I will give way to my hon. Friend at the end, if I may, because I need to make one or two other points before then.

I would respectfully draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that although we are rightly not a part of this treaty, it brings about some fundamental innovations in decision making among EU member states. In particular, I refer to articles 7 and 8. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone rightly referred to the coercive powers being taken by the European Union, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider just how coercive those powers are and to try to ensure that they are never brought to bear against this country. No pressure should be put on us to submit.

There is a body of opinion in the EU that wants to make this country submit to the EU deficit procedure and we have, unfortunately, entered into some commitments on that. We must keep out of those commitments because they run completely counter to the principles of democracy both in the individual member states and in the EU. Under article 7—let us remember that this is not an EU treaty and is outside the EU—when the Commission is of the opinion that a country is in breach of the deficit procedure, it brings the matter before the other member states and unless there is a qualified majority vote against taking the decision that the commission wants to take, the matter must be treated as a breach and the offending country will be hauled before the European Court of Justice. This is a very significant procedural development.

We are familiar with how we used to have a veto in European Union matters. It goes back to 1975 and we were promised when we joined the European Union that we would always have a veto. That was eroded and we agreed to abide by the qualified majority vote for more and more things, particularly in the single market, but at least it was a qualified majority vote and a qualified majority of states had to be in favour of a measure before it could take effect and legally bind this country. Under the new EU method of decision making, the Commission gets its way unless there is a qualified majority vote against what it wants to do. There could be a clear but simple majority of EU member states against the Commission’s finding a member state in breach, but it will still legally be necessary for the country to be considered to be in breach and hauled before the European Court of Justice even though a majority of EU states were against that course of action, and despite what individual electors in the countries concerned might want. There could scarcely be anything more coercive than that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone is right to ring the alarm bells. This is a new procedure—it is very new—and it is taking EU integration to a completely different level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I do not honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman, who has sat all through this debate, could possibly not understand what the veto is about. The Prime Minister quite clearly vetoed the treaty so it could not be an EU treaty. That is what happened. That is why the British people were 100% behind the Prime Minister and why coalition Members—or at least the Conservative coalition Members—were wholly supportive of him. He had a better reception for that veto than for any other of the very good things he has done as Prime Minister.

The next issue is whether the treaty will work. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not in his place, but he made a very good point when he said that there were two ways of looking at this matter. One was that we could create this European political and economic union dominated by Germany and that the euro would work. I do not think there is any chance of that system working and it would actually result in the greatest political unrest in Europe since the second world war.

[Bob Stewart]

It looks to me very much as if we would have a centralised economy commanded by Germany. If there were any chance of it working, it would be brought down by the fact that the people of Europe—the people most affected by it—would reject it. There would be a total rebellion by the people of those countries.

[Mr Bone]

It is very appropriate that my hon. Friend in particular made that point. What we would see is extreme nationalism. We would have extreme nationalists saying, “This is the fourth reich,” and all that that would mean. I am talking not just about little political demonstrations on squares outside Parliaments; it would overturn democratically elected Governments. That is why the solution that the hon. Member for Rhondda suggested would not work.

The solution to this problem is to allow countries to leave the euro in an orderly way. Greece, Spain and Portugal at least would come out of it and would then be able to do what every other country has done in the past when it has had an economic problem—devalue its currency and set its own interest rates. There would then be some hope for growth in the future. The idea that we will permanently have regions of Europe that will always be depressed and have the most horrible austerity funded by German taxpayers is beyond belief. I have a feeling that the good and the great of Europe have a policy at the moment of hoping that something will turn up. It is like borrowing more and more on one’s credit card hoping that one’s Euro lottery ticket will come up. It will never come up. What they have to do is deal with the problem now. That will not be pain-free but it will result in a Europe that will begin to grow again. That would be not only in our interests but in the interests of other individual countries.

Probably the main point I want to address is whether we as a nation are being a good Samaritan. It seems to me that we are not, although we see the problem. We did not go into the euro because we always thought that we could not put different countries with different political structures into one economic area with one interest rate and one currency and expect it to work. We said that was wrong, and that has proved to be the case. What we are doing at the moment—this is where the good Samaritan point comes in—is walking by on the other side of the road. We can see what has happened and that something is seriously wrong—that someone is seriously sick—but are we prepared to risk being unpopular and say something about it? If we were a real friend and a real good Samaritan we would say, “You’ve got this wrong and the way to fix it is not to carry on but to stop, think of the problem and solve it by having an orderly reduction in euroland.” That is where we are letting down not only ourselves but other countries in Europe. I urge the Minister not to walk by on the other side of the road but to be a good Samaritan.

Iran

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

At the outset, may I declare that I co-chair the all-party group on Iran with the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and that I have held that position for the past six years?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this timely debate, because it is important that the House move to more discussion of Iran. From what I have heard so far, the debate has been very good, and I have certainly enjoyed the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), whose speech was extremely good and clear about where we are trying to go and the problems we face, and the right hon. Member for Blackburn. I also congratulate the Foreign Secretary on making it clear that the Government are not advocating force or even calling for force to deal with this problem. One of the problems I have with the motion is that although I do not think military action is the correct way forward, given the current position in Iran, I also do not believe that we should ever tie a Government—I do not believe in the principle of ruling something out of such a policy. We have to examine events as they come and see what develops.

I am not going to argue the point about the International Atomic Energy Agency and whether Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. It might be more suitable to have this debate after the inspection is completed and we see the reports from the recent access in Iran. What worries me is what happens after this stage. In the six years that I have done this job in the all-party group, I have never met an official in the United States Government, in the Foreign Office or in the Israeli Government who privately has not said to me, “If Iran thinks it wants a bomb and is really determined to have one, it will get it.”

I have also yet to find many officials who say that they think sanctions will work in the long term to prevent Iran from getting what it has desired not for five or 10 years, but since 1968. In fact, the Americans helped the Shah to build the reactor in Iran; General Electric was involved in that. It has been a long-standing ambition of Iran to possess nuclear power for energy and, I suspect, for nuclear weapons to add to its view that it is a superpower not only in the region, but in the world. It did not launch a tortoise and an insect up into space a few years ago just for fun; it did so to show that it, too, could enter the space race. Unfortunately, Iran was entering that race about 40 years too late, but that was very much about the psyche of Iran and Iran saying, “We, too, can do it. We, too, can be a superpower.”

We have to ask ourselves the question: what happens if Iran produces a bomb? Both Pakistan and India produced a bomb, as did North Korea, in isolation. If Iran does produce a bomb or gets close to doing so, we must ask ourselves what the plan B is and what we are to do. That is where the question for the United Kingdom becomes separate from the question for Israel and the United States. The question for Britain and Her Majesty’s Government is: is it in Britain’s interest to take military action? I know what is in Israel’s national interest, and I defend Israel’s taking that action to defend itself, but that is not the same as what is in Britain’s national interest. The challenge for the policy makers and for the Government will be to prove to this House and to my constituents why taking some form of military action, most likely outside the United Nations and perhaps in support of only one or two other countries—Israel and the United States—is in the interests of my constituents and in the interest of the national security of Britain. That is a much further jump to make.

We need to point out differences between Iraq and Iran. Until recently, Iran certainly ruled by consent—we did not like it and we did not choose the policies, but it ruled by consent. Saddam Hussein never ruled by consent and was a military dictator in the region, and although we should rightly be concerned about Iran’s moving—it is more than drifting—towards being a totalitarian state, we must remember that there are differences.

We must also remember how things appear from an Iranian point of view. If you are an Iranian, your neighbourhood is not very nice; Saudi Arabia is ideologically opposed to the Shi’a sect and thinks that you are heretics. I come from and live in Lancashire, where in the 17th century puritans and Catholics were hammering each other, and the view is the same in this region. Pakistan developed a nuclear weapon and was rewarded with a seat at the top table. That part of the world is unstable, and the arms race has already started; Israel possesses a nuclear weapon and it refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iranians will feel that there is an inconsistency in the west’s position. A number of resolutions, both at the IAEA and the UN, have asked Israel to sign up to that treaty, but it is has consistently refused to do so. That consistency is where we have to start.

We could also try to redouble our efforts on other measures. I congratulate the Foreign Office on the investment that has been made in the past few years to try to double our presence around the world, or to increase it in many embassies. However, we have to know our opponent when we are dealing with Iran. It is full of a separation of powers and full of personalities, because that is how the politics is decided there. The right hon. Member for Blackburn knew that when he tried that communication.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions differences within Iran, and there are huge differences of opinion with Ahmadinejad; hundreds were killed after he was elected, five people were hanged last night in Tehran and the middle classes are against him. We may well find in the next few months or years that he cannot stay in power and is replaced. Let us just hope that that happens and sense comes from the people of Iran, because I am not sure that we can do very much from the outside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for any mix-up that may have occurred.

There are two people to whom the House ought to be grateful including, first, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I attended the Backbench Business Committee with him to push for this debate. I made it clear that I did not agree with the motion he had drafted, but that it was important that it should be tabled. He has come to the Chamber to express an unpopular point of view. Long may people do so, because challenging the consensus in the House, as elsewhere, is enormously important. He has done so tonight to good effect, although I disagree with the motion and will not vote for it. I will vote for the amendment tabled by the other Member who has made a particularly important contribution tonight: the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).

We ought to be grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I have the greatest respect for his knowledge and experience, and for a Member with such knowledge and experience to reveal that he believes that an American military intervention in Iran would have temporary, limited consequences is of great value. It reveals—and he is not alone in this—that there is, both in America and in this country, what can only be described as a war party. That justifies the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay in the first place: the notion that America could intervene militarily in yet another Muslim country with only limited, temporary consequences is believed, but it is complete and utter nonsense.

The consequences of an American military intervention, let alone an Israeli intervention, in Iran would be profound and long-lasting, as has been said by many other Members, and it should be avoided. That is not to say that we should take the option of military intervention off the table. We are dealing with a police state. Iran is a proud country with a rich culture, a strong middle class and a young population, but they have been repressed by a bunch of paranoids. Yes, those people put a religious connotation on that, but we are dealing with a police state. History surely teaches us that we do not deal effectively with a police state by telling it before we even talk to it that, in the final analysis, if all else has failed, we will do nothing about it.

Let us be equally wary of the people we are dealing with who are repressing the people of Iran, and of the war party, which is happy, whether it does it in the tones of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington or in the more belligerent tones of some American politicians who are pushing us towards an end that we are all—one would hope that people in Iran wish this too—desperate to avoid. Let us voice our desperation at the same time as our determination to find a reasonable solution that suits the Iranian people as well as peace in the region and peace in the world. That is enormously important.

[Bob Stewart]

We are already doing as much diplomatically as we can, but we have to put as much effort as we can into encouraging the growth of democracy and encouraging those people who are against the Iranian Government so that somehow they have the courage and support from outside to break out and get rid of the hoodlums who are running the country and causing so much chaos throughout the world.

[Mr Ainsworth]

That is exactly the point that I want to come on to: the limitations of soft power on its own when dealing with a regime such as Iran.

There are two issues that I want to raise: first, satellite communications to the people of Iran have been jammed locally, with possible health consequences because of the powerful jamming equipment that is used, and they have been jammed at source as well. We are effectively doing nothing about that. The victims have been punished, but not the perpetrators. The Iranian regime has jammed those signals, but when Eutelsat and other providers raised that with the Iranians, they were told, “Oh, dreadfully sorry, there’s not a lot we can do about it.” Then we wind up the BBC Persian service, with Farsi1, Asia News Network and Voice of America being taken off those satellite platforms, which would effectively be shut down if that did not happen. We are depriving the Iranian population of access to international opinion. We are allowing those stations to be closed, rather than taking effective legal, international action against the regime, which prevents its own people from listening to world opinion. We have to do something about that. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is on the Treasury Bench, to take effective action within the European Union and within the international forum of the United Nations to prevent such activity to the maximum extent possible.

There is one other area in which we can help. Increasing numbers of diplomats and others are defecting from Iran. “Defecting” is a cold war word that has almost slipped out of our vocabulary, but there are people who are so contemptuous of what they are being asked to do by the Iranian regime that they are walking away from their jobs and defecting. We are not making them as welcome as we should and thereby encouraging others to do the same. We are not allowing them access. We are not giving them visas or platforms to tell us what is going on within the system to the extent that we should do in order to expose the iniquities of the regime.

I appeal to the Government to consider how those defectors can be encouraged. Yes, I know there is a political imperative to deal with the immigration regime, but let us look at visas for that category of people so that we can be educated about what they are being asked to do that is against the interests of their own people. Those are two areas of soft power that we ought to make work.

Although I do not support everything he said tonight, I totally support the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and the tone and content of the speech from the Foreign Secretary. That is absolutely the right policy, which we must stick to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I will give way in a moment.

With the Defence Committee several years ago, I visited the KBOT terminal at the top of the gulf of Hormuz, just south of Basra, from where, along with the ABOT terminal, most of the Iraqi oil from Basra leaves. That was a few weeks after motor launches from Iran had set off bombs underneath the terminal to try to destroy it. The area is now much more strongly protected, but the potential for a conflagration involving Iran, leading not necessarily to a blockage of the strait of Hormuz, but at least to attacks on facilities, urban centres or bases in the area, is great. We as an international community therefore need to be careful and measured and to send out clear signals, whether in relation to mad speeches by Newt Gingrich or to the Israeli Government, that the use of language referring to military action is not necessarily the best solution to the crisis.

I can understand why politicians in Israel are worried. I would be worried if not just the President of a country but a succession of its leaders had said that they wanted to wipe out my state, which they regarded as a cancer, but we need also to point out, as senior figures in Israel have, that military action by Israel will not be in its own long-term interests regarding its relations with the Arab world.

[Bob Stewart]

Military action would be extremely difficult. There are at least 10 different nuclear sites in Iran, and trying to obliterate them would be almost impossible for Israel alone, so military action by Israel alone is probably very unlikely or, at the very least, unwise.

[Mike Gapes]

I agree, and that allows me to move on to what I think is actually happening.

Somebody once said that war was diplomacy by other means, but we have a third way, which is Stuxnet, targeted assassinations and unexplained events. I am not sure whether we can attribute blame or responsibility in any particular direction, but it is quite clear that over recent months and years various things have happened to aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, and events have occurred which might indicate that, without having a war, attempts are being made to delay the nuclear programme, the development of centrifuges and other things.

If the Iranian regime is really determined to get nuclear weapons, and I fear that elements of it are, it will do so at whatever cost, but others in Iran, including some in the regime, recognise that there are benefits to be gained not by acquiring nuclear weapons but by saying, “We are a proud country and we want to be noticed, so we will give the impression that we are moving in that direction so that people notice us, states in the Gulf region become fearful of us and the rest of the world says, ‘Iran is a country that matters.’”

The Foreign Affairs Committee went to Iran in 2007. Mention has been made of its chief nuclear negotiator, Mr Jalili. I was involved in an hour-long exchange with him in a meeting. It was a fascinating exchange, because he started off by explaining that having a nuclear weapon was un-Islamic and forbidden. We went on to have a long discussion about the additional protocol, the non-proliferation treaty and various issues to do with the IAEA. I came away realising that he was very intelligent and calculating. He must be a tough person to negotiate with. I was not involved in real negotiations. Speaking with me was like practice for him before he dealt with the Ministers. It was apparent that Iran is clear in the way that it uses the arguments.

I suspect, as the Foreign Affairs Committee said in 2007, that Iran will at some point get to breakout capability. However, as was said earlier, that does not necessarily mean that it will have a nuclear weapon. It will have the capability to get a nuclear weapon quickly when it gets to that technological position. However, it might choose not to go that far, but to have just the potential, because that will make people notice it. Iran is a country that wants to be noticed.

The tragedy is that Iran has a young, dynamic population that wants to engage with the rest of the world. Anybody who has been to Iran knows that. People come up to visitors in the street and talk to them openly. They criticise their Government openly in a way that does not happen in all other countries in the region; and yet, at the same time, Iran has a theocratic regime at its cap. I do not think that it matters who succeeds Ahmadinejad, because he is not the power in Iran. The power is Ayatollah Khamenei, who is the supreme leader. It is he who rejected the approach from President Obama. It is he who determines where the political process goes, including who can run as a candidate and who can stand for election. Iran has a quasi-pluralistic and quasi-democratic system, but with a theocratic cap. Somehow or other, that system will have to change. Revolutions run out of steam. At some point, the voice of the Iranian people will come through. We have to be clever and not undermine that in the way that we handle this crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Mercer]

I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. However, the words still sit uneasily with me. I do not believe that we are in the business of tinkering with world peace.

I found Defence questions earlier today very depressing. The right hon. Member for Belfast North said in this debate that this situation is the biggest threat to world peace. We are already involved in a regional war in this area. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made so very clear, the country that we are talking about borders Afghanistan, and the regional war stretches through Afghanistan, into Pakistan and touches nuclear-tipped Russia at one end and the potentially nuclear-tipped Iran at the other. We cannot afford any ill-judged military action.

I do not want to sound like a stuck record and to go through all the points that have been made about Iran’s hideous rhetoric; the fact that she may be working on a weapons programme: the fact that, as we speak, she has troops involved in an exercise in southern Iran, called in support of the military leadership; the fact that she is threatening to close the strait of Hormuz; and so on. However, I will say this. When I visited Tehran, some interesting things came to mind. For instance, until I was taken down the boulevard of Bobby Sands—there is a boulevard of that name in the centre of Tehran—I had not realised that Great Britain, and Iran’s relationship with Great Britain, had such high relevance in Iranian and Persian thinking. I had not realised that Great Britain punched above its weight in Iranian thinking. I had not realised that Iran saw Britain as perfidious Albion—I am generalising hugely, of course.

Much of the west’s foreign policy is seen, obviously wrongly, as being dictated by ourselves as a tiny but important nation. I had not realised that a Tehranian might say, “Heavens above, it’s raining again. It’s typical British weather.” All the ills of the world seem to be laid at this country’s door. That puts us in an extremely important position in negotiating with Iran. Many of the Foreign Secretary’s comments therefore give me heart.

When I was in Iran, the Iranians said to us, “Are you honestly suggesting that we support al-Qaeda? Please demonstrate.” Of course, we said, “Well, we have the evidence.” “Do you?” “No, we only have circumstantial evidence.” Of course, we are used to hearing misinformation and black propaganda—we need look no further than our intervention in Iraq under the last Government, in the second Gulf war. In Iran, we said, for instance, “We have heard that the central shura of al-Qaeda is resident here in Tehran”. The reply was, “Please point it out, because it is not. There is no evidence to suggest that that is the case.”

Similarly, we asked British troops in Afghanistan whether they could demonstrate whether any of the weapons being used against them had come from Iran. The answer was yes, but there were also weapons that had come from France, the USA, Germany and Britain herself. There was nothing to indicate a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iran, despite everything that we were hearing from the western press.

Here is the rub: the single most important thing I heard in Iran was that the current generation of leaders there fully understand what it is like to be involved in a war of national survival. Many of the individuals who are now of political maturity were young men of military age during the Iran-Iraq war. One Member—forgive me, I cannot remember which—said earlier that nuclear weapons had only ever been used once. That is true, but let us not forget that in the Iran-Iraq war, when hundreds of thousands of men were killed in action and millions of people died, weapons of mass destruction were used willingly.

[Bob Stewart]

I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that that war was started by Iraq and, to the best of my knowledge, Iran has not started a war.

[Patrick Mercer]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend and entirely agree. My point is that many of the current generation of decision makers, if that is the right phrase in Iran—we cannot look at them as one cohesive political body—have experienced war at first hand. They understand what weapons of mass destruction are like, and my opinion is that if they are allowed to get hold of such weaponry, they will probably use it.

That puts us in an exceedingly difficult position on the one hand and an exceedingly powerful position on the other hand. I say to the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary that if we want our military position to be credible, let us make it so. Let us not have instances, such as we had in the past, of the Royal Navy being embarrassed in the Gulf. Let us ensure that our operations are above reproach. We cannot be anything less than credible.

In the current white-hot and dangerous situation, we have the opportunity to negotiate. When it comes down to it, no side really wants to fight. Let us therefore take the opportunity for Great Britain to prove that she is not perfidious, and to speak to her friends in Israel and America and lead the way. We can use our influence, to use an awful aphorism, to punch above our weight. Although we have the military option, let us pray that we never, ever have to use it.

Somalia

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The United Kingdom is very active on the provision of increased prison places in the country and the region. The Department for International Development is helping to fund the construction of three prisons; in fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been to see the construction of one of them, so we are involved in that.

My hon. Friend is right about the fishing issue. The Minister for Africa—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham)—and I have been engaged in encouraging the transitional federal Government in Mogadishu to claim their exclusive economic zone, and we will encourage their successors do the same, because that will give them the necessary rights to the waters off Somalia. They will, of course, then need a coastguard, naval and maritime capability of some kind to enforce those rights, but, as I mentioned earlier, that is one of the issues we also want to address. These things are therefore part of the longer-term solution to piracy, and my hon. Friend is quite right to ask about them.

I was just listing some of the aims of our conference. We intend to make it harder for terrorists to operate in and out of Somalia. We hope the conference will agree the areas we need to develop to disrupt terrorism across the region, including stopping the movement of terrorists to and from Somalia, disrupting the flow of their finances and supporting the Somali criminal justice sector so that it can detain and prosecute terrorists in a human rights-compliant manner.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

There are disturbing reports that about 50 British nationals are involved with al-Shabaab. Has my right hon. Friend heard such reports, and are they justified?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, they are justified. It would, of course, be difficult to put a precise number on these things, but we are concerned about foreign fighters, in general, going to Somalia, and there is certainly evidence that they include British fighters. Wherever that occurs, and wherever we are aware of it, we work in various ways with the authorities in the region, including in neighbouring countries, and with the emerging authorities in Somalia to try to contain that threat. That is why the defeat of terrorism in the area is an important national objective for the United Kingdom.

On the humanitarian front, the conference provides an opportunity to highlight the need for donors to continue to respond generously and on the basis of needs, to invest more in livelihoods and basic social services, to increase the resilience of households in Somalia to future economic shocks and to help reduce the likelihood of future famines.

We want London to be the start, not the end, of a new process—the process I have described. We want the conference to agree on how we handle Somali issues in future, on a revitalised international contact group, on UN and African leadership and on more countries deploying diplomats and staff into Somalia, not just basing themselves in Kenya, as many, including ourselves, have had to do in recent years. Those are all practical but meaningful steps that will have an impact on the ground.

We hope to emerge from the London conference with a stronger common understanding of the way forward and a renewed political commitment for the long haul. Beyond the conference itself, we will continue to be an active member of international groups on Somalia, including the international contact group on Somalia and the contact group on piracy off the coast of Somalia, and we will maintain our strong bilateral engagement.

Through the Department for International Development, Britain is providing substantial development support over the next four years, working on longer-term programmes to address the underlying causes of poverty and conflict and helping Somalis to take control of their lives and rebuild their communities and livelihoods. That involves working with local and regional governments in areas such as Puntland, which the Development Secretary visited last month, where we will help build democratic institutions that can respond to the needs of their citizens, help the police and justice systems work so that people can feel more secure, and increase access to health care, education and jobs, which are absolutely critical to Somalis and to breaking the cycle of piracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I am glad to say that those characteristics are reflected in the Somali community in Cardiff. One of the problems of that community, however, is that it is invisible. In recent years, we have organised an event to celebrate Somalis who have achieved some success, such as gaining a PhD in chemistry or developing a proficiency in art or sport, in order to encourage and motivate young people. I am certain that such skills exist even in the most disastrous parts of Somalia, and will be evident if they can only be nurtured and developed through proper institutions and a degree of stability that is absent at the moment, particularly in the south-central part of the country.

[Bob Stewart]

My wife started a camp in South Sudan, which by 1991-92 contained 100,000 people. While I was preparing for this debate, she warned, “Remember when you start these big camps that they become a focus for people to come to, and they cannot really sustain that number of people.” We should bear her words in mind when we are considering humanitarian problems. When she was setting up that huge camp she suddenly realised, once she was on the ground, that trying to ensure that the surrounding area could sustain so many people in the long term would involve huge problems—and we have to look at the long term. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking along those lines as well.

[Alun Michael]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and again it is interesting to observe the contrast between the north and the south. After the end of what was known as the hidden war in the north, there were very large refugee camps. Some were over the border in Ethiopia, some were in parts of Somalia, and some were further south in Kenya. In the north that situation is history, because of the development of democratic institutions and stability. Those things are closely interrelated.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that giving humanitarian aid cannot in itself create a sustainable situation for the long term. One of the main issues raised with me by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross was the problem of providing humanitarian aid at a time when al-Shabaab is preventing it from being delivered, as well as preventing free communications and preventing people from living where they want to live. That must be tackled.

A problem highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) was the failure of the transitional federal Government. It is very transitional, it is not very federal, and it is not really a Government; otherwise it is fine. I do not say that in a spirit of negativity, because I think we all want it to succeed. We want the individuals there to make something of their Government. However, it would be foolish not to recognise that the necessary change has not happened. Somalia does not have a Parliament, although some people have been nominated as parliamentarians. For that reason we, as parliamentarians here, have very little capacity to help directly.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the United Kingdom did give assistance to a group of Members who visited Somaliland a few years ago, and has welcomed parliamentarians and clerks to the UK to learn more so that they can develop the institutions that they have in Somaliland. It is, of course, as much in the interests of Somalilanders as in anyone else’s interests that there should be an effective Government in the south. It is not a good thing to have instability in the general neighbourhood. I hope that the Foreign Secretary’s initiative will succeed, and that the CPA and the Inter-Parliamentary Union will be able to work with elected representatives in the future. I applaud the fact that the IPU, of whose UK branch executive I am a member, plans to visit Somaliland in the coming year, and indeed hopes to visit both parts of Somalia.

Piracy has changed in that, at one stage, it was a substitute for fishing and other ways of earning an income; it is clear that it has become far more organised. Interestingly, many of those arrested came from the south-west of Somalia, rather than from the coastal regions, which rather encourages that view. That issue certainly needs to be tackled in breaking down and undermining the infrastructure of illegal activity within Somalia.

I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Mogadishu a few days ago and his appointing an ambassador to that country. That signals confidence that progress can be made, and confidence is enormously important, given that for 21 years there has been none in that regard. The appointment did raise a frisson of concern in Somaliland, which thought that in some ways this might symbolise a belief on the British Government’s part that diplomatic channels should be concentrated through that avenue. I was grateful to the Minister for his Department’s confirming that the arrangements for Somaliland will continue to be made through the deputy ambassador to Ethiopia, who has specific responsibility for relations with Somaliland.

I also welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s acknowledging, following my earlier intervention, that the situation in Somaliland is different. I understand the reasons for his policy of not formally recognising Somaliland as a separate country. The last Labour Government looked at this issue on a number of occasions, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, as Foreign Secretary, took the same view not because he lacked sympathy for Somaliland or did not respect the wishes of its population, but because, if recognition is to come, it must start in Africa and come from Somaliland’s neighbours, rather than from a former colonial power.

The Foreign Secretary was of course right to put the main emphasis on tackling the disastrous state of affairs in the south-central regions of the former Somalia, because that is where the threats lie to the local people—for whom the situation is truly disastrous—and to the international community. Again, that situation has been underlined by the International Committee of the Red Cross. However, it is understandable that people in Somaliland feel they are being ignored. The newspapers and the media in general cover the problems; it is not a headline to say that a country is living at peace and nothing excessively exciting is happening.

However, I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary underlined that distinction. Such a distinction could be made on the Foreign Office’s website without compromising the Government’s position—for instance, by indicating that security is greater, or that the dangers are less, in Somaliland than in the south. It would be like making the distinction that London was not subjected to regular violent incidents when such things were taking place in Belfast. We got pretty annoyed when, on occasion, some Americans did not make that distinction. The Indian Government certainly got irritated when, after the bombings in Mumbai, the problems were treated as if they were the same right across that very large country.

The Foreign Secretary’s emphasis is right, but I make no apology for wanting to say a few things about the situation in Somaliland in particular. I summed it up a few years ago by saying that

“Somaliland has not been recognised—but it has become respected—as a beacon of democracy.”

That remains true, and in fact those words have been used by the Prime Minister. Following the elections in Somaliland, I asked the Prime Minister his views on 7 July 2010. In effect, he said that Somaliland has earned respect through elections. A transfer of power had taken place from the outgoing President to President Silanyo, after a fairly narrow election victory. The new Government took a mature view, saying that they wanted to be recognised but their top priority was meeting the needs of their people. Engaging with the international community, trying to work with neighbours on things such as economic development, and seeking the development of parliamentary institutions, education and health were even more of a priority than recognition, which they prize greatly.

It is worth while highlighting the history. In 1960, the former British Somaliland gained its independence and shortly after joined the former Italian Somaliland to form Somalia. The early hopes had been that Djibouti, the former French Somaliland, would join to create a single Somali nation, but that did not happen. Sadly, the rule of President Siad Barre became increasingly oppressive towards the north, leading to the emergence of the opposition Somali National Movement, which became increasingly successful in the late 1980s. The fighting mainly took place in the north and there was little international coverage of it, but the coverage increased as the civil war progressed and affected Mogadishu, where most of the diplomats and foreign correspondents were based. Thus, as has happened so often in the past, the concentration in the international diplomatic and media spotlight was on events in the south. As the civil war progressed, the south descended into instability, with increasingly vicious conflict between various war lords. We all know how unsuccessful the international attempts were to intervene and support the development of proper government in the south.

In the north, without any great help from the international community, Somaliland has developed over the past 21 years to have local government elections, parliamentary elections and presidential elections. They are not perfect but, given that it is a country without international recognition, they are certainly remarkable. The creation of an independent electoral commission, which played a considerable part in leading to the presidential elections, was very important, as was the support that we have given in trying to work with the Somalilanders, Parliament to Parliament.

It is also worth remembering the history because there have been Somali communities in the UK for more than 150 years, and Somalis have made a particular contribution to the merchant navy, the Army and the Royal Navy, and to our traditional industries. The roots of my constituency’s Somali community are in the north and sentiment is strongly in support of Somaliland; there is increasing strength in the plea to Britain and to the international community to recognise Somaliland. That requires a process, as I think it is in the “too difficult” box for the African Union and for individual African countries, many of which fear precedent. The precedent of having a democracy for 21 years without recognition would be a pretty high hurdle for anyone else to imitate, but those fears nevertheless exist.

Recognition requires a process that will allow the people of Somaliland to say whether they wish to continue to assert, as they do now, their right to independence or whether they wish to enter into a loose confederation or some other arrangement. This should be for Somalis to decide and I simply plead that we continue to recognise—perhaps I should say “acknowledge”, given that “recognition” is so difficult—the success of Somaliland in maintaining a democracy over a period of time. I wish to make one point about this, which is that they have the legal right to independence. There is nowhere they can assert it, because that is not the way things work in international diplomacy, but as this country was once independent, however brief the period before it entered into coalition with the former Italian Somaliland in the south to create Somalia, international law and precedent gives them the right to assert it.

We need to create the environment in which Somalis can talk to Somalis in an atmosphere of mutual respect, but part of the responsibility of the international community, and of Britain in particular, is to insist that there must be no assumption that the development of a successful Government in the south would give that Government automatic rights over the north. That should not be the case. It should be a question of a process—a proper discussion—and of the right of Somalilanders to determine their own future.

In the meantime, the Government of Somaliland chose not to spend all their time arguing about constitutional issues, but to look to development. I want to make two points. The first is about the encouraging fact that President Silanyo has taken the unprecedented step, which I welcome, of deciding to attend the conference in London. I believe that the Minister for Africa’s willingness to engage directly in understanding the sensitivities has played a great part in making that happen. It would have been unthinkable to have had this conference and for it to have been successful without having Somaliland at the table, but the process has been difficult and risky. Somaliland was left out of the Djibouti process and felt unable to join international processes that would have given it a seat only on the assumption that it came under the aegis of the Government in Mogadishu, so agreeing to be at the table involves considerable risks for the President. It is a tribute to his leadership that he has agreed to do so and that he has involved the two opposition parties, as well as his own, in saying that it is the right thing to do. That in itself demonstrates a strong willingness to co-operate in seeking a solution to the instability in the horn of Africa. It is also to the credit of the Somaliland Government that they have provided humanitarian aid to the south. Again, that gives one hope for a period of proper engagement. That is important because the Somaliland model of peace building, based on people sitting down and working out what they want in a constitution, contains useful lessons, which I hope will be shared at the conference. Will the Minister assure us that Somaliland will gain respect as a result of that?

Will the Minister give comfort to President Silanyo and those who have supported him in his difficult decision by agreeing that the conference communiqué should contain explicit references to Somaliland that welcome his participation; note Somaliland’s achievements in building peace and democracy; draw attention to the relevance of the Somaliland experience to the problem of securing peace in Somalia; note the assistance through humanitarian aid that I have mentioned; thank it for its co-operation in the fight against terrorism and piracy; and encourage Somaliland’s wider economic interaction?

My second point is that I know that the Minister has already welcomed one initiative, namely the establishment of the Somaliland Development Corporation. It is being established because of the lack of recognition that makes involvement in international trade and business difficult. It will be launched on 22 February, the day before the conference, which Ministers will host. The point of the corporation is to facilitate international investment in Somaliland and economic interaction for the benefit of the Somaliland people. As an unrecognised state, it is isolated. Despite its extraordinary achievements in stability and democracy, international donors cannot deal directly with its Government, and foreign investors face uncertainty about whether contracts—the basis of secure business—can be enforced. The point of the corporation is to establish an entity to circumvent that problem. Indeed, I hope that it might lead the Foreign Office, through our trade arrangements, to be able to underpin some of the potential for business development and trade with Somaliland, which is difficult at present.

The development corporation will deal with donors such as Governments, aid agencies and international financial institutions; individuals, including enhancing the contribution that is made by many members of the Somaliland diaspora, as the Foreign Secretary rightly said; philanthropists and foundations; and foreign companies that wish to invest for profit. The founding directors are co-operating with the Crown Agents on the provision of banking services, and the intention is to develop a business plan with aims and objectives in the short, medium and longer term that will be available on the corporation’s website. The plan would be influenced by the development priorities of the Somaliland Government, the decisions of the two boards and the Somaliland development corporation trust. The launch on 22 February will show the confidence of the Somaliland Government in engaging with business and economic development as well as being a participant at the table at the conference.

I greatly applaud the Foreign Secretary for initiating the conference. By acknowledging that Somaliland’s participation is a positive way of coming into the international community, I hope that the UK Government’s lead in these matters will be acknowledged in return.

I hope that the Minister will cover some of these points in his response. I return to my initial point and congratulate the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister not just on this initiative but on their personal commitment to making it work. I hope they achieve success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

May I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s initial remarks and say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and so many other well-informed and constructive contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House? This has been the House of Commons at its best, because there is a great deal of cross-party agreement and expertise. I join the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is no longer in his place, in playing tribute to Myles Wickstead, our former ambassador in Addis Ababa, who, as well as taking the hon. Gentleman to Somaliland, has been a great source of advice to me. I am happy to put on the record my gratitude for his expertise.

For decades, it seemed almost as though the international community had given up on Somalia and, by neglect, been prepared to sacrifice its people to an almost endless cycle of war, deprivation and violence. War is often described as development in reverse, and I am afraid that Somalia is possibly the best example of that in the world. It is identified by the UN as having the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. As hon. Members have mentioned, there are nearly 1 million Somali refugees in other countries, 1.5 million internally displaced people there and millions more in crisis and, in many cases, at immediate risk of their lives. We see the whole population’s resilience to natural crises, such as the recent, repeated failed rains, reduced to the point where natural disasters immediately mean an humanitarian disaster, in a way that does not now happen in neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia, where there are grain supplies, reserves and so on, and where the Government are managing the natural crisis. We see humanitarian assistance being blocked by the conflict, and we see the conflict itself causing death, destruction and dislocation—the terrible euphemism of so-called collateral damage—with thousands and thousands having lost their lives as a direct result.

It is absolutely fantastic, therefore, that the British Government have taken such an exceptional lead on Somalia. The Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence should be congratulated on taking the lead and hosting the forthcoming London conference. However, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary should also be congratulated on visiting Mogadishu, which not many international politicians may have done yet, and seizing the opportunity to open an embassy there again, which is a positive step and a sign of confidence in Somalia’s progress; on reflecting in our policy towards Somalia the emerging Government policy on building stability overseas, which is an important reflection of the overarching strategy in our international policy; and on the commitment significantly to increase aid to Somalia over the next four years, which is now set to average £63 million a year.

Labour Members were quite right to point to their record in government on supporting Somalia. It is terrific to see the coalition Government increasing that aid, and trying to increase its impact and effectiveness wherever possible. In particular, it is important that the London conference is going ahead and that we are hosting it. It is a tribute to the diplomatic skills of the FCO that such a broad-based conference has emerged, with 40 Governments, the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, the World Bank, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League attending, as well as representatives from the various territories and Governments in the wider area of Somalia. That is an important step forward in trying to secure co-ordinated international action.

The conference has seven headings. I think it was originally suggested that the conference might focus overwhelmingly on piracy, so I very much welcome the much broader approach that it is now taking to Somalia as a whole, reflecting the fact that piracy is in many respects a symptom of Somalia’s problems, not a cause. Security is there as a heading right at the start. We should pay tribute to the African Union forces, in particular those from Uganda and Burundi who over many years have made extraordinary sacrifices to help to bring security to Mogadishu and the surrounding areas, and to Somalia as a whole, and also now to the Kenyan and Ethiopian troops present in the country. The fact that different foreign military forces are present emphasises the need for a co-ordinated international approach to security and, indeed, the need to support the Somali security and justice sectors.

However, as in many other places in the world, the military solution will never be the ultimate solution to Somalia’s problems. It is therefore absolutely right that the conference will focus on the political process.

[Bob Stewart]

Military solutions are of course not acceptable in isolation, but what we require in this situation is first-class military command and control on the ground in Somalia. That is crucial—perhaps we will even have to give some guidance to African nations that might be involved—but I am quite sure that this is what the Foreign Office has in mind as well.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. AMISOM—the African Union Mission in Somalia—has made genuine efforts to limit civilian damage and the use of certain armaments in built-up areas, for instance, yet there have been criticisms of some of the impacts on civilians and, perhaps, of the application of international humanitarian law. As part of the international co-ordination of the security effort, it is important that AMISOM operates to the very best international standards of peacekeeping and military intervention.

The political process is absolutely critical. The mandate for the current transitional Government expires in August this year, and it is important that we take the opportunity to build on their achievements. I think that my briefing states that this is the 15th attempt to form a Government in Somalia over the past 20 years, but it is one of the most successful such attempts. The Government have established a reasonable degree of control, at least over the capital city and some surrounding areas. It is important not only to build on that success but to take the opportunity to make the next incarnation of Somali government even more inclusive and broad based, and to build a political process.

The conference is also going to discuss local stability, counter-terrorism and, of course, piracy. The Select Committee’s contribution to that debate will be important. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) referred in passing to ransoms. The British Government have taken a clear position on that matter: we are opposed to ransoms, as they feed the pirate economy. It would be good if that was an internationally agreed position that could be properly enforced. We need to take real action to address that source of funds for Somali pirates.

The humanitarian effort is also extremely important. It is most welcome that the Department for International Development is already co-ordinating its efforts with the European Union to reduce duplication and maximise impact. There will be an opportunity to do that more widely, with the United Nations and other representatives who will be present at the conference.

Non-governmental organisations are concerned about the way humanitarian aid is being affected by the conflict in Somalia and, to some extent, by international policies. It is important that the international community draw a distinction between non-political humanitarian assistance and the military and political strategy. NGO staff are endangered when they become associated with the political and military approach, and that can also lead to the delivery of aid becoming a controversial part of the conflict. That inevitably leads to the aid not getting through. The international community needs to draw that distinction and protect that non-political humanitarian space for the delivery of aid. In planning the international approach, and the military approach, it is also important to factor in a respect for human rights and for international humanitarian law.

One topic is not on the conference agenda although I think it should be. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talked about economic development. Aid will always be valuable for a country in humanitarian crisis, but in the end it is economic development that will lift people out of poverty. I will illustrate the problem to the Minister by citing a report that appeared recently in New Scientist. It concerned work by Anja Shortland of Brunel university, who has tracked the economic development of various villages in Somalia using satellite images. She discovered that two villages in particular had made spectacular progress. Tracking such features as electric light, she found that, over the past 10 years or so, those villages had prospered and that the wealth had spread among the community.

Sadly, the reason was that those two villages were closely associated with one of the clans most implicated in piracy. Anja Shortland concluded that piracy had proved quite effective in stimulating economic development in those places, although that is obviously not a statement that any politician could comfortably make. Piracy is clearly illegal, as well as divisive. It helps only one clan, rather than the whole of Somalia, and it undermines the entire peace and political process. Nevertheless, this does set a challenge for our approach to development. We must tackle what makes piracy attractive to clans and warlords. The economic development we deliver must be at least as effective as piracy at spreading prosperity to poor communities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to participate in the debate.

I am not going to pretend for one moment that I know an enormous amount about Somalia; the nearest I have been to it was probably when, as a member of the Addis Ababa division of the barmy army, I flew down to South Africa to watch some cricket. Waking up at six o’clock in the morning to the sound of the imam certainly gave the whole place an enormous cultural feeling.

A lot of the issues we are dealing with at the moment, especially in Somalia, are very much a legacy of the cold war. When the cold war came to an end, it was clear that there were no longer two superpowers that could argue the case, so places such as Somalia ended up falling through the cracks a bit.

If the walls of this Chamber were able to talk, they would no doubt tell us that similar debates took place 175 years ago. After the Napoleonic wars, there was a sense that a great deal of piracy was taking place in north Africa, as well as in the Mediterranean.

In 2008, nearly $1 million of trade travelled to the EU through the Gulf of Aden. The UK therefore has a keen interest in making sure that we support and look after our maritime position in the world, and it is important that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government are playing the part they are in leading the great debate on this issue.

Our shipping industry is worth about £10.7 billion to the UK’s GDP. I am told, however, that piracy could cost as much as £12 billion a year. Surprise, surprise, I will be speaking for the Navy in a moment or two, as hon. Members would expect, given that I am the Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which I would claim is one of the Royal Navy’s major homes, although others might disagree.

Some 23,000 ships go through the gulf of Aden each year, and that is a good example of how important it is that we, as a nation, do not become sea blind. I am reminded of the story of a frigate that went into port in Sierra Leone and out again. For six or nine months after it left, the terrorists and people in Sierra Leone who wanted to create lots of trouble were convinced that if they started misbehaving, it would come straight back into the port to make sure they did not have another opportunity to create trouble.

Can hon. Members imagine what it would be like in this country if we no longer had any petrol or any groceries in our food stores? That is why the Royal Navy has a significant part to play and why I want to make sure that Somalia is seen as an international issue, and one that we are looking after.

Last summer, I travelled on one of the Type 23s travelling from Malta to Majorca. I had an opportunity to talk to the crew and to see how they operated. They had just come back from dealing with piracy issues off the coast of Somalia. It was very interesting. The first thing I learned was that all naval ships now have a legal officer on board to make sure that any decisions that are taken are compliant with international law. That is a very different story from the days of Captain Bligh sailing around the south Pacific. He would not have worried about such things. Nevertheless, it shows how much things have moved on.

The crew were concerned that their Royal Marines could not go on land to take out terrorist and piracy camps. I hope that Ministers will consider that point at the welcome Somali conference, although it must be taken forward on a firm United Nations basis when a lot of people are around.

[Bob Stewart]

I was spurred into action by my hon. Friend’s comments about Royal Marines going ashore. As part of our initiative, I think we should plan to put anti-piracy headquarters, protected by Royal Marines, in Somalia, perhaps Mogadishu, so that we can get a grip on piracy along the coast. That is the only way to do it. At the moment, we are fiddling around in the large ocean. We want to get a base onshore and sort it out. If possible, that should be considered at the London conference.

[Oliver Colvile]

In the main, I agree with my hon. Friend, although it is important, if we are to do that kind of thing, that we take with us the people who are in a position to make those decisions. There would be nothing worse than putting troops on the ground, only to find ourselves in a similar position to that in Iraq and other places where we have not been welcomed.

I pay tribute to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines based in my constituency, especially HMS Cornwall and HMS Chatham, both of which were port-based Type 22s that unfortunately have had to go. They did an excellent job and I was incredibly impressed when I had the great opportunity to go to the Mediterranean last year. The other big issue was people’s concern at not having the opportunity to earn a medal like those in Afghanistan and Iraq. I urge the Minister to take that point onboard because they make a significant contribution to protecting this country’s trade routes.

If we are to be in the business of nation building, which potentially we should be, we must give advice to potential new leaders. Our universities could provide opportunities to would-be leaders to learn about international relations and, more important, about creating structures of government, such as the judiciary, policing and governance. That would be an effective way of exporting our knowledge.

This country has a proud—in my opinion—reputation for empire, and we still have structures in many countries. As we all know, Somaliland used to be a British dependency, and in seeking to work with it would it not be wonderful if, in the year of the Queen’s jubilee, Somaliland could be encouraged to rejoin the Commonwealth and thereby continue this great relationship?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my lifetime, Somalia has probably been the biggest and most tragic basket case in the world. It has had severe problems since well before 1991—indeed, I can recall them from when I was a boy living in Aden. However, the 2011 drought, which, as the Foreign Secretary has explained, caused the deaths of between 50,000 and 100,000 people, did, to use a pun, “take the basket”. Half of those who died may have been children, and it is time that we did something about this. Somalia’s government simply is not working and it has not worked at all since 1991. Given those sorts of conditions, it is hardly surprising that piracy flourishes; it flourishes in anarchy. Somalia’s long coast offers the perfect opportunity for attacks on shipping. Of course, shipping is vital to our nation and to many others.

On top of all that, al-Shabaab started to take over Somalia in 2006. Someone born a Somali in Mogadishu must curse. Thankfully, last August, al-Shabaab was ousted from Mogadishu but it is still a huge force in the south. That terrorist organisation imposes very violent rule. As we know and as has been mentioned, it is blocking aid to many starving Somalis. It has unrelenting belligerence, it rejects any possible peaceful political settlement and it is imposing a brutal sharia regime on the people of Somalia. It seems that Somalis are getting very tired of all this and are beginning to turn away from these people, so perhaps opportunity knocks.

With the London conference on 23 February, we must push as hard as we can to try to make a start on sorting this basket case out. The main aim of the conference must, of course, be to try to start on the road to peace and security, and getting some form of decent living standards for Somalis. The situation in Somalia is very difficult, but we must do all we can to help our fellow human beings who are unlucky enough to have been born into it. We are so lucky and they are so unlucky, so let us try to do what we can to help them.

What is really needed in order to help Somalia? What steps shall we try to aim for at the London conference? I see the Minister looking at me and wondering where this is going, so I will do my best to be on message. First, the Security Council resolution we already have does require reinforcing. The international community must show its determination. We already have a chapter VII enforcement action Security Council resolution, but we need the international community to have the courage—I was going to use a different word—to do something about it. We need enforcement action to be taken, in some form or other, to sort out Somalia and we need effective funding for all aspects of that action. I have seen what happens when we have unpaid UN battalions in the field—they flog their petrol and sell their food. There has to be proper funding and the humanitarian operations have to be supported by international action.

A timeline for action is already in place, as the end of the interim Government arrangements are scheduled for August. That gives us five months and, as I know from my own experience, quite a lot can be done in that time. However, quite a lot of that time is needed to sort out a plan. First-class leadership by international organisations and military forces on the ground is of course required. The military forces that go into Somalia must have effective, well-thought-through, practical rules of engagement. The one thing they must not do is back away from a confrontation; they must deal with any confrontation. If they back away once, they will destroy their mandate. We have to be robust about imposing a solution. First-class leadership is required, particularly on the ground, and it must be supported internationally by all Governments.

The initiative also has the continuing problem of piracy. One solution—I am not suggesting it is ideal—might be for the international anti-piracy efforts to be put on the ground in headquarters located in a port in Somalia. That might be considered during the conference, as I said when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile).

What we require most of all at the London conference is what the Germans call a schwerpunkt, which is a Clausewitzian term that I learned in the military. It means a point of concentrated effort, and the point of concentrated effort of the London conference is to make sure that, internationally, we establish determination to sort out the problem of Somalia. That requires everyone to attend with the determination to apply the Security Council resolution to which they have already signed up and to provide the assets, resources and money to help the poor, wretched people in what is, as it stands, a dreadful country. Somalia is not blessed by God, but, my goodness, we must do our very best to try to sort things out for the people who live there and help them.

I wish the Foreign Secretary the very best of luck at the London conference. He will need it. Right now, with al-Shabaab on the back foot, this is probably the best opportunity that the international community has had for a generation to get in and help the people of Somalia. I wish the best of luck to our team at the London conference.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Laura Sandys and ask that she sit down no later than 5.36 pm.

Afghanistan

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is assiduous in pointing out the malign influence of Iran on its neighbours in several directions. We are concerned about that in Syria at the moment, but it also applies to Afghanistan. There have been clear incidents of practical Iranian support for insurgent activity. We absolutely deplore that. Afghanistan will succeed most effectively if it is free of such influence. We have made that point to the Government of Afghanistan.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Withdrawal in contact with an enemy is most difficult and delicate, and must be extremely well planned. I am mindful that when we went into Helmand in 2006, we had difficulties and stirred up a hornets’ nest. It is possible that the same will happen as we withdraw. I ask the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary to ensure that the generals who are planning our withdrawal are meticulous about the withdrawal plan, so that we minimise the casualties. I hope that there will be none.

[Mr Hague]

Of course my hon. Friend is quite right, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, myself and the whole National Security Council will certainly be very conscious of that. Of course, in this case it is not the withdrawal of all forces that is ensuring that there is space for political and economic development in Afghanistan, since the Afghan national security forces are being built up all the time. That is different from a complete withdrawal, but of course we will be very conscious of his point.

The upside of saying that we will have come to a certain point by 2014 is that it concentrates the minds of all others concerned. Our experience is that when we say to the Afghans that they will take security responsibility in a particular town or province on such a date, it is a forcing mechanism to encourage them to organise themselves to take that responsibility. We have to ensure that it has the same beneficial effect across the country.