Falkland Islands Referendum

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As my hon. Friend knows, the position of the United States Government for many years has been that they recognise the de facto British administration of the Falkland Islands but do not take a position on sovereignty. I can assure him that the United States Administration, at the highest levels, are well aware of our position and determination regarding the Falklands, and I believe that the principle that self-determination and democratic consent are required for constitutional change is something that ought to be very appealing to American politicians and the American people.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I, too, pay tribute to our armed forces who fought so valiantly to free the Falkland Islands from Argentine occupation 30 years ago. I warmly welcome the referendum because it will send a strong signal to Argentina and the wider world on where the people of the Falkland Islands stand. We need a referendum in the Falklands, we are going to have one in Scotland, and possibly one on the EU, but the good news from Northern Ireland, where legislation requires a referendum on its future status only if it appears that there might be a majority to take it out of the United Kingdom, is that in a poll yesterday only 7% of people there, including those who traditionally describe themselves as nationalist, said that they would vote for a united Ireland, so the Union is strong and enduring as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.

[Mr Speaker]

The geographical dexterity of my colleagues never ceases to amaze me. In deference to the right hon. Gentleman’s seniority and distinction, I did not interrupt him, but I think we can probably leave it there.

Israel and the Peace Process

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mike Freer]

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

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Freer]

I will in a moment. I do not have any great knowledge of the Northern Ireland peace process. Perhaps my colleague, the right hon. Member for Belfast North does.

[Mr Dodds]

Before Sinn Fein was admitted to the talks in Northern Ireland, it had to sign up to the Mitchell principles, which were about decommissioning commitments, peaceful activities and a political way forward, so it was clear that it could not come to the table while still avowing terrorism.

[Mike Freer]

I thank the right hon. Member for that clarification. That is an amazingly pertinent point.

Safety of Journalists Abroad

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

I am pleased to have secured the debate, which will focus on the sadly topical issue of the safety of journalists abroad. The debate is timely, as a meeting is to take place tomorrow in Paris at which the UNESCO international programme for the development of communication will consider the report, “The Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity”. The UK will be represented by Professor Ivor Gaber.

Recent news has drawn much international attention to these issues. On 22 February, in the Syrian city of Homs, the American-born veteran war reporter Marie Colvin died, along with French photographer Remi Ochlik, when a shell hit the building in which she was sheltering. The 56-year-old had been a reporter for The Sunday Times since 1985 and had covered conflicts from Chechnya to the Arab spring. She won glowing posthumous accolades. The Foreign Secretary said:

“For years she shone a light on stories that others could not and placed herself in the most dangerous environments to do so.... She was utterly dedicated to her work, admired by all of us who encountered her, and respected and revered by her peers”.

The priest at her funeral said, simply, that she was

“a voice to the voiceless.”

Sometimes, reporters such as Marie Colvin play a greater role than that of providing a voice—Peter Oborne, in The Daily Telegraph, wrote:

“At times, Colvin herself intervened in history, as she did in 1999 in East Timor when she helped save the lives of 1,500 refugees encircled by Indonesian troops in a United Nations compound. The situation was so dangerous that the UN commander wanted to evacuate, leaving the refugees to their fate. But Colvin insisted on staying behind, thus shaming the UN commander into staying - and averting a potential massacre.”

Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik are not the only journalists and media workers to have lost their lives in the course of their duties since the start of this year. Each year the International News Safety Institute publishes its “Killing the Messenger” report. These reports show, on average, two deaths among people working in news media every week—last year, for example, the INSI reported 124 deaths. Already in 2012, there have been 23 deaths, eight of them in Syria. Far more have been injured or have been the victims of abduction, hostage taking, harassment and intimidation.

Because of the threats that they face, many journalists have had to resort to self-censorship in an effort to protect themselves, rather than lose their lives. Not all those deaths, injuries and threats to lives, freedom or jobs have been to journalists and others working in war zones. Some 60% of the loss of life in 2011 occurred away from conflict zones, in areas where investigations were underway into organised crime, corruption or other illegal activities.

A press freedom violation can be an assassin’s bullet aimed to kill an investigative journalist and to intimidate and silence his colleagues. It can be the knock on the door from the police, bringing in a reporter to question her on her sources, or put her in jail with or without a proper trial. It can be a restrictive media law, which puts the power over editorial content into the hands of censors and press courts.

Journalists and media staff have been killed in the line of duty. Often they are local journalists working their own patch who died because someone did not like what they wrote or said, or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Every job has its risks, and journalists, whose job it is to bring into the open what someone wants hidden, are at greater risk than most, but the risks today are unacceptably high. In some parts of the world, harassment, threats and worse have become an unavoidable part of the job. In war or civil conflict, the risks often escalate: for example, the invasion of Iraq triggered the deaths of 350 journalists. Worldwide, more than 1,000 have died in the last 10 years, but sadly, unless the life is that of a well known western correspondent, the world barely notices.

Organisations seeking to ensure improved security for journalists deserve our support and thanks. I have already mentioned INSI, which, since 2004, has provided basic safety training free of charge to more than 2,000 news media personnel in 23 countries. Other such organisations include Reporters Sans Frontières, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Freedom of Expression eXchange and the Inter American Press Association. Our own National Union of Journalists, which has 38,000 members, is the voice for journalism and for journalists across the UK and Ireland and is affiliated to the International Federation of Journalists, which is the world’s largest organisation of journalists, with around 600,000 members in more than 100 countries.

Both the NUJ and the IFJ monitor press freedom violations and campaign for greater safety for journalists who are at the greatest risk and have the least protection. They have established support for journalists and media staff in conflict areas through rapid safety training, and ensured that leading media organisations, such as the BBC, Reuters, CNN and major newspaper groups, put health and safety in the mainstream of international media development strategies, take responsibility for the safety of journalists and provide for their safety training.

Despite that work, the continuing high level of media deaths cries out for more action by international institutions, such as the United Nations, to force Governments to pay more attention to the safety crisis affecting journalists and media workers. More has to be done to improve safety and to combat impunity. Impunity occurs when the political will to back investigations into the killing of journalists is absent; when legal frameworks are inadequate; when judges are weak or corrupt; when the police or investigating authorities are incompetent; when meagre resources are assigned to those responsible for providing security and enforcing the law; and when official negligence and corruption are rife. Combating impunity is a vital element of freedom and security. If there is little fear of the case ever being investigated, let alone the perpetrator being identified and brought to trial, there is no deterrent against people threatening, harming or killing journalists. Recent reports from IFEX show that in nine out of 10 cases of journalists being killed while performing their professional duties, the perpetrators of the crimes are never prosecuted. Other research shows that more than two thirds of the people responsible are not even identified because of the failure to carry out sufficiently thorough investigations. In effect, in many countries it is almost risk-free to kill a journalist—murder has become the easiest, and perhaps the cheapest and most effective way of silencing troublesome journalists.

The record of Governments in far too many states in tackling impunity is appalling. I have heard reports of intimidation of staff and families of the BBC’s Persian service. At one end of the spectrum, there are countries such as Gambia where journalists have been targeted, oppressed and jailed. In response to international campaigns in support of Gambian journalists, Yahya Jammeh, the President of the Gambia, declared:

“I will kill anybody caught tarnishing the image of my government. I will kill you and nothing will come of it.”

Of the situation in Syria, the French journalist Jean-Pierre Perrin said:

“The Syrian army issued orders to kill any journalists that set foot on Syrian soil.”

Given the army’s relevance in the death of Marie Colvin, what information does the Minister have on that claim? Since November 2009, the International Federation of Journalists has been campaigning to force the Aquino administration in the Philippines to investigate fully the killing of 21 journalists and media workers in what has become known as the Ampatuan massacre. Some progress has been made, but not enough. For many years in Somalia, which is one of the most dangerous African countries for journalists, no crime committed against a journalist has been investigated and so no one has been convicted, and now it appears that the current Transitional Federal Government have been persecuting journalists, their union and media organisations. I am pleased that our Foreign Secretary raised the safety of journalists with President Sheikh Sharif during his visit to Mogadishu in February, and that he has pressed for an independent inquiry into the death of Hassan Osman Abdi.

What about the leading democracies? The United States has consistently refused to carry out credible and independent investigations of the killing of journalists, including the killing of ITN’s Terry Lloyd near Basra in March 2003, and the killing of Spanish cameraman Jose Couso and others when US forces fired on Baghdad’s Palestine hotel in April 2003. The IFJ has catalogued 16 other cases of journalists who have died since March 2003 at the hands of US soldiers in Iraq without a proper investigation being carried out. When the world’s leading democracy refuses to prosecute those who are responsible for serious violations, what chance do we have when we confront the likes of President Jammeh of the Gambia? But what of our own Government?

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Before he moves on and talks about our own Government, I want to put on record a tribute to Martin O’Hagan, the only journalist specifically targeted and assassinated during all the troubles in Northern Ireland. He was murdered in September 2001 and sadly no one has ever been convicted of his murder. It is important that everything possible is done to bring to justice the people who carry out attacks on journalists here, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his endeavours to raise this issue.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

We have periodically sat in public, but then the position has been reversed. That depends on what is decided by the House as a whole, because these matters relate to the Standing Orders. I see that the Leader of the House is here. He knows how vexed this question is. We have gone backwards and forwards on it. However, the issues that we are discussing have been discussed extensively in public. My hon. Friend is more than welcome to come along if he wants to listen to any of our sessions. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has just indicated, if he does not want to come along, he can read the transcript. I have copies of it here if he wants to look at it. I do not think that anyone can dispute the fact that the information is out there.

The question of when action needs to be taken is highly relevant in determining whether the Government are seen to acquiesce in decisions that are being taken by other Parliaments, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) said, will affect us vitally.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) takes an intervention, may I say that it is always a privilege to listen to his speeches, and today is no exception, but gently point out that about a dozen people wish to speak? I therefore confidently anticipate that he is approaching the conclusion of his remarks.

[Mr Dodds]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on securing the debate. I think that it is right and proper that the whole House considers such matters. On the Irish referendum, will he confirm that the rules have been rigged so that if 12—never mind the rest—eurozone countries approve, the pact will be deemed to be ratified?

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the time, but I referred to that in reply to another colleague. We are effectively having a new qualified majority voting system for referendums.

The catalogue of breaches of the spirit and the specific legal requirements were epitomised in Madame Lagarde’s remarks on 17 December 2010 about the first bail-out fund, otherwise known as the EFSM—the European financial stabilisation mechanism. She said:

“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone.”

That is the objective and the method. She is now head of the International Monetary Fund, and we are faced with the prospect of the United Kingdom being expected to contribute to the IMF for what everybody knows is a back-door arrangement to underpin and guarantee the bail-outs in the European Union, which the IMF was not set up to provide, as the United States and other countries have made clear.

Indeed, Germany and France broke the stability and growth pact as it was originally instituted. Now we have a new feature in the big political landscape: in the pursuit of a tax and fiscal policy and compliance with a so-called golden rule to balance their budgets by a form of coercion, 25 member states of the European Union have now come up with an agreement to increase the powers of the stability and growth pact as it applies to them, irrespective of whether a country held a referendum and voted no, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) just suggested. The vote would simply be swept away by a majority vote of the other countries, which insisted on applying the golden rule. One is bound to ask what kind of golden rule it is and whether it is not possible for individual countries to balance their budgets out of self-interest and through their own democratic decisions, rather than having a rule imposed on them in pursuit of the ideology of economic and political union. Indeed, the imposition of such a rule will, of itself, not balance the budgets anyway, as has been found in the past. This is using rules of law to breach the rule of law.

The real solution to the European crisis, which is not confined to the eurozone and deeply affects the United Kingdom, is that the levels of public expenditure, which led to the breaches of the criteria in the treaties, can be solved only by generating growth and giving oxygen to small and medium-sized businesses, for example, through deregulating the massive over-regulation and multiplicity of laws, such as the working time directive, among many others. The list is vast.

Yet again, the whole treaty is a vain attempt to sacrifice practicality and democracy on the altar of ideology, just as the referendums in Ireland, France, Holland and so on were all simply thrown away.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we absolutely are. The prosperity of the country is one of our key objectives. My hon. Friend may have noticed that our exports to India, Turkey, Brazil and other emerging economies went up sharply in 2011. That is very important, given that the eurozone economy is flat and that our exports have declined. The Foreign Office is highly active in helping businesses, including small businesses, to seek out new export markets.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the preparations that are being made in the event of a default by the Greek Government and the possible collapse of the euro?

[Mr Hague]

We have contingency plans for many eventualities in the world, and I ensure that they are fully up to date. The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not go into more detail about those plans, because doing so can create a greater expectation that they are going to happen, but we are prepared for any eventuality.

Iran

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). We can certainly say that the next Lib Dem manifesto will be categorical in not ruling anything out for certain or ruling anything in. It will be fairly open. A lesson has been learned, judging by what he has said.

It is a pleasure to take part in this timely debate, which deals with one of the most important issues facing the world today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing it, along with others. I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee, which has again demonstrated its great worth in providing time for this important debate. I will be voting in favour of the amendment tabled and so eloquently proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).

The regime in Iran is undoubtedly the major threat to peace and security in the world, and while some—not necessarily in the House today—have sought to minimise the threat that Iran poses, it is becoming clear that Iran is determined to acquire both the capability to build its own nuclear weapons and to develop the weapons themselves. In the past week, we have had clear reports that Iran has completed the preliminary work that would allow the rapid expansion of its uranium enrichment programme at its mountain facility near the holy city of Qom. Like others, I believe that no nation has the right to deny other countries the right to develop their nuclear capabilities for domestic and non-military purposes, but it is clear that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear weapon, and that must be stopped. Not only would a nuclear-armed Iran mean great regional instability, but it would lead to other countries in the region wanting to acquire nuclear weapons. The proliferation of nuclear capability in a region as volatile as the middle east is something that we should all be concerned about, and we must do what we can to stop that happening.

Clearly, the No. 1 threat is directly posed to Israel, first and foremost. The regime in Iran has made its views on Israel absolutely clear. I do not intend to repeat some of the quotes from President Ahmadinejad, but it is clear that he not only denied the holocaust, but on the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel he made it clear that

“the reason for the Zionist regime’s existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation.”

In 2010, he said;

“The nations of the region are able to eliminate the Zionist regime from the face of earth,”

adding that the Israeli

“regime has no future. Its life has come to an end.”

Anyone who suggests that the use of the word “regime” refers to a particular Government as opposed to the nation state is stretching credulity.

In November 2011, as reported in Reuters, he said:

“This entity”—

that is Israel—

“can be compared to a kidney transplanted in a body that rejected it… Yes it will collapse and its end will be near.”

There are many other examples of such statements, both from him and other senior Iranian figures. They demonstrate the thinking of the regime towards Israel and its people, and that should be a cause of great concern in the House. While such language may appear abhorrent and so over the top to many of us here in the west that it can be almost dismissed, the tragedy is that many people who say these things, in Iran in particular, really mean them. That can be seen in the fact that there is so much support in Iran for terrorism and in the clear evidence of the way in which Iran is exporting terrorism across the world.

Clearly the threat is not only against Israel directly, but against the west in general. The most immediate threat is more of an economic threat—the threat to close the straits of Hormuz. That will affect oil prices, which will affect everything from food prices to energy costs and travel costs. The idea that a nuclear-armed Iran could exist without posing a long-lasting and permanent threat to energy supplies to the west is simply not credible. Last Friday, oil reached $120 a barrel, and it is clear that in the event of Iran getting nuclear weapons, the price of oil would go through the roof, with all that that means for the west and elsewhere.

Iran is a threat on a number of fronts. It is a threat not only to Israel directly and to the west, but to its own citizens. Members on both sides of the House have highlighted the vicious nature of the Iranian regime as seen in its treatment of its own citizens, particularly but not only religious minorities. Whole sections and sects have been targeted and there are restrictions on freedom of worship and religion. We in the west have no particular selfish interest in that—this is not about our citizens. It is, however, about the right of people to practise religion and worship as they want to, regardless of their ethnic background, and their right to speak out and to have freedom of speech.

What position should we in the United Kingdom adopt? Clearly, we need to continue to support the Government in their view that the way forward is sanctions and co-ordination at an international level to bring about a diplomatic solution, but it is vital that sanctions are effective. It is clear from some press reports today that some countries—Turkey and China have been mentioned—are working to undermine sanctions. I would be grateful to know how effective the Government think sanctions are. It is vital that sanctions are made to work. The financial restrictions order imposed by Parliament last year rightly targets those who seek to use British financial institutions in their quest to fund the nuclear weapons programme, and we support such sanctions.

We support the twin-track approach, but it is essential that the sanctions work. They will be judged effective only if they actually stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Hon. Members have already described the vista we might see if the plan does not work—we have to face up to the fact that it might not work. The idea of living with an Iran with a nuclear weapon is simply unthinkable, not only for Israel and people in the west, but for the world as a whole, the countries in the middle east and the citizens of Iran themselves. It is absolutely essential that we face up to these issues.

[Martin Horwood]

The right hon. Gentleman says that living with a nuclear Iran is simply unthinkable, yet we have tolerated a number of states developing nuclear weapons, including North Korea, which was a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. A laborious process is going on to try to denuclearise that country, but no one has suggested invading it.

[Mr Dodds]

We have learned in recent years that each country is different and has different circumstances. Some of us might like to go back in time and take different approaches. We have seen different approaches to intervention in Libya and Syria, for instance. We are dealing with Iran, and I believe that there is an opportunity to do something to prevent Iran getting hold of nuclear weapons, but I believe that Iran, given its dire and direct threats against the state of Israel and its particular threat to the people of the entire world, poses a unique threat. We should be conscious of that and we must be prepared, if necessary, to do something about it.

I commend the bravery and courage of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay in proposing the motion, but I am afraid that its terms remind me of the motion that was once proposed in the Oxford Union—that this House will in no circumstances fight for King and Country. The word “appeasement” has been used. I think that the motion, if passed, would smack of appeasement. It is vital that we send out a strong message.

[Mr Baron]

I am giving the right hon. Gentleman an extra minute to wind up his speech, so I hope that he will smile upon me accordingly. The word “appeasement” has been used several times. A number of us in this House are former soldiers and have medals to prove that we are not appeasers. There is no doubt about that. We believe in the case for a just war. I have seen comrades killed by the enemy. The right hon. Gentleman must surely accept that the policy of sanctions and sabre-rattling that has characterised the west’s approach has failed. Iran will not step down, so is this not the right time for a fresh approach that recognises her regional status?

[Mr Dodds]

I am glad that I was able to give way to the hon. Gentleman just before the time limit. It remains to be seen whether the policy of sanctions and negotiations has failed, because we are in the middle of that process. I have the utmost respect for him and others who have served in Her Majesty’s forces and I fully respect his personal position, but that in no way detracts from the ability of others to describe the policy they enunciate in the terms we have used. The significance of the famous debate in the Oxford Union was the message it sent out to those in Nazi Germany who were following the policy. If the motion is carried tonight, this House will be sending a strong signal to the Iranian regime to carry on and aim for nuclear weapons, because we will do nothing about it. We need to send out a clear message that is the reverse of that, which is that we will not stand for that kind of approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who, as ever, made some perspicacious and penetrating points.

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I regret that he had to defend himself against the charge of appeasement from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I resent that charge on my hon. Friend’s behalf. This is a motion not of appeasement, but of courage. I may not agree with it and other Members may not agree with it, but this is a courageous and necessary debate. Perhaps it flies a kite—I do not say that with any disrespect to my hon. Friend. By golly, it is a kite that needs to be flown. This situation has been referred to as white-hot dangerous by distinguished analysts in the United States and other parts of the world.

[Mr Dodds]

I think that I made it very clear that I admire the courage of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I made it clear that I laid the charge not against those who proposed the motion, but against the argument. I hope that the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) will accept that and see what I was saying in a different light.

[Patrick Mercer]

Of course I do. I was trying to make a point. The right hon. Member for Belfast North has made his point. In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, I know his record and his background. I watched the 3rd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in action in the native city of the right hon. Member for Belfast North and they never appeased anyone. It is a fine battalion and he is a fine officer.

Some fascinating statements have been made tonight. I cannot support my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, despite my admiration. I find the amendment interesting. I found the comment from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that American action might be acceptable or amenable—forgive me, I am paraphrasing and have not quite got the right phrase—in the short to medium term wholly remarkable in the light of what has happened in Iraq and what is happening in Afghanistan on the Pakistani border. I really do not accept that.

Afghanistan

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I understand the anxieties in the House on this issue. The US Defence Secretary clarified any doubts, certainly to my satisfaction and that of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, in saying, as I quoted earlier:

“We’ve got to stick to the Lisbon strategy.”

The United States has a strong commitment to that. Of course, part of that strategy is that in 2013, Afghans will have lead responsibility across much of Afghanistan, as I indicated in my statement. Increasingly, the role of ISAF is to provide mentoring, training and support. I gave examples of that from Helmand. The United States and the United Kingdom have the same strategy, as do all the ISAF nations.

It is true that France has announced a change in its withdrawal. President Sarkozy has announced the withdrawal of French troops by the end of 2013, rather than 2014. No other ISAF partner, among the 50 nations, has announced accelerated withdrawal plans. The clear consensus at the NATO Defence Ministers’ meeting on 2 and 3 February was that we should stick to the Lisbon time lines, with staged troop draw-down up to the end of 2014.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Foreign Secretary has referred to the crucial role of Pakistan vis-à-vis Afghanistan, and to the fact that Pakistan suffers more from terrorism than any other country. Will he give a detailed assessment of Pakistan’s current commitment in terms of tackling terrorism? What is Pakistan doing with ourselves and others to take forward the situation in Afghanistan?

[Mr Hague]

Pakistani leaders are determined to tackle terrorism. We will have a detailed discussion about that when the Pakistani Foreign Minister comes here in two weeks’ time. I have seen for myself on recent visits to Pakistan how much Pakistanis mourn the loss of tens of thousands of lives to terrorism. We have to accept that Pakistan is in an almost uniquely difficult situation. Its Government are not wholly in control of all their own territory and their writ does not run in all their territory. There is a long history of terrorist activity. This is an enormous challenge for Pakistan. We work with it in many ways, and we use that work to encourage its fight against terrorism. We will continue to do so, but it will remain a difficult struggle.

European Union

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House commends the Prime Minister on his refusal at the European Council to sign up to a Treaty without safeguards for the UK; regards the use of the veto in appropriate circumstances to be a vital means of defending the national interests of the UK; and recognises the desire of the British people for a rebalancing of the relationship with our European neighbours based on co-operation and mutually beneficial economic arrangements.

Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister referred to a period of great change in Europe. There is a sense arising out of the European Council at the weekend that something very significant has happened in the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union. A taboo has been broken. For the first time in living memory, a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom went to an EU summit not only prepared to say no but, in the event, actually used the veto when it became necessary in our national interest. I commend the Prime Minister for sticking to his word and wielding the veto in the circumstances that he outlined in this House last week. I have to say with regret that that is not something that we have come to expect from British Governments. We have been more used to Ministers going to crucial EU meetings in recent years and coming back having to explain why the latest EU regulation or measure is being implemented despite the implications for our national interests.

It is clear that what the Prime Minister has done has gained support from people from right across the political spectrum. That may not be reflected in some of the speeches, interventions and posturing in the House, of course, but it is clear that a large number of people from all backgrounds, whether they are Tory, Labour, Liberal Democrat or support parties in Northern Ireland, agree with what the Prime Minister has done.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

May I provide my right hon. Friend with an example of that? Two of my constituents living on the Isle of Axholme wrote to me last night by e-mail to inform me that they had voted Liberal Democrat in the general election but would now vote Conservative because of our Prime Minister’s actions.

[Mr Dodds]

I am sure there will be many such messages flooding in to right hon. and hon. Members over the coming days. There is no doubt that, not for the first time, many Members are out of step with what the people think.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Very simply, what action did the Prime Minister veto? A veto is imposed to prevent something from happening.

[Mr Dodds]

I will come on to that in detail, but he prevented a treaty from coming into place that did not have sufficient safeguards for the United Kingdom. It is a pity that when the Labour party was in government, it did not take such action to prevent some of the things that happened to this country.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Of course, the Prime Minister stopped a treaty for the 27. Did the right hon. Gentleman see that the statement that was issued was made only by the 17 euroland Heads of Government? The other nine have not signed up to it. That is very clear in the statement, so it is misleading to say that Britain is isolated when the other nine think it is a lousy treaty as well.

[Mr Dodds]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come to that. Even today, we are hearing of issues in Denmark and that Sweden is unlikely to sign up. In Poland, it has been pointed out that two thirds of each House will have to support what has been agreed if the country is to sign up, and it is unlikely to get that. We are hearing similar things in Finland, the Czech Republic and other countries, never mind what is going on in Germany and even France. This is potentially a watershed moment in British politics.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This is a good moment to place on record the fact that the Democratic Unionist party has played a stalwart role in this whole business from the beginning. That needs to be put on the record, as part of the historic tribute that needs to be paid to that party in this matter.

[Mr Dodds]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. Given that he was commended even by the leader of the Labour party in the House yesterday, those words are very welcome coming from someone with such vast experience in fighting these battles over the years.

What happened at the weekend is important not so much for the substance of the matter in itself but for the rebalancing of our relationship with the European Union that it might herald. I refer to that in our motion.

Many people say that because of the action that the Prime Minister has taken, we are now marginalised and isolated. Many of those who say that are, of course, the very same people who at one time not so long ago were urging us to join the euro. They were the people who castigated the euro-realists who dared to point out the in-built defects of the euro project. They made the same dire, doom-laden predictions then. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Being outside arrangements that exist for most of the other EU members is, in any case, nothing new. For instance, the UK is not in the Schengen agreement. We were told by some that that was contrary to the spirit of being good Europeans as part of the EU, but it is absolutely right in the interests of the UK and the protection of our borders.

We heard much yesterday and over the weekend about the damage that the latest developments might do to our country’s standing in the world. For instance, we heard about how the Americans might view us. However, yesterday Hillary Clinton made very clear what she thought, saying that

“our concern has not been over the position that the UK has taken, it’s whether the decisions made by other members of the eurozone countries within the EU will work.”

With respect, that is the nub of the matter. What matters is what will happen to the eurozone.

We have talked about the role of other countries. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) referred to other countries that have not signed up, and I mentioned Sweden. It will also be interesting to see what the position is in the Irish Republic when the matter has been considered in detail. It is not so much the text of the proposal as its substance that matters in the decision whether the agreement must go to a referendum. It will be interesting to see the reaction there. It is clear, is it not, that the French Government and others have a clear policy when it comes to corporation tax? Over the years, the Irish Republic has prided itself on attracting foreign direct investment through low rates of corporation tax, and it has built its economic policy around that to a large degree. It will be watching the matter very carefully.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about the fact that a French MEP is suggesting this evening that Britain ought to be punished for taking a view that supports the best interests of Britain? Should countries be punished for not behaving themselves?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady is right to point to some of the vindictive language that is coming out of Europe. Indeed, President Sarkozy was talking today about consequences for the United Kingdom because of the actions that we have taken. We have to recognise that there are dangers—I think the Prime Minister talked about “risks”—in the intergovernmental approach, and I will deal shortly with what that might mean. It is one reason why we cannot let matters sit where they are. We are in an unsatisfactory position, and we need to decide how we will deal with the situation.

In France, the Opposition Socialist contender in the presidential election, François Hollande, has made it clear that if he were elected, he would seek to renegotiate any agreement that was reached, because he opposes the loss of French budgetary sovereignty. The concerns felt in the House are not some isolated, strange, esoteric or unusual position, but are shared across large parts of Europe by many parties, many of which would not be described as naturally Eurosceptic, right wing or anything of the sort. Members would do well to bear that in mind when they talk about the Government being in thrall to a small minority of MPs and others. They should recognise the reality. The idea that there is a united Europe of 26 against the UK is not correct.

Of course, many countries have to put the new euro-plus arrangements to parliamentary approval, at least, if not to a referendum. We will see what happens when they actually consider the implications of having their national budgets supervised by the European Commission, and the fact that strict rules will be imposed on their national Governments’ ability to borrow, with all the implications for sovereignty that that entails.

For all the adverse reaction from some on the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Benches yesterday, the fact is that the Prime Minister’s stance has the overwhelming backing of the people of the United Kingdom.

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

The right hon. Gentleman’s points are absolutely right. May I suggest to him that many Conservative Members believe that the veto should be the start of a process to reset our relationship with the EU, based on free trade, growth and prosperity? We want to move away from political union and dead-weight regulation. That is not some utopian dream—such a relationship already exists. I ask him to reflect on the fact that countries such as Switzerland already enjoy such a relationship with Europe, so there is no reason why we should not.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come shortly to how we should rebalance our relationship with Europe. He is right to point to the type of relationship that we should have—one based on free trade and co-operation with our European friends and neighbours, but on a sovereign nation to sovereign nation basis.

There are those who tell us that the Prime Minister has gone against the whole thrust and approach of UK foreign policy for the past 40 to 50 years. I have no doubt that there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the bowels of the Foreign Office and elsewhere among the professional mandarins who have seen the EU as almost a sacred cause, to be advanced whatever the wishes of the British people or the views of the temporary occupants—as they would see it—of political office. For the mandarins, the people and those who occupy political office are to be managed and dealt with—although I am sure that that does not apply to the occupants of office in this Government.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The gnashing of teeth is not just among mandarins, is it? Has the right hon. Gentleman heard from the business analysts at IHS Global Insight? They said that

“the European council statement made clear that a new ‘fiscal stability union’ would seek to deepen the internal market, creating stronger fiscal and economic rules.

‘Outside this union the UK is likely to become increasingly irrelevant and marginalised’”.

Does not such concern on the part of business worry the right hon. Gentleman?

[Mr Dodds]

I have heard all that before. We heard it at the time of the UK’s withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism and when Britain decided not to join the euro. We have heard time and again the dire warnings of doom and gloom. However, if we reach the position that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) outlined, of a relationship based on free trade and co-operation, it will free our economy from much of the regulation, red tape, bureaucracy and dead-weight of EU laws that currently hold us back from the true competitiveness and real growth that we need.

We have not just heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood); we have also heard the hysterical reactions of blasts from the past such as Paddy Ashdown, Michael Heseltine and the other usual suspects. It is time the House realised that focusing our foreign policy on the narrow ground of greater Europeanism and ever closer political union in Europe is contrary to the UK’s vital interests.

We make it clear that we must and should work with our European neighbours and friends on a host of economic, political and policy issues. However, let us also recognise the enormous opportunities on the wider scene: our unique position in terms of the Commonwealth, our special relationship with the United States, and our standing in the United Nations. For too long our vision as a country has been dominated by the little Europeanists, who want to take us in only one direction. It is high time that blinkered approach was discarded.

There are those who say that what the Prime Minister did was wrong because we must do all we can to save the euro. However, as was said earlier, in considering the events of last weekend, it has been overlooked that, for all the talk about arrangements to prevent future crises, not a lot was done to instil confidence that the immediate crisis will end any time soon.

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a good point. Did he see that if, for example, Ireland or the United Kingdom joined the so-called stability pact, they would have to make massive cuts in public spending and massive increases in taxes? It is a sort of mutually assured austerity pact.

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. To support what he has just said, does he remember Romano Prodi, then President of the European Commission, on that fateful new year’s eve when the euro was brought into effect, being asked, “This is a political project, isn’t it?” and his replying, “It is an entirely political project”? Is that not why those people are so desperate to continue with it, even though it is leading to economic disaster?

[Mr Dodds]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of Prodi’s words at that time, of the fact that the nature of the project is explicit, and of what lies behind it.

Some people say that the Prime Minister acted to protect the City and the big banks. If it was all about that, I would not be standing here supporting the motion. We need more regulation of the banks and of those who contributed greatly to the mess in which we find ourselves. One of the questions that arises from the Vickers report is how to regulate banks more strictly, and we need to be able to go further, unfettered by the EU. I also believe in the so-called Robin Hood tax—provided that it is applied universally and not targeted mainly at London and the UK to prop up the failing euro, of which we are not part.

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

On the Tobin tax, £40 billion would have been taken out of the City. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that would equate to £642 in taxation for every man, woman and child in this country?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the effects if the EU had targeted the financial services sector, unfairly penalising the UK. The tax revenues of which he speaks are enormous and the contribution to employment—not just directly—is significant for the UK. There are arguments for measures such as the Tobin tax, but they have to be applied universally. The UK alone should not be picked out.

Some say that the Prime Minister’s action will cost jobs and damage British business, but the EU’s share of world trade is decreasing. Who believes that the EU would want to stop exporting to a market of some 60 million people, or inhibit trade that would cost the jobs of millions of people in the EU? That simply will not happen. All the scaremongering about that, as in the past, is not based on economic reality.

We must guard against the inevitable pressure that will come—and is already coming—behind the scenes from diplomats, mandarins and others who will try to drag the Prime Minister away from his current stance and use the back door to achieve the UK’s acquiescence. The Prime Minister has already hinted at some sort of compromise on the desire of the euro-plus countries to use the EU institutions. He needs to be careful about that. If they want to do that, we need to ask what they are prepared to do for the UK in return. I hope the Prime Minister will not accede to the pressure being exerted to allow that to happen by the back door.

Of course, it is important to recognise the limits of what has happened. As a result of what happened at the Council, 26 countries—or however many it will be in the end—cannot themselves implement agreements on financial services or other things that have an impact on the single market. That must be done through the single market Council. However, therein lies a problem. Yesterday in his statement the Prime Minister alluded a couple of times to the risks involved in the intergovernmental arrangement. As I said in my contribution yesterday, the very real risk is that other EU member states will gang up on the United Kingdom and outvote us through qualified majority voting.

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

Is not the reality that nothing has changed with regard to financial services? Twenty-six cannot impose qualified majority voting; nor can 27. At the end of the day, therefore, the so-called veto was not a real veto, because 26 have gone ahead. The reality is that we still have the right to block changes in that respect under the Single European Act.

[Mr Dodds]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister is right to say that it would have been entirely wrong, without sufficient protections, to have a treaty that, as he put it, would have hard-wired the situation into the European Union treaties. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) alluded to protections, but QMV does not provide the UK with much of a protection. As has been said already in the debate, given some of the vindictive language being used in European capitals at the moment, we must be very careful indeed. It is clear, in my view, that the status quo cannot stand in the medium to long term.

[Mr Cash]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what he is saying is incredibly important in terms of the future path, because the real problems are contained in the existing treaties themselves, which need to be fundamentally changed, along with our relationship with the European Union? That is the real problem. We should not just nibble at the edges.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is right in that regard. We cannot have a bloc of eurozone countries acting collectively by using its voting power at EU level to force through measures to the detriment of the UK’s national interest.

Even the Deputy Prime Minister has warned against the dangers of a club within a club. The new club will have a common interest and act collectively. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pointed that out in a recent article in The Spectator. He said:

“a fiscally united eurozone will spend as a bloc, tax as a bloc…and…vote as a bloc”,

and he is absolutely right.

For that reason and a host of others it is clear, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, that a fundamental reassessment of our relationship with the EU is required. The Prime Minister’s use of the veto is very welcome. Saying no to Europe has been and remains almost unthinkable for some in the political elite, no matter what the cost in terms of our national interests, but the question now is: where do we go from here?

As things stand we are left with all the old familiar problems with the EU that we had before the European Council. We are left with the huge issues of loss of sovereignty and EU control of vast swathes of UK laws and policies. We are still committed as a country, because of the EU treaties, to “ever closer political union”. We remain subject, for instance, to the common fisheries policy, to the plethora of regulations and directives that stifle competitiveness and growth, and to interference in criminal justice and home affairs. Not least, we are still required to contribute almost £10 billion per year net to the EU at a time when domestic budgets are being slashed, and QMV provisions under the Lisbon treaty have reduced the areas where we can say no to EU intrusion.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On that £10 billion net that we contribute each year to the European Community, does my right hon. Friend agree that we would be far better exercised in determining how those resources are spent on our own fishermen, our own farmers, our own industrialists and our own banks, rather than letting bureaucrats and eurocrats determine how it is spent?

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I sometimes hear others, particularly elements of the media, and particularly the BBC—this will not be first time that hon. Members have referred to the BBC in that regard—argue the case for Europe by saying, “But look at the vast amounts of money we get.” That has sometimes been stated about Northern Ireland; my hon. Friends will deal more particularly with the situation there later. We are told, “But you’ve benefited from all these initiatives,” and so on and so forth, but the money involved is a small percentage of what we pay into Europe in the first place. In many cases it comes with so many strings and conditions attached that it would be far better if it were disbursed by our own Government or at a regional level.

The Prime Minister said yesterday in the House that

“the balance of powers between Britain and Europe is not right”—[Official Report, 12 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 530.]

I prefer the use of the term “United Kingdom”, because Northern Ireland is an important part of this, but the Prime Minister is absolutely right. We must therefore build on what has happened.

Many talk about the need to have powers repatriated. I sympathise with their aims and objectives, but repatriation can be limited. We may gain here, but we will lose there. I think we need a more fundamental and simpler approach. We know what the British people want, we know what makes sense for the UK in the long run, and, as we say in our motion before the House, we must rebalance our relationship with our European neighbours.

The relationship must be based on free and mutually beneficial co-operation. It must be about free trade and commerce, to the mutual benefit of businesses and consumers throughout Europe—that is the best way to create growth and prosperity—and it must be about laws being made in this country by democratically elected and accountable representatives of the British people. That is the sort of relationship that people in this country want with Europe. I believe that for too long there has been a determination on the part of the political and diplomatic elites in this country to deny the people of this country any say on Europe. Ultimately, people must be given the opportunity—finally—to have their say through a referendum. I believe that the events of the weekend have brought that day closer, and I commend the motion to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bellingham]

No, I will not.

Let me say something about the UK’s influence in Europe. The decision not to proceed with a treaty at 27 has no impact on our status in the European Union. Our role in the EU is safeguarded by the existing treaties. Britain remains a full member of the EU. Our membership is vital to our national interest. We are a great trading nation, and we need the single market for trade, investment and jobs. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, we will remain active and influential in the EU. The European Council does not in any way diminish our role. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) in a wise and sensible speech, this week there will be meetings of the Councils on Transport, Telecommunications and Energy, and Agriculture and Fisheries, and we will be present as full, active members in each of those Council meetings.

I am trying to respond to speeches made by a large number of Members on both sides of the House. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), and for Upper Bann (David Simpson), the decision not to be part of the treaty that will be agreed by the eurozone and others does not in any way reduce our influence. The EU is not a monolithic block, and it already contains flexible arrangements.

As the right hon. Member for Belfast North observed, the United Kingdom is not part of the single currency or the Schengen no-borders agreement, but that has not prevented us from leading the way in the EU on a range of issues, from an activist foreign policy to the completion of the single market. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe pointed out, our position is incredibly important in terms of not just the single market but foreign direct investment, 50% of which comes from the EU. As he also pointed out, much foreign direct investment from other parts of the world, such as the BRIC nations—Brazil, Russia, India and China—is due to our membership of the EU.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Stroud referred to the EU institutions. We want the new treaty to work in stabilising the euro. That is in our national interest, because our economy is closely tied to that of our EU partners. I understand why the eurozone member states would want to use the institutions to help to ensure fiscal discipline. We will look constructively at proposals to use the EU institutions with an open mind, but this is new territory which raises important issues.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North was spot on when he said that nothing must be done through the back door. We must ensure that institutions built for 27 continue to operate fairly for all member states, including the UK, and in particular we must ensure that the role played by the EU institutions in safeguarding the single market is not affected. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that we will continue to intensify bilateral relations with many different EU countries. Let me assure the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) that we will not take the isolationist route.

On the repatriation of powers and the balance of competences, the Government are committed, under the coalition agreement, to examining “the balance” of competences between Britain and the EU. There is a case for doing that—as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) pointed out, it is a very strong one. The work on the review has begun and is in its early stages. In taking it forward, we will look at how to engage with our EU partners on individual competences. A change in the balance of competences would require the agreement of all 27 member states on the basis of negotiation and agreement.

I wish to say a few quick words about the working time directive, because it is important at a time of economic uncertainty that we remain focused on job creation and growth. That will require all of Europe to improve its competitive position, including in respect of labour markets. A key part of that will be limiting the barriers to flexibility in the working time directive. The Government are committed in the coalition agreement to limiting

“the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.”

Our priority is that the working time directive keeps a secure economy-wide opt-out; working people should be able to work the hours that they choose. We will also be looking to secure more flexibility in the areas of on-call time and compensatory rest.

I pay tribute, once again, to our friends in the Democratic Unionist party, because this very good debate has come at a crucial time for Europe and, throughout, the contributions of DUP Members have been incredibly consistent, solid and reliable. What can we say about the Opposition? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) that we have heard nothing but carping and criticism. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East did not tell us whether Labour would have signed the treaty. She said nothing at all in response to two interventions, including one from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), asking why Labour gave up Britain’s £7 billion EU rebate when the now shadow Foreign Secretary was Minister for Europe? She also made no attempt to answer the question about why Labour signed the UK up to a euro bail-out mechanism after the general election—on 8 and 9 May 2010, before the coalition agreement was completed. She also failed completely to answer the questions put to her about her leader, who first—

[Mr Dodds]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

British Embassy (Tehran)

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

All options, of course, are kept on the table. However, I stress, as I have to other hon. Members, that we are not calling for military action. But I am grateful to my hon. Friend: in the House of Commons, we show approval with cheers, grunts or movements of the head, and all are acceptable on this occasion.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

All Members would do well to remember the deplorable nature of this attack on British embassy property and staff. It demanded an appropriate response and I commend the Foreign Secretary for his swift, decisive and entirely appropriate response on this occasion. In relation to the twin-track approach that he has set out, what further practical steps—what further measures in addition to the sanctions already announced—can be taken to increase peaceful and legitimate pressure on Iran?

[Mr Hague]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is important to recognise that Russia and China have supported all the United Nations Security Council resolutions that have been passed so far on this subject, and that they are part of the so-called E3 plus 3 process of negotiation with Iran. Those countries have certainly played their part in this. It is true, however, that they are not currently in favour of further tightening of the sanctions regime on Iran. We will continue to discuss that with them, but in the meantime we are pursuing tighter sanctions with the United States, Canada and the European Union in the ways that I described earlier.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

In the context of sanctions, diplomatic efforts and intergovernmental discussions, does the Foreign Secretary agree that public opinion here in the United Kingdom, and across Europe and the west, is extremely important, and that more needs to be done to explain the exact nature of the threat that Iran poses to the public so that the public come along with whatever we are trying to do?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I fully take that point from the right hon. Gentleman. I think there is a very wide recognition of this issue. However, since it is a matter of escalating tension, and certainly of escalating pressure from our point of view over the coming months, we will make every effort to explain its importance and why we cannot simply ignore it.