Syria

John Baron Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is partly the purpose of the negotiations. We want the regime and the opposition to engage in serious negotiations about how a transitional Government would work. The National Coalition has set out its commitment to a non-sectarian Syria, which would include the role of the Alawites. We do not have any such vision from the regime, because it has not set out a vision other than one in which President Assad stays in power and negotiations take place only with the tamer elements of the opposition. I hope that the negotiations are sufficiently successful that they get into the matter of the nature of a Syria after transition.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

No option is without risk, but given the west’s poor track record of arming groups and individuals—the mujaheddin and Saddam Hussein, for example—and given that certain rebel groups are allying themselves to al-Qaeda, will the Foreign Secretary answer the one question that he has so far failed to answer? How would he prevent the arms that are being poured into the area from getting into the wrong hands?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is getting ahead of where we have reached in our policy making. We could supply arms only in carefully controlled circumstances, and with very clear commitments from the opposition side. I cannot at this stage go into what arrangements could be made—some of them would necessarily be confidential—but we would want to be able to assure the House and the country that we had confidence in any such arrangements. That is a subject that we might have to return to.

Syria

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There is much greater coherence now than there has been for a long time. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that it is difficult to bring together something like the national coalition, but it is very much the best attempt that can reasonably be made to bring together those moderate and democratic forces, and it is now there to be negotiated with. Quite often over the past two years the refrain of some of the other countries on the Security Council and of the regime has been, “We want to negotiate, but we do not have someone to negotiate with.” Now they do not have that excuse. The national coalition is there for them to negotiate with, and it is willing to negotiate, so the onus is now on the regime to show that it can seriously negotiate.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I urge caution. Human rights groups have confirmed that atrocities have been committed by both sides, and by arming the rebels we could be arming the terrorists of the future, as well as escalating the violence. May I bring the Foreign Secretary back to the comments he made over the weekend, which clearly indicated a change in thinking about non-lethal support, despite what we were told in this House on Monday? To what extent were his comments a reflection of reports we are now getting that President Obama is thinking about changing his policy on this issue?

[Mr Hague]

I am not aware of any inconsistency in what I have said. In fact, I have said throughout that we do not rule out any options; I have said that for two years, and it would be strange to start ruling options out as the situation got worse, not having done that at any period. That is what I have said today and it is what I said at the weekend. What we are proposing to do is what I have set out today, and my hon. Friend will know from Secretary Kerry’s announcement that it is closely related to what the United States has announced. It has announced $60 million of additional practical, but non-lethal, support to the national coalition, and I have announced $20 million—to use a comparator—that the United Kingdom will provide. So our policy is closely aligned with that of the United States, but neither country is advocating the policy to which my hon. Friend is so strongly opposed.

Syria: anti-Government Forces

John Baron Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on support for anti-Government forces in Syria.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I confirm that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement on this subject later this week.

The UK’s overriding goal is to achieve a political transition in Syria that ends the bloodshed on a sustainable basis. That is why we are working intensively with the United Nations, Arab League Special Representative Brahimi, the United States and our partners in the Friends of Syria to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough. In the meantime, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, we must continue with our life-saving humanitarian aid and practical support to the Syrian people and opposition.

A key part of our approach is to work to strengthen moderate political forces in Syria that are committed to a democratic future for that country. The Foreign Secretary announced to the House on 10 January that we had committed £9.4 million in non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition, civil society and human rights defenders. As he said at that time:

“All our assistance is designed to help to save lives, to mitigate the impact of the conflict or to support the people trying to achieve a free and democratic Syria…We are also helping the National Coalition to co-ordinate the international humanitarian response, and we have provided a humanitarian adviser to work with it. At all times, we urge the coalition to ensure that all opposition groups meet their commitments on human rights.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 484.]

Despite that assistance, the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate. According to the United Nations, more than 70,000 people have now been killed, the number of refugees in the region is fast approaching 1 million and more than 4 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance.

The longer the situation goes on, the greater the danger that extremism will take hold, the greater the danger of neighbouring countries being destabilised and the greater the extreme humanitarian distress involved. We must therefore do more to try to help save lives in Syria. That is why we led the way in agreeing an amendment to the EU sanctions regime to ensure that the possibility of further assistance was not closed off. We are now able to increase the range of technical assistance and non-lethal equipment that we can provide to the Syrian opposition.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is currently travelling in Mali and will return tomorrow to answer Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions. In addition, I reiterate that he will be making a statement in the House on this very subject later this week.

[Mr Baron]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I say at the start that the Government have been absolutely right to restrict aid to non-lethal support when assisting anti-Government forces in the civil war. Until recently, a strict arms embargo has been preventing the flow of weapons from the European Union to Syria, but at a recent EU summit the Foreign Secretary appeared to press for that embargo to be at least relaxed. Yesterday, he appeared to suggest that the British Government might at some stage be prepared actively to arm the rebels.

I appreciate the statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister has made today, but I suggest to him that there can be little doubt that, although there has not been a change in Government policy—there cannot be without EU approval—there has been a change in Government thinking. That prompts a number of questions. Why the change in approach and thinking? It is quite clear from yesterday’s statement that the Foreign Secretary believes that a step up in support by way of exporting arms is on the agenda. Let us not forget that, only in January, the Government were strongly advocating non-lethal support for opposition forces.

What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with fellow Security Council members? I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that any increase in our support by way of arms can only escalate the violence on the ground in the short term, and with it the suffering of the people. Both sides have been accused by human rights groups of committing atrocities, and that is important to remember.

What calculation have the Government made? Is the thinking that a sharp escalation will somehow bring this torrid affair to an end, and that the only way to quicken the end is to arm the rebels? Moreover, there are credible reports that extremists are fighting alongside the rebels. Will the Minister update the House on that matter, and what guarantees can he give that if we were to export arms to rebels, they would not fall into the hands of terrorists? It is difficult to ensure on the ground that that does not happen.

I advise caution. The Foreign Secretary appeared to be contemplating stepping up support for one side in the civil war, but both sides have been committing atrocities. We may be supplying the terrorists of the future and shipping arms does not reduce tensions. Such a policy would also bring us closer to intervention. When we supplied arms to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, a lot of people died but in the end neither side became our friend. Interventions rarely go to plan and I hope the Government will think carefully before pushing for a change to this policy with regard to neighbours and friends.

[Mr Swire]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which gives me the opportunity to state again that the change in the EU sanctions to which he alluded is about non-lethal equipment and technical assistance. The Foreign Secretary was tempted yesterday on the “The Andrew Marr Show” to go further, but right hon. and hon. Members will have to wait for his statement, because he wishes—quite properly—to make his position clear in this House.

My hon. Friend mentioned the suffering of the people, and that is precisely what the change is designed to help alleviate. It is worth remembering that 4 million people are now in need of urgent assistance and that 2 million have been internally displaced. More than 900,000 Syrian refugees are in need of assistance in neighbouring countries, and my hon. Friend of all people will be acute to the dangers of unsettling regional areas close to that country.

The change under debate is about ensuring that all options are on the table and that EU countries have maximum flexibility to provide the opposition with all necessary assistance to protect civilians. We want to support moderate groups precisely to boost their appeal and effectiveness over the extremists to whom my hon. Friend alluded. I assure him that the support we provide is carefully targeted and co-ordinated with like-minded countries, consistent with our laws and values, and based on rigorous analysis.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

Yes, indeed we will. The hon. Gentleman will know that the official peace negotiations with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia started in October in Norway. It announced a universal ceasefire for two months, and the Colombian Government and FARC jointly announced a mechanism for civil society participation in the peace negotiations, and those negotiations continue. The British Government stand by—many hon. Members have written to me about this—ready to work with the authorities in Colombia to ensure long-lasting peace in the country.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Given the likely change in the political make-up of the Israeli Government following today’s elections, may I urge the Government to redouble their efforts to dissuade the Israelis from a pre-emptive strike against Iran, an act that would be illegal, that would reinforce the position of hardliners in Iran and that could lead to regional war?

[Mr Hague]

We have made our position on that clear to Israel and we will continue to do so. We believe in a twin-track process, endorsed in this House, of negotiations and sanctions, so we are not in favour, in those circumstances, of a military strike. However, as my hon. Friend knows—he does not agree with this, but it is our policy—we have taken no option off the table for the future. We are now exploring the possibility of returning to negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme, but that will require a readiness by Iran to enter into realistic negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman wrote his question before he saw the outcome of the European Council at the end of last month. Given the emphasis he places on trade, I am sure he will have warmly welcomed our Prime Minister’s intervention to secure the free trade agreement between the EU and South Korea, which is already delivering opportunities for British businesses. I am sure he will also welcome the British Government’s strong support for the opening of trade negotiations between Europe and Japan, which was agreed last week.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Now that the penny has finally dropped within the eurozone that it cannot have monetary union without fiscal union, which in turn leads to closer political and economic union, what guarantees can the Government give that a caucus within the eurozone will not override UK interests within the single market?

[Mr Lidington]

This is something to which we are giving priority both in the immediate discussions on banking union and in all future negotiations on the future of the EU. I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friend. The requirements of the single market are written into the treaties and the terms of numerous items of EU legislation. On top of that, all 27 Heads of State and Government have made repeated commitments at European Councils that they are committed to defend the integrity of the single market.

Middle East

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman has illustrated well the fact that serious accusations can be made on all sides. Hamas certainly seems, as so often, to have had little regard for civilian life. As for the question of balanced reporting, it is not in my remit or in the power of Her Majesty’s Government, but it is very much to be encouraged.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel’s legitimate right to self-defence does not extend to a pre-emptive attack on Iran?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend has introduced a different subject, and one on which he has often given his views to the House. He knows from my earlier answers that we have counselled Israel against a military attack on Iran in circumstances in which we are pursuing a twin-track policy of intensified sanctions and negotiations with Iran, and that remains the position.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

How the use of forces will be made after 2014 is still to be considered. My hon. Friend has made this plea before. I would say in response to his point about the Taliban that one of the most significant events in recent weeks has been the public response to the Taliban in Pakistan, in support of the young girl Malala and her right to education. Bearing in mind the links between the Taliban in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, that assertion by the people of Pakistan of the importance of women’s rights and women’s education may be the best response we have yet seen to the demands of the Taliban, and a consideration that they may not be accepted by the people themselves, which would be the best guarantor of women’s rights in the future.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The education of girls is of course very laudable, but does the Minister agree that the main reason we are in Afghanistan is to deny that country being used as a base by international terrorists?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes. The reason we are in Afghanistan is for both our national security and theirs, and to ensure that the use that was made of Afghanistan’s territory in the past is not made in the future. That is why we have been there; our forces have done a remarkable job and so have the development workers. They will continue their work post-2014 to ensure as best they can the future stability of that country for its own security and for the security of the rest of us.

EU-UK Relationship (Reform)

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to be debating a subject that is of great interest to you personally. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment—I believe this is the first time he is responding to a debate in his new capacity.

I am going to talk this morning about the work of the Fresh Start project, which is a group of Conservative MPs who have spent the past year looking at all aspects of Britain’s relationship within the EU and at how we can get a better deal for British taxpayers. In his foreword to the Fresh Start project’s review, which we published in June, the Foreign Secretary wrote:

“The eurozone crisis is setting in train what may well be profound changes in the structure of the European Union. These will pose very important choices for every country in the European Union, inside the eurozone or out.”

He added:

“Public disillusionment with our membership of the European Union has never been so deep.”

A July 2012 YouGov survey shows that two-thirds of those surveyed want a referendum on or before the general election in 2015. If given a choice today, almost half—48%—would pull out and 31% would stay in, but were the Prime Minister to renegotiate a new deal to protect British interests in the EU, the poll suggests that people would vote in a completely different way: most—42% to 34%—would vote to stay in the EU in a post-reform world.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Given those findings, does my hon. Friend not think it strange that a letter sent to the Prime Minister at the end of June, signed by 100 of his parliamentary colleagues, urging him to consider putting a referendum on the statute book in this Parliament calling for a referendum in the next Parliament has not even been answered? Does she think it would be worthwhile for the Minister to answer that question today? I apologise that I will not be here for his reply to the debate, but I have a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting to attend.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have been following that matter and know that the Prime Minister has said that he will be responding shortly, so I am sure that my hon. Friend’s question will be noted.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

John Baron Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.

Clause 1(3) fulfils the requirements of the European Union Act 2011 relating to the referendum lock. It demonstrates compliance with the condition in that Act that exempts the approval of certain European Council decisions from the requirement to hold a referendum. Section 3(1) provides that a Minister may not confirm the approval of a decision made under article 48(6) of the treaty on European Union unless three requirements have been met: first, that a statement has been laid under section 5 of the Act; secondly, that the decision has been approved by Act of Parliament; and thirdly, that the referendum condition, the exemption condition or the significance condition has been met.

The 2011 Act provides that a decision under article 48(6) is not subject to a referendum if its provisions apply only to member states other than the United Kingdom, and that is the case here. The decision amending article 136 applies only to member states whose currency is the euro, and therefore not to the United Kingdom. It therefore falls within the exemption provided for in section 4(4)(b) of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary laid a statement before Parliament under section 5 on 13 October 2011 stating that in his opinion the decision amending article 136 fell within the exemption in section 4(4)(b) and therefore did not attract a referendum. To comply fully with the exemption condition, the Bill includes the provision in clause 1(3) stating that the decision does not fall within section 4 of the 2011 Act. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I stand briefly to question my right hon. Friend the Minister—I, too, welcome him back to his post—on whether he believes that the European stability mechanism risks prolonging the agony of the eurozone crisis. Although we are not members of the ESM, is it drawing us in yet further and adversely affecting us as a result? The eurozone crisis was caused by excessive debt—that is well established; it was Governments borrowing beyond their means. Being built on debt, we all accept that we cannot borrow our way out of this problem and crisis, yet numerous summits have basically moved debt around the system and between banks or Governments and, quite rightly, the markets are getting tired of that.

I suggest to the Minister that the best solution to the problem is economic growth, and to grow our way out of the problem for the sake of all eurozone countries and the EU as a whole. Where are the measures to encourage greater competitiveness? Where are the supply-side reforms? They are simply not there. I therefore put it to the Minister that he should consider whether the ESM prolongs the agony and delays the inevitable, and whether our interests, as such, are being adversely affected by the position we are taking on this treaty change.

[Mr MacShane]

If I may, I will try to speak to the clause. I might make other comments on Third Reading, but I hope not to detain us long. What is extraordinary about this clause is its sheer impertinence. Our Eurosceptic friends in the Conservative party are for ever telling us that we do not want Europe interfering in our affairs. The proposed legislation, however, says that we should wait until every other national Parliament has made up its mind—

“laid an order certifying that the constitutional requirements of all the members states of the EU have been complied with.”

What business or right is it of this Committee to demand that the constitutional requirements of every other sovereign nation state be met before we make up our minds, and until

“all the related and legal challenges have been disposed of”?

Let us imagine each of the other 26 fellow EU member states adopting the same clause and waiting for their Parliament to ratify the ESM treaty and all legal challenges to be completed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), and to question my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe on a number of what I consider to be design flaws in the ESM.

First, although £500 billion in lending capacity sounds like a big figure—and it is—it would be a drop in the ocean should an economy the size of Italy need help. That is especially the case as the ESM’s mandate will be broader than was initially envisaged. In fact, it could be argued that the perception that the eurozone rescue funds could run out of money could drive borrowing costs higher for the Italian and Spanish Governments and raise the likelihood of such an outcome.

Another design flaw, and perhaps a more fundamental one, concerns the circularity of having the facility guaranteed by the same group of countries that might need to draw on it. What will happen if one of those countries needs to draw on it? The burden on the remaining countries will increase, thereby increasing the likelihood that they, too, will face a debt crisis. That is another potential flaw that I wonder whether the Minister has considered.

A further flaw is the reliance of the ESM on the creditworthiness of all its guarantors. The triple A credit rating that it aims to achieve, and hence the low borrowing costs, hinge on a sufficiently large number of eurozone countries maintaining their credit ratings. We have seen in the past the effects of ratings downgrades, such as in January 2012 when Standard and Poor’s downgraded nine eurozone countries, including France. That was followed by a downgrading of the European financial stability facility only four days later. Has the Minister considered those potential but fundamental flaws in the design of the ESM?

Finally, I put it to the Minister that the ESM would not exist if were it not for the political will to maintain the euro. It is quite obvious to many, and certainly to many eurozone leaders, that one cannot have monetary union without fiscal union and, in large part, one cannot have fiscal union without political union. As many of us on the Conservative Benches and, to be fair, some on the Opposition Benches, have long argued, the euro endeavour is a political initiative to move towards closer political union, and the chickens have finally come home to roost.

If the politicians were not interfering so much, we would have something similar to the Asian debt crisis at the end of the 1990s. For a short period, that was a pretty bloody affair, but as nations’ sovereign debt was allowed to be reneged on, as countries defaulted and as currencies were allowed to depreciate, there was a rapid bounce back in economic growth. GDP was higher two to three years after the start of the crisis than it was at the beginning, because market forces kicked in, currencies devalued and growth rates picked up because of the greater competitiveness. The Asian crisis moved on and the countries involved are in a much better state than at that time, because their currencies were allowed to depreciate.

What do we have? We have a system by which countries are locked into a single currency and cannot devalue, which prolongs the agony. What Greece needs now, desperately, is to devalue its currency so that it can become more competitive and can grow its way out of its problems. Holidays for British tourists, for example, would be 25% cheaper with a 25% devaluation, which would help the economy. The goods that Greece manufactures would be 25% cheaper, which would help it to export its way out of its problems. However, the euro is sealing its fate in many respects, and prolonging the agony. My concern is that the ESM is part and parcel of the package to preserve the euro and prolong that agony.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

To return to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point about the Asian crisis, the Asian countries were strongly advised by the International Monetary Fund not to do what they did in the end. They ignored the IMF, did what they thought was right—rightly—and of course they recovered, as he said.

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, as he has been so many times; he has a long track record of being fundamentally right on this subject.

Although it can be argued that the ESM does not really affect us, that this is just a treaty change and that we should not get involved, I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that we are actually playing a small part in prolonging the agony of the euro. We need some fresh thinking on this issue, because, to return to a point made earlier, by not facing reality we risk a very disorderly break-up of the euro, which cannot be good for this country or, indeed, eurozone members generally.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman has outlined the case for Greece leaving the euro. What is his response to the fact that opinion poll after opinion poll shows that the Greek people, by a very significant majority—about 85%, according to a recent poll—want to stay in the euro?

[Mr Baron]

That is up to the Greek people. Unlike many initiatives relating to the eurozone crisis, one is not trying to replace the democracy that exists in Greece, although if we look at what has happened in Italy and, it could be argued, to a certain extent in Greece, we see that it is very much the bureaucrats who are in charge. However, ultimately Greece will have to make a decision; it cannot have it both ways. We have seen the high social cost of Greece remaining a member of the euro, and it is very saddening, with the suicide rate going through the roof and the economy collapsing. Perhaps someone needs to explain to Greece that a course of devaluation would do its economy a power of good.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I want to develop that point, because it seems to me that Greece has effectively decided to stay in the euro—the Government are committed to that—so exactly what business do we have trying to tell the Greeks how to run their economy, especially since we are not in the euro?

[Mr Baron]

One is not trying to tell them how to run their economy at all. I am afraid that my hon. Friend was obviously not listening. What one is suggesting is that the experience of past cases illustrates the merits of devaluation. Since the second world war there have been about 40 occasions when currency blocs have broken up, and in the vast majority of cases—I struggle to think of an exception—the countries that left currency blocs benefited. Their growth rates picked up because they became more competitive, their currencies devalued and, most importantly, their peoples benefited. If my hon. Friend can think of one exception to that general rule, I would be delighted to hear it, because I cannot think of one. In summary, I believe—

[Neil Carmichael]

rose—

[Mr Baron]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I am about to finish. Interruption.] All right, I will give way, if he can think of an exception.

[Neil Carmichael]

I was casting my mind back to 1967, when the Labour Government devalued the currency, but can see no evidence at all that the decision brought about any improvement. In fact, it was followed by the creation of the Department of Employment and Productivity, and by 1970 that was an unmitigated disaster.

[Mr Baron]

rose—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are going a little wide of amendment 1.

[Mr Baron]

I take your point, Mr Evans. My hon. Friend was clearly not listening, because I was talking about currency blocs, and to the best of my knowledge we were not a member of a currency bloc in 1967. However—I throw this back at him—I do not for one moment believe that he is arguing that our exit from the exchange rate mechanism in 1992 did this country any harm at all. In fact, our economic recovery kicked in, almost to the day, because we left what was in effect a currency bloc.

In summary, I fully endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. We should delay the introduction of the ESM. There are too many questions that need answering. I would very much welcome some clarity on the points that I have raised, particularly about the design flaws in the ESM. I would also ask the Minister for Europe to address the fundamental point: why the Government continue to believe that by joining in the political mantra that we need to save the euro, we are doing our eurozone partners any favours. I would point out to him that all the economic evidence suggests that by sticking to that mantra, and indeed by implementing the policy, we are prolonging the agony and delaying the inevitable.

[Wayne David]

I profoundly disagree with the previous contribution. I am no fan of the Government, but it is simply sensible for the Bill to be agreed and the amendment to be defeated, because it is sensible for us to introduce the European stability mechanism as quickly as is practicable. That is in Europe’s interests, but more importantly it is in the United Kingdom’s best interests. I say that for one simple but important reason: about 40% of the United Kingdom’s trade is with our eurozone partners, so it is in our best interests for stability and eventually prosperity to be achieved and maintained inside the eurozone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The legal position is that yes, that is possible, and it would be by qualified majority voting. That flows from the decision taken on the final day of the last Government’s time in office. It may be some reassurance to my hon. Friend, though, if I say that the EFSM has tended not to feature in the discussions over the past year. The discussion has been very much about the EFSF, which can draw on a much larger sum and can therefore command much more credibility with the markets.

I say to those of my hon. Friends, and Opposition Members, who have been extremely critical of the European Union, that I have found that there is an understanding in other member states, whether among Heads of Government, Finance Ministers or Europe Ministers, that the EFSM is a sensitive and delicate subject for the United Kingdom and particularly for the House. I do not get the impression that our European Union colleagues want to push us into a corner for the sake of it. What they hope for, and reasonably so, is our co-operation, not in sacrificing our vital interests but in helping them solve the existential financial and economic crisis that the single currency area faces.

[Mr Baron]

My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the fact that the ESM is much larger than its predecessor. Will he therefore address the questions that I put to him about the weakness of the fundamental design of the ESM? By agreeing to it, we are signing up to a system that has many flaws. Does he recognise those flaws, and if not, why not?

[Mr Lidington]

I think my hon. Friend is trying to draw me into writing my own blueprint for a permanent European stability mechanism. I will not be tempted on this occasion, because it would be pretty extraordinary if British Ministers were to start laying down the law in public about the design and scope of a mechanism to which we have chosen not to be a party and into which we do not propose to put a penny of our taxpayers’ money. We should not give such lectures to countries that have decided to put their taxpayers’ money on the line, because they will have to deal with any political reaction among their own electorates. As a democratic House, we need in this instance to respect the sovereign, democratic decisions of the eurozone member states.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I have not seen the article in question; I will be very pleased to have a look at it. Certainly, there is a variety of views in Israel about the merits of military action at any time. We have been very clear to Israeli leaders—the Prime Minister and I have been clear in our recent meetings with Israeli leaders—that the policy we favour and are pursuing is the twin-track policy of sanctions and negotiations. We have been very clear that under those circumstances, we oppose a military strike on Iran.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

20. Can the Secretary of State explain the stark discrepancy between the comments made by Sir John Sawers on 4 July and the Senate testimony early this year of the director of the CIA, General Patraeus, in which he stated that there was no evidence of a decision by Iran to build a nuclear weapon?

[Mr Hague]

I am not going to comment on the reported comments of the director of the Secret Intelligence Service, but I do not think there is any contradiction in anything that has been said in public. Iran is, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) in asking this question, accumulating material for which there is no logical explanation other than an ultimate intention to construct a nuclear device. There is no peaceful explanation that has been given to the world, and that is the important truth we have to confront, whatever decision-making process is going on in the Iranian leadership.