Israel and Palestinian Talks

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman wrote my speech or had early sight of it, but perhaps I could turn to the next paragraph before giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris).

Vital to getting an environment that is conducive to fresh negotiations is avoiding actions that undermine the viability of lasting peace. One such action is building settlements. The United Kingdom’s view is clear and unchanged: settlement building seriously undermines the prospects of two states for two peoples. I am extremely concerned by reports this week of plans to construct more than 1,800 new housing units in East Jerusalem. In the UK’s view, all settlements are illegal under international law. If confirmed, the plans would be the latest example of an accelerating policy of illegal settlement expansion. That would take us further away from a two-state solution and raises serious questions about the Israeli Government’s commitment to achieving the shared vision of Israel living side by side with a viable, independent and contiguous Palestinian state. We have always been clear—I certainly have—that settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict, and we have to be careful not to be sidetracked by one side or the other. It is not about one thing or the other. That is the problem: there are so many different things.

The people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement, but it has long been our position that settlement activity is illegal and that it undermines the viability of two states for two peoples. We are gravely concerned that an increase in the pace of settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the west bank presents a strategic threat to a peaceful resolution of this conflict. As a strong friend of Israel, we urge the Israeli Government to show restraint on the construction of settlements, and to avoid steps that reduce the prospects for peace and security in the region and make it harder to achieve a different relationship between Israel and the Arab world.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is worth noting that recent polling shows that a clear majority of both Israelis and Palestinians want peace, with a clear majority in favour of a two-state solution. However, it is hard to see that happening when Hamas remains committed to the destruction of Israel. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Hamas routinely and completely lets down Palestinian people in their quest for peace?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I mentioned that earlier. Peace is very much the desire of the peoples in the areas concerned, but the awkwardness is how to get there. I have said before from the Dispatch Box that there are always 100 reasons to say no, but we have to find the reasons why people should say yes.

Tamils Rights: Sri Lanka

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[James Berry]

The hon. Lady is noted for her work in this area. I have read the report, and it is worrying. What is most worrying about it is that human rights abuses are continuing, with two as recent as June. The problem has not been solved by the change in presidency in January. I urge the Minister to ensure that that is considered at the Human Rights Council as well.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous, and he is giving a splendid and powerful speech. He has laid out the arguments extraordinarily well. He has mentioned the progress being made by our borough, the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, and Jaffna district, which are in the process of organising twinning. In addition to the obvious benefits of commercial co-operation around governance and so on, does he believe that twinning will also provide another layer of protection for the people who live in and residents of Jaffna district, on the basis that it will be more eyes, more scrutiny and more transparency? Is peace part of the value in the twinning process in his view?

[James Berry]

Peace is certainly part of the value in the twinning process that we are planning in Kingston. Whether my hon. Friend is in place in Richmond Park in north Kingston or in the wider London area, I am sure that the scrutiny he will bring to bear on the issue will be of great benefit to those involved in the twinning process.

Other examples of economic progress that could be made to improve the situation in the north and east include: repairing infrastructure damaged by the years of war, including opening Jaffna airport to international flights, and giving the go-ahead to India’s proposal for a bridge over the short gap between India and the island of Sri Lanka, which would boost trade between the two countries.

President Sirisena has spoken warm words on some of these topics, and I do not dispute that some progress has been made, but progress since his election in January has not been quick enough, and some measurable benchmarks need to be put in place. Warm words are not enough.

In conclusion, the international community failed to act in 2009 when 40,000 Sri Lankan citizens, mainly Tamil, were slaughtered. Now is not the time for the world to look away again simply because there are other crises, such as that in Syria, and because the new President of Sri Lanka is making more positive noises about reconciliation.

Ukraine

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I fully appreciate that this must be a deeply troubling time for all those with friends, relatives and kith and kin in Ukraine. The best mechanism by which they can get the assurances they understandably want on behalf of their families is the diplomatic resolution which I trust the British Government are endeavouring to deliver, and which we need to work in co-operation with our international partners to secure.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

Let me try to make a little more progress because I am conscious of the need to wind up, given the enthusiasm of Back Benchers to make their contributions.

There is an important point in relation to the tone of the exchanges with Russia. As the Foreign Secretary acknowledged, it is vital that in those exchanges a clear message is sent that this is not a “zero-sum game” between Russia and the west. I hope that it will be in that spirit that EU leaders agree the political part of the association agreement with Ukraine, which is due to be signed in the coming days. As well as sustaining this dialogue between Russia, the US and the EU, we should not forget the urgency of facilitating direct dialogue between the Russian and Ukrainian authorities.

I note that the EU has previously supported the establishment of a contact group, and note further that only yesterday Russia proposed the establishment of a support group for Ukraine. The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that this group would push for Ukrainian recognition of the Crimean referendum, which is clearly a difficult issue for the international community; urge Ukraine to implement portions of the 21 February peace deal; encourage Ukraine to adopt a new constitution setting out broad powers for the country’s regions; and require Ukraine to uphold military and political neutrality.

When the Leader of the House winds up the debate, I would appreciate it if he could set out the British Government’s thinking on both these proposals—on the contact group that has been advocated by Germany and the European Union and on the contact group that was proposed by the Russian Foreign Minister yesterday.

In conclusion, the Russian invasion of Crimea demands international condemnation. We should uphold the principle of international law and recognise Ukraine as a sovereign state. Its cultural, linguistic, and historical affinities with Russia do not, and never will, justify the recent breaching of the international multilateral legal norms that have guided our actions since world war two. Furthermore, what those who oppose further specific economic and financial measures must understand is that there will be real and lasting consequences for the west of not demonstrating resolve in the days and weeks ahead. I fear that the consequences are already clear. We have a Russia emboldened in its ambitions towards Ukraine; a central Europe ever more fearful of future political destabilisation and military insecurity; and a United States increasingly concerned about Europe's willingness to act, even diplomatically and economically, in the face of such threats. A combination of deft diplomacy, shared resolve and a unified response are the best means by which we can de-escalate this continuous and dangerous crisis, and ultimately re-affirm Ukrainian sovereignty and preserve European security. The British Government will have our support in working to achieve that desired outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

I was turning to the question of how to respond. Since the very beginning, it has been accepted that a military engagement in response simply is not possible. If we consider carefully what the prospect would have been for a nuclear alliance facing a nuclear power across Europe, albeit initially in conventional terms, the risks of something much more serious would be profound. As a parallel, let us remember the atmosphere when, in Pakistan and India, across the line of control there were a million men under arms, and the possibility that some provocation or something of the kind could have brought grievous consequences.

Today, the Russians have offered a contact group. That is disingenuous in the extreme, because the basis upon which that offer is made is that Ukraine and the rest of the world should accept and endorse the illegality of the conduct that has given rise to the crisis of the moment.

How do we proceed? We proceed, I hope, diplomatically, by persevering and promoting the isolation that Russia found itself in at the Security Council—an isolation so considerable that China, which would normally be predicted to take the side of Russia, decided to abstain. On sanctions, I agree with much that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said a moment or two ago. We have to ask ourselves what the cost would be, but we also have to ask ourselves what the cost of not imposing sanctions would be, and take a long-term rather than a short-term view.

Russia is now emboldened by energy resources and fuelled by imagined slights, with a new confidence, but as has already been pointed out, that confidence is built on very shaky economic grounds. If there is an area of fallibility, that is in the Russian economy. That is why anything that can be agreed in order to impose pressure on that economy seems to me entirely worth while. I understand that Crimea has decided to adopt the rouble as its currency—a case of joining the sinking ship, rather than leaving it.

I accept the point that has been powerfully made by a number of contributors that the European Union and the United States of America must stand together. To quote a former Prime Minister whom I do not commonly quote, “This is no time to wobble.”

[Zac Goldsmith]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very eloquent speech and has dwelt considerably on the pressures that we need to bring to bear on Russia. Will he explain what he believes a successful, realistic resolution will look like?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I do not think anyone can answer that question. My hon. Friend is right to ask the question, but I do not believe anyone can answer it at this stage, because in the end there will have to be a diplomatic solution. The one thing that is essential is that when these negotiations and discussions break out, as we hope they will, those on behalf of the Ukraine, the European Union and the United States are firmly in a position to say that if a diplomatic solution does not work, more can be done.

One of the issues that has been before us in Europe recently is the question of short-range nuclear weapons. There was a possibility of disarmament, both from the United States’ holdings and from Russia. That is no longer possible. In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, people will be relieved that that possibility is off the table.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davidson]

I possibly have more faith in the Prime Minister than my hon. Friend does. Had the Prime Minister not to some extent sold the jerseys, I think all these issues could very well be negotiated with our colleagues, because we are not alone. I do not believe that Britain is the only country that wants to retain control over its immigration policy. I think many colleagues support the position we are taking on this question, and I will come on to the question of dates in a moment.

The next point we ought to be dealing with is the question of the common agricultural policy. That has been covered in this House on a number of occasions, so I will not delay us by discussing it, as has the question of the cost of the European Union, and the waste and extravagance.

The final point I want to make is that the Conservative drive for renegotiation seems to be driven by the sort of impulse that means every time Conservatives walk by a house and see a chimney, they regret that a small boy is not climbing up it. I think the Conservative party’s wish to repatriate powers over labour relations and working conditions is driven by a desire to drive down terms and conditions to the level of the 18th or 17th or 16th century, if they think they can get away with it. There is no future for Britain in the long term if we go back to having small boys climb chimneys. It is rules and regulations—and, indeed, red tape—that stop us having small boys climbing chimneys. Those Conservatives who say that the main drive behind renegotiating the EU treaties is to have a freer labour market have got to come clean and say whether they believe a search to the bottom is the way forward for Britain. I do not believe we should be seeking to compete by lowering working standards, and that is one of the points on which Len McCluskey and I would be as one.

If we accept the points that most of the Government Members, and many on our side, have been making, we would want to see three stages, and that is where I do agree with the Government. The first stage would be renegotiation and the second would be a referendum. I have an open mind on how I will vote at that time, because I recognise that the European Union has done many excellent things that I support, but, similarly, it has done many things that I do not support. How I vote in the referendum will depend on the balance reached in negotiations.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind me referring to an earlier point he made, because I was checking something online while he was giving his brilliant speech. It is worth pointing out that a number of trade unions are actively campaigning for a referendum. Indeed, the advisory board of The People’s Pledge, one of the great organisations calling for a referendum and which is running a successful campaign, was made up of at least three senior union representatives, including Bob Crow and Bill Greenshields, as well as a number of others—the list goes on. So to suggest that the trade unions are opposed to a referendum or in favour of continued membership or continued escalation of our union within the EU is not strictly true.

[Mr Davidson]

Sorry, I did not think I was actually saying that all unions were taking a particular position. I think that most of the unions will take the view that they either want or do not want a referendum. I know that many of them do want a referendum, and they will decide on the basis of what they believe is offered to their members once the renegotiations are complete. I support renegotiations, and I have always been clear about that. I am glad to hear that Bob Crow appears to have greater support from those on the Government Benches than he has from those on the Opposition Benches in some cases. Ever since he declared that he would be biting the heads off only three babies a day his popularity has increased among many Government Members. [Interruption.] It was four babies a day, then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that we need to reconnect by allowing people to have their say.

I am very surprised that the Liberal Democrats have changed their view—[Hon. Members: “Why?”] Well, I am. I learned most of my community politics from the Liberal Democrats when I stood in Richmond many years ago, and I know that they are committed to allowing people to have their say in places like Richmond and Kingston. I am therefore surprised that they have changed their mind on this matter.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. We have a great deal in common, as he has just said. Does he agree that this is not just a matter of this House trusting the people with a decision on this issue, and that it is even more a case of providing the people with a reason to trust the House? It works both ways, and there could not be a more important time to demonstrate both aspects of that than now.

[Keith Vaz]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must give the whole debate over from this House. We all have an important role to play in discussing and scrutinising the European Union, but at the end of the day, the matter must go to the British people.

My second point is on the need for reform. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton South will be willing to consider any amendments that I hope Labour will table in Committee, and that he will look at the whole issue of reform. I do not believe that the timetable the Prime Minister has set out is achievable. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) said about this. The reform process will take a long time. Should the Prime Minister get re-elected and become Prime Minister again, his timetable of two years between 2015 and 2017 will, frankly, not be long enough.

The issues in the European Union exist at the moment, and there is a need for reform of a whole range of policies. We could start that process now. There is no reason why British Ministers going to summit meetings and having discussions with their European Union counterparts—the Minister for Europe goes to General Affairs Council meetings every month to discuss these matters with his counterpart Ministers for Europe, for example—should not start the reform agenda immediately, rather than waiting until after the next general election.

Protecting the Arctic

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I will give a very short speech, which I had not intended to make, but I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, oversaw the report and has commanded the respect of the entire Committee. She is a stellar Chair in my view.

I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made in the excellent opening remarks, other than to echo the importance of keeping in mind climate change. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) made the point well, and we have just heard about the importance of preserving fish stocks. There are many reasons that ought to be obvious, so I will not go into them.

I want to make one point. Last year, in response to questions from the Environmental Audit Committee, Shell’s head of emergency response admitted that the company had not yet costed a clean-up operation in the Arctic, leaving shareholders effectively exposed to potentially huge financial losses. As we know, a similar attitude from BP before the Deepwater Horizon disaster ended up costing the company in the region of $40 billion.

Given the huge risks, there is already an emerging view from a wide variety of sources, both in the oil industry, for example, most recently the French oil company Total, and the financial industry that supports oil industry activity, including Crédit Agricole, that oil exploration in the Arctic is too risky—effectively, that it is not supportable.

I therefore urge the Minister to take up one particularly important recommendation—I would prefer him to take up all the recommendations—to use this country’s diplomatic clout to push for Arctic states to set a much higher and preferably unlimited financial liability regime for oil and gas exploration in their national jurisdictions. That is in line with the Government’s approach to the Antarctic region, and is the bare minimum position that this country should be taking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

I repeat the salient point that I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to get at: we consider that the treaty applies to the maritime zones generated by Svalbard, but Norway disagrees.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park asked about oil spill falls. Of course, we all have sympathy; the idea of an oil spillage occurring in that part of the world—I think it has happened there—is absolutely abhorrent and has terrifying consequences for the environment. However, determining how to ensure that those liable in the case of oil spills meet their liabilities, as he will well know, is a matter for the relevant countries. It is a matter for those jurisdictions to determine both the scope of such liabilities and the levels of compensation and penalties payable in the event of a spill.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I recognise the limits of our international clout in respect of that issue, but it is nevertheless possible and reasonable to imagine the British Government adopting as their formal position the view that there should be, preferably, unlimited liability in the event of an accident. I am not suggesting that we can push a button and make it happen, but it could certainly be our position, formally and on the record.

[Mr Swire]

I do not think my hon. Friend would be arguing for that, seeing as the Government are limited in their jurisdiction in the area, and seeing as they do not own any oil companies exploring in the area. For the British Government to make a unilateral proclamation about unlimited liability in that area would be seen by some as somewhat condescending and interfering. However, clearly, environmental protection should be at the forefront. That is why a lot of British companies—in terms of deep sea drilling, and the kind of measures and safety measures that we have learnt over years in the North sea—could have a very real application to safe drilling in that sensitive part of the world.

The hon. Member for Bristol East asked a technical question about the threat of methane released from permafrost. Continued warming of Arctic land masses will lead to a large-scale melting of permafrost, which may well release large quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Although the magnitude of any release is uncertain, it has potential to significantly accelerate global warming. While the amount of methane currently being released is small compared with other sources, that contained below permafrost and land ice is thought to be huge. The Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme is looking at methane release in the Arctic as part of its Task Force on Short-Lived Climate Forcers.

The hon. Lady also asked how serious black carbon is in the Arctic. It is definitely an issue for consideration. The United Nations Environment Programme report into black carbon produced last year concluded that emissions of black carbon particles into the atmosphere can have a significant impact on human health and both direct and indirect climate impacts. For example, some emissions can be transported long distances and deposited as soot on Arctic ice or snow, which decreases surface reflectivity—albedo—and increases ice melt because of the additional warming effect. The Arctic Council’s AMAP produced a report in November 2011 on the effects of black carbon and has a task force that is following up that work. It is currently drawing up its work programme.

The hon. Lady also asked about the report in The Guardian, the issue of higher standards for drilling in the Arctic, and the allegation in that report that we are in some way undermining the EU’s attempts to apply them in our own backyard. All I will say is that she should not believe everything she reads in the papers, let alone The Guardian. However, negotiations are continuing with the EU on the proposed directive to regulate offshore oil and gas activities, and the UK is working to ensure that the highest levels of safety and environmental protection are upheld in an effective manner. It is worth saying that the UK already has a robust regime in place to regulate offshore oil and gas. Environmental safety is paramount, and offshore operations are only permitted in the UK where there is a thorough and comprehensive oil spill response plan in place.

The hon. Lady asked what more we are doing to move forward marine protection issues at the United Nations. I will write to her on that point and provide an update. She also asked about the Arctic policy framework. We will produce the Arctic policy framework in the summer of 2013. That will be a dynamic process involving interested stakeholders, and it will outline the Government’s policy and approach in more detail.

The hon. Lady also asked how the UK’s influence in the Arctic Council would be affected if observer status is granted to applicant countries. We do not believe that the UK’s influence will be impacted. Most of our influence on the council comes through scientific engagement with the working groups. We will continue to provide that, regardless of the status of other countries with respect to the Arctic Council.

Antarctic Bill

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman makes a key point. The current treaty arrangements include agreements that the continent be demilitarised and protected. Both those requirements are still upheld, and they are, of course, triumphs of the British contribution to the Antarctic, because it was our approach that achieved them. We should celebrate that.

I want to talk briefly about my personal interest in the Antarctic and its relevance to the people of my constituency. Sir Peter Scott is the son of Robert Scott. Robert Scott wrote to his wife at the end of his final expedition, expressing the hope that his son, who was two years of age, would later show an interest in the natural environment. Sir Peter Scott did precisely that. He established the Slimbridge wetlands centre and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, as well as Falklands Conservation. There is a direct link between the Antarctic and my constituency, therefore.

Interestingly, this morning I received an e-mail from a constituent, Roderick Rhys Jones, who is from Eastcombe. He reminded me that he was a constituent of mine and also noted that he went to a local school, so he has clearly been living in the area for quite some time. He drew my attention to the fact that 29 men and women have died in Antarctica in pursuit of science since 1944, when the permanent scientific base was set up by Britain. They died in fires, and as a result of falling down crevices and exposure to the appalling conditions. Monuments have been raised in memory of those scientists. The theme of my constituent’s e-mail is that we need to make sure that the people doing such important work on what is a very big, and quite dangerous, continent are protected.

I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. It did a fantastic piece of work on the Arctic. When we were discussing our conclusions, I was able to demonstrate that the “polluter pays” concept and the responsibilities of explorers and others in the Antarctic were also relevant to the Arctic, and our report made those points. I pay tribute to the Chair of the EAC, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley).

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress he has made with this important Bill, of which I am pleased to be a co-sponsor. The EAC report relates only to the Arctic, but the principles in this Bill would be particularly important for the Arctic, because it faces immediate pressures, not least in respect of oil exploration. I therefore hope the Minister will learn from this Bill and incorporate the relevant aspects into the Government’s approach to the Arctic.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for the support I have received from my hon. Friend. We have worked together very effectively on the EAC, and I agree with what he says about the clear links between the two poles.

I want to mention two important recent anniversaries. The invasion of the Falklands took place three decades ago. The recent anniversary should serve to remind us of the importance of maintaining a strong and robust British presence not only in the Antarctic, but in the region as a whole.

Protecting the Antarctic

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Turner; I look forward to a happy half-hour. It is also great to see my hon. Friend the new Minister in his place. It is a great honour to introduce what I think is the first Westminster Hall debate that he has to answer. I am grateful to him for coming along to do so.

Protecting the Antarctic is a very important subject and one that I and many other people take very seriously. Recently, the Committee Environmental Audit has been doing some very interesting work on the Arctic. That has raised a few issues about the importance of our polar regions in general, and it is therefore right that we consider the Antarctic as well. I thank my colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee for all their support of my interest in the Antarctic and, of course, our work on the Arctic.

This discussion about the Antarctic is timely because of course it is 100 years since Captain Robert Scott attempted to reach the south pole. He did so not just to get there first, but to undertake very important scientific work. In doing all that and much more, he established the British presence in the Antarctic that we think is so important now. We need to ensure that we continue with that.

The other important link with Robert Scott is of course his son. In Robert Scott’s last letter to his wife, he hoped that his two-year-old son would show an interest in the natural environment, and he certainly did, because he helped to establish the World Wildlife Fund and he established the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, which is based in Slimbridge in my constituency. In addition, he worked extraordinarily hard to highlight the need to protect the Antarctic. I am therefore very proud of the connection that my constituency of Stroud has with the Scott family, with that epic attempt to get to the south pole and with the incredibly important legacy that was left.

That is the background to why I am here, thinking about the Antarctic and wishing to promote and protect it. Indeed, I will be promoting a private Member’s Bill on the issue later in the autumn. If people want to know more about the Antarctic, I can recommend a book by Sara Wheeler, “Terra Incognita”. It is a brilliant and very lively book. It talks about going down to the Antarctic with the British Antarctic Survey—I will talk about that later—and the lifestyle that one can expect to have in such a cold climate. Incidentally, the first human being to be born in the Antarctic was a Peruvian, and that took place in 1978.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and putting forward that very important Bill. If there is any need for proof of the affection in which the British people hold the Antarctic, we need only look to Edinburgh, where voters recently replaced a Lib Dem with a penguin. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of that.

[Neil Carmichael]

Absolutely. I also followed the fate of Dirk the penguin. He went out drinking with some Australians and ended up in a pool with very aggressive fish, but he did survive, so obviously penguins are notable for a lot of things, not just standing—

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s fury and frustrations about the economic blockade that the Argentines are seeking to enforce against the Falkland Islands. On this specific issue, I have made inquiries as I know that there are concerns in the House and I have been told that no UK taxpayers’ money is spent on providing finance to Argentina through the World Bank, nor does the Department for International Development give any aid at present to Argentina.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Building on the success of the marine protected area in the British Indian ocean, may I ask the Minister what recent assessment he has made of the merits of establishing marine protected areas in Pitcairn, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?

[Mr Bellingham]

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that 90% of Britain’s biodiversity lies in the overseas territories, which is why a very important part of the forthcoming White Paper on the overseas territories will be devoted to how we manage that habitat and its biodiversity. Of course, the territories he has mentioned will play an important part in that exercise.

Iran

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is certainly our approach to be forceful and assertive without being belligerent, and I hope that we will be able to continue with that posture. We have had many occasions to be forceful in our language about Iranian behaviour over recent months.

Our policy is that while we remain unswervingly committed to diplomacy, it is important to emphasise to Iran that all options remain on the table. This policy is not new. It was the position of the previous Government, and it is the position of our closest allies not to rule out the use of military force while emphasising that peaceful diplomacy is the way forward that we all wish to see.

No United States President has made a more powerful appeal to Iran peacefully to negotiate an end to its differences with the international community than President Obama, and yet as he said in his State of the Union address last month,

“America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

That is the approach of our Government, and it was also the approach of the previous Government. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said when asked in July 2007 if he would rule out a military strike against Iran:

“I firmly believe that the sanctions policy that we are pursuing will work, but I’m not one who’s going forward to say that we rule out any particular form of action”.

It is also the position of France and Germany, and I believe that on this issue we and our key allies should stand united together.

Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the middle east, some of which are deemed capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Iranian revolutionary guard corps commanders have repeatedly hinted at their ability and willingness to strike at their opponents overseas. Iranian officials have threatened to use military force to close the strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital trading corridors, including for the passage of oil supplies.

Under these circumstances, no prudent Government, despite what the motion implies, could rule out any use of force in the future. Let me be clear that ruling out other options would be irresponsible given the serious nature of our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme and the consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. We should not relieve Iran of any of the pressure it is currently facing. If we rule out military action, Iran might perceive that it can get away with aggressive actions. Taking other options off the table might cause Iran to respond by stepping up its aggressive and destabilising activity in the region. Taking options off the table would also have implications for the positions of several nations in the Gulf and potentially undermine their security. This adds up to a compelling case to keep the policy that we have.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary is making a brilliant speech, and I agree with every word he has said. Can he shed light on Ahmadinejad’s standing with his own people? Does Ahmadinejad’s belligerence command the backing of the Iranian people, or are we simply talking about the Iranian regime?

[Mr Hague]

That is a hard thing to determine in a country in which opposition is not free to operate in the way it should. Just last week we commemorated the one year under house arrest and effective imprisonment of both main opposition leaders. It is not easy to assess the state of democratic opinion in such a country. We know that there are many divisions in the regime and that there is much discontent about many issues in Iranian society. I doubt that support for the policies of the President overall is universal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this important and timely debate. I will not go through the history of the sanctions, but I believe that more effort needs to be made along diplomatic lines. We need to consider smart sanctions and to think about hitting the elite in Iran rather than the most vulnerable, as has happened in the past. One problem with sanctions is that they can sometimes be a blunt tool.

I anticipate being in a small minority this evening when I vote for the motion. I was in that position in the Iraq debate, but I believe that I was right. The evidence was not in the least convincing, and the evidence now is not in the least convincing either. However many people criticise the way in which I vote this evening, I shall do so according to my conscience, and according to what I have learned, read and understood. We are all sensible to the fact that every possible effort will be made to go down the diplomatic route; everyone wants that to happen. I believe, however, that the sabre-rattling and leaving the threat of military force on the table could ratchet up the tension, making a diplomatic resolution impossible.

The Russia Today news channel reported two weeks ago that the United States was carrying out military drills based on simulations of the shape and width of the straits of Hormuz. The Iranians were participating in their own war games in the straits at the end of December, and if those news reports are true, they could indicate that the US is even now preparing for a stand-off, or worse. Similarly, concern has been expressed by Israel about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and the threat of pre-emptive strikes from Israel both bring their own sense of chill. That would, of course, be the quickest possible way to inflame the situation outside of international diplomacy, and it would be a step that nobody in this Chamber or elsewhere wants to see. The same might be true of Saudi Arabia, which has spoken of increasing its nuclear power technology and has explicitly linked it with weapons technology. This has taken place in the context of various UN resolutions, with which it has to be said Iran is not fully complying—no one could say that it is.

It is important to have a level playing field in our approach to the middle east. That is why I believe the US diplomats who have spoken, via WikiLeaks, about Mr Amano are making a grave mistake and performing a grave disservice. They said:

“This meeting, Amano’s first bilateral review since his election, illustrates the very high degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the IAEA. The coming transition period provides a further window for us to shape Amano’s thinking before his agenda collides with the IAEA Secretariat bureaucracy.”

We need to show that international organisations are neutral, but that kind of talk is not conducive to such thinking, and I believe it will only inflame the situation so far as Iran is concerned.

There has been criticism of the positions adopted by Russia and China at the UN Security Council and of their unwillingness to support the US and UK position. We saw similar frustration over Syria a few weeks ago, when those two powers used their veto. Although the impulse to act is understandable, so is the rational concern that acting in haste might lead to a greater problem. That is clear for all to see if we reflect on what happened in Iraq, for example.

Some comments made about Iran sound like the echoes of the run-up to war in Iraq a decade ago—for example, the assertion that nuclear weapons existed, even though they could not be pinpointed or proved in the least; the stereotyping of a country so that it could be easily demonised through the media; and the ramping up of rhetoric to justify an invasion that could not be substantiated in international law or by the pretext of humanitarian assistance.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s views on Iraq, which is why I strongly opposed the war. I agree with most people that war is an appalling prospect in any circumstances and I concur with his scepticism about the intelligence, but does he not agree that if this House were to rule out the possibility of war and if other Parliaments around the world were to do the same, it would almost guarantee giving Iran a green light to develop the bomb, which we all so fear?

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman is right that that is the core of the debate. It is where he and I disagree. He may be right; I may be right. I know not, but this is the debate we are having. I do not pretend to be an expert in international law, but I heard it said that Iran will not be favoured; nobody wants to favour its position.

National Referendum on the European Union

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Yes, indeed, and I will go further: the EU has created a situation in which it actually damages our economy. That is the problem, and that is the reversal of the situation, with massive over-regulation—£8 billion a year, according to the British Chambers of Commerce—over the past 20 years in this country alone.

As I said earlier in my interventions on the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, we are running the single market on a deficit that has gone up in the last year alone by as much as £40 billion, so it would be inconceivable for us not to take a rain-check and say, “We cannot just continue with this and pretend that nothing is going on.”

If ever there was a time to tackle the issue in principle, it is now, and that is what the motion is about: whether there is a case for renegotiation or for leaving the European Union. On renegotiation, we must establish the fact in line with the wishes of the people of this country—not because the Whips have said, “You’ve got to do this, that and the other” or, with great respect, because the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary have said so, but because we have a sacred trust, as elected Members of this House, to do what is right, in the interests of the British people as we see it for our constituents, and in the national interest. This is exactly that issue tonight.

The Prime Minister has given two speeches over the past year or so—one was about rebuilding trust in politics, and the other was about a European policy that we can believe in. I strongly recommend that people tonight, tomorrow or at some point read those speeches again and ask themselves, “What is going on in this debate today?” We know that the Whips have been strongly at work, but I had all that over Maastricht, we have had it over the years and it becomes something that we have to get used to. The reality is that we are doing the right thing for the right reason. That is the point.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he not think that, because the debate has been generated by an e-petition, because it has been made possible by the Backbench Business Committee and because it is an issue that does not divide Members along party lines, it is totally wrong for both party leaders to apply the three-line Whip?

[Mr Cash]

I absolutely agree. In fact, I think that three parties are involved, and the point applies to all of them.

I should like to return to the Prime Minister’s statement today and to test it against what has been going on. He said to us: “Members of my party fought the last election committed to three things,” including, “stopping the passage of further powers to the EU.” The Foreign Secretary, in his article in The Daily Telegraph the day before yesterday, said that he objected to the Lisbon treaty, and he will remember that he, I and many Conservative Members fought, united together, against it line by line—every aspect of it—and fought for a referendum. Yet, we have been watching the implementation of further powers—I do not want to get into the semantics or legal niceties of the word “powers”, because I know them as well as anybody else in the House—and every aspect of that Lisbon treaty day in, day out, and many of the problems that we are now experiencing are a result of its implementation.

The Prime Minister went on to say that we have instituted “a referendum lock to require a referendum, by law, for…such transfer of powers”, and I have a ten-minute rule Bill on that tomorrow. It would reverse section 4 of the European Union Act 2011, which I opposed on the Floor of the House. I see the Foreign Secretary smiling, because he knows what I am going to say. The real test, as I said to the Prime Minister during his statement, is about fundamental change—constitutional, political and economic. That is the test that needs to be applied, and it was endorsed—by the way—by the Lords Constitution Committee only last year.

Fiscal union, of which I shall explain more tomorrow, is such a fundamental change, but the Government quite deliberately ensured through section 4(4)(b) of the 2011 Act that there would be no referendum when the provision in question applied, in their terms, only to the eurozone and not to us directly. At the very time when we were being told that, however, I and others objected because we felt that such a provision would affect us enormously. We were told that it would not, but now we are told day in, day out how much it does affect us, and that therefore we must not do what we are doing tonight, for the very simple reason that, somehow or other, it will undermine our economic activity with the European Union. That is absolute rubbish. The reason why we are in such difficulties with deficit reduction is that there is no growth, and there is no growth because 50% of all our economic laws come from Europe. It also accounts for 40% of our trade, a point that the Foreign Secretary made, but the fact is that we have a massive trade deficit, as I have already described.

The EU is a failed project. It is an undemocratic project. This vote—this motion—is in the national interest, because it is for democracy, for trust in politics and for the integrity of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

I have listened to the debate for the past five hours, and it is clear that we on the Conservative Benches are all Eurosceptics now. I speak in this debate as a Eurosceptic, and I could not put the case against the EU better than some of my colleagues have. However, I will be voting against the motion, because I believe that anger and frustration are not enough to form our considerations; we need a clear-sighted, clear-eyed strategy to move forward.

Let me mention some of the considerations that we need to take. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said—I paraphrase, probably poorly, in which case I am sorry—that we need to hold the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure that something is done. However, we must remember that to lead the country on this issue we need to be a united rather than a divided party. In 2010, just 13% of voters described the Conservative party as divided, but at the height of the Maastricht rebellion 50% described us as divided. We can all stand for our principles and say that this is only about our consciences—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said, that nothing is more important, including the coalition—but we need to remember that in the reality of the political world, if we want to achieve something we have to balance those factors. We know from the 1997 election result that we need to be mindful of that.

Why do I raise that point? Because when we were kicked out of office for being divided, we suffered the greatest setback in the European project. During those 13 years, the Labour Government opted into the social chapter, which was responsible for a lot of the regulations that have suffocated business and stifled growth, and in 2007 the Labour Government signed the Lisbon treaty. For all our high-minded principle in the mid-1990s, when we got kicked out of government because of division we set back our own project.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My hon. Friend is speaking as though this were a Conservative party issue, but we can see from the debate today that it is a cross-party issue. The question that we face today is: do we trust the people to make this decision or not? The pros and cons of Europe can be discussed later.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am not speaking as though this were a Conservative party issue, but we can see that the media, in every interview, have pitted Conservative against Conservative. We need to be careful about divisions on our side.

Of course people need to decide, but we should be careful not to jump from responding to an e-petition that has been signed by a number of people to assuming that this issue is on every voter’s mind. A number of voters will talk about the fact that they care about their jobs. A number will say that they want their streets to be secure. Others will say that they want their children to have a better life than their own. National polls show that when the issue of Europe is considered on its own, everyone is hostile to it, but in general elections, its salience disappears. We need to adopt a very clear-eyed strategy in dealing with this.

I will not be supporting the motion. It should be clear from the debate today, especially to those who are saying that we would be better off out, that, with the eurozone on its knees, we now have the best opportunity to negotiate the best conditions for Britain. It would be catastrophic for us to walk away from the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) suggested, as that would result in our giving up influence.