Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

It certainly does, and to show the ecumenical nature of that concern, let me quote from a recent article in The Herald of Glasgow by a former Labour Defence Secretary, later the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson:

“Those people seduced by the SNP’s obsession with abolishing Britain’s nuclear deterrent should perhaps Google the Budapest Memorandum of December 1994. They would see there a document representing the deal struck when Ukraine, holding the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile, agreed to give them up in return for solemn security assurances from Russia, the US and the UK.

These countries, with France and China as well, promised to a) respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in its existing borders, b) to refrain from the threat or the use of force against Ukraine, and c) to refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics. Don’t these promises look good in the light of the carnage we see on our TVs every night?

Yet that is what Ukraine got in return for unilaterally disarming. Some bargain. And it is legitimate to ask this; would Crimea have been grabbed and Eastern Ukraine occupied if the Ukrainians had kept some of their nukes?”

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the Budapest memorandum, for which the United Kingdom has a degree of responsibility. Does he not therefore find it extraordinary that the British Government are hardly involved in the talks on the future of Ukraine?

[Dr Lewis]

I am not sure that we want to start discussing the foreign policy dimension of this now. The only reason I brought Ukraine into this particular debate was in order to focus on the impact on its future of its one-sided disarmament in return for unreliable and undeliverable guarantees from other countries.

There are two ways of looking at the state of defence, armaments, security and peace in the world. The way to which I subscribe was summarised by an inter-war chairman of the League of Nations disarmament commission, Salvador de Madariaga. He was writing about disarmament, which was very much in vogue in the early 1970s. This is what he wrote in 1973:

“The trouble with disarmament was (and still is) that the problem of war is tackled upside-down and at the wrong end… Nations don’t distrust each other because they are armed; they are armed because they distrust each other. And therefore to want disarmament before a minimum of common agreement on fundamentals is as absurd as to want people to go undressed in winter.”

I must point out that the hon. Member for Islington North, being typically objective about the matter, quoted article VI of the non-proliferation treaty in full. That is very important, because often it is quoted only in part. I wish to focus my remaining couple of minutes on article VI. It states:

“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date”.

In so far as that affects Britain, it can be seen that we do not engage, and never have engaged, in a nuclear arms race. We have a policy of possessing a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent. Indeed, over the years, successive Governments—both Labour and Conservative—have reduced the number of warheads in that deterrent. And what direct response has there been to each and every one of those unilateral reductions? A big, fat zero. The ending of the nuclear arms race certainly applies to Russia and the United States, but it does not apply to China, Britain or France, because none of us has ever engaged in it.

Article VI goes on with a commitment to

“nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

That leads me to my final substantive point. There has been a lack of emphasis on the overall picture of what is recommended by article VI. It recommends not only a nuclear-free world, but a conventional arms-free world, so that we do not end up in a situation whereby countries get rid of all of their nuclear weapons and leave conventional arms bristling in the hands of the protagonists. We do not want to create a situation where, unless we are crazy, we abolish one type of deadly weapons system—whose use lies not in the firing of it, but in the possession of it so that nobody starts firing any such weapons—and replace it with a world that is riven by all the old rivalries that bubble away beneath the surface and that would rise to the surface once again if the threat of the balance of terror is removed.

When we get to that happy state—when we have a world Government and the lion lies down with the lamb—we can be absolutely confident that the moment has come to get rid of those nuclear weapons and, while we are at it, get rid of the navies, the armies, and the air forces as well. Some might say, “That’s nonsense. We don’t want to get rid of those conventional forces, because aggressors would take advantage of that against victim countries.” However, if that is what we think those aggressors would do if we get rid of all our conventional arms, we should ask ourselves what they would do if, without resolving those tensions and rivalries, we get rid of the nuclear stalemate and open up the world once again for conventional slaughter on a massive scale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I believe that this debate is about to take a turn that we have not seen in recent years. It has been very difficult to discuss Trident in this Parliament. Although I hope and will do all I can to make sure that colleagues in my party in Scotland are re-elected, the message I see day after day is that we are likely to have a group of people here who have put the ending of Trident at the top of their agenda. That will be a very significant change in this place. The suggested alternative of a grand coalition, if it went ahead, would not include many Labour Members.

The cost of Trident is £100 billion over its lifetime. Last week, a £5 billion increase in the cost of the clean-up in Sellafield was announced. On the same day, the news that we had sold our share of Eurostar was given headline treatment. It was sold for a seventh of the increase in the cost of the clean-up of Sellafield. The cost of clearing up the waste from Sellafield, mostly from the weapons we have created, will eventually cost more than £100 billion. These are vast costs. If we have in the new Parliament a phalanx of Members who put a very high priority on the elimination of Trident, we will have a public debate. I believe that that public debate will have a very significant effect.

[Mr Spellar]

Yet again, my hon. Friend repeats the £100 billion figure. Would he mind telling us how much a year that actually represents?

[Paul Flynn]

Taken over the period, I have given the accepted figure. I am not going into the details. I know the arguments, but the figure is realistic. The costs are enormous, but for the waste it is even greater. Forget about the cost of Trident, just concentrate on the cost of the clean-up that is going on at the moment. The clean-up of Sellafield has just been nationalised by the Government. The Labour Government actually privatised it some seven years ago.

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who I heard on “Desert Island Discs” say that her greatest regret in a very distinguished parliamentary career—I had the great honour of being part of her team with Robin Cook in the late ’80s on the different subject of social security—was that progress has not been made on nuclear disarmament. I think there is a mistaken impression that there are those who believe in getting rid of all weapons overnight. That has never been the aim of the anti-nuclear movement. The aim has been to progress towards countries reducing their stockpiles and reducing the risks, until eventually there are probably just two nations possessing nuclear weapons: America and Russia. I believe that is the likely way ahead.

The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has been making speeches on this subject for many years. I believe he is in a state where he ignores from his calculations the existence of the United States and regards us as the key player. That is only right if we believe we are back in the gunship days of the 19th century. If there is an attack on the Baltic states, they will not come looking for us to defend them; they will look towards the United States. The NATO countries met in my constituency in September. Of those 28 nations, how many are nuclear powers? Just three of them. The rest are not. The belief that we must punch above our weight—a hangover from Victorian times—has done us much damage. We did it in Iraq and Helmand. We punched above our weight, spent beyond our interests and died beyond our responsibilities.

I received a letter today from the Minister about the event on Friday to recall the heroism of those who died in Afghanistan, saying we had to be grateful to them because they reduced the threat of terrorism in Britain. No they did not—our being in Iraq and Helmand increased the terrorist threat. We did not get rid of the Muslim bodies threatening us; we multiplied them. We went from small organisations in one or two countries to a threat in many countries throughout the world. I was once expelled from the House for saying that Ministers were not telling the truth when they said to our soldiers, “Go to Afghanistan and you will stop bombs coming to the streets of Britain.” It was never true. It was never true when Tony Blair said he was going into Iraq to stop terrorism.

We have this whole mismatch—this idea that the threats in the world can be held back by nuclear weapons—but the threats are very different. We cannot hold back terrorism with nuclear weapons. We cannot hold back global warming with nuclear weapons. We cannot provide clean water to our planet with nuclear weapons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) on leading this debate and on her role in these issues over many years, not to mention her role in our party in a number of positions. She set the tone for the debate by the way she introduced it. It has been a good humoured, but extremely well informed debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was right to mention a degree of optimism. If we look back to when the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was originally drafted, we see that the expectations for the spread and proliferation of nuclear weapons were far worse than has been the outcome. What happened is certainly not perfect, but it is much better than was anticipated.

We have seen significant reductions in weapons worldwide, and particularly among the arsenals of Russia and the United States, which reflects the theme running through the debate that disarmament follows confidence, rather than confidence following disarmament. Many fewer countries than anticipated, although still too many, have proliferated, and Britain has played a prominent role in that, which we should not underestimate.

Under the previous Labour Government, in which I served as a Defence Minister, we cut the number of operationally available warheads from 300 at the time of the ’98 strategic defence review to fewer than 160 by the time of the 2010 general election. We reduced the number of warheads carried by submarines from 96 to 48, and we withdrew the WE177 nuclear capability from service. It is important, too, that there has been a cross-party priority for the UK to continue on that path, and I am pleased that the current Government have continued in that vein, and that the UK has been one of the most transparent of the nuclear powers in dealing with that.

As I indicated, the relationship between the US and Russia is the crucial one in nuclear negotiations. Those countries are the clear and indispensable leaders, I suppose one could say, with the overwhelming majority of nuclear capability. Reference was made to the strategic arms reduction treaty and to the on-off discussions that go on. Considerable developments have taken place, such as a substantial amount of nuclear material being removed not only from the United States but with the co-operation of the United States and Russia—yet things are not necessarily heading in the right direction.

We need to be concerned about the expansion of Russian capability and a major modernisation of Russia’s strategic forces—involving the deployment of two new types of sea-launched ballistic missiles, a new class of ballistic missile submarines, a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile; and work on a new bomber and long-range cruise missiles. Sir John Sawers recently indicated that Russia is prepared to use those weapons in certain circumstances. So while there are some encouraging trends, the trends are not all in one direction.

The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) reminded us that the prospect of nuclear war is horrific, but that conventional war is pretty awful as well. A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the fire bombings in Tokyo consumed huge numbers of lives, as indeed did the fire bombings in Hamburg, and we have recently heard more controversy over what happened in Dresden.

The horrors of civil war in Syria show that it is not only state-on-state conflict that can cause such tragedy and devastation. It can happen in well-armed civil wars, as well. Nor is it only in this or the previous century that we have seen these horrors. It was not a general during this or the 20th century who aptly said “war is hell”. It was General Sherman, who had seen more than enough of that during the American civil war, which led to huge loss of life and injury.

As the hon. Member for New Forest East rightly said, countries do not distrust each other because they are armed, but are armed because they distrust each other. That applies to nuclear issues as between India and Pakistan. The issue is not their possession of nuclear armaments, but the incessant pressure that they exert on each other and the great distrust that exists between them. I was very encouraged by the fact that embarking on discussions with Pakistan was one of the first acts of the new President Modi in India. That process will not be easy, but it is enormously important. The same applies in the middle east: disarmament will proceed from confidence, not confidence from disarmament. That is why it is so crucial for peace talks to be restarted, notwithstanding the difficulties that have arisen along the way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West repeated what has been said in other debates that have been based on the proposition that nuclear weapons are an inappropriate response to many of the very real contemporary threats that we face, such as terrorism, insurgencies, cyber-attacks and climate change. Of course, they were never designed for that purpose. That is not their role. They are focused on state-on-state conflicts.

In Europe, given the increasing assertiveness of Russia, we are starting to see the re-emergence of that scenario. It is not only the actions in Ukraine that are causing concern; they are merely the most extreme symptom of a number of problems that have been manifesting themselves. There are, for instance, increasing pressures on countries in the “near abroad”, especially the Baltic states. I am pleased that the Government have responded by engaging in military co-operation with those states, along with other NATO countries. There are the cyber-attacks by which Estonia has been hit particularly badly. NATO is currently discussing whether a significant cyber-attack constitutes an article 5 attack on a member state. There is also increased maritime activity, especially submarine activity. Let me depart briefly from the slightly more bipartisan attitude that I have adopted in this debate, and say that I think it was absurd for a country that is as dependent as ours on its sea lanes for both trade and security to lose its maritime patrol capability. We have also seen the testing of our aviation defences, which has been very well publicised recently.

Incidentally, it is not just the United Kingdom that is experiencing such problems. They are also being experienced by, for example, the Scandinavian countries. There is a genuine public debate across a wide part of the political spectrum in two countries that have maintained a position of neutrality, Sweden and Finland, about whether they should consider a relationship with, or even membership of, NATO.

While being cautious, we should also be constructive. Indeed, as one of the P5, we have a special responsibility to be so. That is why—as a number of Members have mentioned—my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) wrote to the Prime Minister in November 2014, urging him to ensure that the United Kingdom was represented at the Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in December. I agree with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire that that was a difficult and delicately balanced decision, but I think that it was the right decision, because engagement is important.

That is also why it is important for Britain to play a constructive role in working for a nuclear-free world by not removing itself from the equation through nuclear disarmament, and why, at the Labour party conference, we committed ourselves to a minimum credible deterrent delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent, while taking a leading international role in pressing the agenda of global anti-proliferation. Contrary to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, ours is not a unilateralist party. The Scottish National party, whose members are conspicuous by their absence—they seem to have plenty to say, but they did not actually participate in the debate, apart from one Member who intervened—want to abandon our nuclear capability, while still applying to be part of a nuclear alliance in NATO.

As a number of Members said, the NPT review is coming up at a very inconvenient time. International conferences have taken place at inconvenient times in the election cycle. Potsdam was slightly disrupted by that, with one Prime Minister at the beginning and another at the end—a very welcome change, of course, and an encouraging precedent—but we should still be engaged, and the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire rightly mentioned the officials, the sherpas, who will be working on that. As he rightly concluded, a successful conference will not be achieved by grand gestures; it will be achieved by dogged determination, and although many of the details may seem arid, they are hugely important and relevant. We pay tribute to the officials for their work, and I hope that we have indicated that the UK and this House as a whole are determined that those discussions should succeed. We remain alert, but we also remain positive to working towards achieving a nuclear-free world and a safer world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is a cause of pride for this Government and this country that the FCO, particularly under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, has for the first time got the international community to take seriously the scandal of the sexual abuse during war and conflict of countless numbers of women and, let us not forget, many men as well. We are now seeing the fruits of that, in the way in which countries such as Nepal, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kosovo are taking up the challenge to put right the wrongs of the past and amend their practices for the future.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

When this question was handed out, I was not sure that the Government would be aware that US General Ray Odierno would express concern about our defence capability, following Government cuts, or that the British General Sir Richard Shirreff would describe the Prime Minister as “a bit player” in the Ukraine crisis. When will the Minister recognise how much this Government have marginalised Britain?

[Mr Lidington]

I wish the right hon. Gentleman could talk to the leaders of countries such as Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, who have been grateful for the resolute political leadership this Government have given, and for the very practical contribution we have made to Baltic air policing and NATO training exercises to defend their security. The—[Interruption.]

Yemen

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I thank the Prime Minister’s envoy to Oman and Yemen, particularly as he has kept me up to date over the past few days with his contacts and his thoughts and advice. He is absolutely correct that we do not want ungoverned space to develop in Yemen and with all the activities and challenges going on in the middle east, this area does not have the same profile as others. It has now moved up the agenda by virtue of this urgent question and it is important that we give assistance to the country to ensure that all parties come together, not only those in the country but those in the United Nations and the United States, to work towards a peaceful solution.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

As we have already seen, the situation in Yemen is a matter of considerable concern for Members on both sides of the House and for many of our citizens of Yemeni heritage in long-established Yemeni communities, including in the borough of Sandwell. As the security system in Sana’a has worsened, there have been reports of Houthi rebels shelling the President’s home in Sana’a and seizing control of the presidential palace.

The UN Security Council has rightly condemned these latest attacks, and clearly the priority must be to resolve this situation peacefully and quickly. In the wake of this sustained violence, may I first ask the Minister what emergency provisions have been put in place to help ensure the safety and security of British citizens still based in Yemen? We know there are many brave and committed NGO workers in Yemen, as well as a dedicated team of UK Government officials. Their work continues to be vital and their commitment to the country is long standing, so can the Minister give the House an assessment of the number of British citizens potentially affected by the recent violence? Will he also set out, as far as he can, what contingency arrangements are in place, should there be an urgent need to evacuate British citizens and personnel from the affected areas?

A statement adopted by all 15 members of the UN Security Council made it clear that President Hadi was “the legitimate authority” of the country. He was reported to be inside his house when it was shelled. The Minister said that the President is now under house arrest. Can the Minister offer any further assurances about the President’s safety and whereabouts?

Clearly, as well as restoring calm to the country, the implications of renewed violence in Yemen are far-reaching given al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has established it as their base, especially in its efforts to destabilise Saudi Arabia. In light of this, can the Government set out what long-term support is being offered to the Yemeni authorities to help counter the threat of AQAP, and how is this support being affected by the recent attacks? An end to the violence is the urgent priority, and we know that all sides have agreed to ceasefires in the past, but given that today’s attacks followed the breakdown of a ceasefire that had been in place less than 24 hours before, what can international partners do to try and encourage a return to ceasefire talks, and also to secure more lasting agreements?

Yemen faces not only a worsening security situation, but continuing political and economic challenges. Recent progress towards a political transition, including drafting a new constitution and holding a referendum as well as general elections, were welcome, but even this limited progress is now at risk of being undermined by these latest attacks. As the Minister said, the UK is chair of the Friends of Yemen group, so what steps will the UK Government be advocating to focus all parties’ efforts on the need to secure an effective political transition? UN Security Council resolution 2140 was unanimously adopted in February last year and included a sanctions committee responsible for implementing the restrictive measures under that resolution. Can the Minister confirm whether the committee has published any new recommendations or guidance in the light of the recent attacks?

The international community must remain determined to help achieve the transition that is needed within the country, while the UK Government will also have our support in doing what is necessary to ensure the protection of British citizens in the affected areas.

[Mr Ellwood]

First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman, the Opposition spokesman, for the cross-party support on this? He speaks about the UK diaspora. It is important that it is informed and kept up to date with what is happening in the country. He also spoke about the role of the UN, and I wish to put on record my thanks to the UN special representative to the Secretary-General, Jamal Benomar, who I have met a number of times, including at the UN General Assembly in September, when UN resolution 2140, which the Opposition spokesman referred to, was agreed.

There is, as I have mentioned, a well-rehearsed evacuation plan. The number of Britons based in Yemen is minimal, and the embassy assures me that plan is ready to be activated if required, but that is not currently the case.

My understanding is that the Yemeni Prime Minister is under house arrest. I have no further information on that at present. The right hon. Gentleman is right to underline the spoiling activities of AQAP, and that has already been underlined in the House. AQAP continues to undermine and harass the Government and to undertake targeted assassinations and mass bombings. This makes the situation ever more complex, with the Houthis moving in from the north-west.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the constitution and the referendum. They are the building blocks that lead us to a better political space, and they are part of the national partnership for peace agreement, which I mentioned in my opening remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the Helms-Burton Act, which will, I have no doubt, be part of the discussion between the Americans and the Cubans. I am pleased that the US Assistant Secretary of State for the western hemisphere, Roberta Jacobson, with whom I discussed these matters in Washington before I went to Cuba, is in Havana this week. That is the good news. As for the question of bilateral trade between the UK and Cuba, if the hon. Gentleman has a company in his constituency that wishes to trade and to sort out such matters with Cuba, I would suggest that he gets in touch with Lord Hutton and the Cuba initiative, as they are putting together a multi-sector trade delegation visit later this year to support economic reforms in Cuba and to contribute to jobs and growth back here in the UK.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Following President Obama’s welcome Cuban initiative, what is the Minister’s expectation of improving human rights and political freedom in Cuba? Following on from his previous answer, what is the Government’s assessment of the opportunities for British businesses and for broader relations with Cuba?

[Mr Swire]

The three memorandums of understanding that I signed covered foreign policy, trade and investment and sport. I have referred already to the fact that Lord Hutton and the Cuba initiative are taking a large delegation there in a few months’ time. On the human rights front, I am particularly encouraged by the recent release of prisoners from both sides. I discussed human rights with Cardinal Jaime Ortega, the Archbishop of Havana, and I also met Mariela Castro, the director of the Cuban National Centre for Sex Education in Havana and an activist on gender and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights. We continue to stress the need to release prisoners of conscience and I also call on Cuba to ratify the UN covenants on political and economic rights.

Nigeria

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for asking this question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.

The whole House will be shocked and outraged by reports that up to 2,000 people were killed in northern Nigeria last week following a series of brutal and deadly attacks by Boko Haram extremists. Most recently, we have heard reports of 23 people killed in a bomb attack involving three young girls, one of whom is reported to have been just 10 years old. Eyewitness reports suggest that after one such murderous attack hundreds of their victims’ bodies were left strewn across the town of Baga, including those of children, women and the elderly.

As the Minister highlighted, that follows months of violence across northern Nigeria with killings, mass abductions and attacks on innocent civilians. These attacks and brutality have been rightly condemned around the world, and although many people have rightly praised the moving solidarity seen across Europe this week, there can be no doubt about the need for solidarity across continents in the wake of such appalling attacks. That includes the atrocity in the school in Peshawar; we welcome its reopening today, striking a blow against terrorism everywhere. The world must not simply stand back and tolerate Boko Haram’s brutal campaign of violence.

Here in the UK there is cross-party support for Britain to continue to provide support alongside our allies to the Nigerian authorities in their efforts to tackle Boko Haram. Will the Minister update the House on the level of that support and say whether there have been any additional requests for British advice and expertise from the Nigerian Government? The Minister rightly reminded us of the appalling kidnappings in Chibok, which brought much needed global attention to the security situation in northern Nigeria and the vulnerability of civilians, in particular women and girls, at the hands of Boko Haram.

The recent testimonies collected by Human Rights Watch from victims who escaped or who were released show the appalling extent of the violent and brutal conditions in the Boko Haram camps where women and girls are held. In October the Nigerian authorities announced that they had agreed a ceasefire with Boko Haram, which was supposed to see the schoolgirls safely returned, but this agreement was shattered by the horrific news of the suicide bomber wearing a school uniform who set off a backpack full of explosives in the middle of a school assembly. Can the Minister provide the House with an assessment of the current plight of the girls who have been kidnapped by Boko Haram? What discussions has his Department held with the Nigerian authorities on working together to secure their release?

[Mr Swire]

I stand alongside the shadow Minister in welcoming the reopening of the school in Peshawar. We should all stand together against violence and terrorism around the world. By doing that, we can face it down.

The shadow Minister asked about UK support. I imagine he was referring to the package of support announced on 12 June 2014 by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, then the Foreign Secretary, who is in his place now. Since then we have enlarged our programme of capacity-building support for the Nigerian armed forces to provide direct tactical training and advice to the Nigerian forces engaged in this fight against terrorism. With France and the United States we are supporting regional intelligence-sharing arrangements between Nigeria and its neighbours. As I said to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), a DFID-US aid partnership will draw 1 million more school children into education by 2020, which includes increased support for girls’ education in particular. This is in addition to the £1 million which we committed in May to the UN safe schools initiative, which I alluded to earlier. DFID is providing advice and assistance to Nigeria for a more strategic approach to economic development in the north.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the brutality of Boko Haram. There is no other word that better describes their actions. They are extraordinarily brutal to their own Muslim brothers, as well as to Christians—indeed, to any one who seems to get in their way. The tales of what they leave behind when they move into these areas are too ghastly to rehearse here this afternoon. They are one of the most brutal organisations known to man.

The issue that caught the attention of this House and of the world was the abduction of the Chibok girls. We are still supporting the Nigerian authorities in trying to establish the girls’ location through the provision of surveillance assets and intelligence expertise. Information generated by these assets has been provided to an intelligence fusion cell in Abuja, where British personnel are working alongside Nigerian, American and French colleagues. We are clearly unable to comment on the results of ongoing intelligence operations, as the House will accept, but while the girls are still missing our resolve and that of the international community to continue the search remain strong. I remind the House that we are dealing with an area the size of Belgium under the control of Boko Haram, and intelligence is difficult, but we are not giving up at this point.

US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Might my hon. Friend not want to question why the Liberal Democrats, who seem to be exerting some influence—undesirable, I would say—over the Trident renewal programme, do not seem to have managed, or even tried, to exert that influence to get this issue debated? Nuclear policy has been debated, as I will say later; my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made Labour’s position very clear. Why does my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) think that the Liberal Democrats have not insisted on having a debate?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The shadow Minister invites me into a difficult situation. I cannot speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, nor would they want me to. They apparently wanted a Trident review, with no like-for-like replacement. The review took place, and it is a matter of record and of history.

On the question of this debate, I do not know what pressure was or was not applied by particular Ministers. I know that a number of Back-Bench MPs on both sides of the House believe, as I am sure the hon. Member for New Forest East would agree, that parliamentary scrutiny of all things is important; that is why we are sent here as Members of Parliament. As for the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) on nuclear weapons, he and I have a slightly different history on this matter, and we have debated it.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there was a Trident review. It came to the self-evident conclusion that if we are to maintain the nuclear deterrent, continuous at-sea deterrence is the only way of doing so, in spite of many fanciful schemes that have been dreamt up by the Liberal Democrats. He has a perfectly straightforward, long-standing and honourable position of being opposed, but where does he think that the Liberal Democrats now stand on the issue?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Well, it is—[Interruption.] My friend the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) helps me in this. It is an unfair question. I do not know and I cannot tell, but I hope that the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley will come round to the view that nuclear weapons are unsustainable, expensive, dangerous and immoral, and that the world would be a much safer place if the five declared nuclear weapon states stood up to their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and took steps towards disarmament. This debate is not solely about Trident; it is about the mutual defence agreement. Nevertheless, there is obviously a close connection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I think it would depend on the extent of the debate that had taken place before the question was asked. I would be confident that if there were to be a debate on the subject, the public would come to share my view that no amount of conventional forces can be adequate to prevent an attack on us by an enemy armed with weapons of mass destruction if we lack the means to retaliate in similar terms.

While I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, let me return to a point that he made earlier in an intervention on the hon. Member for Islington North. He pointed out that nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence had not abolished war, and that wars continued all over the planet. That is not an argument against nuclear deterrence; it is an argument in favour of it. After the second world war, if we had lived through 50 years of hostility between the then Soviet bloc and the west and there had been no conflicts anywhere in the world in which the nuclear balance of terror did not apply, one could indeed make the case that the nuclear balance of terror had had nothing to do with the prevention of war. The reality was that proxy wars were being fought by client states of the superpowers during the cold war, but the one thing that the superpowers never dared to do was to fight against one another directly, because they knew the potential outcome of all-out war between nuclear-armed powers.

Why is it important to have a debate on the matter, even though public opinion is fairly settled and parliamentary opinion is fairly relaxed? There are two reasons.

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman says that parliamentary opinion is fairly relaxed, and that may be a proper assessment of the arithmetic. In that case, why does his Prime Minister not put the issue of Trident renewal to a vote of Parliament?

[Dr Lewis]

I wish I knew the answer. I have asked that question many times, and it takes me neatly on to the two reasons why it is important that we have a debate on this subject, even though Parliament seems relatively relaxed about it. There is no doubt that if we look at the arithmetic of the 2007 vote that took us through the first stages of the successor programme to the Vanguard class submarines, it was exactly as the shadow Minister says—virtually every Conservative MP and a substantial majority of Labour MPs voted for continuing the deterrent into the next generation, and a significant minority of Labour unilateralists voted against the measure. The figure was about 80 or 90, if I remember correctly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman refers to wriggling out, but that is exactly what he is doing. It was absolutely clear where the parties stood in the debate on 17 July 2013, when the policies were enunciated perfectly clearly. My party’s policies were endorsed by the national policy forum and the recent Labour party conference. I am not aware of any changes in his party’s view. This debate is therefore not about the position of the parties being enunciated or holding people’s feet to the fire. The fact is that he has not managed to persuade his Prime Minister to do anything, and he ought to come clean about that.

[Dr Lewis]

There is a very good reason why I have not been able to persuade the Prime Minister to do anything, which is that it was evidently part of the negotiations—albeit that they were not made public at the time—on the formation of the coalition Government.

[Mr Spellar]

Secret negotiations.

[Dr Lewis]

Indeed. Evidently as part of the deal an agreement was reached between the Conservative leader and the Liberal Democrat leader that the decisive steps for the renewal of the successor submarines for Trident would be put off until after the next general election.

[Mr Spellar]

rose—

[Dr Lewis]

I will give way one more time, but I want to make some progress.

[Mr Spellar]

I wholly understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to make progress. Let us be clear that what he has said is that, for a squalid deal to get office, the Prime Minister was prepared to damage the defence of this country. That is according to the hon. Gentleman’s own arguments.

[Dr Lewis]

What I am saying is quite clear. If we end up with a hung Parliament and the balance of power is held by a small unilateralist party, it will be able to blackmail one or other of the main parties into not doing what should be done, which is to sign the contracts to make the renewal of Trident for another generation a certainty. I am clear that that was part of the potpourri of things that were negotiated in private. At the time I described it as a love gift to the Liberal Democrats. I thought it was absolutely wrong. It was a shock and a surprise, and it is not something of which any Conservative should be proud. Having said that, I look to my own party’s Front Benchers for an assurance that nothing like that will ever happen again, and I look to the Opposition spokesman for an assurance that no Labour leader will be tempted to conclude such a deal either.

The second reason why it is important to have a debate on this subject at this time is that the terms of trade, as it were, in international relations have changed. When the hon. Member for Islington North and I addressed these matters in January 2013, when we debated the nuclear deterrent, and in June 2013, when we debated the non-proliferation treaty, much of the argument was focused on the fact that the cold war was over and showed no sign of returning and that the nuclear deterrent was therefore irrelevant to the threats that then confronted us. As some of us stated at the time, it was far from certain that we could ever know significantly in advance whether those circumstances were going to change. We all hoped that Russia, having shed communism and started along a more democratic path, would continue to go in that direction, but there could be no guarantee.

Even now, we cannot tell where our relationship with Russia will be in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Nobody predicted the crisis that has arisen over Ukraine, and some might argue that if Ukraine were a member of NATO, the Russians would not have done what they have done. Conversely, it could also be argued that if Ukraine were a member of NATO and the Russians had done what they have done, we would possibly now be on the brink of an extremely dangerous east-west confrontation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this debate, which was secured by the unlikely duo of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

My hon. Friend and I served together for many years on the London Labour party executive; it was probably around the same time that the hon. Member for New Forest East was a member of the Labour party. I have known my hon. Friend a long time and he has been consistent; it is fair to say that I have consistently disagreed with him during that time. However, he has been extremely patient in constantly ploughing his furrow, as I suppose would be true of any allotment-holder in being patient as they wait for things to come around, but I fear that he will not see fruition on this issue too soon.

Of course, the hon. Member for New Forest East has a very different position from that of my hon. Friend. I almost think that his working with my hon. Friend is a sort of diversion therapy from his frustration with his own leader. He vented that frustration very strongly back in 2010, when he wrote about the formation of the coalition. He said:

“It is not in dispute that, when Conservative MPs met at Westminster to endorse the proposed Coalition, we were categorically assured that the Liberals would have to accept the Trident successor programme. As David Cameron gave this guarantee, George Osborne nodded in confirmation. Unfortunately, all these assurances have since been disregarded.”

I hope that the Minister, in his response to the debate, may be able to shed some light on whether the hon. Member for New Forest East was either wilfully self-deluded or woefully misled by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the assurances that they gave.

However, that situation is also based on a misapprehension that the Liberal Democrats are unilateralist disarmers—the hon. Member for New Forest East said that again today—because the policy that they have been pushing to get the Trident review is not a unilateralist one; it accepts the continuation of a nuclear deterrent. However, to try to provide some differentiation between themselves and others, they went for some rather exotic—as well as more expensive, destabilising and uncertain—alternatives, all of which were appropriately demolished by the review.

[Dr Lewis]

I do not intend to emulate the right hon. Gentleman by making as many interventions on him as he made on me, but I will say that I have never regarded him as a naive politician. Nevertheless, if he really thinks that the undercurrent and the real message of the stance taken by the Liberal Democrats on this matter is that they were really in favour of a nuclear deterrent, he should do what I did, although it might disturb his sleep a bit, and watch the rebroadcasting of the Liberal Democrats’ conference debates on this subject, because—believe me—all they were interested in during those debates was getting rid of Trident. One never heard anything mentioned about the positive case for a nuclear deterrent. It was another indirect way of going for unilateralism, because they knew that overt unilateralism would be too unpopular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

I always say that MPs and Ministers must be responsible for their own words, but if the hon. Gentleman rereads the debate from the time of the Trident review he will see clearly that at one stage the Liberal Democrats argued for the use of nuclear-enabled Cruise missiles. Apart from being a much more expensive option, that is—as I have already said—a far riskier option. I do not mean “risky” in terms of whether or not that option is a credible deterrent, although that is true as well, but in terms of being a destabilising factor, which could lead to much greater tension and—equally importantly—considerable risk of error.

[Dr Lewis]

In the spirit of compromise and convergence, can the two of us at least agree that, since the review of the Trident alternatives, the Liberal Democrat position—sending submarines to sea with no nuclear warheads on them, then waiting for a crisis to arise before sailing them back to port and arming them with nuclear warheads—has to be the most irresponsible fantasy-land thinking in the age of the nuclear deterrent? Furthermore, is it not a shame that no Liberal Democrats are here in Westminster Hall today to defend their decision, or—indeed—to explain it?

[Mr Spellar]

We can draw a veil now over the incoherence and absence of the Liberal Democrats, and get down to the serious and proper debate—it is certainly a proper debate to have—about Britain’s nuclear posture. It is a debate that my party has engaged in for a considerable number of years, in fact ever since the great post-war Attlee and Bevin Government commissioned Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, a policy that, I am pleased to say, continues today.

Having said that, none of us should underestimate the weighty issues—both the hon. Members who have already spoken stressed this point—that should weigh heavily on all those who have to make these decisions or arguments. I say that because it is very clear that there are huge issues. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, nobody underestimates the impact of nuclear weapons nor the potential devastation that they could cause. Nevertheless, nuclear weapons are a fact in our world.

I partly differ from my hon. Friend in this regard. He made passing reference to the non-proliferation treaty conference that is due to take place next year. Clearly, it will be resolved by—we could say by the nuclear weapon states, but frankly the key discussions that need to take place are between the USA and Russia. If agreement can be reached by them, we should rightly be part of the subsequent discussions. However, as I say, the key initial discussions must be between the USA and Russia.

I do not think that any of the participants in this debate about nuclear weapons, including those who have spoken today or in similar parliamentary debates, in any way underestimate the impact of nuclear weapons on those directly affected, on the environment or indeed on the wider world.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Obviously, discussion between the USA and Russia on nuclear weapons would be a good thing; anything that helps nuclear disarmament is a good thing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the last two five-yearly conferences both agreed that there should be a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, and that at the last review—the preparatory conference last year—every state agreed that that should happen? Therefore, I am sure that he will join me in pushing the Government to do their best to initiate, or bring about, that zone. Otherwise, the danger is of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. There are other countries besides Israel that could develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to.

[Mr Spellar]

I take my hon. Friend back to the Attlee memorandum, and indeed to many other documents by those who have written about this subject. That is because the key issue—as Michael Quinlan, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, who is also a committed Christian and someone who has thought very deeply about these issues, has said—is the removal of the risks of war and instability. That is absolutely crucial in all these circumstances, including in the middle east. That is why it is so important to achieve a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, although Israel-Palestine is by no means the only source of tension in the middle east. We are seeing so many conflicts taking place in that unhappy region, and that is without any question of nuclear weapons, although, sadly, chemical weapons has been another issue. The resolution of those conflicts and the creation of a stable and peaceful environment is so important.

In the meantime, notwithstanding that, it is also important that the UK plays its part—indeed, it has played its part more than any other country, as I think the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned—in reducing the proportion of our nuclear armoury. Significantly, that took place under the defence team that I was a member of in 1997 to 2001, but, to be fair I should say that it has been continued by our successors not only in the Labour Government, but in this Conservative Government as well.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

This is positively my last intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, although that is perhaps giving a hostage to fortune. Will he confirm that, when we took those unilateral steps of reducing our nuclear warhead stockpiles, there was no similar response from any of the other existing nuclear powers?

[Mr Spellar]

I think that is right. We had hoped that there would be such a response, but we took that decision in context and reduced to the minimum level necessary to maintain effective deterrence. We have reduced the explosive power of our British deterrent by some 75% since that time. That gives us good credentials and bona fides in those discussions.

I return to the point I made about the NPT. The crucial discussions have to be between the two major nuclear powers, which are still the United States and Russia. That needs to be re-emphasised.

The policy of the Labour party was made clear, as I made clear in previous interventions, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in a debate in the main Chamber on 17 July last year. He was explicit about our commitment to continuous at-sea deterrence—in the most cost-effective way possible, of course. I mentioned earlier that that was also the conclusion of the Government’s own review, which systematically and elegantly dismantled the Lib Dems’ excuses, even though the document contained the bizarre disclaimer, which I hope the Minister will touch on, that it was not a statement of Government policy.

Incidentally, I hope that this afternoon we will hear no more nonsense from Ministers, as we have heard previously in the main Chamber, claiming to speak not on behalf of the Government but on behalf of a political party, because I think that I have fairly well established, with rulings from the Speaker, that whoever speaks from the Dispatch Box—from that position and that microphone—actually speaks from the Treasury Bench and is therefore speaking on behalf of the Government. At a time when various Ministers seem to be dissociating themselves from the Government, it would help, particularly on an issue as significant as this, if the Government spoke with a clear voice.

An argument about cost is sometimes made regarding the more general Trident discussion, and we have mainly had that discussion here, rather than discussing the debate subject of the UK-US mutual defence agreement. Indeed, cost was mentioned in an intervention by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech). The question there was, would people rather have the nuclear deterrent or the Army? Would they rather have soldiers or air cover? It is not an appropriate comparison. However, one argument is that this programme costs too much. It therefore seems rather strange, if not perverse, to then argue against an agreement that substantially and significantly reduces the cost of the programme in a number of ways. For example, it reduces the cost of delivering the deterrent, even the design and development costs. It is reckoned that the common design has saved the UK in the region of £500 million and precludes the need to design, develop, manufacture and test our own missile system.

The Trident alternatives review estimated that a new warhead alone would cost £8 billion to £10 billion. I have already mentioned the extra cost of moving to cruise missiles. Regarding a cost-effective system, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham made it clear that our two criteria were maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence and doing so with the minimum possible cost, and the approach I am talking about assists us towards the minimum possible cost.

There was a cross-debate on the independence of the system. The fact that we are buying F-35s, made in the US but with substantial elements made in the UK, does not mean that we do not have an independent Air Force. It is the control of the system, not the sourcing of the weaponry, that is the important test of independence. Therefore we ought to be clear that this is Britain’s independent deterrent, but in a NATO nuclear alliance, as was reaffirmed at the NATO summit. It is slightly odd that our now absent friends from the Scottish National party want to be anti-nuclear but want to join a nuclear alliance. That is a slightly perverse position to take.

I want to be clear, because the hon. Member for New Forest East wanted me to be clear—certainly, clearer than his own Government—about the Opposition’s position. We have made it clear through our policy statement. Labour has said that

“we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent…Labour recognises the importance of Britain leading international efforts for multilateral nuclear disarmament”—

I mentioned the NPT—

“and non-proliferation. Following the action we took when in government, Labour would actively work to enhance momentum on global multilateral disarmament efforts and negotiations”.

The NPT conference in 2015 will be a key moment for a Labour Government to show leadership in achieving progress on global disarmament and anti-proliferation measures.

For all those reasons, we will support the reaffirmation of the agreement and the policy initiated by that great Labour Government of Attlee and Bevin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman takes me straight to the point that I was about to make about article I of the NPT, which touches on the transfer of nuclear weapons and devices between countries. The Government regard the MDA as compliant with our obligations under article I for three reasons.

First, nuclear devices or weapons are not transferred to the United Kingdom under the terms of the MDA. As I described earlier, what we receive under the MDA is a certain amount of nuclear technological know-how and some non-lethal elements, such as propulsion systems, that are not prohibited under article I.

Secondly, article V of the original mutual defence agreement—not including the amendments—quite explicitly states that the transfer of nuclear weapons is not permitted.

Thirdly, article I of the NPT refers in particular to transfers from the recognised nuclear weapons states to non-nuclear weapons states. However, the MDA refers to transfers of things other than nuclear weapons or devices from one nuclear weapons state to another, both of which are party to the NPT. I think that that answers the challenge that the MDA is in some way incompatible with article I of the NPT.

The other criticism made is that the mutual defence agreement is at odds with the obligation that we and the other four recognised nuclear weapons states have under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty to work towards multilateral disarmament. I have already described how the United Kingdom has significantly brought down its nuclear arsenal as a contribution to multilateral nuclear disarmament, but we have also been active and continue to be active in a range of multilateral disarmament initiatives.

We remain a strong supporter of the NPT. We signed and ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty as long ago as the 1990s and remain a strong supporter of the treaty both financially and technically, operating our own voluntary moratorium on testing pending the treaty coming into effect. We actively urge the remaining states that have not yet ratified the treaty to do so. We want an early start of negotiations in Geneva on the fissile material cut-off treaty and are an active member of the group of governmental experts that is working on those negotiations, which are currently blocked not by the United Kingdom or any of the recognised nuclear weapons states, but by Pakistan for national reasons.

In addition, we currently chair the forum of the permanent five nuclear weapons states and will be hosting the next annual conference in London in February next year. The purpose of the P5 process is to build transparency and mutual confidence to make it possible for all nuclear weapons states to engage in further rounds of multilateral disarmament. At the same time, we lead an informal working group at the United Nations, discussing the UN’s role in future nuclear security work. This country therefore has a good record of active work on multilateral disarmament that sits perfectly well alongside the arrangements that we have with the United States under the MDA.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I want to highlight the fact that these developments have taken place under Governments of both parties. To what extent can we support, encourage or stimulate the key discussions between the United States and Russia on their agreement, to which the agreements of the other nuclear states are secondary, although important?

[Mr Lidington]

First, I happily acknowledge that the multilateral disarmament work that I have described has taken place under Governments of both political colours.

Secondly, I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman that the prime responsibility for leadership in multilateral nuclear disarmament must lie with the two biggest nuclear powers: the United States and Russia. We encouraged the talks that led towards the second strategic arms reduction treaty, which will impose limits for each party of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads from February 2018. We need to see that target fulfilled and would welcome and support its implementation.

One could make a similar point about the talks on an intermediate nuclear forces treaty. There was a bilateral US-Russia treaty back in 1988, but each side now accuses the other of breaching it. For reasons relating to Russia’s conduct in Ukraine, there has been a significant erosion of trust between the US and Russia. It will therefore not be easy to get talks between Washington and Moscow back on course, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is in the interests of all of us that Russia and the United States are able to rebuild a sufficient degree of trust for meaningful negotiations towards multilateral nuclear disarmament to take place.

I want it to be clear that the United Kingdom is not using the amendments to the mutual defence agreement to upgrade its system’s capabilities. There is no move to produce more usable weapons or change our nuclear posture or doctrine. The amendments to the MDA that we are technically debating this afternoon do not in any way provide for an upgrading of the capabilities of the Trident system. That is a decision for 2016.

The hon. Member for Islington North asked a couple of detailed questions about plutonium tests at Aldermaston and the relationship between the mutual defence agreement and the planned replacement of the Vanguard-class submarine fleet. The Atomic Weapons Establishment has conducted sealed hydrodynamic plutonium experiments, which are sub-critical, do not produce nuclear yield and are fully compliant with the non-proliferation treaty. The experiments were described in a published article in the journal Nature in February 2002. Aldermaston and its experiments are also, of course, fully in line with the commitments we have undertaken in agreeing and ratifying the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I am therefore advised that what has happened at Aldermaston is fully compliant with our international legal obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend’s question illustrates the complexity of the situation. We do require leadership on both sides. From Israel we require a commitment to dialogue and to avoiding all actions that undermine prospects for peace, including settlement activity, while the Palestinian Authority must show leadership in recommitting itself to the dialogue and establishing itself as the authoritative voice in Gaza.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Arab peace initiative could prove vital in assisting a move towards the essential two-state solution for Israel and the long-suffering Palestinian people. Does the Minister agree that in the light of yesterday’s welcome Tunisian election results, which were good news not only for the Tunisian people but for the wider Arab world, it is right for such regional initiatives to be considered as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think that those are wise words. I have congratulated Tunisia on the journey it has made, bearing in mind that it was responsible for the very start of the Arab spring. It is a small ray of hope in a very complex area, and I hope that other nations will take a lead from it.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who gave a rare but most welcome dose of common sense from the Opposition Benches on the subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on his speech, on the powerful argument he has made for the Bill and, in particular, on his principled defence of the British people’s right to decide on their future in Europe. We are all grateful to him for taking up the noble cause of getting a referendum on Europe in the next Parliament on to the statute book before the general election.

The hon. Lady speculated in the closing moments of her speech on the Labour party’s tactics on this Bill. Perhaps the Opposition do not know, or perhaps she is just not on the mailing list for such sensitive information. I hope that later the shadow Foreign Secretary will enlighten the House on the Opposition’s precise position. I should make it clear that in making the case for this Bill I am doing so not on behalf of the coalition but as a Conservative. I shall say something about the position of my Liberal Democrat colleagues—although not of the one Liberal Democrat who is in the chamber.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you guide me on this? Is it not the procedure of this House that whoever speaks from the Government Dispatch Box speaks on behalf of the Government?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The Foreign Secretary is speaking as Foreign Secretary today, and is at the Dispatch Box doing so.

Government Strategy Against IS

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said, this is a subject that quite rightly arouses great interest, concern and debate in all parts of the House. The Prime Minister’s statement and subsequent answers to questions on Monday, the Foreign Secretary’s extensive evidence session with the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a distinguished member, on Tuesday and then the Foreign Secretary’s speech and subsequent debate in this House on Wednesday has shown that we take very seriously our responsibility both to keep Parliament informed of the Government’s developing policy and to allow ample opportunity for Members of Parliament, both in the Chamber and in Committee, to question those Ministers responsible and to express their own opinions.

On that particular question about the role of Parliament in respect of any—at the moment hypothetical—military action by British forces, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the position in detail on Monday in answers to questions following his statement. I draw the House’s attention to his words in Hansard, column 663.

We want to see the broadest possible international coalition involving regional partners as well as European and American partners in combating ISIL, which is a threat to all of us, and not just to the United Kingdom and European countries.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in answer to questions in Berlin that we are not yet at the stage in which decisions about any putative British military action have to be taken. His precise words were:

“We have ruled nothing out. We will look carefully at our options and decide how we will make a contribution but we are clear that we will make a contribution.”

Effective political, humanitarian and possibly military action by a broad-based international coalition will be necessary to meet the very grave threat that is posed to us all by ISIL.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

We welcome this opportunity, given that in recent days questions have been raised about how the Government have gone about setting out their approach to tackling ISIL. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) highlighted yesterday’s comments by the Foreign Secretary in which he ruled out British military action in Syria and the subsequent statement from the Prime Minister’s spokesman that all options remain on the table, so I am sure that the Minister will understand the House’s desire for clarification.

As President Obama continues to set out further detail about his strategy for combating ISIL, it is crucial that the British Government also recognise the need to provide reassurance to the British public about their approach. The Opposition have made it clear that we support the targeted air strikes authorised by President Obama in Iraq and we strongly support the UK Government’s provision of arms and assistance to the Kurdish peshmerga forces that are the effective front line against ISIL. Of course, as the situation develops and the international community agrees its common approach to the threat, we will continue to seek assurances from the Government that if there is any change in their approach to Iraq, Syria or the wider region they will seek the appropriate endorsement of this House.

We welcome the lead taken by French President Hollande in setting up an international conference in Paris on Monday. Will the Minister confirm which regional partners will be attending and will he also set out whether Iran has been invited and what the UK’s position is on that? Given that the United Kingdom currently holds the chair of the United Nations Security Council, what more does the Minister believe that the UK can do to help co-ordinate these efforts?

What assurances can the Minister give that Iraq’s new Government recognise the need for a truly inclusive approach that addresses the needs of all of Iraq’s diverse communities? In addition, what can the Minister tell us about the support that will be provided by the countries in the region, not just the Arab League but Turkey and Iran, and what steps are now being taken to ensure that any international efforts to tackle ISIL are co-ordinated by the international community and that there is a clear regionally led approach to such a strategy? Furthermore, can the Minister now give any further detail about whether there are any discussions about how to restart the Geneva II process, which surely still offers the best hopes of long-term stability in Syria?

President Obama has rightly said that left unchecked ISIL extremists pose a threat not only to security inside Iraq but to countries outside the region, so will the Minister provide the Government’s latest assessment of the number of UK nationals who they believe are currently actively part of ISIL’s campaign?

Finally, will the Minister confirm the commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary about the need for ongoing debate to ensure that this House is kept fully up to date?

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his broad support for the Government’s approach to dealing with ISIL. I shall try to respond to the detailed points that he made. The estimate—one can never be absolutely certain about these things—is that a few hundred have travelled out to the region and my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have explained at length to the House the measures that the Government are taking to deal with the potential threat those people pose. I would add that this is not a challenge that is in any way unique to the United Kingdom. When I attended a meeting of European Foreign Affairs Ministers two weekends ago, this was a theme coming from Ministers representing many Governments within the European Union. This is a challenge that almost every European country faces.

The question of attendance at the Paris meeting is, for self-evident reasons, primarily a matter for the French Government rather than for us. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that 10 Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, have now publicly announced their support for the United States and international efforts so this is by no means an enterprise confined to what one might regard as traditional western allies. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his evidence to the Select Committee on Tuesday, we hope that the Government of Iran will choose to play a constructive role, but I believe that the House will understand why, in the light of Iran's nuclear programme and its history of very active support for the Assad regime and for Hezbollah, we are proceeding cautiously in our relations with Tehran while hoping that we will see the kind of improvement that both the right hon. Gentleman and I would wish to see.

As for the United Nations, I gently correct the right hon. Gentleman: we do not hold the chair of the Security Council at the moment. We had the chair last month and it is held by the United States this month. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken personally to Ban Ki-moon about how the United Nations could be used to shape an effective international response to the challenge posed by ISIL and when the Prime Minister goes to the United Nations General Assembly later this month, he intends to use that opportunity to try to build and widen this international coalition.

Kashmir

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Three foreign policy issues are of acute interest to my constituents: Israel and Palestine, Sri Lanka and Kashmir. Members will have spotted that all three have something in common, which is, of course, the legacy of the British Empire. I very much welcome this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) on securing what I think has been an excellent debate so far. It is rather a daunting prospect to try to add to it.

I particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who, as ever, by highlighting the suffering of a particular individual, throws into sharp relief some difficulties of discussing these questions impartially, given that the real suffering in people’s lives is so great. I also particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), because he reminded us of our duties. I say to him that I think Edmund Burke’s speech was not very well received at the time by his constituents. The hon. Gentleman put me in mind of Auberon Herbert’s essay, “A Politician in Sight of Haven”, which tries to reconcile the tension between party, individual MP and constituents. That is, of course, one of the most difficult duties that we face.

I would like to try to anticipate the Government line, based on past experience. I have the warning against neo-imperialism given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) very much ringing in my ears. The Government line has tended to be that we should stay out of it, and for good reasons. I can see that it is very important that the Government do not do anything either precipitate or counter-productive, and I certainly recognise that the British Government are very much in a cleft stick—but aren’t we all?

I have well over 10,000 constituents for whom the issue of Kashmir is a very present and important one, for some of the reasons that have been given. We are talking about family members, perhaps at one or two removes, who are directly exposed to the issues at stake. In addition to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Rochdale, I refer back to the previous debate we had, where the key issue I raised was the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and the various allegations that have been made in the report, “A ‘Lawless Law’” by Amnesty International in relation to that Act. Today, as then, it is with some humility that I approach these issues, knowing about the British Government’s prior conduct in Northern Ireland.

Why, then, should we be discussing this issue? It is not to condemn outright either India or Pakistan; it is to try and be helpful and to do our duty to our constituents. When I visited Kashmir, I was very grateful for the opportunity to do so and particularly to meet people at the highest level, in both the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Azad Kashmir. I particularly remember meeting Hina Rabbani Khar, who explained at a conference that the decisive question for the prosperity of the entire region—billions of people—is this question of Kashmir and making real progress with Kashmir. That, in the end, is what matters: real progress—not debates about who called which debate when and what questions have been asked, but real progress. That is the decisive issue, not only for prosperity but for geopolitical stability and the lives of billions of people.

It is essential that the British Government do not do anything counter-productive. However, the previous line has been inadequate, in my view. It is not enough simply to assert the sovereignty of both nations and then to step back. There are two reasons why. First, it is simply a fact that we represent thousands of British Kashmiris and, indeed, thousands of people of Indian descent and it is in their interests and those of their families that we make a constructive contribution on this question.

Second is the point about historical responsibility. One of the things that I have learned—again, with some humility—in my time as a politician is that not everyone sees the world through the same frameworks, through the same world-view. Although I, as someone of a modern or perhaps post-modern mindset, would perhaps not pay any attention to my responsibility for the actions of my forebears, people from other cultures certainly do expect me, as a British Member of Parliament—I see people nodding—to accept my responsibility for the actions of people who were politicians at the time when my grandparents were ordinary working people. It is with that in mind that I say that the British Government, as a result of our legacy of imperialism, do have a responsibility in all these places.

If we just look at Israel and Palestine for a moment, we see the danger of platitudes combined with inaction. For far too long, it has been possible for the British Government to say that the Israeli settlements in the west bank are illegal and then to do nothing. That double standard has created enormous outrage—great gales of anger. Similarly, it is not good enough for the foreign policy establishment to consider, as I have heard it said, that Kashmir is the graveyard of Foreign Secretaries and then to step back and do nothing. That is not good enough, given what is at stake and the number of people whom we represent.

What do I think could be done, and how? We must, as I said, begin in humility—a humility about our legacy. That includes recognising that India and Pakistan are sovereign nations and that we cannot tell them how to behave. We must be humble about the fact that we played our part in creating a problem that has led to the deaths of thousands. When people turn to terrorism within a democracy, we must be humble and recognise the British Government’s own legacy, within living memory, of human rights abuses. We must be careful in our condemnation of India, in so far as India has been condemned, because we must remember that in Northern Ireland people were disappeared because they were either terrorists or thought to be terrorists. Shocking, shameful things are done by democracies when they face terrorism.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

What shred of evidence is there for that last statement? The IRA disappeared people.

[Steve Baker]

I speak from the experience of my service in the armed forces and people whom I have met who have shared with me their own anecdotes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go any further than that.

Controversy always surrounds these issues of territorial dispute. We should be humble about what has gone before. We should accept this truth—that decent people do terrible things when they lose hope. And we should seek to generate hope among them. We must do something extremely unfashionable: we must insist on some principles and must insist on them consistently.

The first of those principles is to say that one of the origins of peace and security is self-government, self-determination and government by consent, which all decent democracies believe in. That means that, particularly given what was shared earlier about the recent electoral history, the Indian Government should not fear asking the people of Kashmir, in the round, whom they wish to be governed by. The second principle is, of course, non-violence. It does no one any good whatever when people turn to violent means to pursue political ends. Political ends must be pursued by persuasion and through peaceful means.

Finally, these great hooray concepts that politicians talk about often come in pairs, and one of the pairs is justice and mercy, so yes, by all means let us have justice and human rights in Kashmir, but let us have mercy, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) on securing this debate and for distancing himself from his party leader, although I do not know whether he needed to go so far as to sit on the Opposition Benches to do so. I hope his Whips will not take an unkind view of that. I also congratulate those who have spoken for their constituents and for the many communities that live in the beautiful but troubled land of Kashmir.

As has been mentioned by a number of Members, one issue that should focus us is the floods taking place in Kashmir and the devastation that they are causing there, as well as in the surrounding areas in India and Pakistan. The floods reinforce the need, which has been mentioned often in the debate, for co-operation between the two countries. We welcome the news that the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan have offered co-operation. Will the Minister tell us—I have given him notice of this question—what actions Her Majesty’s Government are taking in response? In 2010, the United Kingdom committed some £334 million to the relief and recovery effort, in addition to bringing forward a £10 million bridge project to replace some of those washed away. Private donations from the UK, co-ordinated via the Disasters Emergency Committee, totalled more than £60 million. Interventions included the flying in of 400 metric tonnes of aid—tents, shelters kits, blankets, water containers and food. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales established a major recovery fund to help support projects on health, education, livelihoods and reconstruction. Britain’s role was magnificent in that, and I hope the Government will follow that path.

I am mindful not only of the need for the hon. Member for Bradford East to have time to reply, but of the number of questions put to the Minister, and I hope to leave him sufficient time to reply. First, I will outline the Opposition’s position. The policy of the British Government under both Administrations has been clear, as I am sure the Minister will reinforce. In opposition, we maintain that position: it is not for the UK to prescribe a solution on Kashmir. That is for those parties directly involved to determine through dialogue. We continue, however, to encourage India and Pakistan to seek a lasting resolution for Kashmir that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We also recognise that the normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan, which are two old and long-standing friends of Britain, as well as the second and sixth most populous countries in the world, is vital for improving regional security—not just in this regard—and resolving conflict.

Through our engagement, we continue to encourage India and Pakistan to establish and maintain that dialogue. With that, there is a concern that sometimes it is one step forward and two steps back. Although we welcome the agreement on a liberalised visa pact, the problem was that that seemed to have been put on hold by the Indian authorities following the killing of Indian soldiers along the line of control. As was mentioned in the debate, we should recognise that other events in the region, particularly the draw-down in Afghanistan, make it even more imperative that India and Pakistan work together, not only on this, but with other countries surrounding Afghanistan, as I said on Monday in the statement on Afghanistan, to ensure its stability and future progress. If that is not achieved, that will destabilise the whole of the surrounding region and impact on Kashmir.

In addition, while in government, Labour, through the conflict prevention programme, funded a number of projects designed to support efforts to facilitate dialogue, to address the causes and impact of conflict and to create improvements in the quality of life experienced by Kashmiris. While we look at the geopolitical issues, it is important—this has been mentioned by a number of Members, and in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood)—to look at the conditions of life of the people from all communities living there. In that context, we supported capacity-building and skills training for non-governmental organisations on both sides of the line of control, funded media projects that bring Indian and Pakistani journalists together and helped with curriculum design that promotes a modern, inclusive approach to education.

Some of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate and in submissions sent to us are familiar to me, as a Member with a constituency where a substantial percentage of the electorate are of Sikh heritage. We have to face up to concerns about widespread impunity for violations of international law, unlawful killings, extra-judicial executions, torture, and, as was mentioned, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), the enforced disappearance of thousands of people since 1989. I know from my Sikh community that those disappearances are the issue that hurts the most. All those issues have to be considered. There has to be some reconciliation and some accountability on those issues, as well as on the numbers of youths shot dead by police during the protests in the summer of 2010 and, as has rightly been mentioned, the impact of the Public Safety Act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) mentioned the suffering of other communities in Kashmir, such as the Pandit Hindus. There was a meeting in the Commons last week, which I was unable to attend, that drew attention to their plight and the substantial exodus in 1990. They left their valley and their communities behind to save themselves from persecution at the hands of terrorists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, a substantial number of families—not just Hindu families, but Sikh families as well—still live in refugee camps, and they are still looking for justice.

Let me be clear: I am not seeking to construct a balance sheet of suffering or, indeed, of blame. I make clear that the suffering experienced in all the communities of Kashmir is very deep. I stress that, while the world must hope and work for meaningful talks between the parties concerned, we also have to look at what we can do to improve the position of the people in Kashmir. That has been clear in this debate. Everyone is clear, both today and in the debates over many years, about the strong feelings on this issue in this House and in communities across the country. Equally, we should not allow the fierce debate to obscure the sufferings of the people of Kashmir, their deep desire for an end to conflict and their deep desire to be able to achieve better lives for themselves and their children. A number of measures for that have been outlined, and I have mentioned some of them. I spoke about the tragic consequences of the floods. The people look to a future of freedom from fear, freedom to work and freedom to build a future for their children. The people of Kashmir, after all their long sufferings, deserve no less.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I begin, as others have done, by congratulating the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) on securing this important debate. I apologise that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who should be responding to this debate, cannot be here today.

The debate has been not only well-attended, informative and passionate, but constructive, and I am pleased that we have had it. It is our right to debate such matters in this place. India and Pakistan are long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom, and our unique historical and cultural ties still bind us, as do the important Indian and Pakistani diasporas that have been mentioned. The situation in Kashmir attracts much public and parliamentary interest in the UK, and I welcome the contributions of all hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Before responding to the specific points made during the debate, I will briefly set out the Government’s position on India-Pakistan relations and Kashmir. Before I do that, however, I want to extend, as others have done, the Government’s deepest condolences to all those who have lost family and loved ones in the extensive flooding in Pakistan and in both Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. We particularly note the offers of assistance to each other by the Governments of India and Pakistan to tackle the humanitarian crisis.

The Department for International Development is of course monitoring the situation, but the UK has not received any request for assistance. We will nevertheless continue to monitor the evolving situation in close co-operation with the European Union and the other bilateral and civil society agencies. The British Government stand ready to assist where appropriate. Our travel advice has been updated to take account of the current flooding, and we advise all British nationals in the area to take extreme care and to contact our consular staff in case of emergency.

The UK Government recognise the importance of a strong relationship between India and Pakistan not only for its own sake, but for regional stability. We encourage both sides to maintain dialogue, the pace and scope of which is for the two countries to determine. In that context, we welcome the renewed engagement between India and Pakistan in recent years, including the potential economic benefits that that would bring. We hope that both sides will continue to take further steps to help the growth of both countries’ economies.

As the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), whom I thank for the extra time that he has provided me, highlighted from his position as shadow Minister, we welcomed Prime Minister Modi’s invitation to Prime Minister Sharif for his swearing-in ceremony on 26 May and his statement of 29 August calling for

“peaceful, friendly and co-operative ties with Pakistan.”

We agree with Mr Modi that

“any meaningful bilateral dialogue necessarily requires an environment that is free from terrorism and violence”.

The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, one which takes into account, as the shadow Minister said, the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to mediate in finding one.

I will now address some of the specific points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Bradford East began his speech describing the water issues. Management of water resources is a global challenge that requires international co-operation. Transparent mechanisms already exist to support Indian and Pakistani water management, but it is for both sides to find ways to optimise their water resources effectively. He also asked about UK aid and development, which is a Department for International Development matter, so I will write to him with more detail. However, the long-standing position is that it is for us to feed our funds for Kashmir through Pakistan and through India, and I will provide him with a breakdown of the numbers in writing.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) gave a passionate speech and was the first to mention the right of this place to debate such matters. He mentioned Edmund Burke, who is a hero of mine and all Government Members, as the philosophical founder of conservatism. I think he was a Whig to begin with, but we will gloss over that.

[Mr Spellar]

Early coalition.

[Mr Ellwood]

Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) has written a book on Burke’s contribution and the right of individuals to have their say. The hon. Member for Brent North also spoke of the importance of the historic elections that have taken place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) also gave a passionate speech and reminded the House of the significant diasporas here in the UK that we represent, many of whom are connected with those who have been caught up in the floods.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke passionately about the people who actually live in Kashmir and about the challenges on the ground, which stand in sharp relief to the debates taking place elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) spoke of the historical ties between the two countries and of the use of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act in Indian-administered Kashmir. It is also worth mentioning the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. It is important that all judicial practices meet international standards.