Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I have said to my colleagues across Government, long before the publication of the SDSR yesterday, that the most important reinforcement our diplomacy could have is clear statements about this country’s determination to back its armed forces. We have done that, first with the commitment to 2% and then, in the SDSR, turning that commitment into specific programmes and plans that will deliver to our armed forces the capability we need to back our soft power with hard power.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

T6. I spent a lot of time over the weekend listening to people in Dudley tell me their views on Syria. On the whole, they said that they think there is a case for dealing with ISIL-Daesh, especially after the attacks in Tunisia and Paris, but they want to know exactly what practical difference Britain can make, how civilians will be protected, and whether there is a comprehensive plan to rebuild Syria afterwards, with a proper Government in place of Assad, who used chemical weapons on his people.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am glad to hear that he is carefully taking the pulse of his constituents. On the last point, as I have said several times already today, the Prime Minister will set out a comprehensive strategy. That is not just about military intervention, but about how we use that military intervention to achieve the political solution we need in the wider conflict in Syria.

On the specific military point, the UK does have capabilities that will make a difference. The dual-mode Brimstone missile on our Tornado aircraft is a precision weapon unlike anything that any of the other coalition allies are able to deploy. That in itself, because of its precision and its low payload, will ensure minimisation of collateral damage and collateral casualties. That is one of the reasons our allies are so keen that we take part in this campaign.

Iran: Nuclear Deal

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. Clearly, the key thing we need to do is to get our embassy reopened. I have spoken to the Chancellor over the past few days, as we approached the conclusion of this deal, to ensure that the Treasury is engaged in the opportunities that will arise—some quite substantial and early. I think that Iran will want to use some of its unfrozen assets to address some large infrastructure deficits, including in the oil and gas production industry, where the UK is well placed to play a role. The visa regime will be another important part of normalising our relationship with Iran.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has kept his promise not to do a bad deal, but only because he has done an absolutely terrible one. That is why people are celebrating in Tehran, but are utterly dismayed in Tel Aviv. The truth is, as President Obama has said, that this will allow Iran to reduce the time needed to acquire nuclear weapons almost to zero when restrictions expire in 10 to 15 years. This will trigger a middle eastern arms race. In response to an earlier question, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the potential release of $150 billion, which is utterly naive, given that while sanctions existed and its economy was in trouble, Iran still used its money to send thousands of rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

[Mr Hammond]

The question we have to ask is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer, of course, is that Israel does not want any deal with Iran. It wants a permanent state of stand-off, which I do not believe is in the interests of the region or in our interest. The hon. Gentleman says that this agreement reduces the time needed to produce a nuclear weapon. It does not: it increases the time needed to do so. He talks about the restrictions expiring, but Iran has undertaken restrictions that are perpetual in nature in the non-proliferation treaty. Of course, any country in the world can break its internationally binding legal obligations, but the world has a set of measures to deal with that, including UN sanctions. If in 15 or 20 years’ time, we are sitting here talking about how to deal with an Iranian dash for a bomb, it will mean we have failed to exploit the opportunities that the deal offers. I think we should be optimistic. We should go into this trying to ensure that we draw Iran back into the international community, reinforce the hand of the moderates within Iran and make a positive outcome for the region and the world.

Iranian Nuclear Programme

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Iranian nuclear programme.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess; it is great to see you in the Chair this afternoon. I am grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for giving us this opportunity. I have been raising concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions ever since I became a Member of Parliament: I have raised this issue with four Foreign Secretaries over the past 10 years. I applied for the debate in the hope of getting it this week because of the negotiations currently taking place in Vienna.

It is worth recalling how we got here and why Iran’s claims that it does not want a bomb have no credibility whatever. Iran has been caught lying time and again. In 2002, Iranian opposition groups disclosed details of major secret nuclear sites that Iran had kept hidden. Those sites included a large underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water production plant and reactor at Arak that could produce weapons-grade plutonium, neither of which are necessary for civilian power. In 2009, Britain, France and the US exposed another secret enrichment facility under a mountain at Fordow that is too small for civilian fuel but big enough to produce weapons-grade uranium.

The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report in November 2011 with detailed evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, which included a structured programme until 2003 and suspected activities since. In defiance of binding UN Security Council resolutions, Iran has expanded its enrichment capacity over recent years, reducing the time needed to reach one bomb’s worth of enriched uranium to two to three months. Iran has repeatedly refused the IAEA access to the Parchin military base, which is suspected to have been working on nuclear triggers, and has been working to cleanse the site of all evidence. Iran already has missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and our Prime Minister warned in 2012 that Iran is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The Iranians say that they are enriching uranium for nuclear energy, despite not having the capacity to make nuclear fuel rods and not having a nuclear power station that can use the fuel. Iran has only one nuclear power plant, which was built by the Russians, and it is contractually bound to use only Russian fuel rods in that plant. Experts have likened the situation to someone buying a gallon of petrol from a petrol station every day for 12 years despite not having a car. All those activities have been in direct breach of Iran’s non-proliferation treaty commitments and numerous binding UN Security Council resolutions.

I will talk a little about the nature of the current proposed deal and the concerns that it raises. The framework announced in Lausanne in April 2015 has created much concern. Henry Kissinger and George Shultz put it well in their article for The Wall Street Journal:

“Nuclear talks with Iran began as an international effort, buttressed by six U.N. resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. They are now an essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability… The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it.”

It was welcome to hear President Obama say earlier this week that he will

“walk away…if it’s a bad deal”.

At times we have heard from the US that the only alternative to the deal would be war. The impression has therefore been given that the US is more concerned than the Iranians about the consequences of not reaching a deal. Yet it is surely the case in any negotiation that, unless we are willing to walk away and unless we have an alternative to an agreement, we are negotiating from a point of weakness, which will be exploited by the other side. Even at this late stage, and given what the P5+1 have already conceded, we need to get a deal on the best terms possible to meet our basic concerns. That means not accepting a deal at any price.

The red lines tweeted by Supreme Leader Khamenei last week are clearly not consistent with an acceptable deal for the UK and our P5+1 partners. What is our plan B if the Iranians do not budge from those red lines? Will our Government press our P5+1 partners to keep negotiating for an acceptable deal? Will the UK consider calling for a further extension of the current joint plan of action to allow more time, if needed? Meanwhile, this week the Iranian President threatened that, if there is no deal, Iran

“will go back to the old path, stronger than what they can imagine.”

Will the Minister confirm that we will not be moved by such threats? If Iran does not agree to our minimum terms, walks out on the talks and carries out its threat to resume its stockpiling of enriched uranium and centrifuges, will there be a robust and effective response to dissuade it from that path?

I will now turn to the details of the deal under discussion. I am waiting to see exactly what emerges from Vienna. If an agreement is reached, we already know from the framework that it will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state. The framework says that Iran will scale back its enrichment capabilities for 10 to 15 years, but most of the restrictions on the enrichment and stockpiling of uranium will then expire. President Obama has said that the

“fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

As the framework will ultimately allow Iran to be within touching distance of nuclear weapons, and as Iran cannot be trusted, there are two critical concerns. The first is about knowing exactly what is going on inside Iran’s nuclear programme, and I have some specific questions about that.

First, is it a condition of the deal, and of the lifting of sanctions, that Iran answers all the IAEA’s questions about its suspected nuclear weapons research? Will the Minister confirm that, as his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), told the House last month, it is essential that the IAEA

“is able to verify all of Iran’s nuclear-related commitments, including through access to relevant locations”?

How will the Government ensure that the IAEA can conduct intrusive and robust short-notice inspections of any site, including military locations, when Khamenei declared just a few days ago, while negotiations were taking place in Vienna, that such inspections will be limited? On research and development, will he confirm that the development of advanced centrifuges will be strictly limited to prevent the rapid technical upgrade and expansion of enrichment after the initial 10 years? Can he confirm that the remaining enriched uranium in Iran that is above the limits agreed in the framework will be irreversibly converted into a harmless form?

My second concern is that real and credible deterrents are needed in case Iran attempts to break out for a bomb either in the next 10 to 15 years or beyond that. Again, I have some specific questions. First, what discussions have the Government had with our American and European allies about how we would respond to Iranian violations? What planning will take place with our allies to deter Iran from making a dash to a bomb when its breakout time is, in the words of President Obama, “almost down to zero”?

How can the Government prevent Iran from acquiring the capability to produce nuclear weapons when the agreement is over? How will they ensure that the breakout time does not reduce to zero? How will the Government ensure that Iran does not continue to develop military aspects of its nuclear programme given that it has not come clean on past activities, has violated protocols signed in the past and has failed to comply with its commitments to the IAEA to answer questions posed by the nuclear watchdog?

How will the Government and our international partners deal with violations of the agreement? Does the Minister believe that a joint committee mechanism of which Iran is a member will be reliable for dealing with such violations? What mechanisms will be in place to quickly reimpose, or snap back, biting sanctions if necessary? What would be the threshold for snapping back EU sanctions? Is there a threshold, or would one follow political negotiation? Will the Government reaffirm that all options ultimately remain on the table to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, should it try to do so in the future? Finally on the deal itself, every nuclear arms control agreement has included measures to control the means of delivery, so why does the current proposal lack a clause that deals with the issue?

I now want to raise some points about what will happen after the deal. We appear set to enter an agreement that, within 10 to 15 years, will allow Iran to reduce its breakout time to almost zero, according to President Obama. As the sanctions fall away, Iran will receive a huge economic and political boost, greatly empowering it in its ambitions to dominate the region. It is not surprising that that has united Israel and some Arab states in deep concern.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Of course the question has to be seen in the American, as well as the Israeli, geopolitical context. Does he agree, however, that the supreme leader, along with President Rouhani, would be better served by looking at Iran’s history? Great leaders from Persian history, such as King Darius and King Cyrus, supported the return of Jews from Persia to Jerusalem and helped to pay for the building of the Temple. That is real leadership, and it shows how to live in peace with Israel, rather than threaten it.

[Ian Austin]

I think Iran’s leaders would be better served by doing lots of things differently. I hesitate to use the words “wishful thinking”, but I am not sure how much confidence we can have that Iran’s present leadership will embark on the course of action that the hon. Gentleman has set out.

There is real concern right across the region that others—first and foremost, Saudi Arabia—will use the next 10 to 15 years to catch up with Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Former Saudi intelligence chief Turki al-Faisal said recently:

“Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too.”

What will the UK and its allies do to reassure states in the region that they will deter Iran from breaking out to a bomb and, therefore, dissuade others from trying to match Iranian capabilities, creating a cascade of proliferation across the region?

There is also real concern that Iran will use its strengthened economic and political position to expand its existing destabilising activities. The country is shipping rockets to Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza strip and paying them to fire those rockets at Israel. It is also shipping rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which now has 100,000 rockets aimed at Israel. In addition, it is shipping weapons to Houthi rebels in Yemen, propping up Assad in Syria and expanding its attempt to dominate a Shi’a-controlled Iraq. It is worth recalling that Hezbollah, which answers to the Iranian regime, is also guilty of murderous attacks on European soil. Just this week, a Hezbollah operative was convicted in Cyprus and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for planning an attack against Israeli targets there.

Will the Minister tell us what discussions the Government are having with our US and EU allies and with friends in the region, including the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan and Israel, about how to contain an Iran that will be unbound by this deal? How does the UK plan to work with its allies to deter Iran from pursuing more destabilising behaviour? In the short term, the deal is likely to grant Iran an immediate bonus, which could amount to up to $50 billion, as a result of the lifting of sanctions. How will the Government ensure that that money is not used to increase Iranian insurgent activities in Syria, Iraq and Yemen or to continue supporting and arming Hezbollah and Hamas? What conditions will the agreement place on the use of those assets?

It is particularly disgraceful that Iranian leaders have repeated open calls for the destruction of Israel. That includes the supreme leader, in November last year, tweeting a nine-point plan for Israel’s elimination. Will the Minister assure us that the tone of relations between this country and Iran will reflect the deep distaste we have for such rhetoric and for Iran’s general approach to the region? Finally, will he give a commitment that the UK will continue to enhance its strategic co-operation with Israel against shared threats, including Iranian behaviour?

I have put lots of questions to the Minister, and I appreciate that the debate taking place in the main Chamber means that he is having to deal with a policy area for which he is not personally and directly responsible, but I would be grateful if he could answer my questions either in the debate or, subsequently, in writing. If he would prefer, I would also be happy to table them as written questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on securing this debate, which recognises the importance of the issue. This is the second time it has been debated in Westminster Hall in recent weeks.

I agree with a certain amount of what has been said. Of course we deplore the baiting of Israel by the Supreme Leader of Iran or any attempt to destabilise the region in whatever form, but I would strike a slightly less hawkish tone than we have heard so far. Developments, however small, are welcome. It is a live, ongoing negotiation process, and there is rhetoric on both sides while detailed negotiations go on. Some progress is probably better than no progress at all.

Diplomatic relations between Iran and the west have thawed in recent years, and this is a manifestation of it, starting most recently with the Lausanne agreement and the ongoing talks. We can see the election of President Rouhani, who spent considerable time in Glasgow, completing his doctorate there, as a demonstration of willingness to make at least some kind of progress. Iran has also indicated it might accept the additional protocol of the agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which again suggests a certain willingness to engage.

The issue has important consequences for the wider region. If a peaceful agreement can be achieved between Iran and the western powers, that could well represent a model for future agreements elsewhere in the region. If Iran is respected and demonstrates that it can be trusted, where appropriate, we might see more peaceful and democratic negotiations and transitions in the region. The negotiation process represents an important opportunity to get things right, and perhaps to help not just the region but the whole world make progress on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament—issues close to the heart of the Scottish National party.

We must consider the wider context of getting our own house in order when it comes to the messages that we send out from the United Kingdom with the decisions we make. The SNP is not ashamed to oppose the renewal of Trident and the existence of weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde or anywhere else in these islands. We are rightly opposed on moral and ethical grounds, because the destructive power of nuclear weapons and their ability to cause devastation and loss of life on an unimaginable scale is reason enough to scrap them wherever they exist. We are also opposed on the grounds of the cost and investment at this time of austerity. There is a consensus in Scotland that nuclear weapons should not be possessed by any country in the world: 57, not 56, of Scotland’s MPs agree. We will see where the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland goes when his party whips him on that.

There is also the question of nuclear power. Most people suggest that countries have a right to develop a peaceful civilian programme. Perhaps that is true—we would not have air conditioning today if it were not for a base-load provided by nuclear power stations—but the trend in this part of the world has been away from nuclear generation and towards renewables and so on. If we do not want other countries to develop civilian nuclear programmes, maybe we need to provide them with support for alternatives. Solar power is certainly not lacking in the parts of the world that we are debating. Perhaps that is a small example, but it goes to my wider point: as is so often the case, we must get our own house in order. The United Kingdom must lead by example. What right, moral or political, do we have to dictate terms to other countries if we are not prepared to apply the same standards to ourselves?

In welcoming the progress made diplomatically, I look forward to an update on where the negotiations are, and I encourage the Government to lead by example—not just in the negotiations as part of the western grouping, but in considering the impact of their domestic decisions in the areas of nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Patrick Grady]

No, I am just finishing. I encourage the Government to work ultimately towards a world that is both peaceful and nuclear-free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

I apologise to you, Sir David, for getting your title wrong at the beginning of the debate.

I am grateful to all the Members who have taken part today. The Minister was presented with a lot of questions and I am grateful to him for the answers he gave. I particularly welcome his assurances that we will not do a bad deal, that we will not make a deal at any price and that we will not turn a blind eye to Iran’s destabilising of the region. I am grateful for the contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and by the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton, for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).

That said, I want to make one point, which was the reason why I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Glasgow North right at the end of his speech. I do not accept at all the argument that there is some sort of moral equivalence between us in the west and the Iranian leadership, nor do I accept his argument about getting our own house in order before we can comment on what the Iranians are trying to do. The truth is that Britain’s nuclear stance has not changed for 50 years. We are not promoting a radical anti-western ideology. We are not threatening to destroy other states. The issue is Iran, which, uniquely, signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, broke all its provisions with a secret nuclear weapons programme, and was caught red-handed on two occasions.

I must also say that we are not an autocratic dictatorship—1,200 people have been executed under Rouhani’s supposedly moderate leadership. We do not arrest journalists, bloggers and political activists and lock them up for years on end and we do not threaten to wipe other countries off the face of the Earth. It is utterly ludicrous to compare the Iranian regime with western democracies and say that we have to get our house in order before we can comment.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Iranian nuclear programme.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right, of course. I have already mentioned an area in which we need fundamental change in the way in which the European Union operates. It is now a Union with a eurozone of 19 member states at its core, and those states will integrate more closely together. There needs to be an explicit recognition that those who are not part of that core do not need to pursue ever-closer union. There needs to be an explicit protection of the interests of those non-eurozone members as the EU goes forward. That is an example of an area in which we need specific structural change to the way in which the European Union operates.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I intend to stick to the position I have set out.

[Ian Austin]

Speaking as somebody who worked in the Treasury between 1999 and 2005, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that it was a Labour Government that designed the five tests, a Labour Government that carried out the assessment and a Labour Government that kept us out of the single currency? It is thanks to a Labour Government that we are not in the single currency today.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will have been at the heart of the angry and temper-ridden debates that went on in the Prime Minister’s office and No. 11 at the time. Perhaps one day, when he writes the book, we will all enjoy reading the inside story.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

Everybody in the country and in the House will have to wait and see what deal the Prime Minister brings back, then people will have to make their own judgment.

[Ian Austin]

In order for the result to be accepted and for it to be long lasting and settle the question for a generation, it is very important that the process is seen to be fair on all sides. Ministers are perfectly at liberty to say what they like in interviews and as they go round the country making speeches, but there is a big difference between that and public money being used to send out leaflets and promote one side of the debate. It is very important that the spending limits are designed to ensure that spending is equal on both sides and both sides have a fair say.

[Hilary Benn]

Everybody in the House would agree that the referendum must be fair and must be seen to be fair, but at the same time the Government—any Government—are entitled to argue their case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

One wonders how long it took the hon. Gentleman, when he was lying in bed this morning, like the Prime Minister, working out how he would deploy that bon mot in the debate, to come up with that.

The hon. Gentleman mistakes me, incidentally. He should reflect on the speech that I made in this Chamber only last week. I am not one of those people who argues that the UK could not possibly be out of the European Union. In my speech last week, I warned against a parade of establishment figures talking down to people and saying, “You can’t do this. You can’t do that.” I am not one of the people who argues that case. The essence of my case for being in the European Union is a positive case about what Europe should be doing, not about what it should not be doing. I hope that at some point in this debate, we will get to the stage where what is said to be wrong with the European Union is not things like hard-working Polish people being able to repatriate their child benefit to Poland. There must be more to this country’s relationship with the rest of Europe than matters of such smallness.

I will move on to the essential nonsense of this referendum and why my party will oppose it in the Lobbies this evening. When someone proposes a referendum, it should be because they are proposing a significant constitutional change, whether it be the alternative vote, Scottish independence, Scottish devolution or Welsh devolution, and they are looking for democratic sanction—the sovereignty of the people—to back that change. That is not the position of the Prime Minister. Nobody seriously believes that he wants to take this country out of the European Union. The referendum is a tactic that is being deployed as a means of deflecting support from UKIP and as a sop to Back Benchers. Nobody believes that the Prime Minister wants to take the country out of the European Union.

The suspicion, which is already developing in this debate, is a result of that essential contradiction in the Government’s proposition. The suspicion is coming, incidentally, not just from the hardened Eurosceptics—or Europhobes, perhaps—from whom we have heard on the Government Benches, but even from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who questioned why it looks as though the Government are trying to stack the deck in the referendum before the campaign has even begun. The questions about the campaign limits and the purdah period are coming not just from people who are opposed to the European Union, but from Members of great experience who are concerned that the Government are already moving to imbalance the referendum campaign.

Let me tell right hon. and hon. Members who do not share my view on Europe what exactly will happen if we go into the campaign and the polls start to close or perhaps the no side even moves ahead. We will find Sir Nicholas Macpherson parading things in front of Select Committees of this House; we will find civil servants compromising their impartiality; and we will find the Prime Minister suddenly making a promise, a commitment, a pledge or a vow, and saying that he has found some new policy initiative to turn the argument, in total defiance of any idea of a purdah period.

My advice—and it is free advice, honestly given—is that Members should lock things down in the Bill, otherwise all their worst fears will come into being. With great respect to the Foreign Secretary, they should not trust his bona fides in saying that he just wants a fair game and fair play. If we want to secure a proper and decent referendum and avoid the deck being stacked, we should lock it into the Bill through amendments.

We have detailed reasons for opposing the referendum in its current form. I say to the Labour party that I am surprised by its argument, “We lost an election, and we therefore have to change our policy”, as the acting Leader of the Opposition said just the other day. Does that apply to all the policies that Labour fought the election on, or just to the policy on the referendum?

[Ian Austin]

I have to say, the right hon. Gentleman is doing absolutely nothing to reduce the reputation for self-satisfied smugness that preceded him before he was re-elected.

I speak as someone who has believed for well over a decade that we should have a referendum on our membership of the EU. If it was right for the Scottish people to have the referendums they wanted on establishing the Scottish Parliament and on Scottish independence, why is it not right for the vast majority of people elsewhere in the UK to have the referendum that they definitely want on Britain’s membership of the EU? Why should the right hon. Gentleman’s party troop through the Lobby to try to prevent that? Why should he deny people in Dudley their say on this issue?

[Alex Salmond]

If it was two or three weeks ago that the hon. Gentleman was campaigning against the referendum, why is he suddenly in favour?

[Ian Austin]

I wasn’t.

[Alex Salmond]

On a manifesto of—

[Ian Austin]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have two people on their feet at the same time. I hope that it is a point of order rather than of frustration.

[Ian Austin]

Is it in order for the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) to say that that I was campaigning against a referendum just a few weeks ago, given that one of my local pledges was to support a referendum and I have been in favour of a referendum for well over a decade? If he knew anything about what I have ever said on the issue, he would know that.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said anything disorderly. I think the safest thing that I can conclude is that he was not attending closely to election literature in Dudley, his mind being focused, perhaps, elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is fantastic to see you in the Chair. This has been a brilliant debate with some absolutely superb maiden speeches, so I am delighted to be able to take part in it.

The EU has changed radically since Britain joined, when it amounted to a relationship between a small number of developed countries to promote trade through the creation of a common market. Today’s EU is very different from that: 28 member states with vastly different economies, Governments and social structures; ever-closer political and economic union, with the free movement of labour and a European currency; and other European countries wanting much closer relationships on foreign policy and defence. It has been a controversial question in British politics for decades, and Westminster has not been able to settle it to the public’s satisfaction. That is why I am delighted we are having this debate and very pleased that my party is backing this opportunity to let the British people have their say.

I have been saying for years that a referendum would be the best way to have a proper debate about the decisions that are taken in Brussels or in Britain, and about the jobs that depend on our membership of the EU, so that we can sort out those issues once and for all. But we can only settle the argument if it is carried out in a free, fair and balanced way, and if the public have complete confidence in the process. It is such a significant debate that everyone involved should have a chance to agree on the rules. There should not be any room for either side to say the contest was fixed or fiddled.

First, public funds should not be used to promote one side or the other and the spending rules should be designed to ensure that neither side has an unfair advantage. Secondly, this is such a significant decision that it should take place as soon as possible and be separate from any other election. It is a huge issue of great national importance and the issues need to be considered on their own merits, outside whatever other political issues are being debated in election campaigns at the time. Thirdly, the Prime Minister should have the confidence to give his Ministers the freedom to campaign as they see fit, as Harold Wilson did in 1975.

[Mr Bone]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on taking a positive view of the referendum and on having done so in a party that has not always agreed with him. Does he agree, however, that his Front-Bench team should also have the right to debate on both sides of the argument?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

Absolutely; without question.

I can see the benefits of our being part of the world’s biggest single market and free trade area—it has made a big difference to our economy, particularly in the west midlands, where the car industry is of huge importance—but I am worried about the impact of freedom of movement on low-paid jobs and the effect of high levels of immigration on public services.

[Robert Flello]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s good contribution. During the election campaign and over the past 10 years, my constituents have time and again raised with me their concerns about the levelling down of wages when somebody comes along from another European country and about employers, rather than embracing the opportunity to widen skills, using it as an opportunity to drive down wages.

[Ian Austin]

That has been one of the impacts of our membership, and I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents, like mine, will be very concerned about it.

I can see the benefits of membership, and I can see the costs. I think that Britain could survive outside—of course we could—but there would be massive risks, not least, as I said earlier, for the car industry. I think that that is where the majority of the British people are on this issue. Outside here, most people are not ideological or dogmatic; they are reasonable and pragmatic and hold mainstream views. They have a balanced view and can see the benefits and the cost on both sides of the argument.

The no campaign has to think carefully about how it presents a positive view. I do not think that the apocalyptic, doom-laden vision of Britain as a member of the EU that I have heard in speeches this afternoon will strike a chord with anybody out there. I suspect that if the yes campaign could pick a leader for the no campaign, they would choose Nigel Farage. He is clearly a good communicator and a charismatic leader—winning 4 million votes and coming third in the election was a huge achievement—but he is not regarded by most people as pragmatic or someone who holds balanced, mainstream views on Britain’s membership of the EU.

In 1975, the campaign to stay in was led by leading mainstream figures from both the major parties and the business community, and that had a huge impact. The campaign to come out was led by people on the extreme left of the Labour party and the extreme right of the Conservative party, and it was unable to show that it could speak for the reasonable, mainstream majority. I think that the British people want a clear analysis of all the issues so that they can make their decision once and for all, and that needs two mainstream, reasonable campaigns putting the respective arguments.

The debate about our relationship with the EU should start right now, not after the Prime Minister has completed his negotiations. We should be involving the British people in that debate directly and listening to their views. We live in an age when people want to be engaged and to know that politicians will listen and take their views into account. I would like Ministers to involve people in the debate by commissioning a body such as the National Centre for Social Research to construct a detailed survey to find out exactly what the British people think about the benefits and costs of our membership of Europe, looking in detail at the jobs that depend on it, the impact and benefits of immigration and the emerging questions of defence and foreign policy. Knowing what people think would strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand in his negotiations. I am doing that over the summer in Dudley. I will be sending out a detailed but balanced survey to 30,000 households and inviting them to a dozen or so public meetings to discuss the issue, as we did last year on immigration.

I welcome this debate on our membership of the EU, but it has to be carried out properly. It has to be a fair debate that starts right now and involves all the British people. The truth is that people in places such as Dudley feel they have not had their say on the EU, and we should start this debate by listening to them. Let us use it to show there is a new way of doing politics, through a proper, serious debate and a real conversation. Let us use this debate to rebuild public trust in politics. I say to both sides: listen to and trust the people, and they will respond.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The fact that there was a turnout of no less than 86% in the Turkish parliamentary election demonstrates the vigour of Turkish democracy. We are looking forward to working with the new Government, once they are formed, as there are many important political, economic and strategic interests that the UK and Turkey share.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

It is very important that a nuclear deal with Iran is not made at any price. The P5+1 must stand firm if Iran will not accept any-time inspections of all suspect sites or come clean on possible military dimensions of the nuclear programme, as suspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Should Britain and the P5+1 not engage much more closely with Arab states and Israel, who share concerns about an agreement that in a few years would allow Iran to greatly expand its nuclear programme?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Perhaps for the first time, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that the alternative to an agreement that will restrict Iran’s development of civil nuclear enrichment capabilities for a period of perhaps 20 years is no deal and a free-for-all. We have got to get this agreement right and we have got to carry the Gulf states and Israel with us, and the meeting at Camp David that the US President hosted with the Gulf Co-operation Council countries was part of a process to reassure allies in the Gulf of our commitment to their security.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am sad to say that I agree with my hon. Friend, as many of the ingredients that we witnessed in the build-up to last summer’s conflict are beginning to re-emerge. If we are to avoid another significant and punishing conflict, all parties must come together immediately after the Israeli elections are complete and a new Government are formed, to address these grave challenges.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

There is no legalistic or bureaucratic route to Palestinian statehood and it cannot be imposed from outside. We will see a viable Palestinian state—the two-state solution that we all want—only as a result of proper negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which Britain should be doing everything it can to foster. We need to see the demilitarisation of Gaza, Iran no longer sending rockets to Hezbollah and Hamas, and Britain promoting organisations such as Project Cherish, the Parents Circle-Families Forum and Middle East Education Through Technology to bring together people on both sides who want peace.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure that was a question, but I certainly agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. We want the Palestinian Authority to assert itself in Gaza, not just have a technocratic Government. We want the Palestinians to end the political stalemate with Hamas, as he implies, but we also want Israel to allow the free movement of people, particularly the politicians, into Gaza, and to increase trade between Gaza and the west bank.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend speaks very wisely on these matters, and I have travelled to the region with him. We are working extremely hard, not only with the Palestinian authorities but throughout the region, to bring the parties together, although the process is currently on hold because of the Israeli elections.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) was right to mention reports that Hamas is developing new rockets instead of contributing to a peace process, and building more tunnels instead of building the homes and businesses that people in Gaza need. What more can our Government do to contribute to the reconstruction and demilitarisation of Gaza?

[Mr Ellwood]

The Department for International Development is contributing an awful lot of funds, and we participated in—indeed, I attended—the donors’ conference in Cairo. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that Hamas is having a disruptive effect on the process. I have visited Shujaiyya in Gaza, and I have seen the destruction that has resulted not just from the conflict in the summer, but from previous conflicts as well. The cement is starting to move in following the conference, and we do not want it to be used to build more tunnels.

Palestine

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

It is also not a criticism of the Minister’s predecessors, whom I admire greatly. I know they made tremendous efforts, but there is now a growing gap in credibility between rhetoric and action, which is unacceptable. If we want to see an end to the horrifying cycle of violence and abuses of human rights, and if we wish to bring both parties to the negotiating table in good faith, we need to close that gap.

A new approach to diplomacy must be based on the protection of civilians, equal respect for human rights, equal respect for the security and sovereignty of both Israelis and Palestinians and actual respect—rather than just rhetoric—for international law. When the Israeli Government recently gave their final approval for the construction of 2,610 houses in one of the most sensitive neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, the British Foreign Secretary said that he “deplored” the decision. That is a strong word, but how many times have we heard Ministers deploring the actions of the Israeli Government without backing it up?

What should we do? Members, and hopefully the Minister, may wish to consider my proposal that we put an end to trade with and investment in illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. Those settlements are illegal and constitute a grave breach of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention. Our Government and EU Ministers regularly decry Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise as a great barrier to peace and say, quite rightly, that the settlements threaten the viability of the two-state solution.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I am just going to finish this point. I have been generous in giving way.

Although the EU and UK Ministers have criticised Israel, it is clear from the 2012 “Trading Away Peace” report that the EU imports 15 times more goods from illegal Israeli settlements than from Palestinian enterprises. We have reached a contradictory situation in which we economically sustain the very obstacles to peace—the illegal settlements—that we so often condemn as individuals in government.

Settlement products are the proceeds of crime. They are illicit goods, the product of a brutal occupation and the exploitation of the occupied and their resources. By trading with those who produce them, we financially encourage them. Those settlements are built on the foundations of immense suffering—that of the Palestinians who have seen their homes destroyed, have been expelled from their own land and are living under brutal oppression—yet we make the illegal settlement enterprise profitable for the occupying power. That seems to me a gross injustice. Personally, I do not think that we should have to boycott settlement goods; we should not be allowed to buy them in the first place. The UK Government should work at EU level to ensure that such products of suffering and exploitation are banned.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, there is overwhelming evidence that we should also end the arms trade with Israel, based on United Nations evidence that serious breaches of international law occurred before, during and after the most recent assault on Gaza. One need not be an expert in international law to know that shooting tank shells at children sleeping in UN shelters, launching missiles at small children playing on the beach in Gaza and bombing sick and injured patients lying in hospital beds are immoral and criminal acts. The UK should have no part in them or in supplying arms and components that allow such things to happen.

I will give way now to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who was keen to intervene.

[Ian Austin]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the settlements. I want to see them dealt with, and I believe that they can be dealt with by a process of negotiation and compromise. Some 80% of the settlers are on 6% of the land. That can be dealt with through land swaps, which were the basis of talks as far back as Camp David and Annapolis. Other people can be moved, and some could stay and live under Palestinian sovereignty, just as there are and always will be Palestinians in Israel. The settlements beyond the major blocks account for 0.4% of the territory. The problem is not insurmountable, as my hon. Friend seems to suggest, but does he agree that Hamas’s terrorism and extremism are a much bigger barrier to the peace process than the settlements?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I reiterate for myself, and on behalf of all right-thinking people, that we do not seek to condone or excuse any form of violence. I wish to condemn acts of violence wherever they come from, as I am sure do all Members.

[Ian Austin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind, as I have been generous in giving way. A lot of Members have indicated that they want to speak, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have his opportunity.

To respond to the specific point about trade, I point out—[Interruption.] Well, in terms of economic pressure—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We are all prepared to ask for and await that detail.

To return to the few points I wished to make, opinion is changing, and it should change. We have had our vote, our decision and our debate—the first such debate in this House—on the recognition of Palestine. The day after that, I made what I intended to be a balanced and principled speech at the Royal United Services Institute about settlements and their illegality. I have a wodge—a folder—of hundreds of responses, the vast majority of which were supportive. Those that were not were invariably very rude—they seem to think that I am enjoying sexual relations with camels—but most of the Jewish opinion, from both Israel and the United Kingdom, was supportive. The Jewish voice in Israel and the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, is changing significantly in favour of a Palestinian state.

The litmus test of value and principle and of the rights and wrongs of this situation is whether someone thinks that settlements are illegal or not. They are. That land does not belong to Israel, and anybody who thinks it does is in the wrong. Furthermore, those who regularly and unquestioningly support the unreasonable conduct of the Israeli state are not doing Israel any favours. The sort of expatriate, extreme, let us call it right-wing, opinion that says that everything Israel does is right and justified because of violent attacks is condemning the Israelis’ children and their children’s children to a worse and less safe Israeli state. Those who really support the interests of Israel, as I do—I believe I do—should realise that it is acceptable to criticise the unacceptable conduct of the Israeli state, which I fear will condemn that country to permanent conflict.

The world has a chance to put pressure on Israel, which at this very moment is contemplating legislation that will remove the rights of Palestinians living in that country. Every single claim of moral authority and decency will be eliminated for Israel in perpetuity if that law is passed. I want to see an Israel with the true democratic values it espouses.

[Ian Austin]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the proposed legislation on a Jewish state, but the truth is that the Israeli Finance Minister, Yair Lapid, said his party would vote against it; Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said that under no circumstances would she or her party support it; and the Leader of Israel’s Opposition—our sister party, the Israeli Labour party—said that the proposals are irresponsible and unnecessary. Even Israel’s President opposes them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise the wide diversity of opinion in Israel and even in the Israeli Cabinet. Cabinet members have threatened to collapse the coalition if those proposals are brought forward.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I recognise the diversity, but that does not mean that all those diverse opinions are acceptable within democratic principles. Indeed, the President of Israel himself believes in a greater Israel stretching from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan. That, in my view, is not in the interests of Israel. I hope that the very same voices who oppose the law will now oppose settlements, demolitions, the destruction of olive groves and the disproportionate reactions. Why cannot a democracy such as Israel learn to underdo its reactions from time to time, rather than overdo them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I was appalled by what happened this summer, but despite all the difficulties, a two-state solution with a viable Palestinian state is the only option that reconciles the interests of Israelis and Palestinians. There is no alternative that will end the bloodshed and provide justice, dignity and self-determination for both peoples with universal human and political rights, a free press and economic opportunities for all. Despite all the difficulties, this is not the time for people who believe in peace to give up hope. Peace talks have produced results in the past and have come close to a breakthrough on several occasions, and they can do so again.

Of course, a two-state solution faces considerable challenges—the status of Jerusalem, security, refugees, and the growth of settlements—but they are not insurmountable, given a willingness on both sides to negotiate, compromise and make concessions. The failure of the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships to persuade their people to work together, to negotiate, to compromise and to eliminate the barriers to peace is a tragedy.

The biggest barrier to peace is Hamas. Its charter sets out its goals with an explicit rejection of Israel’s right to exist. It is an organisation that encouraged young people to strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves and civilians to bits in Israel’s buses, bars and restaurants. It is an organisation that the UN says stored its rockets in schools hosting displaced people, that uses hospitals as command centres, that threatens the media, denies equal rights to its citizens, summarily executed 22 people outside mosques after Friday prayers, and that Mahmoud Abbas accuses of plotting to kill him. Whatever people think are the rights and wrongs on either side, we all have to concede that it is difficult to see how Israel can deal with that.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

There are two points. First, Israel fails to say what its final borders are. Secondly, Israel did deal with Hamas in the ceasefire negotiations in Egypt. There is a basis on which talks can take place. It has already happened.

[Ian Austin]

I want to see Hamas commit to peace, I want to see the demilitarisation of Gaza. I want to see everyone in the region committed to peace and coming together to negotiate compromise, so that we can have a two-state solution: a safe and secure Israel with a viable Palestinian state, living in peace side by side. That is the only way—whether it takes a year, 10 years or 100 years, in the end that is the only way the situation will be resolved.

There is an idea that the peace process can be advanced by boycotts, disinvestment, sanctions and other attempts to delegitimise Israel. I think that would hinder the development of dialogue on which prospects for future peace and security rely. Britain’s role is to do everything we can to bring people together, develop dialogue, promote negotiations and build trust. Boycotts would just drive people further apart. Britain’s role must be to develop closer links with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, promote economic development, trade and investment in the west bank, reconstruction and demilitarisation in Gaza.

I would like to hear from the Minister what more the UK can do to get DFID, the British Council, the Foreign Office and NGOs supporting projects such as Cherish, One Voice and the middle east education through technology project. The goal of peace depends on two sides, Israelis and Palestinians, working together with international support to develop a viable Palestinian state—the viable Palestinian state I have believed in all my life and for which I have campaigned, alongside a secure Israel with peace and justice for both peoples. Is it possible? It has to be. Is it easy? No, of course it is not. It is difficult, but it is possible. Israel and the Palestinians need brave leadership and renewed efforts to achieve it and Britain must do all it can to support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank you, Mrs Brooke, for chairing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for it. I also thank the Minister and the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), for responding to the various points that hon. Members have made. The fact that more than 40 hon. Members have made a speech or intervened indicates the strength of feeling on this issue.

Many issues have been raised, including economic sanctions, the expansion of illegal settlements, and arms embargos and restrictions. The key point was about respect for international law. We also heard about the Jewish state Bill, and Members’ concerns about a drift towards apartheid and the similarities with South Africa.

[Ian Austin]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am afraid I really cannot.

We also heard about the restrictions at the al-Aqsa mosque. Those are all important points, and I am grateful that the Minister has responded today or will respond in correspondence.

On the significance of the date, the Minister mentioned what happened 67 years ago. Because of that, 29 November is the UN international day of solidarity with the Palestinian people. It is quite instructive that Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, said this year:

“On this…Day of Solidarity, I call on the parties to step back from the brink.”

He also said:

“Long-term stability depends on addressing the underlying causes of the conflict. That means lifting the closure on Gaza, ending the half century occupation of Palestinian land and addressing Israel’s legitimate security concerns.”

To conclude, I must say that Israel has obligations as the occupying power. I appeal to the British Government and the international community to provide a counsel of hope, not of despair. As the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, if we are to take this issue forward, we need courage and generosity of spirit, and those were typified in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman),by the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) and, very powerfully, by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who made an excellent contribution about the benefits of outside help in resolving conflicts.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to ending the conflict in Palestine.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

7. If he will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to participate in projects which bring them together and build a new generation of leaders committed to peace and dialogue.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to support projects that foster co-operation and co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

11. Whether he has discussed with his Israeli counterpart the content of the debate in the House on 13 October 2014 on Palestine and Israel; what recent discussions he has had with his Israeli counterpart on the future of the peace process; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

Certainly, the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence are keen to receive strong applications for the conflict, stability and security fund—as the conflict fund is now called—for joint projects that bring Palestinians and Israelis together to achieve peace. This is the first time I have heard that there are issues to do with the funding. I will certainly look at it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Ian Austin]

It is important to step up the work that the Minister outlined, because the only way to resolve this conflict is through a stable, two-state solution with security and peace for both Israel and Palestine. There is no legalistic, unilateral or bureaucratic route to that objective; it will be achieved only by getting Israelis and Palestinians working together to build trust, to compromise and to negotiate and by means of economic development and trade in the west bank and by the reconstruction and demilitarisation of Gaza.

[Mr Ellwood]

The whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, had the opportunity to visit Gaza, Jerusalem, Israel and the occupied territories over the last few weeks. I was astonished by the amount of energy there and by the people who absolutely want to work together. One example of that is the UK-Israel tech hub, which is driving economic and technological collaboration between the UK and Israel. The hub is working with Israeli and Arab experts, including Palestinian, to support work and build partnerships in the quick-growing Arab internet sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Of course, this is a further continuing difficulty and it reinforces the case for these issues to be fully resolved, and for a final status settlement of these issues that brings about a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. Otherwise, there will constantly be the great variety of extremely troubling issues that are raised in this House.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Is not Britain’s role to get Israelis and Palestinians who believe in peace and a two-state solution working together and trading with each other, instead of campaigning for boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions, which just drive people further apart? The Palestinians working at SodaStream are paid three times more than the average Palestinian, so boycotting such companies would actually hurt the very people they claim to be trying to help.

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not encourage boycotts in any way. The British Government do not support boycotts or a de-legitimisation of Israel, but we do support, as did the last Government, labelling of products from illegal settlements in the west bank, and I think that is the right thing to do. But the hon. Gentleman is quite right that our emphasis is on bringing Israelis and Palestinians together, and this is a more important time than ever to try to do that.