Europe
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of Europe.
The background to the debate, as the House knows, is that Europe faces greater change than at any time since the fall of the Berlin wall. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his speech last week—a speech that was well received in this country, by British business and in many quarters overseas—[Interruption.] I thought that would excite the House at the beginning. As my right hon. Friend said, there are three great challenges facing the European Union: the profound changes being wrought by the eurozone crisis, the lack of competitiveness in the face of a transformed global economy and the gap between Europe and its peoples.
This remains a difficult time for economies across Europe. Unemployment here is coming down, but elsewhere in Europe it is rising sharply. Europe faces challenges from surging economies of the east and south. On some predictions, by 2050 only Germany and the UK from Europe are likely to remain in the top 10 largest world economies. Growth elsewhere benefits us all, but we should be in no doubt that a new global race is under way and that financial market turbulence and the burden of debt make the path to recovery in Europe harder to climb. Europe has many fundamental economic assets but action is needed. As Chancellor Merkel has said, if Europe today accounts for over 7% of the world’s population, produces 25% of global GDP and has to finance 50% of global social spending, it is obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life.
Then there is the democratic disconnection between the EU and its peoples—a disconnection felt particularly acutely in Britain, for reasons I will come on to in a few minutes. The Eurobarometer survey conducted earlier this year showed that only 27% of Britons were very or fairly attached to the EU. The EU average is 46%, which is hardly encouraging.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary think that the road to recovery for the UK economy will be helped by the Prime Minister saying that the UK might be out of the European Union in four or five years?
Mr Hague
Often, the best judges on the economic side are the business organisations in the country. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that it supports the Prime Minister’s determination to negotiate a new settlement on the basis of a refocused relationship with Europe. The Institute of Directors has said:
“The Prime Minister’s approach is realistic and pragmatic… It is far better to deal with these issues than to shy away from them.”
The Federation of Small Businesses has said:
“Governments around the world need to do all they can to keep markets open and take barriers away.”
The CBI has said:
“The Prime Minister rightly recognises the benefits of retaining membership of…a reformed EU and the CBI will work closely with government to get the best deal for Britain.”
They clearly think such a strategy is in the interests of the British economy.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Did not Sir Roger Carr of the CBI also say:
“But the referendum builds in a degree of uncertainty and business never welcomes uncertainty.”?
Mr Hague
I am coming to uncertainty in a moment. Uncertainty has been a particular theme of some hon. Members and we need to address it, but the quote that I was giving the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) was from the director general of the CBI. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) wants to invite me to read a long list of business quotations—[Interruption.] Clearly, the Opposition do not want to hear from the other business people of the country.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept, though, that what business wants is to renew and refresh the relationship, not for Britain to withdraw? In particular, companies such as Tata Steel near my constituency, which are already paying 50% more tax in Britain than our European counterparts, are very concerned about the prospect of Britain withdrawing from the EU.
Mr Hague
Business does want to renew and refresh that relationship, and the only political leader who has put forward a plan to do so is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
For those reasons Britain should be at the front of the debate about Europe’s future to shape it and reform it, given that in the Government’s view, British membership of a reformed, competitive EU is strongly in our national interest. It is worth noting what the coalition Government have achieved to date. We have already democratised how we make the most important decisions of all on the EU by giving people and Parliament more control: the referendum lock in the European Union Act 2011 for the first time gives British voters the final say over any further expansion of EU powers. I am delighted that the Opposition have now stirred themselves from apathy and abstention to give support, belatedly, to the Act that we passed two years ago.
We have supported free trade agreements, with British efforts that helped secure a free trade agreement with Singapore and one with Korea worth up to £500 million a year to Britain alone. British negotiators helped to secure a single EU patent regime. All these support renewed economic growth and competitiveness across Europe.
Mr Hague
I will give way in a moment. I must make some progress. I am conscious of the time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Such achievements are of direct benefit to the UK and have been secured by a country able to influence and shape decisions among its partners. It is our responsibility, as one of the leading members of the EU, to press for the reforms that must happen if the EU is to succeed in this century: more competitiveness, flexibility, democratic accountability and fairness for countries both in the eurozone and outside it. All those will benefit the UK and the European Union as a whole.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is a great champion of enlargement and knows the importance of the freedom of movement of individuals. Is it the Government’s intention to put advertisements in the Romanian and the Bulgarian media saying that they do not want people from Romania and Bulgaria to come to this country? That is in the public domain; it has been mentioned. How does that square with the website of the British embassy in Bucharest, which encourages Romanians to come to work and study in the United Kingdom?
Mr Hague
I think that the right hon. Gentleman’s latter point relates to the GREAT campaign, through which we encourage people to visit the United Kingdom. We encourage people to come as tourists to the United Kingdom and so on. On the question of advertising, I have to tell him that we are very stingy about advertising because we are reducing one of the biggest budget deficits in the world, and the Government do not pay for much advertising anywhere around the world, so we do not at present plan to place the advertisements that he describes.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Prime Minister has pledged an in/out referendum. Therefore, in any future coalition discussions that might arise after the next election, would that be a red-line issue for the Prime Minister? Would there have to be an in/out referendum in the next Parliament?
Mr Hague
Despite having played a considerable role in the last coalition discussions, I can say that we are not actually planning coalition discussions for two years’ time. We plan, as most parties do, though not the right hon. Gentleman’s party, to win a majority in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has made the position on the matter clear. That is something that we would absolutely want to proceed with in any Parliament where we held office. Talking of which, let me give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for his role in the coalition Government and the work that he has done. Is not the strength of this country, past and present as well as future, that we are part of the continent of Europe, where we want to lead, that we increasingly have an English-speaking world, where we can lead, and that we have an empire, now an expanding Commonwealth, where there are huge opportunities? We are best placed if we exploit all three opportunities and do not suggest uncertainty about our commitment to any one of them.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Right at the heart of the five principles, as my right hon. Friend knows, was the insistence that the national Parliaments lie at the heart of our democratic accountability. In that context, does he accept that the movement towards ever-closer union had to be rejected and, furthermore, that it is vital that we recognise that there cannot be two Governments and two Parliaments dealing with the questions that arise in the context of the future of Europe?
Mr Hague
I will come in a few moments, I hope, to the importance of national Parliaments playing an increased role in the decision making of the European Union. My hon. Friend knows from his close reading of the Prime Minister’s speech that he set out a vision of the EU as an explicit contrast to the vision of ever-closer union, so that is absolutely right.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has been extremely generous in giving way. Given that free trade agreements are currently an exclusive competency of the EU and that nothing can be more important than delivering new markets for growth and jobs, does he agree that if it takes the British Government to take a stand on renegotiation, and that brings speedier and more successful agreements to a conclusion, that is the right way?
Mr Hague
I am going to make a bit of progress, because I have not yet exhausted the list of the coalition’s achievements.
First, on banking union, we understood from the start the case for a single supervisory mechanism for the eurozone. We were clear that that we would not participate in it—and we are not participating. We suggested that the European Central Bank would be the best institution to take on this role—and it is taking it on. Crucially, we said we wanted safeguards for the single market—and we got them. The outcome of those negotiations was of fundamental importance, and it is proof that fair arrangements between eurozone and non-eurozone members can be achieved. That is a good precedent for the future, and it is something of a contrast with previous negotiations when the previous Government gave up £7 billion of our rebate for nothing in return.
On the multi-annual financial framework, we approached the November European Council open to reaching agreement. The deal on the table was not good enough, and that is why we could not accept it. We were not alone: the Dutch, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns and the Germans were all in the same position. We have established a group of 12 like-minded member states to push for urgent action on EU growth, and we have expanded that alliance, which advocates completion of the single market and less regulation. We have secured the first ever exemption of the smallest businesses from new EU proposals from 1 January this year, and we have persuaded the European Commission to review the body of EU legislation to identify existing obligations from which those businesses could be exempted.
As the Prime Minister said last week in Davos, we want Europe to succeed not just as an economic force but as an association of countries with the political will, the values and the voice to make a difference in the world. When that political will is there—
Mr Hague
In a few minutes, given that I have taken a lot of interventions already.
When that political will is there, we can make a decisive difference. That is clear in foreign policy. We have led the way with France on EU policy on Syria, and with France and Germany on sanctions on Iran. The flagship EU anti-piracy operation is hosted not at an EU operational headquarters—something that I have always opposed—but at the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood.
Those are some of things we have achieved so far. Looking briefly at the months ahead, a number of important issues are on the agenda. The multi-annual financial framework will be discussed again at next month’s Council. We are working closely with all our European partners—
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Hague
I will give away again in a few minutes.
We are working closely with all our European partners—those who are like-minded and those who are less so—to achieve a deal that is right for the UK and right for the EU. Our objective for EU spending within that framework remains clear: we want to see spending reduced and we will insist on at worst a real-terms freeze and at best a cut. The UK abatement is not up for negotiation, unlike under the previous Government.
Mr Hague
I will give way again in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman is a bit far down the queue.
On competitiveness, Britain has great advantages: one of the most competitive corporate tax rates in the world, Europe’s largest venture capital community, tax breaks for early-stage investment, and entrepreneur visas so that the brightest can come to the UK. We want the EU to help its members to succeed in the global race.
Mike Gapes
In his long list of achievements, the Foreign Secretary referred to like-minded partners. Will he take this opportunity to welcome the election of the new Czech President, Milos Zeman, who is a strong, fervent pro-European, which means that the Czech Republic now has a pro-European President and that the Government have lost one of their few allies in the former President of the Czech Republic, Mr Klaus?
Mr Hague
Of course I congratulate, and the Prime Minister will be congratulating, the new President of the Czech Republic. However, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic said last week:
“The scepticism of the British public is understandable...British voters’ feeling of remoteness from EU elites in Brussels is right. EU competitiveness is a Czech priority as well.”
So it is interesting to hear from the Czech Republic.
Andrea Leadsom
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister’s speech last week was right to set out a new vision for Britain in Europe, because it is Europe itself that is changing? That change is inevitable, and the Prime Minister is simply reflecting the inevitability of reforming the EU if it wants to become globally competitive once again.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary. What renegotiation do the Government really want to enter into, given that the coalition agreement refers to seeking only one treaty change, which is to stop the European Parliament going to Strasbourg? I gently suggest to him that even though I agree that that is as bonkers an arrangement as there can be, it is probably not at the top of his list of priorities for renegotiation. Is staying in or out of the European arrest warrant a priority for him?
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is well informed about these matters, the debate about the European arrest warrant is part of the justice and home affairs opt-out considerations. The Home Secretary has announced our proposals regarding a block opt-out and the negotiation of an opt-in to some of these requirements and arrangements. The Prime Minister has set out the principles for a future negotiation, and that is a wise thing to do. If the previous Government had set out the principle that the rebate was not up for negotiation, they would not have surrendered so much of it. If they had set out the principle that they were not going to agree to budget increases, they would not have agreed to such increases in so many negotiations. That is the right place to start.
Mr Hague
I will give way again in a few minutes, but out of respect to the rest of the House I cannot give way more than 10 or 20 times.
We will continue to lead the EU growth agenda with the aim of removing unnecessary regulations, particularly for small companies; deepening and widening the single market; liberalising trade; and, most importantly, seeking the opening of negotiations for a free trade deal with the United States, which would be a very considerable prize.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked me about enlargement, so I will say a few sentences about that. On 1 July 2013, Croatia will join the EU as the 28th member state. As hon. Members know, the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill has passed through this Parliament and is awaiting Royal Assent. We are long-standing supporters of EU enlargement, and we will play an active role in advancing it. However, the real burden of effort lies with the political leaders of pre-accession states. We want to see reinvigorated reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina, progress on Macedonia’s reform efforts and towards good neighbourly relations, new impetus in negotiations with Turkey, Serbia delivering on her commitments on Kosovo, and Kosovo delivering on her short-term conditions to move forwards towards a stabilisation and association agreement.
Mr Hague
I will give way to a couple of colleagues in a few minutes.
This is the immediate agenda, but we are living in a time of profound change, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) reminded us, and a new settlement will emerge from it. The settlement for the European Union should be a reformed one that is better for Britain and the whole EU. The Prime Minister set out the five principles of global competitiveness, flexibility, powers being able to flow back to EU countries, democratic accountability, and fairness. It is on the basis of that new settlement that we should give the British people the choice of whether we remain in a changed Union.
But these great questions are not just for Britain but for all members of the EU, so we all need to find ways of addressing them, building on what we have in common but respecting our diversity. We do not have a one-size-fits- all approach for all 27 member states now, because it would be unworkable. Far from unravelling the EU, flexibility could bind us more closely together, because flexible, willing co-operation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary; he is being very generous. Having represented the Government for two years in Europe, it is clear to me that we can best stand up for Britain’s interests, and sometimes achieve our objectives against all the odds, by building alliances and friendships and being right in there negotiating. How is he getting along with that enterprise?
Mr Hague
I have just pointed out many of the things that we have achieved. The reason we have had such strong support from Germany, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands on the EU budget is that we have built alliances. The reason that the EU patent regime has been brought in is that we have built alliances. I hope that that is well understood by Members from all parts of the House.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talks convincingly about the need for the reform of Europe being respected by many other member states. I met Japanese officials yesterday and they made the point that many Japanese investors who invest in this country support what the Prime Minister said last week and are keen for some of the EU regulations on their businesses to be lifted.
Mr Hague
Absolutely. Such people come to the UK because there are many cultural and linguistic advantages, and because of the corporate tax rate, which we are bringing down progressively. They want to see Europe reformed. There is no doubt about that.
Britain is not alone in calling for powers to flow back to member states.
Mr Hague
I will give way again a little later.
We have already achieved a considerable amount. We have ended Britain’s obligation to bail out eurozone members—an obligation entered into by the Labour party. We are keeping Britain out of the fiscal compact and working to reform the common fisheries policy, and we will achieve more. Like every other member state, we are working with partners to pursue our national and shared interests.
The national debate that we will have over the next few years must rely on an understanding of what the EU does well and what it does not do well; where it helps and where it hinders. The balance of competences review, which I announced in July, will give us a better informed and more objective analysis of these matters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) pointed out, the changes in the eurozone are raising questions across the EU about national sovereignty and democratic legitimacy. In our view, balancing the need for flexibility, competitiveness and a stronger role for national Parliaments will be central to the future success of the EU.
The European Parliament has an important role that is set out in the treaties and many MEPs do excellent work. However, over the past 20 years, member states have granted the European Parliament a dramatic increase in its powers through successive treaties, in the hope that it would address the growing sense of distance and disengagement among European voters. That manifestly has not worked. The question of democratic disconnection and accountability has not gone away. That suggests that we need a different answer. That answer will include a bigger and more significant role for national Parliaments, which are and will remain the true source of democratic legitimacy in the European Union. By according a greater role to national Parliaments, we will give practical effect and real force to the principle of subsidiarity.
Natascha Engel
These are all very general and nice principles that we cannot disagree with—we all want more fairness and diversity. What we want to debate today is the meat. We want to know what is the Conservative party’s vision for Europe, on which there will be an in/out referendum? That is what we want to debate.
Mr Hague
I am delighted to hear that Opposition Members support all these policies and principles, because many of them were not brought about while they were in office. I commend the hon. Lady for being dramatically clearer than her Front Benchers in her support for what the Prime Minister has set out. I will return to them in a moment.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talked about building relationships and support for our position within the European Union. I hope that he will remind our friends in Poland of the extraordinary championing of its right that Britain instigated, which helped it to enter the European Union and NATO. As mutual friends, we now look to Poland for a little reciprocation and for it to respect our position.
Mr Hague
All parties across this House have been strong advocates of enlargement, and successfully so. We remain strong advocates of enlargement. That is a commendable feature of our politics in this country. My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of our working with those countries in the future.
Mr Hague
I will not give way again for a few minutes.
All this country’s institutions and relationships, and the role that it chooses for itself in the world, ultimately depend on democratic consent. The undeniable truth is that the democratic consent for this country’s membership of the EU has grown very thin. That problem is not unique to Britain—one in every three voters in France’s recent election voted for parties that advocated leaving the EU—but it is particularly acute in Britain.
In the past 20 years, the EU has changed profoundly in nature and the British people have had no direct say in it. Under the previous Government, Europe changed and its powers expanded at an ever-greater rate, with the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, the last of which was put into force without any consultation with the voters whatever, either in a referendum or in a general election. The previous Government allowed the EU to be taken in a direction that the British people were uncomfortable with. They did not persuade the British people of the case for taking them there. They made a monumental mistake in preventing a referendum on the Lisbon treaty—a mistake that came from a lack of understanding about the nature of, and need for, democratic consent.
Mr Hague
I will give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
Ratifying Lisbon without consulting the people did real damage to the EU’s democratic legitimacy in this country. I remember one Labour Member agreeing with that point in the debates on the Lisbon treaty—the hon. Member for Vauxhall.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary should know that a majority of Labour voters support bringing back powers from Europe. Although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, we want to be friends with our European allies, talk to them and work with them, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the threat of a referendum makes it much more likely that we will get the real engagement that will satisfy the British public?
Sir James Paice
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. For many years, successive Governments have been bedevilled by the perception in many other member states that Britain is not completely comfortable within the European Union, which may or may not be true. He referred earlier to the importance of working with like-minded member states to get the successes that he has rightly listed. Is it not hugely important that this debate is couched in terms of finding a better way for Europe and Britain showing leadership in Europe, which has been lacking for many years, and that it is not presented as a cloak for disengagement from Europe, which some people sadly want?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend is quite right. That is why the Prime Minister’s speech made the case for benefits for the whole of the European Union and called for global competitiveness and flexibility to help people across Europe. That is the mindset with which we are approaching the debate.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome the approach that the Foreign Secretary has taken on a referendum. Will he give careful consideration to the request that the holding of a referendum in the next Parliament be entrenched through legislation? I believe that that idea has much support on both sides of the coalition, because I remember how angry the Liberal Democrats became in the last Parliament when they were refused a vote on an in/out referendum during the treaty of Lisbon, even though they are a little shy about remembering that today.
Mr Hague
Of course I hope that the concept of such a referendum will become entrenched, just as the European Union Act 2011 is now becoming entrenched through the belated acceptance of the Opposition. However, to entrench something, one must be able to get it through Parliament in the first place. My hon. Friend will know that what he is suggesting is not part of the coalition agreement. That is why it is our party’s proposal to have draft legislation and to legislate at the beginning of a new Parliament.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. His speech is painfully thin on detail and he has been asked for the beef, but can I ask him whether there are any fish in it? In opposition, the Conservatives made a lot of noise about the common fisheries policy, but they are strangely silent in government. Where does the common fisheries policy figure on the radar screen in what he is saying?
Mr Hague
I have already mentioned reform of the common fisheries policy, but there are many things to mention and that was the only fish I was going to throw the hon. Gentleman in this debate. As he knows, work to end discards and bring greater regional control over the common fisheries policy is important and a lot of progress has been made on the proposals now before the EU. That is the sort of thing we must carry through to success.
Mr Hague
To be fair to the House I must make a bit more progress and soon conclude.
There is every reason to ask the people and trust their judgment when changing one of the most fundamental issues in any democracy—that of who decides. That is what happens when powers over an area of policy are moved from a national to a European level, and why we have already passed the European Union Act 2011. It will be for each party to put forward its own proposals at the next election on how to deal with these problems. My view is that we want Britain to be a successful member of a successful European Union, but that cannot happen unless we have reform in Europe and fresh democratic consent. We must confront those facts.
Whether we want Britain to stay in the EU or leave, we should trust the people and put the decision to them. We should let the people look at the new settlement that Europe will have arrived at once the eurozone crisis has been further addressed, see what reforms have been achieved, weigh up the benefits and costs of Britain’s membership, and make a judgment about whether Britain should be in the European Union or out. The question of membership of a reformed Union in the coming years will be the right question at the right time and that is what we should put to the people.
Ms Stuart
I will attempt to be helpful and allow the Foreign Secretary to do something now rather than project very general aims for the future. National Parliament is important, but the accountability of those on the Front Benches is much more important. If he starts making decisions made by UKRep on behalf of the Government accountable in this House through the Europe Minister, he could make immediate democratic changes now.
Mr Hague
We have already made important reforms to accountability in the House, and when I appear in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee next week, our permanent representative from UKRep will also answer questions. I am open to further innovations.
Our approach is one of reform and referendum, and its alternative is to let the issue drift. Speaking of drift, I must say an additional word about her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Last week, on the day of the Prime Minister’s speech, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), said that a referendum on EU membership was not
“a decision you could or should take now”.
He also said:
“We’ve never ruled out referenda in principle”,
by which I think he meant that he was fairly certain that Labour’s position was uncertain.
The next day, after the Prime Minister had given his speech but before the Leader of the Opposition had pronounced on it, the shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said:
“I can’t tell you what the situation is going to be at the next election”,
by which I think she meant that she was absolutely certain that Labour’s position was uncertain. At Prime Minister’s questions the Leader of the Opposition was unfortunately uncertain that he was meant to be uncertain and said:
“My position is no, we do not want an in/out referendum”—[Official Report, 23 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 305.]
Never has such certainty created such uncertainty so quickly.
Mr Hague
No, this is quite an interesting explanation. Minutes later, on the “Daily Politics” show the shadow Energy Secretary adjusted her position: it was correct, she said, that at the next election the Conservatives would be promising a referendum and Labour would not, but she gave the caveat that that was the position “as it stands today”. More accurately, it was the position as it stood that minute because minutes later journalists were briefed that the Leader of the Opposition had meant to say that Labour did not want an in/out referendum now. Within half an hour, the shadow Foreign Secretary was back on the airwaves—a busy chap—to correct his leader and explain,
“our judgement is that to commit to an in/out referendum now is the wrong choice for the country”
but, he added, “we’ve never said never”.
If we look at the evidence, although we cannot be certain about the Labour party’s position, we can make an educated guess that although Labour will not call for an in/out referendum now, it might do so in future, and it is completely possible—but not certain—that it will be in its next election manifesto. I am waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to nod—
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
indicated assent.
Mr Hague
He is nodding. That is the position: it is possible, but not certain. If that is Labour’s position, it is the most uncertain position of all—they might have an in/out referendum, but they might not. The Labour party is against a referendum but not necessarily; it has adopted a position for the next general election that might not apply at that election. It is against uncertainty, but it is not really sure about it. I ask Labour Members to listen to members of their party, the shadow Cabinet or the leadership.
Who said:
“This is about democracy…it is about respecting the people. Successive generations have not had a say on the European debate. All parties have promised a referendum over the last couple of years. This will fester until a proper open discussion is allowed by the political class.”?
That was the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) who is meant to be in charge of policy in the Labour party. More recently, who said:
“I think at some point there will have to be a referendum on the EU. I don’t think it’s for today or for the next year, but I think it should happen...My preference would be an in or out referendum when the time comes”?
That was the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), a close colleague of the shadow Foreign Secretary. Most eloquent of all, who said:
“The European mandate that the Heath Government secured in the 1970s belongs to another time and another generation. I believe a fresh referendum on this will be necessary…a healthy means of re-establishing a consensus—among Britons…about Britain’s place in the world”?
It is not often that I agree with Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool in the County of Durham and Foy in the County of Herefordshire—he likes his full title—but when he spoke he was, most unusually, speaking for the people of Britain. We will wait for the shadow Foreign Secretary to set out his party’s definitive position. If he does so with certainty, it will be very revealing, and if he accuses the Government of uncertainty, it will be very amusing.
The coalition Government have a strong record with many achievements to their name. We have a clear vision for Britain’s future in Europe. We want reform, and then a referendum with a real choice: in the European Union on a new settlement or out. I hope and believe that Britain will remain in the European Union under a fresh settlement with fresh consent. That would be in the interest of Britain and Europe. We are seeking not only an improvement in Britain’s position, but an improvement in the way the European Union works that would benefit all its countries. We need a focus on competitiveness, flexibility, less centralisation and better democratic accountability, and that would be a European Union that can succeed in the 21st century.
Mr Alexander
I am keen to make a little more progress.
Of course there are differences between our parties’ approaches on what those changes should include. My judgment is that the reason the Prime Minister was unable last week to set out the changes he wanted to see, beyond the change in working hours for junior doctors, was that the brittle façade of unity to which he is aspiring will crack—indeed, will disintegrate—as soon as he starts to get into the specifics, whether on employment law, social policy, fisheries policy, or a wide range of other issues. I commend the speech I gave, because it details changes in policy. We want to see Europe moving towards growth, and specific policies within the Commission to advance growth, rather than the approach taken in recent years. We see some institutional changes that are required. Of course there are other areas that we will look at, and they are set out in the speech. It is a matter of regret, however, that the Prime Minister felt unable even to match the shadow Foreign Secretary in the level of detail he could provide in his much-trailed speech last week.
One other point on which there was only obscurity last week was that of timing. The Prime Minister seemed unable to be clear on the most basic issue, because it remains uncertain whether treaty change will even happen on the time scale he suggested. At present, no intergovernmental conference is planned for 2015 and most EU Governments now claim there is no need for a big treaty revision for years to come. The only certainty, therefore, is more uncertainty delivered by the Prime Minister.
After both the Prime Minister’s speech and the Foreign Secretary’s speech today, we have been left with a commitment to an in/out referendum on a repatriation agenda that is unknown, within a time frame that is uncertain and towards an end goal that remains wholly undefined. In the debate in the House in 2011—when, incidentally, the Foreign Secretary voted alongside me in the Division Lobby—we argued that to announce an in/out referendum in these circumstances would not serve Britain’s national interest. Our position remains: reform of Europe, not exit from Europe.
Labour recognises, as I have sought to suggest, that the need for EU reform did not begin with the eurozone crisis, which is why our agenda for change must address the need for institutional, as well as policy, reform. That means tackling issues such as how to give national Parliaments more of a say over the making of EU legislation and delivering credible proposals for reform of the free movement directive and family-related entitlements at EU level.
The most immediate focus, however, must be on changes that promote and create jobs and growth. That is why we have consistently called not just for restraint, but for reform of the EU budget. The budget might be only 1% of GDP, but it could be better used, with a greater focus on securing growth and continued reform of the CAP. Alongside reform of the budget, we have argued for a new position of EU growth commissioner and a new mechanism better to assess the impact of every new piece of EU legislation to promote growth across the EU.
Protections for the single market and revival of the prospects for growth should be Europe’s priority for change, but to support and defend the single market—this was the point I was alluding to earlier—we must first understand how the market works. The internal market involves more than simply the absence of tariffs and trade quotas at the border. Common regulatory standards covering issues such as consumer rights, environmental standards and health and safety rules are not simply additions to the workings of the single market, but the basis on which it is built.
That means that a credible growth strategy for the UK as part of the EU cannot, and should not, be pursued on the basis of cheap labour, poor labour standards, poor safety standards and environmentally shoddy goods. If European partners, such as the Germans and the Dutch, can compete in global markets with high European standards, why do some Government Members claim that Britain cannot do so? The Opposition understand that the real agenda on certain Government Benches is not only to bring powers back, but to take rights away.
The Government’s approach threatens the directives on parental leave and agency workers and could mean that they no longer apply in the UK. On the working time directive, it is right that we have the opt-out negotiated by the last Labour Government, but what is the Government’s position? They cannot tell us whether they oppose every aspect of the working time directive. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will nod or shake his head. Does he support the maintenance of four weeks’ paid holiday entitlement?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
4. What recent reports he has received on the political situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We continue to monitor the protests in the west bank as well as reconciliation efforts between Fatah and Hamas. We are particularly concerned about the impact on the Palestinian Authority of Israel’s withholding of revenues. We call on Israel to release those revenues in accordance with its obligations under the Paris protocol.
Mr Love
Last month, the Foreign Secretary told the House that he would discuss the diplomatic options with his European Union partners if recent settlement activity was not reversed. Given the likely outcome of the Israeli general election, that looks more distant now than ever. He recently said that he would discuss the
“incentives and disincentives for both sides to return to negotiations.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 709.]
What discussions has he had with his EU partners about those?
Mr Hague
We have many such discussions. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I made my remarks in the context of the support we can give for what I hope will be a major effort by the United States on the middle east peace process—the greatest effort since the Oslo peace accords, as I have put it. Of course that awaits the outcome of the Israeli elections and the transition of personnel in the re-elected Obama Administration. I will be discussing this with the United States in Washington next week.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
17. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a significant barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is the continued supply of weapons and funding to Hamas in Gaza? What action are the Government taking to try to stop that funding and weapons supply?
Mr Hague
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The behaviour of Hamas and the continued supply of weaponry to Hamas are a major problem in bringing about a two-state solution and peace in the middle east. We call on all states through which such weapons might pass to interdict such weapons and prevent their passage.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
If, as the Foreign Secretary has said, 2013 is to be the year of peace for Palestinians and Israelis, we urgently need both sides to begin meaningful peace talks. On his recent visit to the UK, did the secretary-general of the Arab League give any indication that its members would host urgent peace talks?
Mr Hague
I discussed that with Nabil al-Arabi, the secretary-general of the Arab League, when he was here two weeks ago. The Arab League, like us, looks to the United States to launch a major initiative and looks to be able to give its support to it in the same way that we in the European Union will be able to contribute, as I have said before, and as has been quoted, with “incentives and disincentives”. When the Israeli elections are completed and a new Israeli Government have taken office, it is important that that Israeli Government should be ready to enter such negotiations. It is also important that Palestinians should be ready to do so without preconditions and that the United States should be ready to launch a major new initiative.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend will recall that it has been the policy of successive British Governments for decades that there should be a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. In the light of the political situation in Israel and the potential situation after the election, will he give the House his objective assessment of the possibility of ever achieving a solution based on two states and the 1967 boundaries?
Mr Hague
My right hon. and learned Friend accurately describes the position of successive Governments. I have said before in this House that changing facts on the ground, principally the construction of settlements on occupied land, mean that the two-state solution is slipping away. The chances of bringing it about are not yet at an end, but it is very urgent. I do not want to speculate, of course, about the outcome of the election taking place at the moment in Israel, but I hope that whatever Israeli Government emerge will recognise that we are approaching the last chance of bringing about such a solution.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Let me pick up where the last question left off. In a speech to the House in November, the Foreign Secretary said:
“If progress on negotiations is not made next year, the two-state solution could become impossible to achieve.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 227.]
Today, he talked again of the greatest efforts since Oslo. In the light of today’s Israeli elections and yesterday’s US presidential inauguration, can he offer the House a little more detail on the substance of the major American initiative of which he has spoken? What other initiatives will be possible in the course of 2013 if we are not to see the end of the two-state solution, as he puts it?
Mr Hague
The short answer on the details of the initiative is no, because it requires the United States to take the lead. That is not because other countries like us are not willing to play our own active part, but because the United States is in a unique position in the world to help bring Israel into a two-state solution. I will be going to Washington next week and discussing the question with the United States. The Secretary of State has changed and there have been many other changes of personnel in the US Administration, and I have put it to them that this should be the single highest priority for new momentum in American foreign policy, even with all the other challenges we face in the world today.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
For five and a half years now, the Quartet has followed a largely economic policy in the west bank, personified by the work of Tony Blair, presumably to try to help lay better conditions for a political settlement. That strategy has comprehensively failed as the possibility of a political settlement is much further away now than it was then. Is it not now time for the Quartet to focus heavily on the politics rather than the economics?
Mr Hague
It is very important that the Quartet does everything that it can to recognise the urgency of what we are speaking about on both sides of the House. At the same time it is very important that we do everything we can to support a Palestinian economy that is in a serious condition. As my hon. Friend knows, we provide £30 million a year in budget support to the Palestinian Authority, and the Department for International Development has provided £349 million in support of Palestinian development in the current four-year spending programme. However, the conditions are difficult, and other nations need to do more. It is important that the Israelis release the revenues that are owed to the Palestinians.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What recent representations he has made to the Government of India on the safety of women and the rule of law.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
12. What reports he has received on the effect of rising tension in the East and South China seas; and what discussions he has had with countries in that region.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I receive regular updates from our embassies on both these situations and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) was in the region last week. We regard these maritime disputes as regional issues and are encouraging all parties involved to pursue a peaceful resolution in line with international law. On the South China sea we encourage progress on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-China code of conduct.
Ian Lavery
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the dispute—the protests—in the East and South China seas have been raised with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and does he believe that the tensions will be resolved both peacefully and swiftly?
Mr Hague
Yes, of course we have discussed this with ASEAN and bilaterally with many of the countries involved. We do not take a view on the strength of the various claims, but we encourage a peaceful resolution to these disputes in line with international law. ASEAN specifically has been working on a code of conduct, and we judge the code to be the best immediate prospect of managing the disputes, so we encourage all parties to work with that.
David Wright
I accept what the Foreign Secretary says about this being a regional conflict, but stability in that area of the world is incredibly important for UK trade. In Telford we have a large number of Japanese companies and companies from the region. What discussions has he had with the Japanese Government on stability in that area?
Mr Hague
I discussed this with the then Japanese Foreign Minister in October, Foreign Minister Genba, during our strategic dialogue. The hon. Gentleman is right—the UK has clear interests in the region, including preserving freedom of navigation and ensuring the safety of UK oil and gas companies operating in the region, but I am sure it is very much the right approach to encourage all parties to pursue a peaceful resolution, rather than for the United Kingdom to take a position on the strength of the various claims.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dispute about the Senkaku islands cannot be regarded as just a regional issue, because of the United States’ commitment to defend both Japan and Taiwan, although the legal position of the islands is not so clear? As it is reported that the Chinese are massing missiles on the coast of the East China sea capable of hitting Japan, we could be facing a very dangerous international situation. As we are friends of all the disputants and their allies on this issue, this is an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to show his statesmanship.
Mr Hague
When I say that it is a regional issue, I do not mean that the rest of the world is not concerned about it. It is a matter to be resolved by the countries in the region. That is the important point. Of course we have been talking to the parties involved and have urged them to seek peaceful and co-operative solutions in accordance with international law, including in accordance with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, so we will continue to take that role.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The rising economic importance of Asia is widely acknowledged, as well as the importance of those sea lanes, not only to the Asian economy but to the European and the wider world economy. I concur with the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell)—this cannot be just a matter of regional importance, especially with the increasing level of defence equipment expenditure taking place in that region. Can we therefore look at ensuring that the disputes are resolved through international law and not through military action?
Mr Hague
The latter point is very important and absolutely right, but the best role that the United Kingdom can play in order to contribute to that is to do the sorts of things that I described. I do not think that the United Kingdom taking a position on the strength of various claims would serve very well our objective of trying to bring about a peaceful resolution, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of that.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
9. What recent representations his Department has made to persuade the Israeli Government to cease settlement expansion in the west bank.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I condemn recent Israeli decisions to expand settlements. I speak regularly to Israeli leaders, stressing our profound concern that Israel’s settlement policy is losing it the support of the international community and will make a two-state solution impossible. We will continue to press the next Israeli Government to cease settlement building.
Gregg McClymont
The Secretary of State will be aware that the political process is critical if the peace process is to begin again. I know that the UK Government decided to abstain from the vote on whether to grant Palestine non-member observer status at the UN, but does he believe that the success of the vote was a positive or negative step on the road to a peaceful solution to the conflict?
Mr Hague
Following that vote, there have of course been additional complications, including Israeli announcements on unfreezing settlement applications in the E1 area and the withholding of revenues for the Palestinian Authority, to which I referred a few minutes ago. That has meant Israel taking a step back, and that was one of the things we feared about going to the United Nations General Assembly in November. Nevertheless, it has happened. It is important for both sides to make progress. That will be our message to the next Israeli Government, and it continues to be our message to the Palestinians; both sides should be prepared to enter into negotiations without preconditions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly the election taking place today will have a significant effect on what happens to the next Israeli Government. What will my right hon. Friend do about the settlement activity to ensure that there is a just and peaceful solution to this long-standing problem?
Mr Hague
This raises our whole approach to the middle east peace process. As other right hon. and hon. Members have quoted in the past half hour, I attach enormous importance to this in the year 2013, particularly as there will be a new or re-elected Israeli Government, and with the US Administration beginning their second term. If we do not make progress in the coming year, people will increasingly conclude that a two-state solution has become impossible.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week Israeli soldiers murdered four innocent Palestinians on the west bank, including a 17-year-old boy? Taking that into account, along with the fact that Netanyahu said this week that, if re-elected, he will not negotiate on the 1967 borders, what specific action will the Government take to get the Israelis to see that their future survival depends on a two-state solution?
Mr Hague
We will of course continue to put that case very strongly. It is very much in the long-term strategic interests of Israel and peace in the whole region to embrace a two-state solution, because all the alternatives will be more problematic, particularly for the Israelis. I think that many people in Israel strongly hold that view—clearly, views in Israel are divided—and it is certainly our view and that of almost all other nations of the world. The role of the United States will be crucial, which is why that will be top of my agenda when I visit Washington next week.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I draw attention to my entry in the register. Last month I and hon. Members from both sides of the House saw for ourselves measures to segregate Israeli settlements around East Jerusalem and the E1 area, which is bigger still, from the rest of the west bank. What does the Foreign Secretary think would be the consequences for the prospects for peace talks were the Israeli Government to proceed with extending the security barrier around the E1 area?
Mr Hague
Such extensions, and any prospect of building in the E1 area, would of course be extremely damaging to the prospect for a successful peace process. That is why it is so urgent. Now that the planning process for the E1 area has been unfrozen, a clock is ticking, with potentially disastrous consequences for the peace process.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Israeli Government’s response to Britain’s abstention at the UN was, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, “taking a step back”. Therefore, will he please discuss urgently with our European partners the co-ordinated response to the present situation on the ground and use the wish for Israeli to develop stronger trading relations with the European Union as a means of achieving progress in the middle east?
Mr Hague
To be clear, the Israeli response is to the passing of the Palestinian resolution, not to the UK abstention; the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the motivation behind Israel’s policy, which clearly relates to the passing of the resolution.
As to the implications for future relations with the EU, provided that there is a major initiative on the peace process, in particular from Washington, we will all have to work out the “incentives and disincentives” that we can create to support that. But of course that is work to be done over the coming weeks and months.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
10. What assessment he has made of reported clashes between Sri Lankan security forces and Jaffna university students and the situation of those who have been arrested and detained.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s relations with countries in Latin America.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We are striving to broaden and deepen our relations in Latin America—after years of neglect, I have to say. There were 23 ministerial visits to the region in 2012. We have opened new posts in El Salvador and Recife, Brazil, and will do so in Paraguay this year. We will host the first UK-Brazil strategic dialogue in London on 4 February.
Nic Dakin
Now that the Falkland Islands Government have announced a date and wording for the referendum, what discussion have the Government had with Argentina and its South American neighbours about respecting the Falkland Islanders’ right of self-determination and the outcome of that referendum?
Mr Hague
Of course, we regularly discuss with countries all around Latin America the importance of self-determination for the Falkland Islanders and our absolute commitment to that. I believe that one of the most effective impacts on public opinion and Governments in Latin America in recent months has been the fact that Falkland Islanders themselves have been going to many countries and explaining the history of their islands and their attachment to self-determination.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I note the excellent work of our ambassador and embassy in Chile. Does the Secretary of State agree that our relationship with Chile is particularly important, particularly when it comes to our situation with the Falklands and also Antarctica?
Mr Hague
Yes, it is a very good and important relationship and we have built it up further. For instance, the UK is now the top destination for Chilean students receiving Government grants. The links between our countries are growing, and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), is heading to Chile tomorrow.
Mr Speaker
We now come to topical questions. Demand always exceeds supply, so I remind colleagues that questions and answers should be very brief.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We remain focused on the terrible events and tragic loss of life in Algeria and are now working to ensure that the identification and repatriation of the deceased takes place as quickly as possible. Our work on countering terrorism with Algeria and other countries in the region has been increased in recent times, and that work will be further intensified in the weeks ahead.
Mrs Ellman
The Bulgarian authorities have confirmed that Hezbollah was responsible for the terrorist attack on tourists in Burgas airport last July. Will the Foreign Secretary renew his efforts to persuade Europe to proscribe Hezbollah?
Mr Hague
Yes. This is of course an important development. I have discussed the aftermath of that terrible bombing several times with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister. It is certainly our view that we need to act against the military wing of Hezbollah, and we will be pursuing that over the coming days.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
T4. While progress is slow in Somalia but things are improving considerably, what does the Foreign Secretary feel about the impact of the London conference almost a year ago?
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will remember that in October 2011 he and I stood shoulder to shoulder in the same Lobby opposing a motion for an in/out referendum on Europe. He said at the time:
“It would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time.”
I have not changed my mind—why has he?
Mr Hague
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will have to await the Prime Minister’s speech about this. Talking of changing minds, I understand now from the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition that he is not ruling out having such a referendum in future in any case. Talking of changing minds, the right hon. Gentleman and Labour Members did not support our referendum lock legislation, and I understand now that they have no wish to repeal it, which we welcome. Talking of changing minds, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition said that if he were Prime Minister for long enough he might take Britain into the euro, while now he says that he would not but will still not rule out backing euro membership for the future. No minds change more often on this subject than those of Opposition Front Benchers.
Mr Alexander
Many words, Mr Speaker, but not quite as many answers. Perhaps I can try the Foreign Secretary on this one: if he believes that an immediate in/out referendum will cause uncertainty, why would an in/out referendum many years from now not cause uncertainty?
Mr Hague
As I say, I do not want to anticipate the Prime Minister’s speech. However, I think it is clear from my analysis of the policy of the Opposition that nothing could create more uncertainty than the adoption of their positions, and constant changing of their positions, either in this Parliament or the next.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T8. In a recently discovered TV interview from 2010, Mohamed Morsi, who is now the President of Egypt, is seen referring to Zionists as “bloodsuckers” and “descendants of apes and pigs”. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of those remarks and of the potential role that Mohamed Morsi might play in helping to arrive at a middle east peace settlement?
Mr Hague
Of course, we absolutely do not agree with any such remarks. My hon. Friend is quite right to give the date, because those remarks were made well before the President of Egypt took office as President. We welcome, since he took office, his maintenance of the peace treaty with Israel and the work that Egypt has done, including engaging with Israel, to try to succeed in bringing about a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict that we saw a few weeks ago. We will continue to judge the President by his actions in office.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
T2. At the global conference that the Foreign Secretary was good enough to host last week in the Locarno rooms, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, made it clear that a settlement in 2015 would as much reflect national legislation as define it. What steps is his Department taking in bilateral arrangements with other countries to promote that national legislation?
Mr Hague
We do a great deal of that in our bilateral relations. This work was started under the previous Government—I pay tribute to that—and it continues in the current Government. I think we are foremost among Foreign Ministries in promoting the recognition of climate change and the need to act on it within other countries around the world. We have done a lot of that in China and do a lot of it in Brazil and many other emerging economies, so that work has the continued energy that we have all put into it over the past few years.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
As a warm Commonwealth friend and ally to Pakistan, what is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s assessment of the present political difficulties in that very important country in the region?
Mr Hague
Pakistan has many political controversies and difficulties, even by our own standards, but it is approaching an election with the prospect of this being the first democratically elected Parliament and Government in the history of Pakistan that can be succeeded by another democratically elected Parliament and Government. That will be an important milestone in the history of Pakistan, so although many controversies swirl around, we must maintain our robust support for the institutions of a democratic Pakistan. We always make that very clear.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
T3. Colombia’s FARC has just ended its two-month unilateral ceasefire while peace talks took place in Cuba. The Colombian Government refused to agree to a bilateral ceasefire and have now returned to a state of war, but FARC is willing to offer another ceasefire if the Government enter a bilateral truce. Will the UK Government use their influence with the Colombian Government to press for such a bilateral truce as a basis for further peace talks and an end to the war?
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Given the likely change in the political make-up of the Israeli Government following today’s elections, may I urge the Government to redouble their efforts to dissuade the Israelis from a pre-emptive strike against Iran, an act that would be illegal, that would reinforce the position of hardliners in Iran and that could lead to regional war?
Mr Hague
We have made our position on that clear to Israel and we will continue to do so. We believe in a twin-track process, endorsed in this House, of negotiations and sanctions, so we are not in favour, in those circumstances, of a military strike. However, as my hon. Friend knows—he does not agree with this, but it is our policy—we have taken no option off the table for the future. We are now exploring the possibility of returning to negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme, but that will require a readiness by Iran to enter into realistic negotiations.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
T5. Given recent reports from eastern Congo and news of non-governmental organisations not being able to reach communities, particularly children, with food and medical treatment, what discussions has the UK had with the United Nations about plans and, crucially, a time scale for the comprehensive political framework for the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo?
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T9. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the devolved Administration in Scotland on the implications and additional costs of a separate Scottish state establishing new foreign embassies and consulates in the event of a yes vote in the pending independence referendum?
Mr Hague
I am not aware of the Scottish Government asking for the costings on establishing a diplomatic network around the world, but clearly the costs would be very substantial. Scots benefit, as all of us in the UK do, from having one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world and a Foreign Office that is one of the most capable in the world at providing consular support to its citizens. It would, of course, be very expensive to replicate that.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
With E3 plus 3 negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme effectively stalled as a result of Iranian prevarication, will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that the British Government are still absolutely committed to sustaining and deepening sanctions against Iran?
Mr Hague
Yes, we are very much committed to that. Indeed, the sanctions that were decided on in the European Union in October are coming into effect in stages now and over the coming weeks. We continue to encourage other countries to adopt similar sanctions, and I warmly welcomed Australia’s adoption last week of sanctions that closely match those of the United States and the EU. Unless Iran takes a more constructive approach to negotiations, sanctions will only intensify.
Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 23rd progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
On 5 December, I hosted a meeting in London with the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Hina Rabbani Khar and the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Dr Zalmai Rassoul. We discussed the Afghan-led peace and reconciliation process and how to strengthen joint efforts to address extremism and advance regional peace and stability. We were joined by Masoom Stanekzai, Head of the Joint Secretariat to the High Peace Council. This meeting was the third in a series of trilateral discussions that took place last year.
On 19 December the Prime Minister announced that the UK would reduce force levels in Afghanistan to around 5,200 by the end of 2013. This reduction is in response to improving conditions on the ground and the growing capability of Afghan security forces. The Prime Minister had previously said that the UK will not have any troops in a combat role in Afghanistan after 2014. However, the UK will maintain a long-term partnership with Afghanistan post-2014 through trade, diplomacy and development, as well as training mentoring and funding of Afghan security forces. The Helmand provincial reconstruction team (PRT) will close as troops draw down (alongside other PRTs as requested by the Afghan Government) but we are working to ensure that the substantial progress made since 2007 on security, development, justice and governance is sustainable and continues long after our departure.
The Prime Minister visited Afghanistan from 20 to 21 December. He met British forces and civilian staff to thank them for their efforts and to receive an update on the progress of transition.
The Secretary of State for International Development visited Kabul and launched the latest phase of UK assistance to the Afghanistan Revenue Department (ARD). With just £35 million of UK aid since 2004-05, the ARD has increased Government revenue from $250 million to more than $2 billion in 2011-12. The Secretary of State for International Development also met President Karzai to underline the UK’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan. She made clear the importance of the role of women in securing a prosperous and stable future for Afghanistan.
On 11 December, the Secretary of State for International Development and FCO Minister, Baroness Warsi discussed with UK parliamentarians how best to help improve the position of women and girls in Afghanistan. At this meeting they reiterated the UK Government’s long-term support to support women and girls in Afghanistan.
On 17 December the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2082 (2012), making further steps to ensure the sanctions regime is well equipped to support the Afghan peace and reconciliation process. The new resolution includes a more flexible travel ban exemption for individuals proposed by the Afghans to participate in peace talks. This permits these individuals to undertake unlimited travel between specified locations for a maximum nine-month period. The resolution also encourages greater co-operation between the UN Sanctions Committee and the Afghan Government.
Tranche four of transition was announced by the Afghan Government on 31 December. The 12 provinces added in this tranche are mostly in the north and interior of the country. One district in Helmand (Now Zad) is included in this transition. This is a further sign of progress in Afghanistan and a reflection of the rapidly improving capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). As a result the ANSF will take the lead in providing security for nearly 90% of the Afghan population.
On 10 January 2013 the International Development Committee (IDC) published DFID’s response to their report on Afghanistan: development progress and prospects after 2014. Both the IDC report and DFID’s response can be found here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/international-development-committee/Publications/.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
Syria
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the crisis in Syria—a crisis that is still intensifying.
Some 60,000 Syrians are now believed to have died, 600,000 people have become refugees, 2 million are internally displaced and 4 million are in desperate need. To illustrate the true horror of the conflict, 1,000 civilians were reportedly killed in one six-day period over Christmas. On Christmas day, opposition activists reported that 17 people were executed at a checkpoint in the Damascus suburbs, nine of them from one family. The regime has used Scud missiles to target populated areas and deployed cluster munitions. Entire urban districts have been reduced to rubble in cities such as Homs and Aleppo. I know that the House will join me in expressing our solidarity with millions of courageous Syrian people in the face of this appalling brutality.
We continue to believe that the best way to end the bloodshed and to protect all Syria’s communities is through a political transition. Our country has a moral obligation to help save lives in Syria and a national interest in ensuring that the country provides no haven for terrorist activity. We know that to achieve lasting stability we must work with the Syrian opposition and countries of the region, not try to impose a political settlement from outside, and we are determined that all our actions will uphold UK and international law, and support justice and accountability for the Syrian people themselves.
In the coming weeks we will focus on six principal areas. First, we will intensify our diplomatic efforts to reach a political transition. We are actively supporting the efforts of the UN-Arab League special representative Lakhdar Brahimi, who has travelled to Damascus, and to Moscow for talks with the Russian Government, and who is due to hold trilateral talks with Russia and the United States this week. My ministerial colleagues and I are in regular contact with him and expect to hold further talks with him in London later this month. Our goal remains to persuade Russia and China to join us in putting the full weight of the UN Security Council behind a political transition plan for Syria.
Secondly, we will continue our work to help the Syrian National Coalition to develop its plans for the future of Syria. Since I last updated the House, I have attended the Friends of Syria meeting in Marrakesh, where the US and many other countries followed us in recognising the National Coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and where $150 million was pledged to support the humanitarian effort. The coalition is enlarging its membership to include Christian, Kurdish and other minority communities. At a meeting in Istanbul this week, we saw encouraging signs of the coalition making every effort to broaden its support further and build on its legitimacy, although much work remains to be done.
We are working to strengthen moderate political forces in Syria committed to a democratic future for the country. We have provided £7.4 million of non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition, civil society and human rights defenders, and I can now announce that we will provide an additional £2 million of support, bringing the total to £9.4 million. All our assistance is designed to help to save lives, to mitigate the impact of the conflict or to support the people trying to achieve a free and democratic Syria. It includes solar powered lighting, generators, communication equipment and water purification kits to help opposition groups, as well as satellite communication devices for activists to document human rights violations and abuses so that one day the perpetrators of appalling crimes can be brought to justice.
Our assistance also involves support for local-level administration councils providing services to Syrian people during the conflict. We have given training to more than 300 Syrian journalists who are striving to develop alternative sources of media and freedom of the press in Syria, and we are training activists who are working to create a network of peace-building committees across five cities in Syria. We are also helping the National Coalition to co-ordinate the international humanitarian response, and we have provided a humanitarian adviser to work with it. At all times, we urge the coalition to ensure that all opposition groups meet their commitments on human rights.
Thirdly, we will continue to increase the pressure on the regime to stop the violence. In December, we argued that the EU sanctions regime on Syria, including the arms embargo, should be rolled over for three months until 1 March, rather than for 12 months, so that there would be an earlier review of it. We secured that position. We believed that it was important not to freeze EU policy for a whole year just as a new opposition coalition was being launched and while the conflict was intensifying on the ground.
No decisions have yet been made to change the support that we provide to the Syrian National Coalition or the Syrian people. However, European countries now have the flexibility to consider taking additional steps to try to save lives if there is no progress in the near future. Clearly, the best outcome for the Syrian people would be a diplomatic breakthrough, bringing an end to the bloodshed and establishing a new Syrian Government able to restore stability. However, we must keep open options to help save lives in Syria and to assist opposition groups that are opposed to extremism, if the violence continues. We should send strong signals to Assad that all options are on the table. We will therefore seek to amend the EU sanctions so that the possibility of additional assistance is not closed off.
No one can be sure how the situation in Syria will develop in the coming months. There is no guarantee that Mr Brahimi’s efforts to mediate will be successful. President Assad’s speech last week urged the Syrian people to unite in a “war” against his opponents. Given the regime’s intransigence and brutality, there is a serious risk that the violence will indeed worsen in the coming months. If that happens, the international community’s response will have to be stepped up. So we will not rule out any options to save lives and protect civilians in the absence of a political transition in Syria. We will ensure that our efforts are legal, that they are aimed at saving life and that they support at all times the objective of achieving a political transition and encouraging moderate political forces in Syria; we will keep the House properly informed.
Fourthly, we continue to increase our life-saving humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. The United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to UN relief efforts, supporting more than 100,000 people across the region with food parcels, blankets and warm clothing. On 21 December, my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary announced a further £15 million in humanitarian aid, bringing our total support to £68.5 million so far. Hon. Members will have seen images of Syrian refugees struggling with rain and cold in refugee camps across the region. The latest £15 million of funding will be used to provide food, clean water, blankets and shelter to help Syrians to cope with the misery of these winter months, as well as medical supplies to treat the sick and wounded since so many Syrian medical facilities have been destroyed, and armoured vehicles to enable humanitarian agencies to deliver aid safely inside the country.
The UN has appealed for $1.5 billion for the first six months of this year. This is the largest ever short-term UN appeal, but it remains seriously underfunded. At the donor conference hosted by Kuwait and the UN Secretary-General later this month, we will again call on other countries to pledge the additional humanitarian aid that is desperately needed.
I pay tribute to the 26 humanitarian workers who have been killed in Syria since the fighting began, and deplore the rise in attacks on medical facilities that are contrary to international law and an affront to basic humanity. We urge all parties to stop the violence and allow humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance safely and without interference, in accordance with international law.
Fifthly, we are continuing detailed planning for how we can help a future Syrian Government deal with the many challenges Syria will face during a transition. This process must be led by the Syrian people, but they will need help from the international community as they repair schools, roads and hospitals destroyed during the conflict, and restart their ravaged economy. Today we are hosting leading members of the Syrian opposition and representatives of 14 countries and international organisations at a Wilton Park conference designed to advance detailed planning of that support, including on political reform, security, institution building and the economy.
Sixthly, we are supporting UN efforts to document and deter human rights abuses in Syria. The Human Rights Council’s commission of inquiry on Syria published its latest report on 20 December. It shows that the human rights violations highlighted in its previous reports are continuing unabated. We will continue to do all we can to support its work, and we are providing specific leadership in efforts to confront rape and sexual violence in Syria. We have deployed experts to the region to provide training in how to respond to reports of sexual violence and to improve the prospect of future investigation and prosecutions—and we will urgently intensify this work.
We are also urging the Syrian National Coalition to commit itself to ensuring justice and accountability for the Syrian people, including by drawing its attention to the right of a future Government in Syria to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court, even though some members of the UN Security Council are blocking that option at present.
So this is our approach: intensifying our efforts to forge agreement at the UN; pursing a political transition on the ground, while ruling out no options to save lives if the situation deteriorates; supporting the opposition and the Syrian people; increasing the pressure on the regime and being prepared to do so in new ways if necessary; working to deter human rights violations and abuses; and planning to help Syria to get back on its feet once the conflict comes to an end. The Syrian people are enduring unimaginable suffering. They are at the heart of this crisis: their future is at stake, and our country and the world must not abandon them.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of the statement and I am grateful to him for updating the House this morning.
It is a matter of profound regret that the biggest single change we have seen since we last debated Syria in the House is simply the number of casualties. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the United Nations estimated on 2 January that the war’s death toll has exceeded 60,000, of whom about half are thought to be civilians, and it predicts that the death toll will increase at a rate of 5,000 a month. The United Nations Arab League envoy Brahimi recently warned that as many as 100,000 people could die in the next year if a way cannot be found to end the country’s civil war. He described the situation as nothing less than the descent of a country into “hell”.
The scale of the suffering is such that an effective set of actions is required, so let me turn to the four substantive points in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. First, on diplomatic efforts to reach a political transition, the continued stalemate in the UN Security Council is beyond regrettable—it is utterly deplorable. Of course the position of the Russians remains central to this impasse, but recent statements by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, have suggested a possible shift of attitudes in Moscow. There is therefore a heavy responsibility not just on Lakhdar Brahimi, but on all P5 countries, including the United Kingdom, to try to break the present logjam. So does the Foreign Secretary accept that, rather than loudly condemning the Russians, a better course would be to talk to them quietly about how common ground can be established on the process of political transition in Syria? Will he tell the House when he last spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov and when he is scheduled to speak to him next about the critical issue of Syria?
Secondly, may I ask about support for the Syrian National Coalition? Any diplomatic support that the Government can offer to the SNC to encourage it to draw up a credible transition plan for Syria is indeed to be welcomed. In that spirit, the Opposition welcome the conference that is taking place in Wilton Park, which is doing just that, and note the additional funding that has been announced today. However, can the Foreign Secretary set out what he believes are, and remain, the principal barriers to unity which have, to date, prevented the Syrian Opposition from uniting on that credible transition plan? We welcomed the Geneva plan that was drawn up last summer, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that, currently, neither side of the conflict in Syria appears to be committed to implementing it? Will he tell the House whether he is still encouraging the SNC to accept the Geneva plan as a basis for transition?
Thirdly, let me turn to the central issue in the statement, the current arms embargo and EU sanctions on Syria more generally. I note all that the Foreign Secretary said with continuing concern. May I urge him to provide more detail on the following matters? Will he set out, as far as he is able, the Government’s latest assessments of the role of al-Qaeda and other extremist organisations now operating in Syria? Given what he said in his statement, does he accept that Syria is currently awash with arms? Does he recognise the grave and continuing difficulty of guaranteeing the end use of weapons supplied to Syria, given the present uncertainty about the identity, intent and, indeed, tactics of some of the rebel forces? Does he accept that it is perfectly possible that, if Europe were to decide to arm the rebel forces, the Russians would simply increase their own supply of arms to the Assad regime? May I also ask him—not least in the light of recent comments by the Foreign Affairs Committee in an important report—what would encourage him to believe that intensifying the conflict would reduce the present appalling level of suffering of the Syrian people?
Finally, let me turn to the humanitarian consequences of the current violence. Last October I visited the Zaatari refugee camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border, one of many such camps that have been set up to house the fast-growing number of refugees who are fleeing the violence in Syria. During my visit, the aid workers to whom I talked warned of the onset of winter and of worsening conditions on the ground. Their worst nightmares have now been realised. Only this week, aid workers in the camp were attacked by refugees after fierce desert winds and torrential rains had swept through and devastated their tents. There are warnings of a major snowstorm later this week, which will bring even deeper misery to those who are already desperate.
The latest figures from the UN Refugee Agency show that 597,240 people have registered or are awaiting registration with the agency in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. The latest reports from the UN state that £620 million of aid is now needed to help Syrian refugees in countries around the middle east, while £312 million was required to help refugees in Jordan alone. Given the Foreign Secretary’s statement this morning that the UN appeal “remains seriously underfunded”, what steps will he and the Prime Minister take to help to secure those additional funds from the international community before the vital meeting that will take place in Kuwait later this month?
The principal responsibility for the appalling suffering being endured by the Syrian people rests, of course, with Assad and his brutish regime. Last week, in his latest speech, he once again demonstrated a truly callous disregard for human life by expressing no real intention of helping to bring the conflict to an end or to take responsibility for its beginning. However, the burden of responsibility on the international community remains a heavy one. The Opposition believe that, rather than directing their efforts towards intensifying the conflict, the British Government should continue to focus on building international agreement around an inclusive post-Assad Syria and meeting immediate humanitarian needs. I ask the Foreign Secretary, not least in his capacity as a distinguished parliamentarian, to guarantee to the House that we will be consulted again before any change is made in the present approach.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which illustrate that there remains a strong degree of unity on this terrible crisis across the House. I reiterate that I will continue to provide regular updates to the House; I think this is the seventh statement I have made on Syria recently. If there were to be any change in Government policy, I would, of course, bring that to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to what Mr Brahimi said about the possibility of 100,000 deaths this year. That underlines the worsening nature of this crisis. It is not just a continuing crisis; it is a worsening crisis. We have to look at everything we do in the light of that. We are doing a great deal, as I set out in my statement, but we must always be open to doing more and be open to ideas for doing more. We approach this issue in that spirit.
The right hon. Gentleman asked questions on four general areas. On the diplomatic situation, he asked, a bit pointedly, why, rather than condemning Russia, we do not talk to the Russians quietly. We do a great deal of talking to them quietly—we do that on a pretty much continuous basis—but that does not mean that we do not give our public views about their votes in the UN Security Council from time to time. I last met the Russian Foreign Minister for a substantial discussion about Syria in Dublin on 6 December, and I have invited him to visit London in the near future, so our contact with the Russians on this issue is pretty continuous. There has not been a substantial change in the Russian position, although there is, perhaps, a greater Russian interest in renewed discussions. The trilateral meeting between Mr Brahimi, the US and the Russians this week is further evidence of that. We will absolutely keep discussing the diplomatic way forward, based on the Geneva communiqué, which we did agree with the Russians. What we have never managed to agree with them is how to implement the Geneva communiqué. We see the wholehearted involvement of Russia, preferably in a UN Security Council resolution, as being required to bring that about. Russia has not changed its position on that, but we will keep working on it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about support for the opposition and the barriers to unity. Opposition groups have grown up almost independently of each other, and have not been able to communicate very well on the ground in Syria, and it is therefore difficult to create a united opposition, particularly when some are inside the country and others are outside the country, but the National Coalition is doing a very good job of that—in my judgment, the best job that can be done. There have been well-known difficulties at many stages in bringing in Kurdish representatives, but that has been agreed. It has been agreed that the Kurds will take up a vice-presidency of the National Coalition, but the Kurds themselves have not yet agreed who will fill that position, which serves to illustrate the difficulties involved. The National Coalition is by far the best attempt we have seen so far to bring together responsible opposition forces in Syria. That is why we have chosen to recognise it and work with it.
In the right hon. Gentleman’s third set of questions he asked for more detail, but given the chaotic situation in Syria, it is not possible to quantify accurately the number of extremist, or al-Qaeda supporting, fighters in Syria. In the opinion of opposition leaders, they represent a small minority of what is perhaps a six-figure number of opposition fighters, but it is simply not possible to quantify the exact number. In light of any presence of extremists, however, it is important that we try to bring this situation to a conclusion as soon as possible and support moderate political forces. That is what much of our efforts are directed at.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the many hazards in supplying arms into a conflict area. I stress that we have made no change to our policy in this regard. We are trying to build flexibility into the EU position. It is also important to note that the arms embargo as it currently stands prohibits the supply to opposition groups of such items as body armour, helmets and certain types of communications equipment, so its definition of “arms” is quite broad. That must be borne in mind in any future flexibility that we might build in.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked, rightly, about what steps we are taking to encourage other countries to provide more humanitarian aid, as we have done. The Secretary of State for International Development and I are very busily engaged on that. I discussed it with the Arab League secretary-general, Nabil el-Araby, on Monday and I am raising it in all my bilateral meetings with European and Arab countries to try to build up, ahead of the Kuwait meeting, a greater degree of donations. I hope that I have given full answers to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has said that the British Government accept a moral obligation to do what we can to save lives in Syria. Against that background, I warmly welcome his statement that the Government are now willing to “seek to amend the EU sanctions so that the possibility of additional assistance is not closed off.” Will he please confirm that that does not exclude the possibility that the Government may, at some stage, be willing to consider providing military equipment that could be used in a defensive way to save lives? He is aware—indeed he referred to the fact—that ballistic missiles had been used by the Syrian Government on several occasions this week against targets in the north. As NATO has agreed to provide and is currently deploying Patriot anti-missile batteries to protect Turkey, would it not be appropriate to consider providing similar support to Syrians, given that these anti-missile batteries cannot kill people—they can only save lives and therefore would be consistent with the objectives of Her Majesty’s Government?
Mr Hague
As I have said, we are not taking any options off the table; we are not excluding any option, given the worsening situation and given that no resolution to it is in sight at the moment. I also stress, as I did to the shadow Foreign Secretary, that we have not changed the British Government’s policy on what we will supply, but we are trying to build in the flexibility for the future. The direct answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s question is therefore that we have not excluded that possibility; indeed, as I was pointing out in my answer to the shadow Foreign Secretary, there are many different categories of military equipment, many of which fall short of being equipment that has a lethal use. Large categories of equipment can be used to save lives and cannot be used offensively. So we have not excluded that possibility and we must keep all options open as the situation develops.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his use of terms such as “flexibility” and leaving “all options” on the table could be a prelude to western-backed military intervention, and that that would be disastrous? The cross-party support for his condemnation of the barbarity of Assad’s regime and for political transition would disappear, because this is a civil war. This is not a barbarous dictator versus his people; it is an increasingly deepening civil war and it will not be resolved by military action.
Mr Hague
Let us be clear that it is a barbarous dictator oppressing his own people. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to argue with something that I have not said; there was no mention in my statement of military intervention, nor any advocacy of that. He is setting himself up to argue with a position that the Government have not taken. [Interruption.] Yes, I am not ruling out options, but I do not think we can do so when we are facing a situation where a six-figure number of people might die this year. It would not be responsible to do that as we do not know how the situation will develop. So I am keeping our options open, but the dangers and drawbacks of military intervention are well understood in the House and in the Government.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Notwithstanding the terrible brutality taking place in Syria, may I ask my right hon. Friend to exercise the utmost restraint and caution in any extension of policy covered by the expression “all options” are on the table? I do so, first, because this is a civil war, and intervention in civil wars has a long history of failure; and secondly, because there is a risk that we will have a proxy war between Russia and NATO fought out on the streets of Syria by Syrians.
Mr Hague
I am very conscious of the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend and I hope that he will agree on the position we have taken. Although we are trying to help in the mass of ways I set out in my statement, we are cautious, in the light of all the lessons of history. As I was pointing out to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), I am not standing here advocating military intervention. So we keep our options open, but that is not some sinister disguise for a change in Government policy; if there were to be a change, I would bring it to the House.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has spelt it out very clearly that by the end of the year about 100,000 people might be dead in Syria. Will he confirm that although Security Council authorisation to use force for humanitarian purposes is now widely accepted, force can also be justified on the grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity without a UN Security Council resolution as long as certain criteria are met, such as that it is objectively clear that there is no practical alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved?
Mr Hague
I agree with the right hon. Lady, as that is our broad understanding of international law. There is, of course, a further argument about the wisdom of such intervention, but in a situation of overwhelming humanitarian need with no clear alternative a strong legal case can be made.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Secretary of State has confirmed that from 1 March EU countries will have more room to manoeuvre. Does he agree that the composition of the opposition forces has now become less obvious and that their long-term intentions are less certain? Will he be very careful about who exactly he is helping before providing any extra assistance?
Mr Hague
Yes, of course, and we are very careful about that anyway. Part of the justification for giving the help we have given so far to the Syrian opposition is to strengthen the moderate forces and people who want to see a free and democratic Syria. Let me be clear that the flexibility I have talked about will be in place from 1 March—the whole sanctions regime on Syria has been rolled over only until then. We have not yet agreed in the EU whether or how we will amend the sanctions regime; those discussions will be going on over the next few weeks. The opportunity for flexibility has now been built in by our requesting a three-month roll-over.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State says about Britain’s role in delivering humanitarian aid. I also welcome what he says about the European Union. On that point, and on the need to seek a political solution, will he endorse what the EU has done thus far, or does he have any other view?
Mr Hague
The European Union has also been engaged in trying to promote a political solution. For instance, the EU High Representative attended the Geneva talks in June. It is realistic, however, to point out that the diplomatic focus is on the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the Security Council as a whole. It is the work of nation states on the Security Council to try to settle our differences. In that respect, the EU has a more limited role, but there is a strong degree of unity across the European Union and the External Action Service strongly supports the actions we have taken.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Even though the Government are being so helpful to the Syrian opposition, have we sought to extract an undertaking from them that any store of chemical weapons discovered will be handed over for destruction so that it cannot possibly fall into the hands of al-Qaeda?
Mr Hague
Yes, we have very much made that point and my hon. Friend is correct to bring it up. We have made it very clear to the National Coalition that we would expect any future Government of Syria to join and to adhere to the chemical weapons convention and the biological and toxin weapons convention. In all the conversations we have had with the national coalition, its horror of the chemical and biological weapons that all the evidence suggests have been amassed by the Assad regime is very clear. I hope that one thing that will happen in a future Syria will be the destruction and disposal of those weapons.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The United States has said that there is a red line if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons, but when the Foreign Secretary meets the Secretary of State designate, Senator John Kerry, as I think he will shortly, will he impress on the US that red lines should relate not just to chemical weapon use, but to the other crimes being carried out by the Assad regime?
Mr Hague
Yes. Our horror at the prospect of the use of chemical weapons should in no way mitigate or minimise our horror at the brutality across the board of the Assad regime. The United States has so far adopted very similar policies to the ones I set out to the House and is also engaged in the humanitarian relief and the provision of similar types of equipment to the Syrian Opposition. Of course I will discuss this in great detail with Senator Kerry over the coming weeks. Nevertheless, it was quite right that the United States—and we joined them in this—sent a particularly strong message to the regime about the use of chemical weapons. It may be that the communication of such a strong message helped to inhibit the use for now of such weapons, so it is right that we send a particularly powerful message on that.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
With your generosity, Mr Speaker, and that of the Foreign Secretary, may I ask that we ensure that the resolve not to abandon the civilians on the borders of Syria is matched by similar resolve in respect of civilians on the borders of another country, Burma? I have just received an e-mail from a source in Kachin state that says:
“Five or six fighter jets and helicopter gunships are attacking the areas around Laiza every day. . . IDPs and innocent civilians are terrified . . . they have totally destroyed the peace building process.”
Mr Hague
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing us to go a little wide of the situation in Syria—thousands of miles away. Of course we are deeply concerned about continuing conflicts in Burma, which are at the top of the list of what we raise with the Burmese Government; the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who is sitting next to me, was there recently having those discussions. I will look at the report that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) brings up and we will continue to communicate our views very clearly to the Burmese Government.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
There is a strong Syrian diaspora in the United Kingdom, including in my constituency. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the number of refugees who may want to see Britain as their ultimate destination, and what discussions is he having with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure a sympathetic response to any requests?
Mr Hague
The emphasis is very much on helping to look after refugees where they have arrived, as they clearly have in vast numbers on the borders of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, and some of them are now in Egypt. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any guarantee about any individuals or any particular number that would be able to come to the United Kingdom, but of course as the situation continues to deteriorate and the numbers continue to mount we will have to keep that under review.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In view of the absence of unanimity among the permanent members of the Security Council, as a result of which instructions to the International Criminal Court are hamstrung, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a key responsibility of whatever regime follows in Syria to indict alleged war criminals and bring them to trial, rather than pass them to the International Criminal Court?
Mr Hague
A future Syrian Government can do either, as has been the position in Libya. It will be open to them to refer the situation in their own country to the International Criminal Court. It will also be open to them to pursue justice in their own country. We would express the hope that if they do that, they will act in line with international norms and human rights standards, but they can do either. It is up to them to decide in the future.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Of the 600,000 refugees who fled Syria, 200,000 have ended up in Turkey. Given that last year 100,000 people crossed the border between Turkey and Greece, what specific help is being given to those two countries to deal with the problem?
Mr Hague
Officially, the latest figure for Turkey is 150,000, but there will be other people who are not caught by the official figures, so it is on an enormous scale. Turkey receives some of the assistance I have described. Our assistance is delivered primarily through international humanitarian agencies, which are working in all countries concerned, so it goes through that form. That includes Turkey, as it asked for international assistance. I am not aware of Greece asking for particular assistance. In many such cases people go to live with families, rather than in camps. Wherever assistance is needed, that of course is what the money we are providing is for.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I strongly welcome the approach of cautious flexibility that the Foreign Secretary has set out but, in the interests of a peaceful and diplomatic outcome to the conflict, are we encouraging or facilitating any communications between the Syrian National Coalition and Russia, perhaps with a view to reassuring the Russians about any future security concerns that might be preventing them playing a more responsible part in resolving the conflict?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the cautious flexibility, or the flexible caution, whichever he said—either could be applied. We are in favour of all concerned discussing these matters with each other. There has been a growing reluctance among Syrian opposition groups to discuss things with Russia because they are so appalled by its policy towards Syria, but we absolutely encourage discussions between the National Coalition and the Russian Government. That ought to reassure Russia, but no such discussions with the opposition over the past 23 months, since the crisis began, have yet produced any change in the Russian position.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. In it, he stressed support for “the flexibility to consider taking additional steps to try to save lives if there is no progress in the near future.” Given the concerns we have heard about the potential for military intervention, can he be absolutely clear about what those additional steps might be?
Mr Hague
The broad answer is no, because the flexibility is designed to allow us to take a variety of steps in future, and we have not decided on any of them. The reason I stress that and make it clear to the House is that we secured a change in the duration of the EU sanctions regime when it came up for renewal in December. It was due to be renewed for 12 months, but we and France, in particular, argued that it should be renewed for only three months so that we can reconsider our policies at that stage. That was to provide flexibility, not because we have changed what we have decided to do. I pointed out in response to earlier questions that the arms embargo of course covers weapons that would have lethal effect, but it also covers body armour, helmets and certain types of communication equipment, so it is easy to see that there might be a case for greater flexibility.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has committed us to continued assistance for those opposition groups opposed to extremism. Plainly, there are opposition groups, both within the coalition and operating on the ground, that we have difficulty with because of their vision for Syria’s future. Will he share with the House his assessment of the balance of power within opposition forces between those whose vision for the future we would welcome and those whose vision we would be uncomfortable with?
Mr Hague
As I have mentioned, it is impossible from outside Syria, or even from inside, to quantify that balance precisely. It is the contention of leading figures in the National Coalition that the great majority of those taking part in the fighting, and those opposing the Assad regime peacefully, want a free future for their country and their people, want rid of the regime and do not have an ideological or religious fundamental agenda. Certainly, acquaintance with the leading figures of the National Coalition corroborates that view. Their sincere contention is to bring about a free and democratic Syria. The longer the conflict goes on, the greater the opportunity for extremist groups to establish themselves. I do not want to offer any quantification of that, but the balance of opinion among opposition forces is still, thankfully, on what we would call the moderate side.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I hope that the Patriot missiles and the American, Dutch and German troops operating them will deter further attacks and incursions from Syria into Turkey. Will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House under whose command the missiles are and in what circumstances an order could be given to use them?
Mr Hague
The missiles are positioned in Turkey back from the border and are there to protect Turkish airspace. They are clearly not part of any intervention in Syria. They are not designed to do that and will not be positioned to do that. They are NATO equipment, so of course all the arrangements follow logically from that. It is a NATO deployment.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
With a population of 4 million, Lebanon is a small but very important neighbour to Syria, which has a population of 22 million. Lebanon is struggling to cope with the 200,000 refugees who have crossed its border. Is the Foreign Secretary on red alert, or amber alert, for the spread of the civil war across the border into Lebanon, and what humanitarian assistance can we offer its Government?
Mr Hague
We are very much on alert and active in assisting Lebanon. Over recent months our ambassador there has done an excellent job in supporting political stability on the ground in difficult circumstances. Of course, part of our humanitarian aid goes to Lebanon and we are ready to increase it if necessary. We have also doubled our assistance to the Lebanese armed forces to help them cope with this difficult situation.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
There are reports that at the end of November the findings of Israeli intelligence led the United States, Russia and China to put pressure on President Assad to cease his programme of arming missiles with chemical weapons. Does the Foreign Secretary think that programme will resume?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady knows that I cannot comment on intelligence matters in the House, but I can say that at the end of November the United States did issue the warning we discussed earlier, and indeed I brought it up in the House as well. As I made clear at the time, we had a reason to do that and to give a specific warning against the use of chemical weapons. I know that, due to the history in relation to Iraq, whenever Governments assert that there is no doubt about the existence of chemical or other weapons, people are entitled to their scepticism, but there can be no doubt about the existence of such weapons in Syria or that the Assad regime has deliberately manufactured and stockpiled large quantities of such weapons. If there was any chance that the Assad regime would survive in future, I am sure that it would continue that manufacturing and stockpiling.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary rightly talks about chemical and biological weapons and will be aware how fearful the Syrian people are that the Assad regime could use those weapons against them. Is there currently any assistance the UK could provide to Syrian groups to detect or guard against the use of chemical or biological weapons?
Mr Hague
That is a good point, and it illustrates one of the complexities of the EU arms embargo. We are currently unable to supply chemical detection equipment to opposition groups in Syria because of the terms of the embargo. That is a good illustration of an area where flexibility might be needed in future.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I have a constituent whose wife and children are stuck in Damascus and unable to get out due to the dangers. What help can the Foreign Office give to help them get out? That raises the wider question of humanitarian access and medical aid to people inside Syria who are stuck in the conflict. What progress is being made to help people inside the country?
Mr Hague
Progress has been made in some areas, but probably more than half the 4 million people in desperate need cannot currently be reached with humanitarian or medical assistance. That is why I reiterated the appeal to all concerned in Syria to allow peaceful humanitarian access. This is a major aspect of the crisis. Of course, there is nothing that we can do directly to change that other than to work with the agencies and the National Coalition and to call on the regime to allow such access.
On the hon. Lady’s point about her constituents, I will have a look at the specific case if she would like to give me the details. However, it is quite a long time now—about a year and a half ago—since we asked all British nationals to leave Syria. Our embassy had to be closed for safety reasons a long time ago. The Hungarians then very generously took over our consular responsibilities, but they have had to close for safety reasons as well. She can therefore understand that our ability to assist people on the ground in Damascus is now virtually non-existent.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that the minority Christians, many of whom have given their acquiescence to the Government, would not face persecution if Assad’s regime were to fall in whole or in part?
Mr Hague
I am glad to say that Christian activists have joined in the opposition National Coalition. We stress at all times to the National Coalition the importance of not only maintaining the inclusion of Christian, Kurdish and other minority communities but constantly reiterating its commitment to a country where in future all those people have their rights acknowledged and can prosper and live together peacefully. That is very much the declared intention of the National Coalition, and we must hold it to it in future years.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary give an absolute guarantee that prior to the commitment of any UK troops there will be a debate and a vote in this House on the lines of the precedent of 2003? He has said that he believes in the UK punching above our weight. Does not that often mean spending beyond our interests and dying beyond our responsibilities?
Mr Hague
I say no to the second part of the question—I do not believe that it means that. It means many things. It means our country having a presence and an activity in the world of which our 260 diplomatic posts and our huge development programme are good examples. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of those things, which are aspects of our punching above our weight in the world.
On the commitment of forces, I stress again that I have not said anything today, or in any statement, advocating the commitment of UK forces. In any circumstances, in Syria or elsewhere, we now have a well-established convention in this House of which I personally am a strong advocate and in which the Government as a whole believe very strongly. So, yes, the hon. Gentleman can have a broad assurance about that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Given the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, given that their use would affect not only Syria but the neighbouring countries, and given that the regime, which it appears is about to fall, is more likely to use those weapons, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be right in that circumstance for NATO to take preventive action under the responsibility to protect?
Mr Hague
It is right for us to have contingency plans. It is very difficult to lay down in advance what we would do in every situation, but we have sent a very strong warning to the regime about chemical weapons. The United States has led that warning. I cannot go into the details of the military contingency plans that we or NATO have to deal with a wide variety of situations, but I can assure my hon. Friend that our contingency plans do deal with a wide variety of situations.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary, specifically to what he said about the UK’s relief efforts with regard to the 100,000 people to whom we are giving food parcels. He will know that the UN is warning that it can reach only 1.5 million of the estimated 2.5 million Syrians in need of food aid. What conversations has he had with leaders of the surrounding Arab countries to help UN agencies to get improved access to those in need of assistance?
Mr Hague
We have many such conversations; for instance, I discussed it with the Foreign Minister of Jordan yesterday afternoon. The problem is not about the willingness of the neighbouring Arab countries. We should pay tribute to them, because they very generously bear a great burden having welcomed into their countries hundreds of thousands of people. There are many people not only in the camps but staying in families and communities in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. I absolutely pay tribute to those countries. They are not the problem; the problem is the attitude of the Assad regime, whose forces do not permit humanitarian access to large parts of the country, and the fighting in many other areas that makes it hard to get access. That is one reason why, as I said, we are providing funding for armoured vehicles that can carry humanitarian assistance into certain areas so that aid workers can provide it with a greater degree of safety. We have to keep working on this with the National Coalition, keep the international pressure on the regime, and encourage countries globally to provide the necessary funding.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Returning to the UN situation, when I spoke about Syria to China’s ambassador in London yesterday, he reiterated his country’s opposition to imposing regime change. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it will be harder for Russia and China to establish good relations with the Syrian people and their next Government the longer they stand in the way of hastening an end to their painful struggle?
Mr Hague
Yes, I very much agree with that. There is a diplomatic price in Syria and in the region for Russia and China in blocking, as they have, what we have tried to do at the UN Security Council. What we are calling for at the UN is not regime change but a transitional Government who can include members of the current regime and members of the opposition on the basis of mutual consent; of course, we understand that not to mean Assad and his immediate acolytes. China and Russia have agreed to that in our Geneva discussions, but they have never agreed to the UN Security Council putting its full weight behind a chapter VII resolution with the threat of consequences to bring it about. That is the leap that they have not been willing to make. I encourage all hon. Members to point out these things to diplomats of those countries, as the hon. Gentleman has been doing.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In previous statements the Foreign Secretary has identified specific money for work to do with sexual violence and the victims of sexual violence. In today’s statement, he said that we will intensify this work as a matter of urgency. Are further resources and funding going into that particular piece of work?
Mr Hague
Yes, they are. We have done specific work on this on the borders of Jordan. I have now assembled a team of 70 experts to work globally on an initiative to prevent sexual violence, including doctors, lawyers, people skilled in documenting such abuses, psychologists and so on. Last month we deployed part of the team to the Syrian borders; I did not announce their location for their own safety. There will be further such deployments of British experts. Following that first trial deployment, I expect to be able to deploy them further in the region in the coming months.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary tell me whether the United Kingdom is able to supply body armour, not necessarily to the armed groups but to the innocent Syrian civilians who are being caught in the crossfire?
Mr Hague
This is another very relevant point in our discussions about the arms embargo. We are not able to supply body armour at the moment. We supply the equipment that I set out in the statement, but body armour is another item that is caught by most definitions of the arms embargo as it stands. When we talk about flexibility in future, we have to bear it in mind that an arms embargo on the opposition covers equipment of this nature as well as lethal equipment.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Given what the Secretary of State has said about the difficulty of getting emergency aid to the millions who need it, should not the UK Government and the world community give a high priority to putting pressure on all those who have influence over parties in the Syrian conflict to allow that humanitarian aid to access places in need? Russia is an obvious example, but we also have influence and we should use it in this conflict.
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely. We are constantly trying to do that and that includes the pressure that we put on Russia. A major point is that the Friends of Syria—more than 100 countries—have taken up trying to put that pressure together, but on this subject, as on so many others, no amount of international pressure has succeeded in changing the brutal attitude of the Assad regime, which sees any international presence as a threat to it, even when it is an international effort to deliver humanitarian aid.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, the Assad regime is dependent on Russian and Chinese diplomatic support, but what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the possible logistical support and weapon rearmament provided by Iran to the Assad regime? If that is the case, what can be done to sever that link?
Mr Hague
There is a good deal of overwhelming evidence, as I have said in the House previously, of the tangible assistance given by Iran to the regime. It is another aspect of the deeply unhelpful policies pursued by Iran in the region. That assistance is likely to have included, in recent times, financial assistance to the regime, but also people to assist in the conflict itself and military equipment. We do everything we can to inhibit the supply of such equipment. I have taken up several times with the Iraqi Government the issue of the overfly over Iraq of Iranian flights into Syria. The Iraqi Government have given assurances about that and, indeed, have searched some flights in recent months. We will continue to take up that issue with Iraq and, indeed, try to expose Iran’s participation in the brutal oppression of the Syrian people.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary, as a former historian, has already alluded to the need to learn the lessons of history. May I press him a little more on what steps the Government are taking to make sure that the lessons from Libya for transition to the future are learned in Syria?
Mr Hague
Yes, we must learn those lessons. The situations are, of course, different. We must always respect the differences between these countries. The more that the national coalition can create a consensus among opposition groups about the basis, philosophy and principles on which they would like to see the country governed, the more successful Syria will be in future. That is more important than deciding which individuals will occupy which posts. It is important that they are in contact with and have influence over as many as possible of the armed groups and militias that support the opposition cause, because in Libya different groups fighting in different parts of the country did not have strong enough links for the subsequent government of the country.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of reports that President Assad has offered to exchange 2,000 captured opposition personnel in return for 43 Iranian military experts and that Iran has also given him missiles. In light of this imbalance of resources, what further support can the United Kingdom and other international partners give to the opposition?
Mr Hague
That relates to all the issues that we have been addressing over the past hour. We are giving the further, non-lethal practical support that I mentioned in my statement and we are trying to secure within the EU the flexibility to change or develop that as the situation changes in the future, for the reasons I have given. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) brought up the very good example of chemical detection equipment. We will have to look at those things if the situation continues to worsen.
We have all seen the reports of an exchange, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) is right to bring that up. The fact that there are such large numbers of Iranian military experts in Syria whose release the Iranians have had to negotiate illustrates the point we have just been making about Iran’s involvement.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to continue to speak to his international counterparts about the humanitarian assistance needed. Given that this terrible situation will only get worse because of the first winter storms hitting many of the refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere, will he undertake to speak to his international counterparts with a degree of urgency? The Foreign Secretary has also said that we are the second largest donor to the UN programmes at present. Does that suggest that richer countries are not putting in as much as they should, and is he confident that the UN target will be met?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is urgency to this matter. As I have mentioned, we are already speaking—we have been doing so for some time—to other countries about the need to supply more financial assistance to the humanitarian agencies involved, and the United Kingdom succeeds in setting a very good example. That is part of our daily discussions with other nations from all parts of the world. It is not possible to say, given the scale of the appeal for $1.5 billion and the world’s poor track record so far in meeting it, that we are confident that it will be met, but there will be an intense effort over the coming weeks. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary is heavily engaged in it and the hon. Gentleman can be assured that we will not waste any opportunity to encourage other countries to play their part.
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
On 6 December I travelled to Dublin to attend the 19th Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) ministerial council—the organisation’s key decision-making body, which marked the culmination of Ireland’s 2012 OSCE chairmanship-in-office (CiO). My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe also attended.
A key outcome was agreement on a new initiative designed to inject a fresh dynamic into the OSCE as we approach the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act in 2015. The “Helsinki +40” process tasks upcoming CiOs (Ukraine 2013, Switzerland 2014, Serbia 2015) to strengthen co-operation, enhance implementation of existing commitments and develop new approaches to realising a comprehensive “security community” well equipped to respond to the evolving threats to our collective security and prosperity. I spoke in support of the initiative urging all OSCE participating states to use this opportunity to develop a clear, reinvigorated vision of how the OSCE can best support security and stability across the region.
Through my plenary intervention I called on all states to implement sincerely and consistently their OSCE commitments, not least on human rights. I urged the OSCE to concentrate its efforts where it had most relevance and impact, in particular on election observation, media freedom, conflict resolution, violence against women, cyber-security, and conventional arms control and confidence and security-building measures.
The Irish CiO’s overriding objective was to agree a balanced package of decisions across the OSCE’s three dimensions: politico-military, economic and environmental and human. This was a pragmatic aim which this Government fully supported. Significant agreements were reached on a statement on the Transnistrian conflict, the first of its kind since 2002; development of a framework on counter-terrorism, as part of the OSCE’s work to address transnational threats; and a declaration on good governance, anti-corruption and transparency.
In the human dimension the UK supported adoption of decisions on media freedom, and racism and xenophobia; both key strands of the OSCE’s human rights work. It was disappointing that, in a repeat of the 2011 Vilnius ministerial council, no agreements were possible in this dimension; a clear indication of the divisions that persist within the OSCE on approaches to human rights issues. We are deeply concerned that a number of participating states appear to be falling short of their human rights commitments in the OSCE. The UK will work with the incoming Ukraine CiO to ensure that human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms are at the forefront of the OSCE’s agenda through 2013.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alun Cairns
22. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made on international aspects of the November 2011 national cyber security strategy.
[Official Report, 4 December 2012, Vol. 554, c. 752W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Hague:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) on 4 December 2012.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Hague
In January 2011, I launched a new initiative on cyberspace at the London Conference. At the Budapest Conference in October the UK proposed a set of principles for effective cooperation between states, businesses and organisations. We have also launched a 2 million fund offering states' independent advice on ensuring accessible, secure and reliable networks. Central to this effort is our commitment to an open internet, protecting freedom of expression online.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Hague
In November 2011, I launched a new initiative on cyberspace at the London Conference. At the Budapest Conference in October the UK proposed a set of principles for effective cooperation between states, businesses and organisations. We have also launched a £2 million fund offering states independent advice on ensuring accessible, secure and reliable networks. Central to this effort is our commitment to an open internet, protecting freedom of expression online.
International Justice (Sierra Leone and Cambodia)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I can announce that in order to strengthen international justice and help secure accountability for some of the most horrific crimes against humanity in the last 50 years, the UK will make a voluntary contribution of £1 million to the Special Court for Sierra Leone and a voluntary contribution of £600,000 to the international component of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.
The Government’s contribution will help ensure the Special Court for Sierra Leone is able to complete its work, and leave a lasting legacy for the people of Sierra Leone. On 30 May, the court sentenced Charles Taylor, a former President of Liberia, to 50 years in jail for aiding and abetting war crimes. Taylor is the first former Head of State to be convicted by an international tribunal and the court is currently hearing his appeal.
The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia is delivering long-awaited justice for millions of Cambodians through the trials of the most senior and responsible surviving members of the Pol Pot regime. The scale of the crimes committed and the number of victims makes it one of the most significant tribunals of its kind since Nuremberg. The Government’s contribution will help to prevent the collapse of the court which has faced a significant shortfall in funding.
International justice is central to foreign policy. It is essential for securing the rights of individuals and states, and for securing peace and reconciliation. Through the International Criminal Court, and the separate international tribunals, we are working to make clear that those responsible for the worst crimes will be held to account and that political leaders will not enjoy impunity. Our support to these institutions is an important element in our strategy to reduce conflict, promote stability and strengthen the rules-based international system. In order to give Parliament a full accounting of this work we will, from this point forward, also provide an annual statement at the start of the financial year detailing our progress on this important issue.
Afghanistan (Monthly Report)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 22nd progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
On 9 October the UN Security Council adopted resolution 2069 (2012) extending the authorisation of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) by a further year. The resolution provided a 12-month roll-over of the chapter VII authorisation, with an unqualified “all necessary measures” provision. It also incorporated NATO Chicago summit commitments to support the training, equipping, financing and capability development of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) up to and beyond 2014.
The UK and Afghanistan held the first meeting of the Afghanistan-UK Joint Commission chaired by Afghanistan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Jawed Ludin and Baroness Warsi to review implementation of the “Enduring Strategic Partnership” document signed by President Karzai and the Prime Minister in January.
On 25 October the International Development Committee (IDC) published its “Afghanistan: Progress and Prospects after 2014” report. The Government welcome this report. The Department for International Development will shortly publish a formal response.
On 31 October the Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC) publicly announced that 5 April 2014 would be the date for the next presidential election in Afghanistan. The provincial council elections, postponed from 2013, will also take place on 5 April. As part of this announcement, the IEC published an ambitious time line for the full electoral processes. Although the time line as it stands does not cover the parliamentary elections due in 2015, it effectively meets the Afghan commitment at the Tokyo development conference to produce a timeline by early 2013. An implementation plan is set to follow.
October typically marks the end of the so-called Afghan summer fighting season. This time is used by insurgents to recuperate and plan. Overall the levels of violence are likely to decline, and in accordance with seasonal norms, we can expect the character of operations to change during the winter.
Four members of UK armed forces lost their lives while deployed on operations in Afghanistan in October. The two separate incidents that caused these deaths were assessed to be the result of insider attacks. We take these attacks and their causes extremely seriously and we continue to work at the highest level to reduce the risk of insider attacks.
The Government of Afghanistan continued to progress plans for the privatisation of the New Kabul Bank. The first in a series of investor road shows took place in October. A road show in Dubai is planned for November. Tenders are being managed by the Afghan Ministry of Finance, Central Bank, and the Cabinet. The process aims to attract high-quality investors. The New Kabul Bank is a commercially viable bank, with US $550 million of deposits and over 100 branches across Afghanistan. As one of the largest banks in Afghanistan, its survival is important for economic development and jobs. The UK is supporting the Afghan Government with the sale of the bank, thus promoting a transparent and effective process.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
Gibraltar
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In my written ministerial statement of 18 July 2011, Official Report, column 79WS, I informed the House of the legal action that the Government were pursuing to reverse the adoption by the European Commission of a proposal from the Spanish Government to designate a site of Community importance (SCI) under the EU habitats directive (92/43/EEC). The SCI in question, named Estrecho Oriental, entirely overlaps the existing southern waters of Gibraltar SCI, which was listed by the UK and is managed by HM Government of Gibraltar, and overlaps virtually the whole of British Gibraltar territorial waters.
The UK Government launched a legal case against the Commission’s decision in the European General Court on 22 December 2009 on the basis that the UK was the only EU member state competent to propose an SCI listing in respect of British Gibraltar territorial waters and had already done so before Spain submitted its Estrecho Oriental listing. However, on 24 May 2011 the General Court ruled our case inadmissible on technical grounds. In my previous written ministerial statement I announced that the Government would appeal against the decision of the General Court and we duly did so. Our appeal has been heard by the European Court of Justice which published its judgment on 29 November 2012. I regret to inform the House that the Court has upheld the judgment of the General Court and dismissed the UK’s appeal. The Court has also dismissed the appeal of HM Government of Gibraltar in a separate legal case on the same issue.
The Government are disappointed by the judgment of the Court of Justice. However, this ruling is, like that of the General Court, on technical grounds and is not a judgment on the substantive points which were raised in the Government’s case. The judgment does not mean that the UK Government recognise the Spanish Estrecho Oriental SCI listing. Nor does it confer any rights on Spain within British Gibraltar territorial waters. We are confident of the UK’s sovereignty over British Gibraltar territorial waters. The Court’s judgment does not change that. Nor is our position on sovereignty changed by the Spanish Government’s announcement on 30 November that they have formally approved plans to designate the Estrecho Oriental site of Community importance as a special area of conservation (SAC). The UK Government do not recognise the original Spanish SCI listing and we do not recognise their attempt to designate an SAC either. We have made our position on this clear to the Spanish Government.
We would take a grave view of any attempts by Spain to exert any authority or control within British Gibraltar territorial waters as part of implementation of an SAC management plan or for any other reason. Any attempt by a Spanish state vessel, or vessel acting on behalf of the Spanish state, to exercise jurisdiction within British Gibraltar territorial waters is a violation of British sovereignty and we will respond accordingly. We will continue to take whatever action we consider necessary to protect British sovereignty and the interests of Gibraltar, its people and economy.
Following the judgment of the Court of Justice and the announcement of Spain’s SAC we are taking urgent steps, in consultation with HM Government of Gibraltar, to explore all further legal and political options to remove the Spanish listing and protect British and Gibraltar’s interests. I will continue to inform the House of significant developments on this issue.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
My priority for the middle east is to support peace and stability by urging the United States, with the strong and active support of the EU, to take a decisive lead in pushing the peace process forward; ending the violence in Syria; securing a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear question; and supporting democratic transitions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
Simon Hughes
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his commitment to those matters. Those of us who for the whole of our adult lives have been supporters of the state of Israel and of a state for Palestine were pleased by the decision of the United Nations last week, but dismayed by the response of the Israeli Government, who suggested that settlements should be built to the east of Jerusalem, effectively separating the two parts of the west bank. What does the Foreign Secretary think is the best way of getting the message through to the Israeli Government that that is neither the way to win friends nor the way to win peace?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in everything that he has just said. We summoned the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign Office yesterday to hear exactly that message from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has responsibility for the middle east. If implemented, the plans that were announced on Friday would alter the situation on the ground on a scale that would make the two-state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital almost inconceivable, or certainly very difficult to implement. Much as we had misgivings, for some of the same reasons, about pressing for a resolution at the United Nations, we think that that was the wrong way for Israel to react. That message is coming loud and clear from all around Europe and the United States.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Summoning the Israeli ambassador for a stage-managed dressing down will achieve nothing and nor, quite frankly, will the isolation of Israel at the United Nations. Should Ministers not be redoubling their efforts to get Palestinians and Israelis who are prepared to talk to each other and who want to see peace to work together, because that is the only way we will achieve any progress towards a stable, two-state solution with a secure and safe Israel living peacefully alongside a viable and democratic Palestinian state?
Mr Hague
I agree with the main point of the hon. Gentleman’s question, although I assure him that nothing that the my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does is stage-managed. He imparted very clearly indeed the message that I think the whole House would agree with. The main point of the hon. Gentleman’s question is what I have expressed in all our discussions in the House over the past two weeks. Despite all the events of the past week, we have to achieve a return to negotiations and we particularly need the United States to play its necessary role in that. That is the only way in which we will secure a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one urgent priority must be for his Department to do whatever it can to help to end the indiscriminate carnage of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians by their own regime? May I commend him for persuading his European colleagues that reviews of the current arms embargo must be held every three months and not every year, and will he give urgent consideration to persuading his European colleagues—and, indeed, the Government—at least to allow air defence equipment to be made available to those trying to protect civilian communities throughout Syria?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He is right: last week the Government persuaded colleagues in the European Union that rather than roll over all sanctions on Syria for 12 months, including the arms embargo, we should do so for three months to allow ourselves flexibility to respond to a changing situation. As he knows, I do not follow him all the way in saying that we should supply air defence equipment, although opposition groups in Syria are clearly acquiring a variety of anti-aircraft weapons. The Government will be intensifying further not only our humanitarian assistance but our diplomatic efforts—including with Russia—to try to find a way forward on Syria.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Is not the building of additional illegal settlements, in addition to settlements that already house 500,000 people, a blatant breach of international law, together with the theft by the Israeli Government of huge sums of tax revenues belonging to the Palestinians? When will we take action such as economic sanctions or an arms embargo against this rogue state that is committing criminal acts?
Mr Hague
The settlements are illegal and on occupied land, and the latest announcement undermines Israel’s international reputation and creates doubts about its stated commitment to achieving peace with the Palestinians. The Government have, of course, strongly advised Israel to reverse that decision. I spoke to the Israeli Foreign and Defence Ministers over the weekend, in addition to what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, has done. We must remember, however, the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin): only successful negotiation will resolve this issue, and that will require the willing participation of Israel as well as the Palestinians.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with our European partners following the General Assembly vote and Israel’s extremely regrettable response, bearing in mind the fact that the European Union is Israel’s most important trading and economic partner?
Mr Hague
I am working closely with the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, with whom I spoke over the weekend. That was why the UK and France together summoned the Israeli ambassadors yesterday, and other EU partners then did the same. I have also been talking to the French and German Foreign Ministers about how we can more actively support a US initiative in the area over the coming month, with European states contributing to incentives and disincentives for both sides to return to negotiations.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has shared with the House a number of calls that he has made to Ministers over recent days on the middle east. Given the announcement by the Israeli Government about further expansion of settlements, which we have already discussed, and the summoning of the Israeli ambassador to King Charles street yesterday, will the Foreign Secretary explain how abstaining in last week’s vote at the United Nations enhanced the UK’s influence with either Israel or the Palestinians?
Mr Hague
The United Kingdom is in exactly the same position as before regarding influence with the Palestinians and Israel. We have frank but warm relations with the Palestinians and, of course, we are always able to speak to the Israelis. Countries that voted no or yes or abstained were all in the same position over the weekend in disapproving of the Israeli decision and placing pressure on Israel to reverse it. I do not believe that the different ways in which we voted in the General Assembly made any difference to that.
Mr Alexander
Let me ask a practical question. In the light of the decision by the Israeli Government to withhold £75 million of Palestinian customs duties, what conversations have Ministers had in recent days with international partners on how to sustain a functioning Palestinian authority? In the immediate term, that would ensure the continuing operation of Palestinian security forces on the west bank, but in the medium term it holds out the prospect of credible negotiating partners for the Israelis.
Mr Hague
Of course we are in discussions with other countries on this matter. We must assess exactly what the financial implications are. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are already a major donor to the Palestinian Authority and the fourth biggest donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. The immediate action has been that the consul general in Jerusalem and a Department for International Development team have visited Gaza to assess the situation there, but we must see how we can further assist if there is a deepening financial crisis in the Palestinian Authority.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
3. What discussions his Department has had with the Libyan Government on reparations for previous victims of Libyan Semtex.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
7. What steps he is taking to encourage Israel to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
During the recent Gaza conflict, I underlined to Israel the need to abide by international humanitarian law and avoid civilian casualties. I welcome the ceasefire reached on 21 November, and I am urging all parties to fulfil their commitments under that agreement.
Ann McKechin
Although I welcome the ceasefire, does the Foreign Secretary share my concerns that UN figures show that since 2003 as many Gazans have died during periods of calm as they have during periods of conflict? That appears to show that there has been systemic failure by the Israelis in protecting civilians in Gaza. What he is going to do about that?
Mr Hague
Of course we are concerned about the wider situation, including the humanitarian situation—I spoke a moment ago about the visit of the Department for International Development and the consul general. It is why we urge all parties concerned to take the opportunity that might arise from the tragic events of the past few weeks not only to observe the ceasefire but to go on to make agreements that will open up Gaza to trade and to development more effectively, and to end the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. If those things could be achieved, the situation would be much brighter for all the people of Gaza.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
During the recent conflict, many of the rockets fired from Gaza never actually left Gaza and injured large numbers of Palestinians. At the same time, the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt appear to have reopened, allowing the Iranian-supplied missiles to be restocked in Hamas’s arsenal. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to stop that practice, so that conflict does not arise again?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to those factors. The answer is connected to the answer I gave a moment ago to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin). There is an opportunity for Egyptian-led negotiations to bring the smuggling of weapons to an end, and to open up access into Gaza. That is an opportunity that all concerned must seize. We have strongly encouraged the Egyptian Foreign Minister in that work. I congratulated him on the night of the ceasefire on achieving that. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who has responsibility for the middle east, has spoken to the Egyptians to encourage this—it is the way forward.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what recent discussions he has had with the Russian Government in relation to Gaza and Syria?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
8. What steps he is taking to support political transition in Yemen.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Israel and Palestine.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We welcome the agreed ceasefire following the crisis in Gaza. The recent violence only highlights the urgent need for the United States, supported by the UK and other partners, to launch a new initiative to push the peace process forward in 2013 to achieve a two-state solution.
Chi Onwurah
Like many MPs, I am sure, I have been overwhelmed by messages from constituents asking me to express their horror and despair at the violence and the casualties in Gaza. What reassurances can the Foreign Secretary offer them regarding the security of civilians in Gaza, and does he agree that there cannot be a two-state solution without secure and viable borders for both states?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely. The way forward is what we discussed a few moments ago: to make a success of the second stage of the ceasefire negotiations. Egypt did a very good job, supported by the UN Secretary-General and the United States, in bringing about the ceasefire. Now it is important to conclude the second stage, which will bring—we hope—improved access and an end to the smuggling of weapons. The hon. Lady is right to say that secure borders are necessary for Israel, as, too, is having a viable, sovereign state of Palestine. That is what we want for Palestinians.
Stephen Timms
The Foreign Secretary told the House earlier that the additional settlement building in the E1 area of East Jerusalem announced last week would clearly be unlawful. What prospect is there of prevailing on Israel to comply instead with the requirements of international law?
Mr Hague
That is the point that the world is stressing to Israel—that those settlements are illegal, that they are on occupied land and, in particular, that the unfreezing of development in what is known as the E1 block threatens the prospect of a future Palestinian state being able to operate on contiguous land. This point is being made strongly, not only by us and our European partners but by the US and the whole Arab world. I hope that despite the election campaign in Israel—election campaigns affect the politics of any country—it will listen carefully to those points.
Duncan Hames
I welcome those comments from the Foreign Secretary, but we have been here before, and he must grow weary of repeating to the Israeli Government his condemnation of illegal settlement activity. Given the importance of Europe as a market for Israeli goods and services, which European Ministers shy away from putting economic muscle behind our protestations, and can he assure the House that he is not one of them?
Mr Hague
I do not think there is enthusiasm around the European Union for that. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) talked earlier about economic sanctions in Europe against Israel, but I do not believe there would be anywhere near a consensus on that, nor is it our approach. We continue to try to bring both sides back into negotiations. Nevertheless, if there is no reversal of the decision that has been announced, we will want to consider what further steps European countries can take and I will discuss that with my counterparts in other EU nations.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that peace talks would bring added security to Israel and Gaza? What steps does he intend to take to get the parties to the table again? Indeed, what steps would need to be taken to introduce a sanctions regime, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames)?
Mr Hague
On the latter point, my reaction is the one I have already given. On the steps that are necessary to resume negotiations, of course this will require all sides to draw back from steps that make entering into negotiations more difficult. We have seen a sequence over the last week that has taken us further away from negotiations, rather than closer to them. This will require the decisive involvement of the United States. Indeed, I have said to Secretary Clinton that it will require from the United States the greatest efforts since the Oslo peace accords—a level of that intensity—to carry forward and restart the negotiation process.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the Foreign Secretary’s earlier reply, now that Iranian-manufactured weapons have been fired from Gaza and have landed in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, what urgent action is he taking to stop the transportation of such weapons and how concerned is he about Iran’s role in fomenting conflict in the region?
Mr Hague
I am very concerned about Iran’s role, as I think I have said before in the House. Indeed, there is substantial evidence of Iranian involvement and Iranian weapons being supplied, including those fired against Israel. The hon. Lady is quite right about that. Of course, the solution to that is ending the smuggling of weapons in Gaza from wherever they come—from Iran or anywhere else. It is now possible to reach such an agreement, with good will and further effort after the ceasefire agreement on all sides, so our main effort will be supporting that diplomatic initiative.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Is not one of the most offensive features of recent days the fact that the exercise of a legal right by the Palestinians at the United Nations has been met by illegal retaliation by the Israeli Government? Does my right hon. Friend accept that such illegal action serves only to undermine the authority of Mahmoud Abbas—and indeed of the Palestinian National Authority, which he leads—and in addition encourages those Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, who wrongly believe that violence is justified?
Mr Hague
The announcement of additional housing units and the unfreezing of development in the E1 block undermines Israel’s reputation, as I said earlier, but it also undermines the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to bring about a two-state solution and could therefore embolden more extreme elements. These are among the reasons why it is an unwise policy and why we will look to Israel to reverse it.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has told us of the representations that he and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), have made to the Israeli Government. Will he tell us something of Israel’s response to those representations? What assessment has he made of the growing legal opinion internationally that anyone who trades with an illegal entity is themselves complicit in an illegal act?
Mr Hague
Clearly the Israeli Government have not yet changed or reversed their decision. Ambassadors in these situations take back the representations of the host Government, which the Israeli ambassador committed himself to do at the meeting with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire. We will continue to make such representations, as will so many other countries, but Sunday’s cabinet did not reverse the decision that was announced on Friday, so we will need to continue with this work.
The answer on trade and sanctions is really the one I gave earlier. Arms exports are covered by our consolidated criteria—we look at those strictly—but it is highly unlikely that wider economic measures in any direction will contribute to peace in the middle east.
Mr Speaker
I cannot fault the comprehensiveness of the right hon. Gentleman’s reply. We are genuinely grateful; he is trying to help the House.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a retrograde step to break off diplomatic relations with Israel, especially given that successive Israeli Governments have said that they would withdraw from most of the west bank under a properly negotiated treaty?
Mr Hague
We hope of course that that will happen in due course. Diplomacy is what is needed most of all in this situation, so I do not think that we would contemplate breaking off diplomatic relations with any of those involved, but we are going to have to ramp up our diplomatic efforts in various ways. I am not going to rule out any diplomatic options over the coming weeks.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
11. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the UK’s position at the December 2012 European Council meeting on the development of a banking union.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
12. What recent reports he has received on the humanitarian situation in Syria.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire. We have provided £53.5 million of assistance so far and are urging others to increase donations to the UN appeal.
Mike Gapes
Forty thousand dead, 2.5 million internally displaced, 200,000 refugees and, yesterday, more people killed in Syria by the Ba’athist regime than were killed in the whole of the Gaza conflict. President Obama has talked about “serious consequences” if Assad uses chemical weapons. Why are there no serious consequences already from the international community about what is going on in Syria, and what does President Obama mean by “serious consequences”?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the policy we have pursued towards Syria. There is no military solution in Syria; we are seeking a peaceful, political and diplomatic solution. We continue to do that, while recognising the new national coalition of the opposition, giving it increased but non-lethal assistance and delivering humanitarian aid on the scale I have described. I want to reiterate what President Obama has said—that any use of chemical or biological weapons would be even more abhorrent than anything we have seen so far. We have made it clear that this would draw a serious response from the international community. We have made that very clear to representatives of the Syrian regime and have said that we would seek to hold them responsible for such actions.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement a few minutes ago that he will shortly have further discussions with Russia. How will he respond if the Russians make it clear that they are not going to allow a western-backed Sunni rebellion to overthrow the Alawite regime?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend’s question poses a number of questions. As we have discussed before, the motivations of the opposition in Syria are very complex. Yes, there is of course a lot of Sunni influence, but people of many different religious affiliations are involved in the opposition. They are not merely western-backed—they are particularly Arab-backed, so I would not want to define them as a western-backed opposition. It is in Russia’s interest to agree to a diplomatic solution for a transitional Government in Syria, and I hope the Russians will see the arguments for that at the meetings this week and subsequently.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
16. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Rwanda on violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Today I shall attend the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Brussels, where I shall support Turkey’s request for NATO to deploy Patriot missiles in Turkey. Tomorrow I shall host a trilateral meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Afghanistan and Pakistan to discuss Pakistan’s support for the stabilisation of Afghanistan.
Sheila Gilmore
I have listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary’s responses in relation to Israel and Palestine, but can he explain to us clearly what advantage was gained by Britain’s abstention in the recent UN vote on Palestinian recognition?
Mr Hague
I think that we were right to argue that pressing a resolution at the United Nations at this juncture—at this very moment—could lead to fresh complications, that we were right to argue that its amendment would have mitigated the consequences, and that we are right to argue now that Israel should not expand settlements on occupied land. All those positions are, I believe, correct.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
T4. Do Ministers consider it a possibility that next year it could be a UK Government priority and a European Union priority to seek to end the division of Cyprus once its new President has been elected in February, given the good will that I understand exists in both communities in Cyprus—in part—in Turkey, and, I hope, in Greece?
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
In view of heightened international anxiety about the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria, the United States has indicated that it is preparing contingency plans. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the British Government’s assessment of that potential threat has been heightened in recent days, and whether the United Kingdom is contributing, or has already contributed, to international contingency planning?
Mr Hague
Yes, our understanding of the threat has been heightened in recent days. We have seen some of the same evidence as the United States. I cannot give any more details, but I can say that we have already reacted diplomatically. We have expressed in no uncertain terms, directly to the Syrian regime, the gravity of any use of chemical weapons. In our view, as the Prime Minister has said before, that would require us to revisit our approach to Syria. I cannot, of course, discuss contingency plans in any detail, but we in the UK, including those of us in the Ministry of Defence, are always ready with a wide range of such plans.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
T5. As chairman of the all-party group on Azerbaijan, yesterday I met representatives of the Azerbaijan Foundation of Democracy Development and Human Rights Protection. They made clear to me their strong desire to see the development of a free press in Azerbaijan. What can Britain and the British Government do to promote a free and unregulated press in Azerbaijan and the south Caucasus?
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The alarm bells are ringing over President Morsi of Egypt’s vast expansion of powers by presidential decree. A generous interpretation is that he is trying, by hook or by crook, to get the constitution on to the statute book; less charitably, it could be seen as a path to an Islamic state without the involvement of, or consultation with, Christians, liberals or women. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend’s question illustrates the arguments on both sides in Egypt, and we have taken the view that it is not helpful for us to give a day-to-day commentary on a political controversy or struggle within that country. We are, of course, calling for effective dialogue between all the parties involved in Egypt, and we have expressed our concerns about a democratic constitution not being agreed that is satisfactory to most of the country, but there will be a referendum, now scheduled for 15 December, and it is interesting to note that as of yesterday the Salafists, who are on the more strongly Islamic wing of Egyptian politics, are threatening to boycott the referendum because the proposal is not Islamic enough.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
T6. Is it not clear that the Netanyahu Government are completely impervious to words of condemnation or even the summoning of ambassadors, and that the time has come for action? Uncharacteristically, the Secretary of State dodged earlier questions about trade with the illegal settlements. Will he now take the lead in Europe by implementing a ban on all trade with the settlements, which, as he himself has repeated again in this House, are illegal?
Mr Hague
My reaction to calls for economic sanctions of various kinds has not changed, but I also want to stress another point I made earlier: we will be discussing with other EU nations what our next steps will be, because the Israeli Government have not yet responded favourably to the representations we and other countries have made. We will be discussing that with other European Governments, therefore, but I would not want to raise the right hon. Gentleman’s hopes that there would be enthusiasm around the EU for such economic measures.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I know the Minister will join me in welcoming the premiers, chief ministers and Heads of Government of the British overseas territories, who are in London this week for the first overseas territories ministerial council. Will he update the House on the progress the Government are making with our overseas territories following the publication of this year’s White Paper?
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T7. In the light of the increasing instability in the middle east and concerns about a possible nuclear arms race in the region, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what pressure the British Government are exerting on Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Mr Hague
This is a long-running issue, on top of all the other issues concerning Israel and the middle east that we have discussed today. Israel has maintained a position over decades of not signing the NPT. In the last review conference of the NPT we strongly encouraged the idea that there should be a conference dedicated to the middle east, and a Finnish facilitator of that conference has now been appointed. Disappointingly, the conference is not taking place this year, but we hope it will take place soon.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
May I support the Government’s work towards an arms trade treaty? Does the Minister agree that as we seek to build a more sustainable economic model, we would do well to think about selling to the fastest-emerging nations our leadership in science—in agriculture and medicine—rather than arms?
Mr Hague
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will visit the Gulf over the weekend and I think that we will find that UK influence is as strong as it was. It has grown considerably in recent years, and that will continue. We are making efforts, which I have described throughout this Question Time, to support the work of the Egyptian Government on Gaza, to deliver an unequivocal message to Israel and to encourage all back into negotiations, including Palestinians, without preconditions.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
The Secretary of State constantly confirms that the occupation of Palestinian land is illegal under international law. What does he think the difference is in the mind of the Israeli Government between something lawful and something unlawful but unenforced by the international community? What is the difference?
Mr Hague
I think the hon. Gentleman would have to direct that question to the Israeli Government. We are clear that the settlements are illegal and on occupied land, but we are also clear, as we have discussed in this House several times over the past few weeks, that we will resolve that only through a successful negotiation. I have not heard anybody argue that there is any other way to resolve it other than Israelis and Palestinians succeeding in negotiation together. We must encourage that process, which of course constrains us in many other things that people advocate that we do.