Syria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

For a long time—for many months—we have said that British nationals should not travel to Syria and that those who are there should leave. Also, some weeks ago, when we reduced the staff of our embassy to the minimum level possible to maintain it, we made it clear that we were below the level at which we could conduct an evacuation of any remaining British nationals. We have made the position abundantly clear, and there should not now be British nationals in Syria. Some people who are dual nationals or are married to people in Syria will of course have remained, and whenever they are in difficult circumstances we will do our best to assist them, but we have made the position starkly clear.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Having sat in the middle of a so-called protected area that was totally unprotected, may I re-emphasise to the House something the Foreign Secretary has said? Any protected area requires the presence of people on the ground with the ability to keep it protected, and if this talk of a protected area continues, we will have to think about how that can be done. At the moment, it certainly cannot be done by the British.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend speaks with deep experience of these matters. Certainly, any future discussion about safe havens or humanitarian corridors must be accompanied by the will, authority and full means to make sure that they truly would be safe and humanitarian, rather than leaving people in a very difficult situation.

Falkland Islands

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank colleagues for attending the debate, given Select Committees and various other activities; I will take interventions.

In 1982, the Falkland Islands war saw the loss of 255 British troops; also lost were 650 Argentine troops and three female islanders. Today is a good day to begin with remembering each and every one whose lives were lost. We remember the families who lost their husbands, the children who lost their fathers and those who were left with severe disabilities because of their wounds. There is no such thing as a good war, and people died in 1982 because politics, Governments and individual people failed them. Our job in this House is to ensure that that does not happen again. I also welcome the efforts made on behalf of the islanders by the various Foreign Office departments to improve the lot of the islanders.

The purpose of the debate is fundamentally fourfold. First, we need to reiterate the House’s united position that the Falkland Islands has our full support in every way. Secondly, I wish to see a self-determination law, confirming that all overseas territories with a settled population have an unambiguous right to remain British. Thirdly, I wish the Minister to update the House on the efforts of our diplomats who are fighting the trade blockade that has been ongoing for some time. Finally, I will attempt a brief analysis of the legitimacy of the Argentine arguments under the various United Nations conventions and the agreements between the countries.

Many would argue that the 1982 conflict happened because a weak Argentine junta decided to try and regain popularity at home. The junta lost the war and power. The underequipped and poorly trained Argentines were clearly men governed by lambs.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Actually, some of the Argentines were not that poorly trained. The Mirage pilots who flew in across San Carlos water and took out our ships were, in everyone’s estimation, not only brave but well trained. The Argentines, therefore, were not entirely poorly trained—some of the marines were not bad either.

[Guy Opperman]

It is a brave man who tells the colonel whether troops were good or indifferent at a particular time, and I bow to my hon. Friend’s greater knowledge.

Thomas Mann, however, was right when he said:

“War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.”

Among the almost 3,000 inhabitants of the Falklands, there is an overwhelming desire to remain a British overseas territory. It is not up to Great Britain to decide on the fate of the Falkland Islanders; it is their own right to decide where their sovereignty lies, and that will not change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in a debate under your stewardship, Mr Crausby. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) for securing this important debate at this critical juncture for the Falkland Islands. I could not reasonably expect to be allowed to set foot back in my Gosport constituency if I did not take part in the debate, because the history of my town is indelibly linked in many ways with that of the Falkland Islands. We have many veterans of the Falklands war. Indeed, I share my constituency office with the indomitable Derek “Smokey” Cole, who runs the Falklands Veterans Foundation and who was responsible in part for raising the money to build Liberty lodge in the Falkland Islands. Even the iconic Gosport ferry is operated by Falkland Islands Holdings. We therefore have a very strong link to the Falklands.

As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war, there should be cause for joy in many ways. The Islanders should be able to celebrate their freedom, safe in the knowledge that their right to self-determination was protected by this country and always will be. The servicemen, many of whom lost so much, should remember the conflict secure in the belief that their sacrifices were not in vain.

This commemoration is marred by disappointment, given that it is taking place in the face of Argentine aggression. The islanders are suffering increased hostility and blocks on trade from neighbouring countries, while Argentina continues to misrepresent the situation on the world stage. I do not intend to recount again the challenges that Britain and the islanders face and that my hon. Friend so eloquently and fully outlined. Instead, I want to underline what I see as the most vital point in today’s debate—the islanders’ right to determine their own future should be absolutely respected by Britain, Argentina and the rest of the international community.

[Bob Stewart]

I intervene at this stage just to make one point. The Falkland Islands are defended by hugely capable royal naval assets at the moment. It is no secret that the Typhoon, one of the best multi-role aircraft in the world, operates from the all-weather airstrip. I will not go into the Army assets deployed. Let us be clear and send a message from this Chamber today—keep your hands off the Falklands; they are British and they will remain British.

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very strong and valid point. A number of us in the Chamber were in the Falklands last year and got to meet many of our brave service personnel who work daily to keep the Falklands safe and independent.

The sacrifices and memories of the war are indelibly marked on the fabric of my constituency. Gosport’s role in the conflict was significant, with a great number of sailors and submariners coming from the town. Indeed, the Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fieldhouse, is a local boy. The town proudly commemorates that in the Falklands memorial garden.

This year, we will again pay tribute in Gosport to those who served and, in 2005, were honoured with the freedom of the borough. As their Member of Parliament, I feel immense pride for what my constituents sacrificed for people living thousands of miles away from them. They were brought together by their desire to be British. Ultimately, both then and now, the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands want to be British. With not a single islander fighting to renounce its status as a British dependent territory, neither the British nor the Argentines have any right to dictate their fate.

As I have mentioned, I was fortunate enough to witness for myself the powerful connection that the islanders feel with Britain last year, when I visited the Falklands with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a remarkably beautiful place, yet one in which the scars of war are still very apparent. Minefields are still cordoned off. On Mount Tumbledown, where some of the battle took place, there is an Argentine bunker with personal belongings still in it.

Unquestionably, however, the most striking aspect of the trip was the regard in which the Islanders held those British who fought for them. At the memorial site at Bluff cove for the 48 people killed when Royal Fleet Auxiliary Sir Galahad was attacked, I bumped into veterans from HMS Fearless, two of whom were from my constituency. When I got over the shock of meeting so far away from home people who were my neighbours, they told me of the experiences that they had had during their visit to the Falklands. When they had gone to pay in restaurants, their bills were waived. When they had gone to hand over their fare in a taxi, the taxi driver had said, “No charge.” Everywhere they went, the ongoing gratitude of the Islanders 30 years later for their role in securing freedom was indelibly marked in every aspect of what they did.

It is that freedom that we are again called upon to safeguard today. I reiterate the desire expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to see the House united in full support of the islanders and I urge the Minister to commit to a self-determination law confirming the right of all our overseas territories to remain British for as long as they want to.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I want to thank my room mate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for this important debate. As I take every opportunity to say, I like to think I taught him everything he knows.

Many of today’s speeches have been poignant to me. I want to convey a feeling of what it was like in 1982, when I was 15—nearly 16—years old. My father, Captain Alan Lewis Morris, who retired many years ago, was then the age I am now. He was in the reserves and was due to command a minesweeper that was stationed in Liverpool, out to the Falkland Islands. As it happened, it was his 25th wedding anniversary year, and he had already booked a cruise on the Queen Elizabeth 2; we all know what happened there. As a young man at that time, watching what was happening on television, with both excitement and apprehension at what was unfolding before my eyes, I had a bit of a moral and patriotic insight, which was part of my wanting to be here in the House of Commons today. My father never went in the end, because the day he was called up was the day the conflict ended. However, I remember wondering whether, if he went away, he would come back. The conflict was very hard on both sides. The fact that we travelled to the other side of the world and fought off an aggressor on a small outpost speaks volumes about the spirit of the British people.

[Bob Stewart]

Such action also speaks volumes for the spirit and the quality of our armed forces who always multiply up their small numbers when they go into combat. In Afghanistan, their morale is outstanding despite what is happening out there. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) outlined the situation in his admirable plea for more money for defence. If necessary, our forces will fight a superior force and retake the Falklands, because of the quality of the people that we have in our armed forces.

[David Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for that eloquent and powerful statement. I agree with everything that he says.

Thirty years on, the Falklands Islands is still, quite rightly, being protected by British troops. It is regrettable that the US State Department referred to the Falklands as the Malvinas. Coming from a shipping family, I was enlightened to learn that racketeering in world trade is still going on against Britain in that sphere of the globe. We have even had to drop the red ensign, which I find insulting as an English man, never mind as a Member of Parliament.

We must look to the future. There is oil in the region, although I have no idea whether that has anything to do with the fact that Argentina has started rattling sabres again. The oil, which might explain this reawakening of interest in the Falklands Islands, is hard to get at and extremely difficult to drill and mine for. The nitty gritty of this debate is people. Nine generations of people who have settled and lived in the Falklands want to be part of the British people; they are the British people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) so powerfully stated, the Falkland Islands is British. We shall defend the Falkland Islands just as we shall defend any other area of the globe that we represent. The islanders want to stay with us. We protect them and we are trading prosperously from their islands. Such facts speak more about our people, our sovereignty, their sovereignty and this Parliament.

I would like to have powerfully summed up this speech by saying how we would defend the Falkland Islands, but my hon. Friend, the colonel, has already said it for me and in a better way than I ever could. It is absolutely imperative that we protect our interests in the Falklands. We must protect the Falkland Islanders because the Falklands will always, and should always, remain British.

European Council

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

I think that is right, although the point I am making is that the jobs and prosperity agenda should be the focus of such debates. If possible, we should get away from the obsession with structures and treaties. The British Government should be pushing the jobs and prosperity agenda at the summit. I have suggested some areas for deregulation and the European Liberal leaders forum drew up a long list of legislation that should be reviewed for possible reform. It included the working time regulations, the temporary agency workers directive, the control of vibration at work regulations, fixed-term employees regulations, part-time workers regulations, control of noise at work regulations, road transport working time regulations and the transnational information and consultation of employees regulations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Scrap them.

[Martin Horwood]

I am not at all in favour of scrapping health and safety regulations or those designed to protect workers. They are extremely important. The point is not even necessarily to weaken health and safety and workers regulations in Europe, but to see whether they can be made more flexible and be applied more flexibly domestically. That is another area where the British agenda should be pushed.

There are signs that European Governments are increasingly seeing things our way; it is not just the 15 members of the like-minded growth group. Italy has traditionally been more renowned for a protectionist stance in Europe and has at times had a less than impressive record on implementing single market legislation, but it is now actively implementing measures to liberalise great swathes of its economy and is actively pushing a single market agenda in Brussels that is directly comparable to ours. Spain, under the new Government led by Señor Rajoy, is also moving to undertake major structural reforms domestically and is shifting its position in Europe accordingly. Ministers must build on such possible alliances, which seem to be growing stronger all the time.

There are other things that I probably do not have time to cover in great detail. In terms of promoting jobs and prosperity, it is important to push for the completion of the single market, particularly in the digital and services sectors. External trade is equally important. This morning, I was in a Committee that voted on a new framework agreement that included free trade with South Korea. It could soon be extended to Ukraine and possibly a range of other countries. That is the kind of thing that will drive jobs and prosperity in Europe, not an overly obsessive attitude to EU treaties and institutions.

European Union

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

Yes. For precisely that reason, I believe that when the peoples of each country—and even some of the politicians, who are currently going around saying that the UK has done a terrible thing—begin to study the detail and realise the restrictions that will now be imposed on their freedom to set their budgets and taxes, to borrow and so on, they will seriously reconsider the proposal. Having caused the greatest economic catastrophe for many decades, by creating the euro and the one-size-fits-all approach, EU leaders have come up with a bizarre answer: no comprehensive solution to deal with the immediate and pressing crisis, and no overarching deal that will properly address the problems that Greece, Italy and Spain face, but a plan to deepen and extend European integration—a plan for more treaty change and more institutional tinkering.

After all the arguments about the Lisbon treaty, we were told that Europe had learnt its lesson and that there would no more institutional debates and treaty changes. Instead, Europe was to get on with the business of trying to create jobs, growth and economic prosperity, yet here they are, at it again. There is a one-track mind among many European federalists about deepening European integration, and political and fiscal union.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When the euro was set up, were there not strict rules on compliance for those joining, which even some of the biggest countries largely ignored? Now there is again talk about strict rules on compliance. Perhaps the boy is crying wolf; I do not believe that those rules can be enforced on countries that have shown in the past that they will not comply. They will not comply in future, either.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is right: in the rush to set up the euro, which was a political project from the beginning—it was believed that it would ultimately lead to political and fiscal union—those behind it permitted countries that they knew were not capable of meeting the requirements to join. What they are trying to do now will not succeed in patching the whole thing together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I support the motion. In the past year or 18 months, many people in Northern Ireland and some across the rest of the UK have attempted to sideline my party and say that the issues we would be raising in Parliament would be negligible, isolated and of interest to very few people. Only a few weeks ago we tabled a motion on the important topic of fuel poverty, and more than 200 Members joined us in the Lobby. I hope that more will join us tonight on this very important matter, which affects every man, woman and child across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Almost 40 years ago a Euro-dream began, and we have seen the emergence, change and evolution of that dream, which many would argue is fast turning into a nightmare. Over the past weekend we saw its culmination, when the Prime Minister of this nation went into negotiations and, thankfully, when faced with a fait accompli, decided that it was time to say no. He was right to say no. What the Prime Minister has given to the Parliament and the people of this United Kingdom is a door-opening opportunity that we must not waste or cast to one side, but must seize with both hands.

In recent months we have seen the huge gulf—the chasm of Grand Canyon proportions—that exists between the economic development of countries such as Greece and Germany. But there is still insistence among the Europhiles that one size does fit all, when it is apparent to us all that that cannot and will not be the case. What we need, by way of opportunity, is for the competitiveness of the UK to emerge from the opportunity with which we have now been provided.

[Bob Stewart]

Is it not competitiveness within the European Union that is at fault—the competitiveness of the north against the lack of competitiveness in the south? That is what will kill the euro project, in money terms.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments, and there is a significant amount of truth in what he says.

Here is a microcosm of some of the issues that might emerge. Some of my colleagues have mentioned the difference between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. Over the next few days millions of pounds will be spent in retail outlets in Northern Ireland by shoppers from the Irish Republic. That is good for the businesses of Northern Ireland, but why are they doing that? It is because only last week the Government of the Irish Republic had to announce an increase in VAT to 23%, so of course there is a 3% differential. We do not know where that 23% rate will go next year or the year after. The fact that this nation state retains the right not only to keep VAT at 20%, but possibly, I hope, over the next year, to reduce it back to 17.5%, will increase yet again the differential between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

Colleagues have mentioned corporation tax. Again, that could add to the competitive advantage that we in the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland but in other regions as well, will have over other parts of the euro region, where corporation tax will be levelled at a rate that will not be similar to the current rate in the Irish Republic, but will have to be raised because of Franco-German demands.

In short, the issues are very clear. The Prime Minister has taken a stand. We commend him for that, but it must be only the beginning, not the end. We must now push the door open, ensure that we rebalance our position in relation to other nation states within the European region, and try to renegotiate a much better deal so that the £10 billion or £11 billion net that we put each year into the EU is deployed more cost-effectively to ensure that as we go forward, the competitiveness of this nation state benefits the people of this nation state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Of course not, and the law will be followed, but we may find that European Governments have to gather yet again for more crisis summits in the not-too-distant future. That offers Britain a bit of an opportunity. We now need a process of positive and active diplomacy to persuade some of our more traditional allies in Europe—Ireland, Sweden, even Germany, and many others—of the benefits of having Britain fully involved not in the eurozone, but in the overall process of European economic decision making. Why? Because one of the medium to long-term solutions to Europe’s problems is to have a real focus on jobs and sustainable prosperity—jobs and prosperity in the UK, as well as in the rest of Europe because, as has been pointed out, half our trade and foreign direct investment comes from other EU members.

The argument about repatriating powers, let alone leaving the EU, completely misses the point. It is in our interest not just to have a competitive and vibrant British economy, but for there to be a competitive and vibrant European economy as well, and Britain can help to bring that about. It is not just in Britain’s interest to be at the heart of the European economy and European economic decision making; it is in Europe’s interests too, and that in turn will help British jobs, British business and British prosperity.

[Bob Stewart]

In those circumstances, would it not be wise for those people who want us to stay in to come to us and say, “Look, talk again. We want to give you what you want. We really require you”? I think Europe requires us rather more than we require Europe.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The Liberal Democrats supported the initial negotiating position. The mystery of last week’s summit is why we seemed to have so few friends in the negotiating chamber who would support those reasonable initial demands. That is why I am suggesting that we have a process of much more active and positive diplomacy in the run-up to what might be future summits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr McCrea]

No. The hon. Lady has not been present for the whole debate, so I am going to take this time to respond to the issues that have already been raised.

The Prime Minister went in to the negotiations. Naturally, there were pressures on him from other European leaders. Their demand was to go with the flow, but he stood firm and resolute for the interests of the United Kingdom. He did not come back to the House waving a “Neville Chamberlain” piece of paper, but became the first Prime Minister to have the courage to veto a new European Union treaty.

There are those in the House who condemn the Prime Minister for doing that. I ask them what authority he had to do other than stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom—that is why he is Prime Minister. In the past, other Prime Ministers have gone into important negotiations and when it came to the point of decision, they did not do what was in the interests of the country—although their consciences were saying that they should do something, they were not willing to do it because it was not popular.

Politicians are vain enough to desire popularity; they love compliments, especially from others on the world stage. However, it is better to do right than be forced to do wrong. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box in the House before going to the European summit. He told the House that he would act in the best interests of the United Kingdom and that he would make certain demands to protect British interests, and if he could not get them, he would use his veto.

There is no use in someone’s talking tough and taking a weapon to defend themselves if they are not prepared to use it. The Prime Minister took the veto weapon with him into the negotiations. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy flatly refused him even the most modest concessions simply because they believed that he would do what other Prime Ministers had done before and that he would not use the nuclear option of the veto. History had told them that Prime Ministers did not have the bottle to use the veto, and, after the huffing and puffing, would concede rather than hold firm.

[Bob Stewart]

The President of France and the Chancellor of Germany were acting in their best interests. They wanted to do a raid on the City of London—something that provides 11% of the income of this country—and take it away from us so that we could not use it. That is what the Prime Minister was defending and that was why he was in the right.

[Dr McCrea]

I agree. The European Union has been used to raiding our coffers over the years; we have been paying for many of its wonderful, unique programmes, which have in fact been an abuse of some of the finances hard earned by the people of this country.

British Embassy (Tehran)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and support for the action that we have taken. At the European Foreign Affairs Council over the next 24 hours, we will be discussing further actions that can be taken—peaceful, legitimate pressure, as he says. I believe that we will agree on additional sanctions. I do not want to say now what those are going to be. I do not want to prejudge the deliberations with my European colleagues in Brussels, but the right hon. Gentleman can be confident that further measures are on their way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is always sad when the Union Jack has to be pulled down in any country, because it is such a potent symbol for those of us who have been in hostile countries and for nationals in those countries. However, I rather wonder whether our interests may be served if the European Union has set up its embassy in Iran; it might have something useful to do if it has. It could look after our interests.

[Mr Hague]

The European Union has been very helpful. Baroness Ashton, the High Representative, issued a very strong and prompt statement about the issue and of course we will work with EU representatives on this matter. We have been fortunate in having such robust support from France, Germany and many other of the member states of the European Union.

North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

Yes, of course, that has happened over the past few months, but it could be reversed if there were a prospect of stability and progress. The tragedy of Iraq is that the Iraq war went on long after the military conflict, with the whole economy destroyed as a consequence. It is only now that Iraqi oil production has got back to its original level. Libyan oil production should be back in a year or 18 months or so—perhaps even earlier. Tourism will return to Egypt when there is stability, but not without it. Any party that destroys that prospect will not be thanked.

Let me turn briefly to two other issues. The first is Syria. There are serious limits to what can be achieved by the outside world in relation to Syria. I pay tribute to the people of Syria who I never expected for a moment would be able to survive eight months of this appalling treatment by their own Government. I assumed wrongly that it would be like the tragedy of Iran and that when the Government used the police, the security forces, the prisons and the torture chambers, the Syrian opposition would, within months, have been pushed under ground, though not destroyed. That has not happened as it did in Iran. The Assad regime is doomed; the question is how we can assist that process.

I welcome the fact that the Government have already opened up contacts with the Syrian opposition. That is highly to be encouraged. I make just one additional point. It seems to me that, although for all the reasons that are increasingly understood, there cannot be a military dimension to the help we give the country, what the Syrian opposition need most is for their morale to be boosted and for them to be able to demonstrate to the people of Syria that they are increasingly winning, not losing, this conflict. That is the significance of the Arab League’s decision and the imposition of economic sanctions. That is how the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States can make an impact—by demonstrating solidarity with those in Syria who are seeking change.

The final area on which I want to comment is, of course, Iran. There has to be very serious doubt as to whether the current policy of economic sanctions has any prospect of working. However much they are extended, there is no evidence that the Iranian Government are terribly interested in dialogue or even in a carrot-and-stick policy.

One problem—we have heard about it elsewhere— is the attitude of Russia and China. The question is whether there is any way in which the Russian and Chinese Governments can be persuaded to change their position. Russia is acting in an utterly illogical way, even given its own national interest. It is difficult to understand why Russia, with a large Muslim minority of its own and considerable destabilisation in the Caucasus, should acquiesce in the growth of nuclear weapon capability in Iran. If one looks for a Machiavellian explanation, there is a very simple one. The Machiavellian explanation for Russia’s opposition to what is happening with Iran is that it does not want sanctions to work and hopes that the Israelis or the Americans or both will use the military option. That would have the dual benefit of destroying or damaging Iran’s nuclear capability, without Russia having to share the responsibility and thus benefiting both ways from the consequent developments. That is a Machiavellian explanation. I hope it is not true, but I am not yet convinced because I cannot think of any other reason why Moscow should behave as it is.

If there is to be any prospect of economic sanctions working, the only opportunity I can see for success takes us back to the Arab League. As the Foreign Secretary has remarked, the Arab League has already acted in an unprecedented way—first with Libya, when it called for the international action to be taken. As a consequence, Russia and China, which would otherwise have vetoed the international action, came round to allowing the resolution to be passed. Secondly, the Arab League has acted impressively in the case of Syria.

In respect of Iran, however, there is an extraordinary silence. Were it not for WikiLeaks, we would not have been made aware of any public comments showing not just the distaste of Arab countries, but their absolute horror at the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon as a result of the geopolitical impact it would have on the region as a whole and on account of their perception of their own security. The situation is extraordinary. As any of us who meet Arab Ministers, Governments or leaders privately will be aware, this is at the top of their agenda: what is the west going to do to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon?

It was thanks to WikiLeaks that King Abdullah was quoted as saying that the head of the serpent must be cut off—a clear endorsement of the kind of military action by which some Members do not seem to be too enthused. The question is, why can the Arab leaders not express their views publicly? If they did, they would put a great deal more pressure on Russia and China. Those who put that question to them, as I have, are normally told, “We must have equivalence between Iran and Israel. We cannot just call for sanctions against Iran, because Israel has a nuclear weapon, and unless Israel responds as well, it would not be acceptable.”

I must say that I find that a pretty pathetic and unconvincing argument. Israel has had nuclear weapons, rightly or wrongly, for probably some 30 years. Of course the Arabs do not like it—they hate it—but they are not frightened of Israel’s nuclear weapons. If they were, they would have moved towards acquiring nuclear weapons themselves some 30 years ago, but they have not made the slightest effort to do so. They know that, while Israel is a threat in other respects, it possesses its nuclear weapons—rightly or wrongly—essentially in order to protect its very existence as a state should it be subjected to unassailable odds in some conventional conflict.

The Arabs have learnt to live with that, but they do not find it acceptable in the case of Iran. They know that this is all about Iranian nationalism. The Shah, as well as the ayatollahs, was interested in acquiring nuclear weapons, although he did not do much to achieve it. Iran’s traditional enemy is not Israel, but the Arab states themselves. If the Arab states are deeply disturbed by this prospect—if they believe, privately if not publicly, that it is a much greater threat to their security than Israel’s nuclear weapons have ever been or are ever likely to be—they must be as bold in respect of Iran, through the Arab League and individually, as they have so splendidly been in respect of both Syria and Libya.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran would be horrific for the Russians and possibly the Chinese as well? According to indications that I have received from contacts in Russia, the Russians are pretty horrified by the idea.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

All of them ought to be horrified by it. China itself has a Muslim extremist minority on its western borders, in Xinjiang, and it is very much affected by what happens in central Asia. None of these countries wants nuclear weapons—we understand that—and we are not, or should not be, necessarily asking them to support military intervention. We are talking about a peaceful alternative to resolve the single most important problem that currently exists in the middle east, apart from the Israel-Palestine issue. That is the basis on which we should act.

I remain very heartened by what is happening in the Arab spring. It will be three steps forward and, occasionally, one step back, and some countries will not prosper as well as others, but the results in Tunisia—the first country of the revolution, and the country that has gone furthest—are very impressive so far. We shall need to see how the Egyptian elections proceed, but Syria is the key. When—not if—the Syrian regime falls, we shall see a situation that has become absolutely irreversible in the middle east. That will not only help the people of those countries, but will mean that for the first time in its history Israel will be surrounded by countries that, to a greater extent than ever before, respect and understand the rule of law, democratic values and accountable government, which should not harm but help prospects for the long-term relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I meant foreign countries. Spain and Cambodia are the two I was told about. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), it is not necessarily probable that the Libyan people would vote for a constitutional monarch—it is a possibility, but not a probability—but none the less they should be consulted, rather than the national transitional council stating unilaterally that there should be a presidential system.

I move on now to the trial of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. I would never dream of defending Gaddafi or any of his family, sycophants or supporters, but I think it is very important that this man gets a fair trial. Some of the Sunday newspapers have reported that people were saying that, if he was not found guilty and hanged, they would leave the country. Our newspapers must do everything possible not to prejudice the trial, because no matter what the individual may be guilty of, it is extremely important that he is given a fair trial. I very much hope that the Libyan authorities—I make this point to the Minister—will allow International Criminal Court lawyers to be present throughout the trial.

I was glad to hear from the Foreign Secretary that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has raised with Niger the importance of its acquiescing in international standards and handing over remnants of the Gaddafi regime and family members who have sought sanctuary in that country, as they have done in Algeria.

[Bob Stewart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I will in a moment.

I will move on to the rendition of Libyan citizens to Libya when Gaddafi was in power. The shadow Foreign Secretary did not mention Libya once in this whole conversation, and one wonders why. Of course, I fought vehemently against the previous Government’s amazing cosying up to Colonel Gaddafi. I think that they must be embarrassed about the extraordinary rapprochement that Mr Blair and his successor had with that brutal despot—so much for Robin Cook’s ethical foreign policy, which was so loudly trumpeted when Labour took office in 1997. I have listened to senior Labour figures stand on the Government side of the House and say that they knew nothing about the rendition of those people to Gaddafi’s Libya. I found that absolutely extraordinary. They say that the previous Labour Government knew nothing about sending those people back, ultimately to be tortured or done away with by Gaddafi, so they must be claiming that our security forces, off their own bat, unilaterally decided to engage with Libyan security forces and were responsible for sending those people to Libya without Government approval. I simply do not believe that. If it were true, I would be extremely concerned that our security forces had done such a thing. That is why I am calling for an investigation. I do not want it brushed under the carpet.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend has moved on from what I was going to say, which is that the International Criminal Court is responsible for trying people only when it would not be possible in their own country. I have given evidence in several ICC trials and am delighted that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi will be tried in Libya. I am happy for ICC lawyers to witness it, but they should not run it.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I agree; I said merely that I hoped ICC lawyers would be able to observe the proceedings.

I have received disturbing evidence about the equipment that some of our European partners sold to the Gaddafi regime. I will not go into too many details, but it helped Colonel Gaddafi to eavesdrop on his citizens and on citizens of this country. That is something that will come out in the coming days and weeks, but I should be interested to find out from the Minister everything that was exported to Gaddafi over those 13 years and might have assisted him in oppressing his own people. Mr Blair told us that the great rapprochement and engagement in the tent in the desert were to ensure that that man gave up his weapons of mass destruction, but from recent newspaper articles we see that vast stocks of chemical weapons have been found in Libya, so Colonel Gaddafi was really just playing a game of cat and mouse with the previous Government.

I very much hope to see progress on Lockerbie now. We all know that Mr Megrahi is not solely culpable of the worst terrorist atrocity on UK soil since the second world war, so I very much hope that the Minister and the Foreign Office will do everything possible to ensure that the Libyan authorities comply fully in helping us to get to the bottom of that case—and the case of PC Yvonne Fletcher.

I turn now to Mauritania. I alluded to the fact that on a recent visit to the country, as well as meeting politicians I spent a little time standing on the coast, watching the fishermen bring in their fish. It was quite extraordinarily difficult for them to drag—literally drag—their small boats on to the sand to get their catch.

The European Union and, in particular, Spanish vessels are pillaging the waters off the coast of Mauritania, sucking out all the fish and impoverishing the lives of local fishermen. Many promises that the EU made as a result of the agreement to which I referred earlier have not been fulfilled. One was that a pier or jetty would be built near Nouakchott for the local fishermen, but that has still not been put in place, 10 years on. I raise the issue with the Minister, as I very much hope that he will use his good offices to find out what the European Union’s promise of assistance was to the local fishermen, and that he will do everything he possibly can to help them.

My trip to Mauritania was the first by a British Member of Parliament since one by the Father of the House in 1960, and the Mauritanians were so amazed by this that they laid out the red carpet. I had more than two hours with the President—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) laughs but this is a serious matter, because the people there feel neglected by the United Kingdom and wish to engage far more with us. The problem is that Governments of various political colours have neglected the whole of Francophone north Africa over the decades, and that has led to a lack of engagement in terms of trade and co-operation. Luckily, I studied French—that was my degree—at university, so I could converse quite happily with the Mauritanians in French and had to translate for the rest of my delegation, but we need more engagement.

On my other visit, to Tunisia, I found when I met representatives of its chambers of commerce that only 52 British companies trade there, in contrast with 1,700 French companies—52 to 1,700. There are very similar statistics regarding Morocco. I have met Lord Green, the new Minister for Trade and Investment, who does an excellent job, but I very much hope that somebody who is a fluent French speaker will be appointed to lead a massive export drive to the Francophone countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). It was certainly fascinating to hear his powerful personal testimony of the military courts in Israel and Palestine. I had the opportunity to see the courts earlier this year, and one of the most disturbing things is that although, in a sense, it is a testimony to the openness of Israeli society that he and I could see them in practice, the same crimes committed in the same places by Israeli youngsters were tried in civilian courts with all the rights and protections that that implied. He is right to praise Israeli and Palestinian voices that have been raised in opposition to that system.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s broad opening remarks. They provided an informative tour of parts of three continents and numerous societies and conflicts. I do not know whether it is fair to say that some of these parliamentary debates are getting a little broad in their scope. This one encompasses, among many other things, the enormously hopeful transition to democracy in many countries following the Arab spring, the intractable problems of the Arab-Israeli dispute, the dislocation and war in the horn of Africa and the troubling situation in Iran.

Common themes are emerging, however. The first theme that I would identify is a hopeful one: the increasing role of regional organisations in many of these conflicts and policy areas. There was the recent positive initiative by the Gulf Co-operation Council in Yemen leading to what we hope will be the beginning of a resolution of the problems there; there is the very positive role being played in Somalia by the African Union; and there is the historic new-found confidence of the Arab League in tackling human rights issues first in Libya and now in Syria. Some of the Foreign Secretary’s Conservative colleagues might be sceptical of, and worry about, these regional groupings taking on a political role rather than a purely economic one, but I think that some of these disputes are proving the value of regional co-operation and regional groupings.

Rather surprisingly, a second theme appears to be the role of monarchy, which was eloquently expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and then put slightly more eccentrically—I hope that he will forgive me for saying that while he is not in his place—by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). I would say to him that the history of monarchy—even restored monarchies—in places such as France and Greece has not been entirely trouble free, and that the history of middle eastern monarchy is not entirely safe and reliable either. He could look to Iran and Libya for examples of where the path of monarchy did not run entirely smoothly. European history shows that it is common for populations to have considerable respect for the magic of monarchy for quite a long time and always to blame the advisers and Governments, but eventually many monarchs run out of bad advisers to blame and sometimes lose their heads in subsequent phases of popular discontent.

The third common theme, rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, is the potential for a new, democratic and peaceful brand of political Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is a complicated network of organisations operating in different countries but it has been overwhelmingly peaceful in most parts of the middle east. If it looks to countries such as Turkey and Indonesia for examples of how political Islam can play its part in a completely democratic process—and one that is tolerant of other political traditions in the same society—it will find a very different vision of political Islam from that of violent Salafism or the Iranian-inspired political extremism that we see at work in the region. It would be a terrible mistake to lump those together and to be too afraid of the role of political Islam in these regions.

It is a positive sign that the first democratic elections in Egypt commenced today, although even the operation of those elections has exposed the tensions between the continuing role of the military in Egyptian society and the instincts of the democratic activists in Tahrir square and throughout Egyptian society. Although it is a positive thing that those elections are taking place, we must make it clear to the Egyptian Governments who follow the elections that in due course those tensions must be resolved in favour of democracy, and that the military must learn, as they have done in many parts of Europe and the world, that to be truly patriotic they have to step back from political power and cannot expect immunity for past crimes.

The Amnesty International report from 22 November reinforces the fears of some of the protesters. It talks about military courts still trying protesters, about crackdowns on peaceful protest and about the remit of Mubarak’s emergency law being, if anything, extended in recent months. Those are very worrying tendencies, and I know that the Government are expressing their concerns and fears to the Egyptian Government. It is a positive thing that the military council has apologised and that there has been talk of investigations, amnesties and compensation—that is all welcome—but the fundamental necessity is for a clear shift towards a transparently civilian authority in Egypt.

[Bob Stewart]

I totally accept the hon. Gentleman’s point but my simple worry is that if the military were not there—I am not trying to support them—we might have a much worse situation. We have to be careful. The Egyptians have to decide exactly what they want, and we cannot say to them, “This is what should happen.” It is their business, not ours.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but certain fundamental principles ought to inform transitions to democratic government if they are to succeed, and two of those must be that the military step back from the exercise of political power and that they should not expect immunity from investigation of past involvement in human rights abuses. Successful transitions to democracy have always had those characteristics, and the Egyptians must learn from that. I welcome the Foreign Secretary and the Government’s strong line in that respect.

Libya presents different challenges. We must be grateful for the role that British and international armed forces played in that conflict but equally we must welcome the move to a post-military phase and congratulate the Government on reopening the British embassy on 17 October. As hon. Members have pointed out, the treatment of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi will be a test case: his capture provides the opportunity for the new Libyan regime to illustrate its respect for the rule of law and the rights even of despised opponents in a way that was not apparent in the treatment of Gaddafi senior.

I would like the Minister to comment on a security matter that the Foreign Secretary did not really mention: the reports that large amounts of military matériel are going missing in Libya. It is rumoured that some of it is finding its way into the hands of violent Islamic extremists, whether those with Salafist tendencies or even al-Qaeda members. I would be interested to hear whether the Government consider these accounts credible and, if so, whether they are taking action to counteract the problem.

In Syria, we have a different situation again. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington rightly said, we have to give the greatest credit to the Syrian people themselves for maintaining the uprising for eight months against the most brutal repression. It is an example of extraordinary courage and determination that should inspire people all over the world to rise up against tyranny. However, credit is also due to the Arab League, the regional grouping, first for expressing strong diplomatic disapproval and exerting pressure, then for suspending Syria from membership and, finally, for now imposing sanctions. Such a determined response by the Arab League and neighbouring Governments such as Turkey is a positive development in the history of the Arab League, which has not always been the most robust of organisations on such issues. However, it is now taking a proactive and positive role in the region, and towards Syria in particular.

I think that those in the Arab League see—I hope we see it too—that those developments may avoid the necessity for foreign intervention, which is not something that I have heard anyone in the Syrian opposition call for. Although we might see continued violent conflict in Syria—I think we will, in fact, see it—if a robust approach is taken, we might also see a resolution that does not involve even worse complications, arising from foreign intervention, because there are unfortunate precedents. In terms of geography and political, ethnic and tribal tensions, Syria is rather more like Iraq than Libya, which, in a way, was a rather simple country to intervene in. Libya is reasonably homogenous, its population basically live on one coastal strip and it is close to lots of NATO countries. Intervention in Syria would be a much more complicated and messy affair. We should try to avoid that possibility at all costs.

However, it is rather disappointing that some other international voices have not really joined us in trying to support the Syrian people. It is interesting to note the movement by China, but Russia’s position is completely indefensible. The opportunity for Russia to use its influence with the Assad regime for good is being completely lost. The recent comment by a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman—that what was needed was

“not sanctions, not pressure, but internal Syrian dialogue”—

was, frankly, completely incredibly. That approach risks Russia’s credibility, not just in Europe and the international arena, but specifically in the middle east. I hope that Russia will see that its position is neither credible nor in Russia’s long-term interests, and will instead join the growing international movement for effective international pressure.

The situation in Iran, not far from Syria, is rather more worrying—like other hon. Members, I deeply regret the expulsion of the UK ambassador. Again, this is an area where international co-operation could have proved effective. After all, the International Atomic Energy Agency includes China and Russia, so in a sense they are taking part in the pressure being exerted on the Iranian regime. The IAEA has clearly and unambiguously exposed credible evidence of the Iranian regime’s military ambitions when it comes to nuclear weapons. It is possible to understand Israel’s anxiety in that respect. To Israel, this development poses a real and present threat to its national security. However, I hope that we will join other members of the international community in expressing to Israel the clear belief that military intervention would inflame the entire region and critically undermine the chances of liberal opposition or a popular uprising in Iran, solidifying support for the regime. The role of the international community must be to provide robust and effective pressure—I welcome the increased sanctions regime at the end of this month. However, we must try to pursue that as a means of avoiding the possibility that any country in the region feels it is necessary to intervene militarily.

We have to accept that the Israeli people’s anxieties are quite real. It is not just the Iranian situation that seems to pose a threat to many people in Israel, but in some respects the Arab spring too. However, I nevertheless welcome the Government’s position, which is that Palestine now largely fulfils the criteria for UN membership, including statehood. I rather regret that this has not translated into a promise of a positive vote in favour of Palestinian statehood and membership of the United Nations; nevertheless, the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks and those of Ministers has been absolutely right in that respect. It is right to call on Israel to realise that the only way to avoid unilateral initiatives is multilateral negotiation without preconditions. Israel needs to do that, not least to strengthen the hand of moderate, peaceful Palestinian political opinion, because the path of conflict and confrontation will only reinforce the position of the more extreme factions, if that diplomatic and peaceful process seems completely hopeless to ordinary Palestinians.

Moving around the world, let me turn to Somalia, where there are some quite positive things to highlight. I look forward to the London conference in February. The Foreign Secretary was right to highlight the need for more effective international strategies and pressure. Nevertheless, there is already some positive development to report. The courage of African Union troops and the positive role that the African Union is playing in the country are quite important. The fact that the Secretary of State for International Development was able to visit Mogadishu this summer is quite an extraordinary development. It was a very positive statement for him to make. It might not quite compare with the courage of African Union and Somali troops in trying to promote democracy or national security in that country, but it was a courageous act by a western politician, and we ought to pay him credit for that. There is a fear among Somali civil society that rather more money comes in from foreign countries in the form of ransoms than in the form of development aid. It is therefore positive that the British Government have made a visible commitment to work in Somali society and in Somali civil society, in particular, to promote development.

When we are dealing with piracy, it is quite important that such development should take place, because it is important—if I may misquote Tony Blair—not just to tackle piracy, but to tackle the causes of piracy. We do not just need police actions against ships and aggressive actions in the sea; we need to tackle, for instance, illegal fishing and the dumping of toxic waste, which are ruining traditional livelihoods and are also among the factors that sometimes drive people to seek such extreme forms of raising money. Wherever possible, we need to invest in infrastructure, such as fishing facilities and so on, to try and start the long, hard process of normalisation in that country. We need to involve Somali civil society in that, and not just in what is technically Somalia, but in those regions that are, in effect, proving autonomous, such as Somaliland and Puntland.

I commend to Ministers the experience of Saferworld and the role that it has played in DFID-funded projects both in Somalia proper and in Somaliland and Puntland. Its experience of trying to put together a positive framework for development in those parts of the world is extremely welcome. Indeed, it is also in line with the Government’s stated policy in BSOS—“Building Stability Overseas Strategy”—which talks about upstream prevention of conflict. In the case of Somalia, it is not so much upstream prevention as an upstream solution while the river is in full flood. We should not take the analogy too far—[Interruption.] Yes, we do not want anybody drowned in the process, but clearly we need to tackle the root causes of conflict, as well as the symptoms.

We see a regrettable deterioration of the situation in Sudan. Briefly, let me say that the Foreign Secretary’s instincts are exactly right in that respect too. We need to watch the situation extremely carefully and urge all parties, in both Governments—the Sudanese Government and the new South Sudan Government—to recognise the importance of trying to resolve their differences peacefully, if at all possible, and to allow the maximum amount of international support in so doing.

In Yemen we see more positive developments. We have the President’s signature on 23 November and the appointment of an opposition politician, Mohammed Basindawa, to the role of Prime Minister, which are encouraging developments. Clearly we are not out of the woods yet in Yemen, but what has happened is a positive step.

Last but not least, I would like to deal briefly with the situation in Bahrain, and I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the country. I listened with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has long been an independent and forthright commentator on international affairs regardless of who happens to be in government at the time. In a way, however, I think she got the tone slightly wrong on the independent committee of inquiry whose report has just been published in Bahrain. She rightly said that it demonstrates comprehensive evidence of widespread and serious abuse of human rights, certainly implicating the security forces, and that this is part of a deep-seated process in the state of Bahrain. The fact that the report has been published at all, however, is a very positive development that we must try to hold on to. The fact that it was robust and that it did not pull any punches is quite a testament to the potential for openness and accountability in Bahrain.

We know from our own experience in this country that it took us decades to accept the role of our military in even very limited and isolated examples of the abuse of military power in Northern Ireland and later in Iraq, for example. These were not systematic, but very isolated cases of discreditable actions—not typical of the British armed forces as a whole—yet these were painful incidents for us to talk about and admit. Bahrain, however, has moved very quickly to a position in which it is openly discussing comprehensive and systematic human rights abuse by its own security forces, which is something to be praised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I do not think that those activities are helpful to the quest for peace. I think that the only way in which progress can be made is for the Palestinian Authority to be urged to return to the negotiating table. It is a great shame that when it stopped negotiating and said that it wanted a settlement freeze—I considered that to be a reasonable request, and indeed there was a settlement freeze—the Palestinians did not return to the negotiating table.

It is important to recognise that the role and the views of Hamas do matter. Quotations from Hamas are important, because they reflect the reality. Hamas still does not recognise the validity of the existence of the state of Israel. I am not talking about an argument about borders; it does not recognise the validity of the state of Israel. That is shown clearly in its charter, which states that it is its religious duty to have an Islamic state over the whole of the area in which Israel now exists. That has nothing to do with 1967 borders.

The charter also refers to Jews—not Israelis—running the world and controlling the media, and contains other diatribes against Jews, not just Israelis. As I mentioned earlier, Hamas leaders in Gaza have recently stated

“we are not going to accept Israel as the owner of one square centimeter because it is a fabricated state.”

Those are not just words while Hamas’s rockets continue to rain down on Israeli citizens. If it changes its position, we shall be in a different situation, and I certainly agree that a different approach must be taken. However, no one who believes that Israel’s existence should be guaranteed can accept that it should negotiate about its existence. Yes, it should negotiate about boundaries since 1967, but it should not be called on to negotiate about its existence. Unless the person requesting that is one of the people whom I mentioned earlier, who by “occupied lands” is really referring to Israel’s existence, it is land since 1948.

[Bob Stewart]

As a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross, my wife used to have to deal with Hamas daily in south Lebanon when she was the delegate in Tyre. Would it not be in all our interests for huge efforts to be made—I am sure that some efforts are already being made—to persuade Hamas to change its position with regard to Israel and its right to exist, so that we could proceed to negotiation? It is clear that Israel must exist in future. It is equally clear that its borders must be secure—that is part of the process— but I agree that Hamas’s present position is a really big stumbling block.

[Mrs Ellman]

It would be highly desirable for Hamas to change its position. Indeed, it is essential that it does so in order to enable proper negotiations to proceed on the basis of there being two states.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—

[Bob Stewart]

Were you there snorkelling, too?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

This is not a point about snorkelling. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is making an impassioned and eloquent speech, but surely he must recognise that the reason why we are more committed to intervention in such areas—more so than in imperial times—is that we are part of a wider comity of nations. We are part of the UN and of NATO and as part of that joint venture we are committing and projecting ourselves in the region. In imperial times, such circumstances did not prevail. We acted unilaterally and, as he is right to say, in many instances we chose not to intervene and interfere in the internal politics of other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are having this debate. I shall endeavour not to take too long so that time is available for everyone to speak.

We are dealing with an amazing atmosphere, which is of historic proportions, across north Africa and the middle east. It is interesting to reflect that over the past 60 years, the countries of this region have seen the end of the second world war, an independence process being established, an initial Arab spring in the 1950s, the degeneration of many of those then revolutionary Governments into autocratic and authoritarian Governments who relied heavily on secret police and prisons, leading up to the uprisings that have broken out right across the region this year.

I think we should bear it in mind that every single one of the countries across north Africa and the middle east has at least half of its population under the age of 25, with many even younger. There are a great deal of very young, very angry people who have been through school and college, in some cases to university, yet they cannot find jobs. There is a big economic aspect and economic demands underpinning the whole process, which then relates to the political sphere of the unaccountability of government and the power of police forces and the secret police to imprison and control people.

In their search for an accountable Government and for some degree of opportunities in people’s lives, we need to be aware that people do not necessarily view western Europe or north America as a good example. They do not necessarily want to create the kind of societies that we have; they are looking for something that is identifiably theirs and of their region, not aping the previous imperial masters that controlled so much of that region for so long. We need to be a bit more cautious and respectful of the historical process that is going on.

I shall touch briefly on a number of issues. First, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the meetings he had had in Mauritania and Morocco. I intervened on him—and I was grateful to him for giving way—on the question of Western Sahara. Many people have been in refugee camps in Algeria since 1975, when, following the Spanish withdrawal from Western Sahara, Morocco marched in and established a military presence, driving them out of the area.

Under decolonisation statutes, as former Spanish colonial subjects those people have the right of self-determination. They are entitled to decide whether they want to live in an autonomous region or an independent country, for instance. However, they have never been allowed to make that choice. More than 80 countries recognise the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. This country does not recognise it—indeed, no European country does—but all of Africa except Morocco does, as do many other countries, particularly in Latin and central America.

We should spare a thought for the difficulties of a Government who, based in refugee camps and in exile, must lead their people while the majority of them also live in refugee camps, and must explain to them that they do not want to go back to war or launch a terrorist attack. In fact, they want a peaceful resolution and look to the United Nations to provide it, and I hope that this country will do what it can to support their aim. I had a useful meeting with the Minister to discuss the issue, and he showed considerable understanding of the situation. Let me compliment him on the fact that Britain has not supported the renewal of the EU-Moroccan fish agreement on the basis that it has been of no benefit to the people in the occupied territories—although, of course, it should have been—because it is taking resources, fish in this instance, from the waters alongside the western Sahara. I hope that he is aware of the strength of feeling that exists. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Western Sahara, I can assure him that we will continue to pursue the issue.

According to a parliamentary answer given to me last week, the war in Libya has cost £1.8 billion, rather more than the £200 million that we were told it would cost at the start of the conflict. I am not very surprised, because wars cost an awful lot of money. I am not here to defend human rights abuses by anyone. I am here to support the idea of accountable government, an independent form of justice, and adherence to UN basic law on human rights—all the fundamental elements of the UN charter.

I did not support the intervention in Libya for a number of reasons which I gave at the time, and I remain very concerned about the human rights situation in Libya. I am concerned about, for example, the number of African migrant workers who were living and working in Libya and who have been abused or murdered, or whose lives and homes have been destroyed, and the number of others who have faced summary justice in Libya since the transitional national council took over.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) mentioned Saif, Gaddafi’s son, who has been arrested. It is still not clear whether he is in the custody of the transitional national council or in the custody of some other group in the town where he was captured, but I think that he should be put on trial. He probably has a great many interesting things to say about Libya’s economic relationship with this country, France, Italy and many other nations less than a year ago; about the amount of money that Libya spent in this country, France and Italy less than a year ago; and about the arms supplied by all those countries. He deserves to be put on trial, not just because of the abuses of human rights carried out by his father’s regime and the killing of prisoners some time ago, but so that we can understand what those relationships lead to at the end of the day. A lot of truth needs to come out.

I would prefer Saif to be tried by the International Criminal Court, but within the terms of the Rome statute, he does not have to be tried there. The national jurisdiction can put him on trial, although it must follow international standards and allow international observers and international representation.

[Bob Stewart]

I was always under the impression that the basic rule is that if the national jurisdiction decides to try someone, that takes precedence over any International Criminal Court proceedings. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Yes, that is my understanding. That is why I said that Saif does not have to be extradited to The Hague. I would prefer it if he was, but that has to be decided. However, we do have to be confident that there will be an independent judicial system. The murder of his father by a mob is not a very good precedent. We must also look at some of the other abuses of human rights that are now taking place in Libya, and have some very serious concerns.

We should not say, “Ra, ra, we’ve won,” too often, because there is too much pain and too much suffering, and too many people have already died. I read an interesting article by Franklin Lamb from Sirte in Libya called “Bad moon rising over great Sirte bay.” He supported the TNC and the overthrow of Gaddafi, but he describes what he sees as problems for the future. One of them is relations with Algeria, and he also quotes someone saying about NATO:

“‘They destroyed our country and now they want us to pay them to rebuild it. I wish we could rebuild without one NATO country profiting. It’s like that crazy American woman running for President of your country who wants Iraq to pay for the death of US occupation soldiers who were killed.’”

The article goes on to describe the cynicism with which a great deal of the western involvement in Libya is viewed. I therefore think we should be a bit more cautious and circumspect about this matter.

Egyptians are voting in their elections today. We all hope those elections will be properly run and will turn out an accountable Parliament and Government, but above all we must hope that they bring the military under democratic control. There has never been a time in Egyptian history when the primary power of the state, the armed forces, have been under any kind of democratic control. They might have been very popular at various times, and they might have been very unpopular at certain times, but they have never been subject to the kind of parliamentary control that we, along with most other countries in the world, would see as the norm in respect of our armed forces. If that is not achieved, a constitution might be developed in which the Parliament and Government exist, but only as a kind of parallel power structure—as in Chile under Pinochet, in Indonesia and, to some extent, in Turkey before the more recent reforms—with the army being effectively independent of the democratic process, raising its own funds, existing in any way it wants and able to take control of things in the future.

The people who were in Tahrir square over the weekend, and those who were killed last week by the army and police forces, were demanding accountable Government and democracy. The west should be a little cautious in thinking it can do deals with the military to bring about some kind of solution in Egypt.



Egypt has always been the headquarters of the Arab League. Under Nasser it was also very much the centre of the whole Arab uprising and that period of Arab nationalism. There is a competitor on the horizon, however: the Gulf Co-operation Council, which is beginning to assert itself. The GCC started out as a fairly mild union of Gulf states, but it has now, in some respects, become a kind of rival to the Arab League. Strangely, Morocco has now joined the kingdoms of the Gulf region. The last time I looked at the map, Morocco did not appear to be a Gulf country, but perhaps something has changed. The GCC includes US bases in Bahrain, and it has allowed or encouraged or facilitated—we may choose whichever word we want—Saudi Arabia to occupy Bahrain in order to support the kingdom and condone the many human rights abuses that have gone on in Bahrain not only over the last few weeks but the last few years.

Behind that, we must ask some questions about what is happening in Saudi Arabia at the present time. I was given a note about last week’s

“death of four Shia protestors in Qatif…after clashes with security forces. The government accused outside agents as usual but the crisis is more profound. The Shia have been protesting since March over the detention of political prisoners without trial and asking for an end to discrimination and exclusion.”

It goes on to cite:

“The trial of 17 reformers described by Amnesty International as peaceful activists in Jeddah. They were sentenced to 5-30 years in prison. The case demonstrated how the justice system is under the control of the Ministry of Interior.”

Many issues of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia have to be examined but, again, Britain’s overwhelming commercial relationship with that country, through arms sales and oil imports, seems to dominate what ought to be genuine concerns about human rights there, about the inability of ordinary people there to express themselves and about the denial to women of any basic or fundamental rights that any other country in the world ought to be able to subscribe and aspire to.

What my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said about what is happening in Bahrain is absolutely true. I first met human rights activists from Bahrain at a UN conference in Copenhagen in 1986, when they came to see me to talk about the suspension of the constitution, the weakness of the Parliament, the power of the King, and the degree of discrimination and abuses of human rights. Last week, a very lengthy report was published by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, and I shall quote from a small passage about the establishment of the commission by decree in June 2011:

“The commission found that arbitrary arrests—in many cases pre-dawn raids conducted by armed and masked security…forces—showed the ‘existence of an operational plan’ to terrorize protestors and opposition members. It concluded that the arrests and detentions ‘could not have happened without the knowledge of higher echelons of the command structure’ of the security forces, and that failure to investigate rights abuses could implicate not only low-level personnel, but also higher level officials.”

This country has close relations with Bahrain, we have had close military co-operation with Bahrain and we have sold a great deal of equipment to Bahrain, including surveillance equipment that has been used against highly democratic human rights protestors, so we need to be cautious about our double standards.

The last two points that I wish to make concern ever-present, huge threats that exist in the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) made a brilliant speech about the situation facing Palestinian people. It was the most moving speech that I have heard for a very long time on that issue, and it was made on the basis of a very recent visit. He and I have been to the west bank and Gaza together on a number of occasions, and I hope that we will be able to go there again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I respect and rather like the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but of course I cannot agree with the last sentiments in his speech. I shall make a short speech as I believe there are two Opposition Members yet to speak. I shall bear that in mind.

I have lived or worked in Egypt, Jordan, Cyprus, Yemen and Bahrain. The United Kingdom has a traditional and present-day interest in what happens throughout the middle east and north Africa, but that does not give us the right to direct exactly what should happen politically in those countries. Like many hon. Members who have spoken, however, I very much hope that we can influence the direction of their politics in future. I shall confine my remarks to countries in which I have lived or of which I have some experience, starting with Egypt, where I lived for a while in 2005.

The current situation in Egypt is totally unacceptable. The idea that protestors have had to go back to Tahrir square is a dire warning to Field Marshal Tantawi, and the fact that 35 people were killed recently is utterly abhorrent and very worrying. The military will have to stand away from politics but I fear they will find that very difficult to do. Today’s parliamentary elections in Egypt might help. Tantawi has promised to hand over power to civilians, so we will see what happens in that regard. We now have a timeline for that, and a president should be elected by June 2012. Personally, I doubt whether the military will be able to give up their stranglehold on power and privilege as easily as people might think.

I lived in Bahrain as a young man in 1969.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

A young man?

[Bob Stewart]

I was indeed young once—it is almost the start of a song. When I lived in Bahrain it was a very different time to now. I desperately want to see human rights in Bahrain and I am very unhappy about what has happened there recently, particularly about the Saudis coming in with their armed forces. I very much hope that things will get much better.

The final country that I want to talk about is Yemen, where I lived when I was an even younger man between 1954 and 1958. I have always taken a close interest in what has happened to the Aden protectorate. Yemen is a strategic location right at the bottom of the Saudi peninsula and has always been important. It was important to us as a place where our steamers were coaled up for going to India. It was also the home of Osama bin Laden. Let me say how pleased I am with the UK Government’s launch of the Friends of Yemen group.

I will conclude, as I want to keep my comments as short as possible for obvious reasons. Huge changes are taking place in the middle east and north Africa. It is clearly a time of great opportunity for the peoples of the region. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who made points about our business links to the region being part of our foreign policy. That is an extremely good idea and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing his very best to combine diplomacy and business.

I am very hopeful that the Arab spring will liberate large numbers of people and change their way of life in the middle east and north Africa, but the danger is that in times of turmoil things can go either way. That is the problem that we face. We must use our limited power—I stress limited power—to influence what happens throughout the region for the better. I very much hope that, this time next year, we will see the peoples of the middle east and north Africa in a much happier place than they are at present. I keep my fingers crossed and I believe the bottle may well be half filled, rather than half empty.

Yemen

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assessment. I hope that the next passage of my speech will at least provide him with some assurance that we are seeking to make progress, while recognising that we inevitably face some restrictions and limitations on our ability to bring about the change we all wish to see.

The lack of urgent progress in Yemen towards achieving peace, alongside a worsening humanitarian situation, has placed the country increasingly under the international spotlight. Since the Adjournment debate on the subject secured by the right hon. Gentleman in April, the United Nations has begun to play a helpful political role in support of the efforts of the GCC, alongside our EU and US partners. A UN special adviser has visited the country five times and will be arriving in Yemen again shortly. We welcome the UN Security Council’s statements and, most recently, resolution 2014, which was adopted unanimously on 21 October. As the Foreign Secretary stated, that resolution represents a clear indication from the international community that the deteriorating humanitarian, economic and security situation in Yemen is a direct result of President Saleh’s refusal to agree to a political settlement.

That was also the view of the EU Foreign Affairs Council in October, which said that it would explore all available options if the political impasse persisted and the economic and humanitarian situation continued to deteriorate as a result. We, the British Government, will continue to work closely with our international partners and allies, including in both the EU and the Security Council, to support a peaceful transition. We look forward to the Security Council’s review on 21 November of the situation in Yemen in the light of the adoption of resolution 2014.

We have talked about the Yemeni economy. Its situation is truly desperate. Economic collapse and escalating conflict and violence is pushing Yemen into a humanitarian crisis. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the role played by the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) in that regard. We share the UN Security Council’s grave concern about the deteriorating humanitarian situation. Although a £15.4 million package of humanitarian assistance has been given, DFID continues to support a range of initiatives being carried out by non-governmental organisations, UN agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross to help to alleviate the suffering of Yemenis. DFID continues to be active in Yemen.

More generally, the current crisis has set back Yemen’s development by years. Yemen was already the poorest country in the middle east and faced significant challenges, including falling oil revenues, increased water scarcity and rapid population growth. There is political instability, violence, great poverty, economic hardship and, as a result, humanitarian suffering. It is very much the Government’s intention to approach Yemen in a broad co-ordinated way, drawing on our security and diplomatic expertise, as well as on our humanitarian and development knowledge.

Yemen’s human rights record is also very worrying. The high number of credible allegations of violations perpetrated by the authorities against peaceful demonstrators is disturbing. There have been numerous reports of detentions, civilians caught up in armed conflict, the recruitment of child soldiers and restrictions applied to the media. We have witnessed appalling violations by the security forces since the beginning of the protests, in particular in Sana'a on 18 March. Most recently, we have seen an escalation of violence by both sides in Sana'a in September, and the shocking use of heavy artillery to quell demonstrations. We estimate that more than 400 civilians have now been killed and that thousands have been injured.

I should like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of all our staff in the embassy at Sana’a. The right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech how much he would like to be able to take a cross-party delegation from this Parliament to the Parliament in Yemen but was prevented from doing so by his concerns about the security situation. It is worth placing on the record the fact that the United Kingdom staff and their Yemeni colleagues have been operating in very difficult circumstances in an environment of high terrorist threat. Sana’a is now probably our most dangerous post world-wide—the most dangerous place for Foreign Office and other British Government staff to serve in. Our diplomats’ ability to operate has also been continually constrained by ever-present and unpredictable bouts of violence and civil disorder. Our staff are living in temporary container accommodation inside the embassy compound and have to cope with irregular electricity, and occasionally even water, supplies. Life for our local staff has often been even more difficult, with many living in areas of the city affected by ongoing violence and curfews. They have been constantly affected by frequent food, fuel and electricity shortages. Yet through all this, all our staff continue to show willingness, effectiveness and commitment in pursuit of our vital national objectives in Yemen.

That brings me to the crux of what I wish to say. The reason we maintain, at considerable cost and, in terms of hardship, a considerable burden on our staff, a diplomatic and wider British Government presence in Yemen is that we recognise, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the great importance of Yemen in its own right across the wider region and globally. As he said, it is important in security terms because the presence of al-Qaeda and other malign influences in Yemen means that they have the potential to visit themselves on us here in the United Kingdom. However, we also recognise it in other regards.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting. We also have responsibility because the Aden protectorate was, for a very long time, a responsibility of ours. I speak as someone who lived there for four years. We also have a responsibility to this part of the world because of that.

[Mr Browne]

I endorse the point that my hon. Friend makes. We have a narrow self-interest in security terms, but I hope and believe that we also have a wider enlightened interest, and a desire on humanitarian grounds to see the population of Yemen living more materially prosperous lives free from the degree of insecurity that they must feel on a daily basis. I hope and believe that not only because of the hard concerns about national security but because of a desire to see stability, peace and relatively greater prosperity in Yemen, the British Government are affording that country the degree of attention and seriousness that it clearly warrants.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to discuss Yemen’s manifold challenges and what he has said about them. I am sure that we will have other opportunities to discuss what I hope will be progress by the British Government and our international partners in the months and years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Relations: Libya

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

At the point of capture, it is difficult to control forces that were not particularly under control in the first place; the testosterone is flowing. People probably just wanted to get rid of Gaddafi there and then. I do not blame those soldiers who killed Gaddafi. Like my hon. Friend, I regret it, but I understand exactly what was going on. They were in the height of battle, their testosterone was flowing, and they just went for it and killed him, because he was the tyrant.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I agree. In fact, my understanding is that one of the people involved in his death was from Misrata, and his sister had been raped by Libyan soldiers loyal to Colonel Gaddafi, so I concur with my hon. Friend.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I have tabled an early-day motion on the issue, calling on the Government of Niger to respect international law and acquiesce in ensuring that the relevant members of the Gaddafi clan—up to 30 loyalists are allegedly in Niger—are extradited to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. My first question to the Minister is this: what discussions is his Department having with the Government of Niger—and with the Governments of Mali and Algeria, where other Gaddafi loyalists are said to be seeking sanctuary? The most important of those loyalists is, of course, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who apparently is hovering somewhere around the Libya-Niger border. I hope that that man will not be killed. I would like him to be brought to justice in the Court at The Hague, and would like to hear what the Minister is doing to interact with the Government of Niger, and others, to achieve that.

[Bob Stewart]

I apologise for making a second intervention, but I have given evidence in five trials at The Hague, and the writ of the International Criminal Court runs only when a national jurisdiction has indicated that it has no intention of trying individuals who have committed war crimes in its territory. I should like the Gaddafi family and their supporters to go back to Libya. There will be a problem, because of the death penalty, but that is what I should like, because it is how the Court should work. A national jurisdiction tries those in question first, and if that does not work, they go to The Hague. I would prefer those people to go back to Tripoli.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

That is an interesting point, and the Minister will have to deal with the Government’s position on that. Do we want those people sent to The Hague, or should they go to Libya? I defer to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) in those matters.

I am very supportive of the national transitional council, but I am deeply concerned—I feel passionate about it—that there has been no plebiscite. No referendum has been announced on the sort of constitution that the country will have. We have been told that there will be parliamentary elections in eight months’ time, and presidential elections in 18 months. I am extremely concerned that the NTC has already unilaterally decided to state that there will be presidential elections. I think that the last thing the Libyan people want is another Head of State who is a politician. They need to be consulted, so that they can decide what sort of constitution they want. I think that they want a unifying figure: someone who commands respect throughout the country, who is untainted by any previous association with the Gaddafi regime, and who can bring the whole country together in a unifying way. I am not embarrassed to put those issues forward; I do not flinch from doing so. Yes, it is a matter for the Libyan people, but our country has put our service personnel’s lives at risk, and we have a right to advise and caution the NTC in that regard.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; there are allegations of atrocities on both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham talked about testosterone and the desire to take revenge, and we have heard that serious human rights violations and massacres have taken place, such as the shooting of up to 50 Gaddafi loyalists with their hands tied behind their backs in Sirte. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raises an important point, and I would like to hear from the Minister what the Government’s attitude is to ensuring that people are brought to justice.

I believe that the unifying figure who is untainted by Gaddafi and who commands respect in Libya is Crown Prince Mohammed, the heir to the Libyan throne. I have had the great honour and privilege of meeting him; he has lived in London since Gaddafi exiled him and his father from Libya. Gaddafi burned their house down in front of them and then banished them, and they have lived in London ever since. Crown Prince Mohammed’s father subsequently died, but His Royal Highness continues to live in London. Having met him on numerous occasions, I consider him to be, if I may say so, a friend. He is a tremendous counsellor, and I respect him greatly. I have met many leaders around the world in the past six years, but few of them have impressed me as much as Crown Prince Mohammed.

A few weeks ago, I raised directly with the Prime Minister how important it is for him, or at least one of his aides, to meet Crown Prince Mohammed to seek his guidance and views. Foreign Office officials have met Crown Prince Mohammed, but to my knowledge no Foreign Office Minister has yet met him, which I am concerned about. I understand that the Foreign Office does not want to be seen to be manipulating the situation in Tripoli—of course it is for the Libyan people to make decisions—but a member of the el-Senussi family who has extraordinary respect in his own country is living in London; the least the Foreign Office can do is engage with him effectively and properly and find out from him what is happening on the streets of Libya.

The Foreign Office will of course be told a lot by the national transitional council about what the council wants the Foreign Office to know, but I am hearing from Libya—from town councils and the people on the streets of Tobruk, Benghazi and other cities—that many people are holding exhibitions about the history of Libya, which is something that they were deprived of under Gaddafi. Many people are holding exhibitions about the royal family, the late King Idris and Crown Prince Mohammed.

The Foreign Office must be careful. Having spent so much taxpayer money on pursuing the liberation of Libya, we want to ensure that the Libyan people are consulted, and that their will comes through. If they wish to have a constitutional monarchy, as I believe they do, that should be put to them in a referendum, so that they can decide of their own accord, rather than the unelected NTC unilaterally deciding that the Libyan people should have a politician as their Head of State in perpetuity.

[Bob Stewart]

I, too, have met Crown Prince Mohammed, although he is not as big a friend to me as he is to my hon. Friend. I know that Crown Prince Mohammed has had contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so it is fully aware of the situation. I subscribe totally to my hon. Friend’s contention that there should be a general election before a presidential one, and I, too, would like someone such as Crown Prince Mohammed to become Libya’s Head of State. However, it cannot be done just like that; the Libyan people have to ask for it. That is fair.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but after 42 years of absolute and tyrannical despotism, it is not unreasonable to have a referendum or plebiscite. Let the people decide. Give them the options. We in this country had a ludicrous referendum on changing the voting system, which I was furious about, as chairman of the all-party group for the promotion of first past the post.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Gray, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this timely debate. In introducing it, he once again showed his expertise and personal experience, and we are indeed lucky to have him. He set out a compelling account of some of the legacy issues involved in the future of Libya, and he raised other important issues.

As we know, a week ago on 23 October the national transitional council of Libya celebrated the country’s new-found and hard-fought independence. That marked the end of the first chapter in a new story for Libya. Back in March, I welcomed UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973, as well as NATO’s Operation Unified Protector. It was my view then, and it remains my view today, that we could not have stood by and watched the inevitable bloody reprisals of a despotic regime. We were right to take action, and we were right to do so with the clear backing of international law and indeed of neighbouring countries.

Like my hon. Friend, I commend our forces, who stood in harm’s way in the long tradition of our military’s fight against tyranny. However, the success that should be praised above all, as my hon. Friend so eloquently put it, belongs to the Libyan people who rose up, defied a dictator and seized control of their own destiny. They are doubly brave, because they have not only thrown off the shackles of the Gaddafi state but embarked on the long and arduous journey towards a free and democratic society of their own choosing.

As we have seen in other countries during the Arab spring, and indeed as we have seen throughout history, democracy is a long and hard journey, and it is not a quick or close destination. Like the people of every democracy, including the British people, the Libyans have much work to do, and we must help them whenever they ask for it. Securing the future of Libya must now be a priority for Her Majesty’s Government.

Since the end of the conflict, we have seen swift action by the Department for International Development to put in place a programme of humanitarian aid. That work builds on DFID’s success during the conflict in providing much needed aid on the ground in Libya—at the borders and inside the Libyan border—to help those who needed help most. DFID’s work has been seamless with the work of other organisations, such as the World Health Organisation, the International Organisation for Migration and the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is right that DFID continues to play a leading role in the stabilisation and reconstruction efforts in Libya.

As we know, the national transitional council itself has called for a continuing NATO military presence in the region. I, like many others in the House, welcomed the end of NATO military operations in Libya at midnight last night, but we must be prepared to offer assistance if the need for it arises. Consequently, I welcome the recent visit of the Chief of the Defence Staff to the Doha conference on Libya and the support that he offered to the national transitional council, in terms of assistance with specific capability requests for military support as Libya makes its transition to democracy.

With the end of military operations and the return to relative peace and normality, a new and exciting chapter in Libyan history is beginning. It is my view that Britain must build on the work that we have started with the Libyans—for example, we are already providing support for policing. I commend the work of the stabilisation unit to date, and I hope that the Minister will give assurances that it will be properly resourced in the future. We must continue to help to build the institutions of a civil society and to promote the rule of law.

It is vital that the relevant Departments of the UK Government involved in all areas of reconstruction, assistance, enterprise and business work together in a co-ordinated fashion to achieve the optimum results in the shortest possible time. Unco-ordinated efforts run the risk of duplicating work, wasting resources and hampering the emergence of a well-defined, strong and confident Libya.

We should also be working with other countries involved in the reconstruction of Libya, particularly our NATO partners. It would be nonsense if we succeeded in working together to protect the Libyan people in war but were unable to help them coherently in peace.

[Bob Stewart]

The most important matter that must be addressed by those in authority in Libya is ensuring the security and well-being of the Libyan people. Unless those aims are achieved and unless they remain a constant focus, we run the risk of other, less scrupulous people seizing power in Libya. Also, I totally accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that we could put British military teams into Libya to help to train the Libyan armed forces.

[Stephen Gilbert]

The hon. Gentleman has made my point far more eloquently than me. He has also pre-empted a point that I will come on to later, which is the deweaponisation of Libya.

Overall, we need to see clear direction on the relative importance of the bilateral support to Libyan efforts. At the moment, DFID is ramping up its efforts in Libya, while the Ministry of Defence is scaling down its efforts. If we are to remain engaged in an integrated way, all Departments need to be at the table, and we need clarity from the Government about our overall objectives. How active will we be, Minister? What is good enough in terms of the peace-building effort? And is our main focus going to be trade, governance, stability or all those issues?

An example of the current confusion is the potential divergence between the DFID-led public safety efforts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has mentioned, and the MOD’s interest in the security architecture. Unless Her Majesty’s Government know what they are trying to achieve collectively in Libya, it will be hard to determine where the various pieces of the jigsaw fit together.

It is important that we are realistic about what the UN and the EU can and cannot do, and what they will and will not do, in Libya. At present, far too many assumptions are being made in Whitehall that the UN will deliver everything that we want it to deliver in the time frames required. It will not do that, particularly within the security sector. Bilateral engagement with Libya by the UK and our NATO allies will be required, but with a view to bringing in the UN, where possible and as soon as possible.

In seeking to aid Libya in its transition, we must also be mindful of how our actions are seen. We should only seek to help Libyan people at their own behest. All our stabilisation efforts must be owned by the local communities. We must never impose, nor appear to be imposing, our systems, beliefs, culture or demands upon the Libyan people. If there is to be a successful transition in Libya to a strong democratic state, it must be a transition that the Libyans themselves have decided upon. Only then will it become entrenched and real.

Of paramount importance in post-war Libya is ensuring that the very weapons used to free the people do not remain in the country long enough to enslave them once again. When a country is awash with small arms, it is at risk of descending into sectarianism, vigilantism and terror. We are already helping the national transitional council in seeking the dangerous weapons that were stockpiled by Gaddafi, and DFID is already helping with demining projects, but we must go further and encourage a much wider demilitarisation of Libya and its people.

Economically, relations between the UK and the new Libya should now move towards development support and enterprise opportunity. In order to prosper fully, Libya will require serious investment and expertise. To that end, I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestion that there should be an insurance scheme to protect British businesses as they venture into Libya to set up operations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my hon. Friend. Being British, I blush at such compliments. I do not want this to turn into a mutual love-in.

Yesterday marked the end of British military involvement in Libya, seven months after the no-fly zone was authorised, and I would argue that it was one of the most successful NATO operations in history. It proved, all the more importantly after the Iraq conflict, that intervention can work and that Britain can fight for peace and democracy. Although I was disappointed at the manner of Gaddafi’s death because it would have been better for him to be tried in the international courts, I wish that my grandfather, Renato Halfon, was alive now to have seen his demise.

In 1968, after some anti-Jewish pogroms, my grandfather was forced to leave Libya and, as an Italian Jew, he went to Rome. He had planned to return to Tripoli once the pogroms had subsided, but Gaddafi took power in 1969 and all the Jewish businesses and my grandfather’s home were taken. The same thing happened to the Jews and the Italians. Luckily, my grandfather had sent my father to England some years earlier. I love Britain—I was born here and would not live anywhere else—but I feel a deep concoction of Jewish and Italian from Libya, which has been awakened by recent events. I listened with considerable interest to the story that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham told about being in Poland, particularly the part about the oranges, and about what motivated him to fight for freedom in Libya.

It has been good to have conversations with my father and his friends from Libya to try to understand what it was like in those days. My grandfather had a clothing business and sold clothes to the British, and he always said that they were the only people who paid on time. He loved this country more than anything; he thought that the streets were metaphorically paved with gold and that everyone in England was a gentleman. It is worth remembering that King Idris was installed as monarch of Libya in 1951 by the British, in the aftermath of the war, when Libya gained independence from Italy and the old colonial name Tripolitania disappeared.

Although my grandfather and many other people had contempt for Gaddafi, we must acknowledge that in the early days the colonel was not a monster. My father remembers him becoming a rapidly popular figure, who before the coup used to walk down the famous Italian street in Tripoli, Corso Vittorio Emanuele—I think it is now called Jadat Istiklal—shaking hands with passers-by, including my father, wearing a broad serene smile and speaking loudly. He was articulate and nurtured dreams of pan-Arabism, and because of King Idris’s benign weakness, he became known as the liberator. Astonishing as it might seem, he was seen as sympathetic to western interests, and so the Americans, who controlled the large Wheelus air base outside Tripoli, did nothing to stop the coup d’état against the king. No one imagined that Gaddafi would become the monster he did and impose a 42-year totalitarian regime. Now he has gone, everyone is asking, “What next? Will it be a repeat of Iraq in the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?”

It is worth emphasising that a yearning for freedom is deep in every human breast and should be nurtured and supported. The Libyan people deserve freedom just as much as we do in the west. For years, the realist school of foreign policy—I am sure that the Minister is not of that school—has argued that the middle east is not ready for democracy and that democracy cannot be dropped from a B-52 bomber, but actually it can. The NATO planes showed that by providing cover as the rebels advanced on Tripoli, although that is not the only way to do it. We must remember that liberty is a human right for everyone, whatever their background or race. Sometimes it requires military intervention, and sometimes it requires hearts and minds—so-called soft power. Our foreign policy should be directed at supporting groups of resistance to dictators, and at funding radio and TV stations and the internet, in the same way as the CIA did in the cold war to try to combat communism. Where is the middle east equivalent of Radio Free Europe?

What is not required is appeasement. Appeasement often works in the short term but never in the long. The previous Government, as well as some of our universities and businesses, lost their moral bearings when it came to dealing with the Libyan regime. I happened to support Tony Blair and the invasion of Iraq, yet the complete contrast between that and what his Government did with Libya was astonishing. While senior new Labour Government figures hobnobbed with Gaddafi and his family, academic institutions accepted millions of pounds in blood money from the regime, and companies rushed to Libya to sign commercial deals. The London School of Economics, in perhaps the most shameful episode in the university’s history, went cap in hand to Gaddafi and treated him like some kind of king from over the water. I am glad that one of the professors implicated in that disgusting scandal resigned today, according to reports in The Times.

The leader of the Labour party talks about predator and producer capitalism, and I do not think there has been a more horrific example of predator corporate capitalism than the commercial dealings between the previous Government and so-called big business and the Libya regime. I do not say that to make a party political point; I just cannot get my head around how the previous Government could do some good things in Iraq but behave so disgracefully when it came to Libya. The release of the Lockerbie murderer, al-Megrahi, marked the low point of that kind of appeasement by the establishment, and I would argue that the political establishment’s flirtation with Gaddafi was akin to the appeasement of Hitler before the second world war by British upper-class aristocrats.

In having the courage to support intervention and ignore the armchair generals who said we could not or should not get involved, the Prime Minister did much to correct Britain’s moral compass, but I urge the Minister and the Government to launch a serious inquiry into the previous Government’s relations with Gaddafi. We must learn from what went wrong, so that we never, ever, do such a thing again with such an evil regime.

[Bob Stewart]

It was not so much the armchair generals. The armchair generals were right that we had no land forces that we could have put in. We did what we were able to do, which was to use our Air Force, but we certainly could not put troops on the ground, so the armchair generals and the Government were right to say that we could not do so.

[Robert Halfon]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s incredible experience in these matters, but I was not arguing about what kind of intervention it was. In fact, Britain has shouldered too heavy a burden, and other NATO countries should have done more. However, many so-called armchair generals argued against any intervention per se.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas]

It is important that we grasp the opportunity to contribute commercially, which means creating jobs in our own constituencies. We, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to be outward-looking on occasions such as this. Perhaps we should not focus purely on issues such as Europe, when big issues are happening around the world. We should look at the opportunities in Africa, China and beyond. It is important that, in these extraordinary times, we use the increasing communication with countries such as Libya for the benefit of our own constituents.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lucas]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has made a number of interesting contributions to this debate.

[Bob Stewart]

The business infrastructure in Libya is excellent, if we consider that it is in Africa. We should waste no opportunity to get in there again. I know that a number of companies are already there and that British companies have been kind of operating throughout the troubles over the past six months. I totally endorse what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

[Ian Lucas]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. There are opportunities in the commercial sphere. A number of organisations have been referred to, such as the British Council and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and I add the BBC World Service, which can make a positive contribution to building democracy in Libya. We have a huge opportunity.

I have not visited Libya, but it is extremely important and has massive potential. It is a neighbour of countries that are becoming increasingly important, such as Egypt. Will the Minister touch on how he sees those relationships within the new Mediterranean developing as we progress? We are in extraordinary times in north Africa and the middle east, because the changes are having profound effects on our relations and on the lives of and individual possibilities for the people of Libya.

We have long-established relationships with Libya, for many of the reasons that have been referred to in this debate. We should use those opportunities to assist the people of Libya, who must lead what happens. We must be prepared to stand ready to assist whenever we are asked. We have much to give.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

The short answer is no. I have not had a clear indication, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. If I can sum up the sentiment of the debate, I think we all feel uncomfortable about the manner of Gaddafi’s death, even if we do not lament his passing. I, and I am sure the whole House, hope that Libya’s future will be based on the rule of law, not reprisals. Although Colonel Gaddafi was the most high-profile Libyan, I hope that his death is not indicative of the state of justice and the construction of society in the new Libya that will unfold in the months and years ahead.

As well as resolving issues from Libya’s past, we will work closely with the new authorities on the issues critical to Libya’s future. Security is a key concern, even though the new authorities are making steady progress and police are returning to the streets. The national transitional council has planned for a proper police force and a national army that integrates many of the revolutionary forces. We are offering help in that process, including through the presence of a British policing adviser and with communications and logistics for the new police forces. We are helping the NTC to secure and disable man-portable air defence systems, and we are supporting mine clearance in Misrata, Benghazi and other affected areas. We will also offer technical advice to help with the destruction of remaining Libyan chemical weapons stocks under the auspices of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The Government are also working with the International Criminal Court in The Hague to pursue and bring to justice the remaining indictees, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah al-Senussi. We want to ensure that they are held accountable for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and for the attacks targeting the civilian population perpetrated by them. We are encouraging all Libya’s neighbours who are ICC state parties and have a legal obligation under the Rome statute to co-operate with the ICC, including on enforcing ICC arrest warrants should those individuals enter their territory. UN Security Council resolution 1970 urges all UN member states to support the ICC investigation and implement the arrest warrants. We are making that position very clear.

The UK has played a leading role throughout in responding to Libya’s humanitarian problems. We have provided support through the International Committee of the Red Cross and supplied surgical teams and medicines to treat up to 5,000 war-wounded patients. We have also brought 50 severely wounded Libyans to the UK and are providing treatment in the UK to another 50 Libyans who have suffered amputations during the conflict. UK medical experts are also working with Libyan medical staff and are training them in the care of those who have been brought to the UK, so that they can take that knowledge back to Libya and work with others who have suffered such terrible injuries in the fighting.

Women and young people have an important role to play in rebuilding Libya. We are engaging with women across different sections of Libyan society to determine how best to provide support. That includes looking at the issues that women face as a result of the conflict and how women can participate in developing a new Libya.

[Bob Stewart]

I shall make only one point. I suspect that the Minister will not mention the matter of Crown Prince Mohammed, but perhaps he could write to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) about what exactly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s attitude is towards the Crown Prince, who seems a very decent man.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for that intervention. Let me make it clear: the British Government do not have a position on the ideal constitutional arrangement for the new Libya. That is a matter for the Libyan people to determine for themselves. There will be a referendum on the constitution of Libya. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, there will be an opportunity for the Libyan people to express their support for the arrangement that is put before them.

Let me finish by talking about trade and commerce, which was raised by many contributors. Getting the economy running again in Libya is crucial to achieving political progress and stability. We are committed to helping the Libyan authorities build a strong and sustainable economy. Through UK Trade and Investment and our embassy in Tripoli, we are providing advice and assistance to British businesses, so that they are ready to compete for business opportunities now and in future, when the time is right for their business.

In late September, Lord Green, the Minister responsible for trade and investment visited Libya. He met senior leaders, who assured him that all legally obtained contracts would be honoured and new business welcomed. He discussed business prospects arising from the estimated $200 billion post-conflict reconstruction programme and, the day after his visit, Lord Green briefed more than 150 UK companies on how the Government planned to support their engagement in Libya. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has agreed to provide insurance cover for business deals up to a total of $250 million. That is an initial tranche of cover and it will be re-evaluated at regular intervals.

The Libyan people have now embarked on the transition to a pluralist and democratic society. Although we should not expect that that will always be a smooth path, the UK will continue to support Libya in that goal and in building a revitalised relationship between the United Kingdom and Libya that addresses past wrongs and lays the foundation for future progress. The NTC’s goals are ambitious, but already it has many times proved wrong those who underestimated it. We have confidence that it can continue to do so, and that a new bilateral relationship between Britain and Libya will bring greater benefits to the people of both our countries in future than at any point over the past four decades.

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walter]

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the point that we are making. We could have a wider debate about why people commit crimes and why they go to prison, but my specific point is about the denial of liberty and what convention rights that denial of liberty impinges on. It is accepted that some rights in the convention can legitimately be denied. I am interested that Mr Hirst, when he went to Strasbourg, did not say that he was being denied the right to a family life by being in prison and ask why he could not have his wife and children there. He picked on one emotive issue—his voting and democratic rights—but I think that it is absolutely right that this Parliament decide the voting rights of prisoners, and if it decides that prisoners should not have a vote, so be it. That is part of our national sovereignty. It is a matter for national legislatures, not the Court.

My fourth point concerns the backlog. As I mentioned, the figure that I have is 162,000 cases, growing by 2,000 a month. I commend the commission on a Bill of Rights and its advice on this matter: it expressed concern that, whatever reforms we came up with for the Court, they would not deal with the cases currently in the system, and it recommended that we find a way to clear the backlog. One of the commission’s proposals, which is worth taking forward, is that across Europe are retired judges experienced in human rights law who might be brought out of retirement on, say, a one-year contract, subject to their being vetted, interviewed and so on, and that they be given responsibility solely for going through the list of 162,000 cases, deciding which are admissible and, if necessary, immediately sending them to the Court for judgment.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Did the commission not also recommend that the judges be able to dismiss cases, in order to reduce their number, saying, “We cannot deal with this anymore”? The figure of 162,000 is ginormous. We would never get through them.

[Mr Walter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we cannot get through them. We know that about 97% of those cases are inadmissible and could be got rid of straightaway, but we need somebody to sit down, go through the paperwork and say that they are inadmissible. If that were done, we might be able immediately to bring before the Court the few thousand cases that lie in the balance, or use this coterie of retired judges to sit in judgment if there are points of law involved that the Court has already been determined in previous cases and so no new judgments to be made.

It is not all as simple as that, though, because there are other constitutional issues. Many of the cases in Strasbourg get there because, as I understand it, there is no supreme court in the Russian Federation to adjudicate on them. They come straight to Strasbourg from the provincial courts, so we might have to persuade the Russian Federation to have a look at its court procedures—after it has got through its elections, of course.

I welcome the United Kingdom chairmanship. I know from colleagues in the Chamber that we are willing and ready to help the Minister and the Government to take forward our agenda, particularly on reform of the Court. The Interlaken process set in train some years ago was followed by a high-level conference under the Turkish presidency in Izmir, in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor participated on behalf of this country. I hope that we come up with concrete proposals in our six months to ensure that reform of the Court is not only an agenda item, but a reality.

I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe well. I commend him and his deputy in Strasbourg, our excellent ambassador, Mrs Eleanor Fuller, who has done tremendous work. Thorbjørn Jagland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister, is an excellent secretary-general—one of the best the Council of Europe has had for a number of years—and is also very much in tune with the United Kingdom agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

We came in together, and hopefully they will carry us out together. I recall that we also came to the House in the same year.

It is absolutely incredible that a court as important as the Court of Human Rights is clogged up by a type of bureaucracy that could not be imagined in the most disorganised country in the world. The simplest cases that will clearly never be correctly allocated to the Court have to be judged by a full bench of judges before they can say, “No, we can’t deal with this.” There is no sifting process and no filter process. No Committee in this House would run if every Member had to gather every day, look at every paper proposed, and come before the Committee to decide whether it could even discuss it. That is what the Court is about at the moment. Anything we can do under our chairmanship to bring in a filtering system whereby one judge or some other method is used to say, “This is still correct to stay on the list and others must be sent back to the courts of the national jurisdictions or rejected”, is long overdue.

I will talk later about the Human Rights Act 1998 in the context of individual countries. It is a myth that the Court can make a country implement its judgment just by lifting the judgment made in the Court and transposing it into the Acts of Parliament of this country. It is not the European Union, after all. I see that the Minister for Europe is here, and he recognises that that can happen with European Union regulations and all the other things that come in, and we have to just get on with it because we have signed away some of those rights—but not at Council of Europe level. It has to come back and be looked at by this sovereign Parliament, which then makes a judgment on what amendments to make that would implement it. I hope that we never move away from that.

There is lots of talk saying that our Human Rights Act is somehow a transcription of the convention on human rights and the judgments of the courts. I hope that it is, in fact, an attempt by this sovereign Parliament to implement the human rights that we all hold so dear for our country and for every other country. If it is not correct and needs to be amended in some way, that is our right as a sovereign Parliament, but we must not get into the situation where we can overturn the human rights that are available to people in Council of Europe countries just because we believe that it will satisfy the feelings of our constituents.

I held a very excellent debate about human rights and family rights. On family rights, yes, there is no doubt that people are angry because that is used as a plea for someone not to be sent back to some other country. But when we come down to the fundamentals and someone is asked, “Do you think that family rights are due to all of us?”, most people would say yes. We then have to decide why it is not applicable to someone who may come from another country. Sometimes, if we throw out that basic judgment that family rights are available to all of us, and must therefore be available to anyone under our jurisdiction, we destroy something very important in what we have fought for, for political gain and for a feeling of anger rather than for a judgment of what is correct.

[Bob Stewart]

I have a question because I am slightly ignorant on the procedures. If a judgment came back to this House and this House decided that it would not accept it, where do we stand then?

[Michael Connarty]

That is a very important question. If the Government should bring back a proposal on, for example, whether prisoners in custody should have voting rights, and we decided that we did not wish to accept it, we could reject it. They would have to come back again to try to put another proposal, and I presume negotiations would go on between the Committee of Ministers, particularly with our chairmanship in the next six months, to find something that would be suitable, and that would be correct. However, I believe—this is my own judgment—that if we got to the point where we said, “No, we refuse to implement this”, then there must be some question about whether we want to remain in the Council of Europe at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because this addresses precisely the point I want to make. I believe that the convention as we understood and implemented it from the late 1940s to the late 1990s was about the protection of fundamental rights. It was understood to be a matter of last resort. If somebody was really dissatisfied with the way that their human rights had been treated in British courts, for example in the immigration process, they could, if they wanted—frankly, after they had been removed—take a case to Strasbourg. What has happened since then—since we have incorporated it—is that we have had a tidal wave of cases coming to our own judges, and they have interpreted the convention in such a way that makes it very difficult for Ministers to do their job. Members of Parliament might not worry about whether it is bad to make it difficult for Ministers to do their job, but Ministers are responsible to this Parliament. This is the democratic forum of the British people. This Parliament should be supreme—not the courts.

If hon. Members do not believe me, they should listen to what Mr Woolas said. I have already mentioned the case. For years we had been working on both sides of the House against forced marriages and we had been trying to raise the age of women coming here. I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) how that had been overturned by judges. I ask hon. Members to listen to this quote from Phil Woolas, the former Labour Minister for Immigration, which directly mentions the European Court. He said:

“We have four people wanted for genocide in Rwanda (there are 100 but the four are the test case)”—

so we have here four people who are wanted for quite serious crimes, so not very nice people. The quote continues:

“The magistrates had agreed to extradite them but the High Court had disagreed on the grounds that they would not get a fair trial in Rwanda.

I am advised”

by my civil servants

“that I should grant six months leave to remain in the UK ‘in the hope that the legal system in Rwanda improves’.

I had asked why we couldn’t try them in The Hague and was told as they were not British, I couldn’t send them there!

So a person accused of committing genocide in an ‘unsafe country’ (which country that has genocide is safe!) simply has to get into an ECHR country and they will get away with it. The ECHR is providing cover for people who commit genocide. Madness.”

That is not me speaking—it is a Labour Minister.

I will refer to another case and then I will stop. There were many others, and I recommend that hon. Members read what is going on inside the Department, because it is our only insight into what is actually happening across Ministers’ desks.

“The French Navy detained some drug smugglers in the middle of the Atlantic. It took 14 days to get back to France because the ship was on patrol. But the…gangster took the French government to court for unlawful detention under the ECHR, saying he should have been dealt with sooner!...The smugglers have been released…I have now asked why we can’t change the law to stop this abuse but the MoD don’t want me to as they are using the same defence to protect six British soldiers, now back in the UK, who are being sued from Iraq after being accused of unlawfully detaining suspect insurgents in Basra…So, we cannot detain suspected gangsters at sea and the Human Rights Act applies in Basra. Unbelievable.”

That is not me speaking; it is a Labour Minister.

That is what we have come to, and it is now affecting national policy in a very profound way. The House may not agree with me about immigration, but I think it is a very serious issue for our country. We have to grapple with it if we are going to ensure good race relations in the future. I believe that a population of 70 million is unsustainable. You may not agree with that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but surely you agree that this House, and Ministers responsible to us, should have the right and the power to deal with it; you do not believe that at all times their hands should be shackled behind their back because of a European convention that has been interpreted in such a way that it goes way beyond what anyone envisaged when it was set up.

[Bob Stewart]

The Human Rights Act also has a direct impact on operations for our armed forces, and often constrains the way in which our commanders can operate. They spend a heck of a lot of their time working out how not to offend the Human Rights Act rather than working out how they can carry out their operations. It is a very big difficulty, which we must also overcome.

[Mr Leigh]

I am grateful for that; my hon. Friend speaks with personal knowledge.

I shall end in a minute. I think I have made my point and I hope I have made it in a way that the House understands. Yes, I do believe that the Council of Europe needs some reform; the Court certainly needs some reform. There are obvious things that we could do to fillet the number of cases. A backlog of 160,000 is ridiculous and unsustainable. The Court should deal with fundamental abuses of human rights, which are still going on in some countries; let us be fair about that.

We have had recent debates in the Council of Europe about massacres and persecution of Christians in the middle east. Those are things of the sort that I think the founding fathers were thinking of—the horrible events, the disgusting and vile abuses of human rights that have been taking place in Libya within the past year, or in Syria in the past few weeks, or in Iraq over the past 10 years, and if those countries were part of the convention in the Council, that may be a good thing. That is what we should be focusing on, not these absurd, trivial cases—tens of thousands of them.

I cannot believe that a filleting process cannot be developed. I cannot believe that we cannot have a process similar to that which our own ombudsman uses. We are constantly being approached with requests to go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and there is a very quick process which fillets out immediately all cases that are obviously not applicable to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Then the Court really could be something powerful, noble and great, which would be a beacon to the world. It really would defend human rights, because it would focus its attention on those very real abuses, which, I am afraid, are still taking place in the rest of the world and even, I suspect, in some parts of Europe in limited circumstances.

Having done that, I believe that we should repeal the 1998 Act and replace it with our own Bill of Rights. That Bill of Rights should be based on a fundamentally British understanding of how our common law has developed since the Magna Carta. It should protect people’s individual freedoms, but not take the whole process to a ridiculous conclusion, the sort that states that I cannot say what I believe or speak my truth if it might somehow insult the sensibilities of, for example, an hon. Friend. For instance, there was an absurd case concerning an argument about Islam that took place over the breakfast table in a bed and breakfast. The owner made a disparaging comment about Islam, suggesting that it was a violent religion—not a comment I would have made—but it was said in the course of a normal conversation. He was promptly taken to court for somehow infringing the human rights of the person with whom he was arguing. We all know that this is profoundly un-British and that it is not working. It is preventing British Ministers carrying out what a British Parliament wants. I believe that we should replace the 1998 Act with a British Bill of Rights.

National Referendum on the European Union

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as always. We have had referendums on a range of issues, whether in Northern Ireland, London, Wales or Scotland—indeed, referendums on anything but the European issue. I hope that that will change.

Some have accused some Government Members—and even some Opposition Members—of making Europe an issue. I would remind the House that Europe is an issue today because Europe is making itself an issue, not those on our Back Benches. On the principle, millions of people have never had a say on the European question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, because they either had not been born or were not old enough to vote in 1975. Even among those who were old enough to vote, many thought that they were signing up for a common market, not a political union.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was old enough to vote in 1975, and I voted for joining the European Union for economic reasons and nothing else. It has changed hugely in my lifetime, and I would now like a vote on whether we continue with the slide into a political union. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. He and others signed up to a common market, but that has not turned out to be the case. The millions of people in the group that I call the “great disenfranchised” need to be enfranchised. They are the lost generation of voters that the political establishment in this country has left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

It would come as soon as we had finished the negotiation, and if I had my way, it would happen very quickly and, certainly, within this Parliament.

The bail-outs in Greece and Ireland were technically against EU law, but the European financial stability facility was agreed and implemented within days; three years ago, the bank bail-outs breached EU state aid rules, but again exemptions were created when needs required it. Sweden has technically been in breach of the treaties for a decade, because it does not have an opt-out from the euro, but the EU has had to learn to live with it, as that is the political reality. The Danish Government have unilaterally introduced extra customs checks on their borders, which are in breach of the Schengen agreement, but, again, the EU has had to learn to live with it.

The lesson from those examples is that EU law is a flexible notion. In fact, the European Union Act 2011 explicitly states that EU regulations and directives have force in this country only when Parliament allows them to, so we must be far more willing to set aside the authority of the European Court of Justice, and crucially we should not let dreary treaties and EU protocols get in the way of taking urgent action to stimulate our economy.

Let us say to the EU that we are going to delay the agency workers directive, making it clear to the institution that it will have to learn to live with that and that we will not accept an infraction procedure. Let us make it clear, during the current negotiations on the budget, that we intend to disapply, for instance, the working time directive, which was mentioned earlier, until we get this economy out of recession.

The European Union would complain, but, if the evidence of the examples I have cited is anything to go by, it would probably take it at least three years to get around to doing anything about it. Such a move might do something else, too. People keep saying, “These European politicians have no intention of having a treaty; they just won’t negotiate with us, so we have to give up,” but if we unilaterally did those things we would suddenly find that there was an appetite for a long-term solution to such issues. It would be a catalyst to get negotiations moving.

[Bob Stewart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[George Eustice]

I am sorry, but I have almost finished, and I do not want to eat into other people’s time.

Negotiators in the Foreign Office would probably wince at the idea of adopting such a stance, but it is the only way we can cut that Gordian knot, sort out the EU and get our economy moving again, and I very much hope that the Minister takes those comments on board.