Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

The House may welcome a report on the outcome of the review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) held in New York from 3 to 28 May and Government action and policy in this regard.

It is the view of the Government that we are facing the risk of a new age of nuclear insecurity. In recent years, the NPT has come under unprecedented pressure from a combination of factors: the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea; the risks of terrorist groups acquiring nuclear materials; the expected global renaissance in civil nuclear energy potentially leading to the dissemination of sensitive technology; and a fraying of the international consensus that has underpinned the treaty due to a perception that the nuclear weapon states have not done enough to meet their nuclear disarmament commitments under the NPT.

But all states benefit substantially from the NPT, in terms of both enhanced security and co-operation on civil nuclear energy. It is too important to be allowed to be undermined.

As I said in the Foreign Affairs debate on 26 May 2010, Official Report, column 181:

“stemming an uncontrolled spread of nuclear know-how and equipment, deterring any country that might be tempted to try to acquire nuclear weapons from doing so and keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists must be a top foreign policy priority of any British Government.... In opposition, my party promised decisive UK leadership in this effort if elected, and the coalition agreement pledged an immediate and strong UK role at the conference.'

I am delighted therefore that the conference successfully reached agreement to revitalise the treaty as the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to promote the safe and secure use of civil nuclear energy and to pursue the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

I warmly congratulate the president of the conference, Ambassador Cabactulan of the Philippines, and all the states parties to the NPT for successfully putting aside the failures of the past to make this review conference a success.

The UK pushed hard for this success. During the Foreign Affairs debate in this House on 26 May, as an immediate contribution further to assist in building the climate of trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states, I announced the ceiling figure for the UK’s overall nuclear warhead stockpile (225) and that the Government will re-examine the UK’s nuclear declaratory policy as part of the strategic defence and security review. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) attended the review conference on the same day to repeat these announcements there as well as to meet other delegations to help promote a positive outcome.



The negotiations were not easy and the outcome necessarily represents compromise between the states parties. But it also marks, after the failure to secure agreement at the previous review conference in 2005, the first time in 10 years that the international community has been able to come together to agree on the collective efforts that will be required. President Obama’s leadership, with the conclusion of the New START agreement, the US nuclear posture review and the Washington nuclear security summit in April provided critical political impetus.

The UK’s Objectives

We wanted the conference to agree on a balanced outcome with specific forward action plans to strengthen implementation of the treaty’s non-proliferation and disarmament provisions and to support civil nuclear energy without increasing proliferation risks. We also wanted the conference to decide how to implement the resolution, adopted at the 1995 review and extension conference, on a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, particularly as agreement on this was critical to achieving consensus on the other elements.

Achieving consensus among 189 states parties on such a substantive agenda was deliberately ambitious and we recognised that it would be challenging. The conference none the less succeeded in reaching agreement, for the first time in the NPT’s history, on a detailed and balanced set of actions to revitalise the treaty, establishing benchmarks for future progress.

That sends a strong signal both of united commitment among the overwhelming majority of states which abide by their responsibilities under the treaty, and of warning to Iran, North Korea and any other state or terrorist group which might be tempted to try to acquire nuclear weapons. It affirms that the world is ready to stand united against this threat and to rebuild the trust and partnership necessary as well as ensuring access to the peaceful applications of nuclear technology to all those countries desiring it in accordance with the NPT. It is proof that multilateral diplomacy can bear fruit, even in this sensitive area.

Non-Proliferation

We need to strengthen the regime of checks and controls to ensure that nuclear technology can be shared while reducing to a minimum the risk that technology and material could be used to provide a weapons capability to countries that do not now possess one.

It is highly encouraging that, for the first time in an NPT document, the conference recognised that comprehensive safeguards agreements and the additional protocol are essential for the IAEA to carry out its international safeguards responsibilities and that they represent the enhanced standard for verification of the NPT. All parties are encouraged to conclude and bring into force additional protocols.

The conference underscored the importance of the IAEA exercising fully its mandate and authority to verify states’ nuclear activities and supported strengthening the IAEA and assuring that it has sufficient resources. It called for strengthened export controls and urged states parties to improve their standards to combat illicit trafficking in nuclear materials and become parties to the international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism.

But enhancing the IAEA’s ability to detect safeguard violations is not enough. Potential violators must know that if they are caught, they will pay a high price. Given that the conference worked by consensus, it was regrettably not possible for the actions of Iran—the only country at the conference which had been found by the IAEA board of governors to be currently in non-compliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations—to be directly criticised in the concluding documents. The conference none the less emphasised the importance of addressing questions over compliance with the treaty and the role of the UN Security Council to take appropriate measures in cases of violations reported to it.

On 9 June, the UN Security Council imposed further sanctions on Iran for its ongoing violations of previous resolutions and its failure to co-operate with the IAEA over its nuclear programme. We will be working with our partners to introduce further EU measures against Iran in the coming months.

The situation in North Korea, which did not attend the conference as it claims to have withdrawn from the treaty, was identified as constituting a threat to the peace and security of north-east Asia and the entire international community, and posing a critical challenge to the global non-proliferation regime. North Korea was urged to fulfil its commitments under all relevant non-proliferation and disarmament obligations.

For the first time in any NPT final document, the conference recognised that withdrawing parties are responsible for violations committed prior to withdrawal, and that consultations and actions by nuclear suppliers are needed to discourage abuse of the treaty’s withdrawal provision.

The non-parties to the treaty, India, Israel and Pakistan, were urged to accede to it as non-nuclear-weapon states and to place all their nuclear facilities promptly under comprehensive agency safeguards without conditions.

Nuclear Disarmament

The long-term vision of a world without nuclear weapons was reflected in an action plan which demonstrates to the international community that the five nuclear weapon states are taking their disarmament obligations seriously, and which sets out measures which will help us all—nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states alike—to make real progress in the coming years. The conference recognised the achievement of the US-Russia New START agreement, and steps taken by other nuclear weapon states, and reflected the shared interest in achieving deeper reductions of all types of nuclear weapons and reducing their role.

My announcements on 26 May demonstrated the UK’s resolve to make further nuclear disarmament steps possible: by building trust, by setting high standards for others to follow, and by ensuring that our nuclear declaratory policy is fully appropriate to the political and security circumstances of 2010 and beyond. We circulated papers at the conference detailing the UK’s strong disarmament record and on our joint research with Norway into the complex science of verifying warhead dismantlement, demonstrating the substantial action that we are taking.

The nuclear weapons states agreed to consider collectively further steps on transparency, negative security assurances and nuclear weapons-free zones. The conference encouraged the early entry into force of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and the start of negotiations, without further delay, of a fissile material cut-off treaty.

Civil Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Security

Oil prices and climate change will make nuclear energy attractive to many, just as growing populations and economies in the developing world will make it increasingly necessary. There is already increased demand for the construction of new nuclear facilities worldwide.

Proliferation control needs to keep pace with this fast-changing reality. Nuclear energy will only fulfil its full potential if it is developed within a culture of openness, transparency and confidence. In this regard, the conference recognised the importance of continuing discussions to secure the introduction of multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle. It also called for greater efforts to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the IAEA’s technical co-operation programme, which contributes to development in some of the poorest regions of the world.

The conference acknowledged the successful Washington nuclear security summit in April, in which the UK played a leading role, and encouraged carrying forward its recommendations, including recognition of the IAEA’s role in promoting nuclear security co-operation and best practices, and the need to minimise the use of highly enriched uranium in the civilian sector.

The Middle East

The outcome on the middle east represented a major step forward, with agreement to hold a regional conference in 2012 to discuss issues relevant to a middle east zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. Responsibility for the regional conference is shared between the UN Secretary-General and the NPT depositary states (Russia, the UK and the US).

The UK has long supported such a zone as an achievable goal—we co-sponsored the resolution on the middle east at the 1995 review conference—while recognising that its realisation lies in progress towards a comprehensive peace in the middle east and in ensuring that other states in the region, including Iran and Syria, are fully implementing and upholding the existing international agreements.

The agreement on the middle east involved difficult compromise from all parties involved. The singling out of Israel in the final document, and without any reference to Iran, will make progress more difficult: Israel was not a formal party to the discussion and has already made clear its difficulty with the decision. Building confidence among all the parties in the region and giving them full ownership of the conference will be essential for success. The UK will play a full and active role.

Conclusion

This review conference was an important milestone in our long-term vision for a world without nuclear weapons. Now we have a map to help us move forward. We will now work, with our international partners, to capitalise on these achievements and to translate these commitments into concrete action in the years ahead.

United Kingdom Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I have decided to appoint Sir Andrew Burns as the “United Kingdom envoy for post-Holocaust issues”.

As a signatory to the declaration of the Stockholm international forum on the Holocaust the UK is committed to promoting Holocaust education, remembrance and research, both at home and abroad. Sir Andrew will lead the UK’s efforts in this field, drawing together activity from across Government and provide a clearer UK international profile, presence and influence. Sir Andrew’s work will include driving forward implementation of the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust era assets, resolving outstanding issues related to property and art restitution and ensuring the UK remains at the forefront of discussions on the vital work of the Task Force for International Co-operation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research and of the International Tracing Service.

Over the last few years the UK has taken an increasingly active approach to preserving the memory of the Holocaust. For the Foreign and Commonwealth Office this work has included leading the UK delegations to meetings of the Task Force for International Co-operation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research and of the International Tracing Service. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have also represented the Government in discussions on property restitution and Holocaust era assets, frequently with support from other Government Departments.

This has worked well to date. But I am concerned that the UK is not taking the leading role it should in these international discussions or best representing the interests of the many Holocaust victims and their families in the UK affected by these issues. For this reason, and in order to drive a more coherent and strategic approach to our work, I have appointed Sir Andrew. He will add a new impetus to the Government’s post-Holocaust work, drawing on his considerable experience as chair of the executive committee of the Anglo-Israel Association and previously Her Majesty’s ambassador to Israel.

European Affairs

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of European affairs.

It is a great pleasure to have the honour of opening the first European affairs debate of this new Parliament. These debates not only provide the House with the opportunity to consider developments in the European Union in general but, more immediately, allow the House to give its thoughts on the forthcoming meeting of the European Council. In the past these debates have been held so shortly before the European Council meeting—sometimes only hours before, or the day before, or two days before—that the House has had no real chance to ensure that its thinking is in any way absorbed by the Government in their approach. We believe, in the new Government, that we can do better than that. This debate is taking place two weeks ahead of the European Council meeting, and before the Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg on 14 June.

The new Government will bring a fresh approach to Britain’s involvement in the EU. I said in opposition—to some scepticism on the Labour Benches, it has to be said—that we would be active and activist, positive and energetic, from day one. We have been exactly that. The Prime Minister’s first visits to foreign capitals were to Paris and Berlin, where he had highly successful meetings with President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel. My ministerial team has been extremely busy. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), attended the EU-Latin American and Caribbean meeting a fortnight ago in Madrid, and the EU-Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Madrid. I was able to meet many of my European counterparts at the Latin American meeting. I was in Sarajevo yesterday for the EU-western Balkans meeting, which I shall come to later. In the next seven days I intend to visit my counterparts in Paris, Berlin, Warsaw and Rome. The Minister for Europe attended the informal ministerial meeting on the eastern partnership in Poland last week, and has met in Brussels Members of the European Parliament and the European Commission. We said that we would be active from day one, and we have indeed been so.

This Government strongly believe that the European Union has a crucial role in enabling the countries of Europe to work together to face the vast challenges of this century: the maintenance of our global competitiveness, the problem of climate change, the grim facts of global poverty, and the need for the nations of Europe to use their collective weight in the world to deal with foreign policy issues. All are better dealt with if the nations of Europe can bring together common solutions—and above all, the right solutions.

We will, where necessary, be more robust in defending Britain’s national interests than the previous Government were. We will not repeat their wretched handling of the negotiations on the current financial perspective, which saw them accept a cut of £7 billion in our rebate while obtaining nothing of substance in return.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary, here and now, congratulate the previous Prime Minister on his great wisdom in keeping Britain out of the eurozone?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I do congratulate the previous Prime Minister. I am not in the habit of doing that, but on this subject I am very happy to do so. What a good job it was that the former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, ensured that we had an opt-out so that the most recent Prime Minister could keep us out of the eurozone.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I give way to a former Minister for Europe.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary; I am actually going to be very nice to him. I congratulate him on his appointment and remind him that I gave him his first job in the Commons, as secretary of the all-party footwear and leather industries group. I am glad that he is going to be active; we would expect nothing less from him. On enlargement, will he continue the previous Government’s policy of ensuring that countries that are capable of joining will be allowed to join? Leaving aside transitional arrangements such as whether people will be able to work, particularly in relation to the Croatia file, which must be on his desk, will he confirm that we believe in a Europe that is wider and stronger?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The role that we played together on the leather and footwear industries all-party group 20 years ago will for ever be somewhere in the recesses of my mind. I am very grateful for that reminder; the memory has just been retrieved from somewhere. He is absolutely right: there is a strong cross-party commitment on EU enlargement, to which I want to turn later in my speech. I want to talk specifically about Croatia later. He used an important phrase about countries joining when they have met the conditions. It is important that they meet the conditions for membership, rather than the conditions being changed to suit a particular country. I very much agree with what he said.

It is also our intention to approach European issues in a more coherent way across Whitehall than has sometimes been the case. In the three weeks for which I have held the office of Foreign Secretary, it has been apparent to my colleagues and me that under the previous Government, Departments could have worked together better, particularly more strategically. That point might also be relevant to previous Governments, and we intend to put it right. We are establishing a new Cabinet Committee on European affairs that I will chair, with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change as the deputy chair. [Interruption.] It is another example of a good coalition in practice.

That Committee will allow the new Government to take a more holistic approach to EU issues than was sometimes the case in the past, and I hope it will achieve better results for Britain. We must ensure that we are always ahead of the game in Brussels, unlike the previous Government, of whom that could not always be said; the position in which they left us in relation to the hedge funds directive is a particular example. In doing so, we will be aided by achieving a more collegiate feeling in a two-party Cabinet than in the previous Cabinet of one party.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his post and remind him that I still owe him the proceeds of a wager, when I said that his party would not leave the European conservative grouping, which, of course, it did. I have proved to be wrong on occasions. Returning to his point about greater co-ordination, will he say how he will arrive at a view about whether the Government agree with the proposals for a new European single credit agency operator? Will he explain how that will work?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me of our wager. Without giving too much away, I should say that I am looking forward to drinking with her the proceeds that she owes me. The wager was made on the understanding that I would join her so that we could consume the proceeds together. I am looking forward to doing that. [Interruption.] No, it is not beer on this occasion; it is something that we will drink together.

She asked how we would arrive at the decision. Well, that is exactly what the new European Affairs Committee of the Cabinet is there to do, supported by officials from both the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office. There will be greater Foreign Office involvement and co-ordination of European affairs than has been the case for a long time. That is part of the more central role in government for the Foreign Office that I have always envisaged and am trying to bring about. That Committee will examine such issues, including the one to which the hon. Lady referred.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new job, and I am encouraged by what he has said about the new European Affairs Cabinet Committee. Can he assure me that the Committee will pull together issues of climate change and climate crisis across the whole of Government, because those matters are relevant to the Ministry of Defence, for example, and clearly to business, too? If Britain can be seen to be leading the new green agenda in Europe, there is a real chance that we can influence the world. To put it bluntly, if Europe does not lead, the Americans, the Chinese and others are not likely to follow.

[Mr Hague]

I very much take that point. The hon. Gentleman can see how seriously we take the matter from the fact that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is the deputy chair of the Committee. I shall talk about climate change during my speech. It was noticeable in the final stages of the Copenhagen meeting that the European Union was not at the final table—in the final discussions—and we have to put that right for the future. That will be part of the approach that we are trying to put together in the European Affairs Cabinet Committee.

The main issue before the forthcoming European Council is, of course, the current economic situation. A number of member states face severe fiscal difficulties, and growth across Europe is anaemic. The priority for all of us is to rectify our budgetary problems and deal with the fundamental underlying problem of weak economic growth. The Government have made it clear that we will stay out of the euro, but at the same time, we must acknowledge that the EU is our single biggest trading partner. Problems in one member state affect us all, whether we are single currency members or not. Recent developments in the eurozone have exemplified the need for fiscal consolidation, which is the No. 1 priority across Europe. We have made an urgent start on dealing with the deficit, and those actions will be crucial for the stability of our public finances, after those who are now on the Opposition Front Bench bequeathed the country the worst peacetime deficit in modern times.

The major issue dominating discussion of European affairs is the difficulty facing the eurozone. A strong and healthy eurozone is, of course, in this country’s interests. That is a view held even by those of us who have always opposed Britain joining the euro. Much of our prosperity depends on our neighbours’ prosperity: 49% of our exports go to the eurozone.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point about the eurozone and our trade with it. We acknowledge that there is significant trade, but would he also accept that one of the reasons why the eurozone is imploding is the vast amount of social and employment legislation––the over-regulation and burdens on business not only in Europe but imposed on this country as a result of European directives and regulations? Will he therefore accept that the Prime Minister’s commitment to repatriate those powers is essential not only for us but for negotiations in the European Union? If that does not happen we will not have jobs, growth or enterprise, nor will we be able to reduce the debt or pay for public services where necessary.

[Mr Hague]

There are several parts to my hon. Friend’s question about the reasons for low economic growth in the European Union. One of those reasons is the extent of regulation, inflexibility and bureaucratic burdens. I think that is true in most, if not all, the countries of the EU, for a mixture of reasons. Some of that regulation is at EU level and some is at national level. I was going to deal with that issue.

Winning the argument for appropriate regulation is a very important part of the plans that we have put forward to revive economic growth in the EU, and sometimes that will mean having lighter regulation. That can be addressed partly through the European Union regulating more effectively and in a less burdensome way, and partly by nations doing so individually. The extent to which we can deal with the issue by changing the balance of competences between the EU and member states is something that we now have to examine as a coalition. My hon. Friend has a long-held view on the subject, and I have expressed views about it. We are a coalition Government, and he and I must accept that there is not necessarily a majority in the House of Commons for every single thing that we would have wanted to do. We must examine the issue as a coalition, and we are now doing so.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The Foreign Secretary speaks warmly—as so many Europe Ministers and Foreign Secretaries have—about our trade with the European Union. Is not the reality that we have a massive trade deficit with the European Union, and we do much better with trade outside the European Union? We do not benefit from that trade; Europe benefits from us and our market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

It is in the nature of trade that we all benefit from each other. The hon. Gentleman is right: if 49% of our exports go to the eurozone, the other half do not. However, I would not want to do without the 49% that go to the eurozone. All trade is very important to the future of the country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

A lot of hon. Members want to intervene, so I will try to fit them in. We will go to Glasgow first, because the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) has made great contributions to such debates in the past.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his new appointment. There is undoubtedly a crisis within the eurozone, but does he not agree that there is a danger that those in Brussels will simply see this as an opportunity to accrete more power to themselves, centralise still further, and that their analysis will be that the solution to the problem is more Europe, not less. What steps will the Government take to ensure that that does not happen, and that Britain is not sucked into the black hole of the eurozone?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is right about that. I am about to come to that point in my speech, so I will address the matter in a moment.

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

I too welcome the Foreign Secretary to his post. He has a reputation for blunt speaking, so will he tell the House whether he regrets his and his party’s decision not to proceed with a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which was something that the people of Britain and the United Kingdom desperately wanted?

[Mr Hague]

I shall also deal with referendums later in my speech. I explained yesterday that the edge is taken off blunt speaking by becoming Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, and it is probably in our national interest that the edge is taken off. Of course, I regret that there was no referendum on the Lisbon treaty—I campaigned for one for years—but the treaty was ratified. As the Prime Minister and I explained in opposition a few months ago, we cannot make up a referendum. The Lisbon treaty is now one of the treaties of the European Union. However, we will provide for referendums in future—I will deal with that point shortly.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I was listening carefully to the Foreign Secretary’s comments on labour market flexibility. May I give him the chance to elaborate slightly on that? Does he have any proposals to avoid the situation that arose at East Lindsey and Staythorpe, whereby, in the case of Staythorpe, skilled British workers were unable to apply for jobs to build new power stations precisely because of the lack of regulation in Europe? How will he address the Staythorpe situation?

[Mr Hague]

I do not have proposals at this moment to address that, but the hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point, so I will note it as something that the new Government will look at. From what I remember, it is not an easy problem to solve, but the point is legitimate and we can have further discussions about it.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West has gone—I was about to address his point. So much for his enthusiasm for an answer! As I was explaining, the major issue is the difficulties facing the eurozone. Given the extent of our exports to the eurozone, of course we will support our partners in their efforts to deal with the current difficulties, but without being drawn further into the eurozone. For example, while we recognise the importance of maintaining a dialogue on deficit reduction across the eurozone and the wider EU, we are firm in our view that our national budget must always be presented first to our national Parliament.

We are listening to member states that are discussing institutional reforms to the eurozone—that is an ongoing debate—but I assure the House that the Government will maintain our position that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers from Britain to the EU over the course of the Parliament. Sanctions for breaches of the stability and growth pact may be the right way forward for our partners in the euro area, but they should never apply to countries that retain their own currencies, and this country will retain its currency.

The next question for all members of the European Union is, “From where will the growth that we need come?” The Government, working with our European partners, mean to address that question with vigour. We know that spending our way further into dangerous levels of debt is not the answer. We need to get Europe back to work, create jobs, attract investment and deal with the erosion of our long-term competitiveness. Those issues concern every member of the European Union, not just the eurozone. We will urgently make the case for the extension of the single market, better regulation that can lighten the burdens on businesses, and seizing opportunities to create freer and fairer trade between the European Union and third countries. In that context, we will particularly encourage greater economic engagement between the European Union and new, rising economic powers.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman wants to intervene for a third time. I will let him do so once again.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I will try to make this the last intervention, but it is on an important point. Squeezing deficits and introducing labour regulation, which would depress wages, will simply drive the European Union further into depression and deflation. Is not that the real danger that we face?

[Mr Hague]

I do not think that that is the danger that we face. Deficits unaddressed or regulation that prices people out of work in some European nations are the real dangers to economic growth in the long term. When we consider the position of the countries in the eurozone that face the most severe fiscal difficulties, their problem is not insufficient state spending or insufficient regulation, but very much the opposite. I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman and I agree on so many aspects of European policy, but we will have to disagree on that one.

[Mr Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the objectives that he would try to achieve by negotiation, in particular on some of the economic proposals that are coming forward, will be subject to majority voting? If and when he is outvoted in that context, what is his fall-back position? Will he introduce and enact a sovereignty Bill so that he can underpin those negotiations with a firm opportunity for the House to override European regulation in our vital national interests?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend has a long-standing campaign for such a measure. We are examining the case for a sovereignty Bill in the coalition, for the reasons that I explained to him earlier. It was part of the Conservative party’s election manifesto, but not part of the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. We must therefore examine that together, and that examination has already begun. Of course, we will come back to the House with our conclusions.

I was making a point about the importance of extending the single market, where we think there are real opportunities to boost growth by further opening up energy and services sectors and moving forward on patents. There are many helpful proposals in Mario Monti’s recent report about relaunching the single market, on which we want to build. All that is germane to the Europe 2020 strategy, which will be the main formal item of discussion at the forthcoming European Council. It is the successor to the Lisbon strategy, which is widely acknowledged to have been well intentioned but disappointing in its results.

The current crisis in the eurozone demonstrates that it is vital that the EU has a coherent strategy for growth and jobs, but it must fully respect the balance of competence between member states and Community action. We will work with our partners on the Commission’s proposals for a Europe 2020 strategy to promote growth. The strategy is intended to drive growth in the next decade and secure jobs, and those are, of course, the right objectives, but we will want to pay close attention to the detail.

At the spring European Council, five EU-level target areas were identified: employment; research and development; energy and climate change; education; and social inclusion. We are concerned that some, while not legally binding, may stray into the competences of member states. Some are inappropriate for the different systems and models that various member states use. That variety must be respected in creating a meaningful strategy that addresses the economic issues faced across Europe.

We are clear that the EU has a role to play, for example, through providing a deeper and stronger single market, with smarter regulation, a more strategic approach to trade and a framework for innovation. The 2020 strategy faces two other immediate problems that need resolution. First, the next financial perspective—the seven-year EU budgetary framework—needs to cohere with it. In our view, its priorities should be aligned with the strategy. It is deeply unfortunate that the budget review has been so long delayed that linking the two is more difficult than it should be. Secondly, the 2020 strategy is a long-term strategy—it is meant to be—but recent events require a more immediate response to drive growth now. As I said, that response will be the Government’s priority. If we can get the 2020 strategy to be more coherent with the financial framework, and link its long-term nature with the immediate action that is needed, perhaps we can avoid the risk of a strategy again proving disappointing in the benefits that it brings to European nations.

[Mr Davidson]

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman has returned. I will give way to him so that he can nip out again while I answer his question.

[Mr Davidson]

In my defence, I came back. I had to leave because I had visitors—I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I explained to them that the joys of listening to him were greater than those of meeting them. They are not voters in my constituency, which makes it a great deal easier to say that.

On the coherence of Government policy on Europe, given that financial cuts are being made across the Government’s budget, will the Foreign Secretary give us a guarantee that a cut will also be applied to the contribution that the EU receives from this country? Otherwise, there will be inconsistency.

[Mr Hague]

There may well be inconsistency. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give him such a guarantee, which is why he enjoyed coming back into the Chamber to ask the question. The contribution is not immediately under the Government’s control, but is the product of differences in agricultural payments, VAT payments and so on. It is regrettable, as I said earlier, that the Government whom he largely supported—his Front Benchers do not recognise that description of him; perhaps I should say, “the Government he was elected to support in the past”—gave away £7 billion of our rebate while securing nothing in return. He can be assured that we will not do that, and that will help keep the payments down, but it is not possible to vary them by unilateral Executive action.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Following the very good point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), who asked why people in this country should take the pain when more and more money is going into the EU, will my right hon. Friend say why the Government think it right that this country should give increasing amounts of money to the EU when it does not have its accounts signed off? If the Government are serious about getting the EU to reform its budget, why does he not go there and say, “We’re not prepared to give any more money to the EU until it gets its accounts properly audited and signed off, which is what we would expect from any other organisation to which we give money”?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Like him, I have often complained vociferously about our inability to sign off the accounts of the European Commission. It is true that most of the problems that arise are now within member states rather than with the Commission, but nevertheless, the new Government will certainly re-examine that and want to put some energy into sorting that out. I feel very strongly about it, as does my hon. Friend.

The Council will also set the Union’s position for the G20 Toronto summit at the end of June, and the Government want to ensure that the position agreed at the Council reflects our views on fiscal consolidation, and on strengthening standards on financial regulations and bank levies. It is hoped that the Council will sign off the EU position for the UN high-level plenary meeting on the millennium development goals in September, which will take place just before the UN General Assembly. The Government will encourage other member states to fulfil their aid commitments. I am pleased to report that the United Kingdom is on track to meet both its 2010 target of 0.56% of overseas development assistance and its 2013 target of 0.7%. We can be proud that that is a point of consensus in the House between all three main parties, and I pay tribute to the work of the previous Labour Government.

However, collectively, the EU is not on track to meet its commitments, and we will encourage all member states to reinvigorate their commitments to that end. Tackling global poverty is one of the great causes of our age, and one in which the nations of Europe should play their full part.

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

Has the Foreign Secretary had any recent discussions with his Italian counterpart on the deplorable position of the Italian Government on international development assistance?

[Mr Hague]

I have not, but I will be visiting my Italian counterpart on Monday in Rome. While I am having an otherwise enjoyable meeting with him, I will drop that point in. Indeed, I will now be able to say that the matter has been brought up in the House of Commons. It is a valid point, so I will certainly pursue the matter.

The Commission will present a communication on the EU’s ambitions for a 30% carbon emissions reduction target, including an analysis of the costs and benefits to the EU economy, and of the impact on energy security, exports and job creation. The Government want the EU to show leadership in tackling international climate change and will support an increase in the EU’s emissions reduction target once that has been addressed with proper thoroughness.

Looking ahead, we recognise that there is a serious problem with the lack of proper democratic control in this country over the way in which the EU develops—I have already been asked about our position on the referendum. Beyond this Council meeting, the new Government will introduce a Bill to amend the European Communities Act 1972. We are agreed that there is a profound disconnection between the British people and what has been done in their name by British Governments in the European Union. In the past 13 years under the Labour Government, the percentage of the British public who believe that our membership of the EU is a good thing has, according to surveys, fallen to 31%. That is the previous Government’s legacy on Europe: public disenchantment after years of arrogance from Ministers, who did not listen to the people. That lesson should be borne in mind by the shadow Foreign Secretary as he seeks to learn lessons about his party’s election defeat.

Both parties that form the coalition are determined to make the Government more accountable to the British people for how the EU develops, so that Bill will be introduced later this year. It will enlarge democratic and parliamentary scrutiny, accountability and control over the decisions that we make in the EU. As the House will know, it will include a referendum lock, so that no future treaty may pass areas of power or competences from the UK to the EU without the British people’s consent in a referendum. The Government have already agreed that there will be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers in this Parliament in any case. The lock will also cover any proposal for Britain to join the euro. We regard that measure as essential in ensuring that the EU develops in a way that has the British people’s consent.

We are also clear that the referendum lock will apply only to any proposed future treaty transfers of power or competences from Britain to the EU. It will not apply to treaties that do not do that, such as treaties that make technical changes or accession treaties. We are now working on that legislation.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I note the Foreign Secretary’s renewed enthusiasm for referendums. The Maastricht treaty is second only to the Single European Act in terms of the amount of power transferred to the EU. Will he explain why he voted against a referendum on that?

[Mr Hague]

There is nothing “renewed” about my enthusiasm for referendums—I am simply setting out exactly what I said in the last Parliament and in the general election campaign. There is great merit in a Minister doing what he said he was going to do before the general election. I voted against a referendum at the time of the Maastricht treaty because I was a member of the Government—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] The Government had the absolutely correct policy on that. We secured the opt-outs on the euro, for instance, of which we spoke earlier, and built in the commitment to a referendum on the euro if ever there was a proposal to join it, which is exactly the policy that will be encapsulated and legislated for in the Bill that we will introduce.

[Mr Cash]

I am listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend on this hugely important matter. He referred to the question of further treaty transfers of powers, and as he will know, the coalition agreement states:

“We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament”

before referring to the working time directive. Will he concede—I am sure this is the case in a legal and constitutional sense—that “powers” in that context includes the extension of powers under the Lisbon treaty and the introduction of directives?

[Mr Hague]

I was just coming to that point. The Bill will ensure that primary legislation will be required before the British Government may authorise the use of ratchet clauses in treaties—as some of us have called them—some of which result from the Lisbon treaty. Such clauses allow for a modification of treaties or provide options for existing EU powers to expand, which is my hon. Friend’s point. The proposed use of a major ratchet clause—for example, the abolition of vetoes over foreign policy—would also be subject to a referendum. That will be built into our legislation. Taken together, those measures will ensure that unlike under the Labour Government, the European Union can increase its powers vis-à-vis the United Kingdom only with the agreement of the British people. That is a major step towards rebuilding popular trust in the EU.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I may be anticipating what the Foreign Secretary will say, but at the moment, many items are available as opt-ins, particularly on criminal law and so on. There will be many cases over the next few years in which the choice will be either to opt-in or to withdraw from a whole section of a treaty. Will those be dealt with so that the House is given a vote on whether the Government should opt in or opt out?

[Mr Hague]

They will certainly demand a lot of examination in the House. In the coalition agreement, we have committed to approaching further criminal justice legislation on a case-by-case basis. The UK has the right to decide whether to participate in new EU justice and home affairs measures, so we will give careful consideration to whether to opt-in to new measures in those areas while at the same time ensuring that the UK’s security is maintained and our civil liberties are protected, and that the integrity of our criminal justice system is preserved.

We recognise the importance of Parliament having adequate time to scrutinise those opt-in decisions. In all but the most exceptional cases, that means that we will not opt-in to any new measure in the first eight weeks following its publication, to give Parliament time to give a considered opinion. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are looking at how to improve parliamentary scrutiny of decision-making in Europe, and the positions that this Government or any future Government take at European councils. Indeed, we would welcome his views, as a distinguished former Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, on how those procedures can be improved. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would welcome hearing from the hon. Gentleman.

[Simon Hughes]

It is important that what the Foreign Secretary has just said is given maximum publicity. One of the aspects of the disempowerment felt by the British public is the perception that European legislation has been forced on them. We should have a real debate about the merits of issues such as the working time directive, and what he has just said will be warmly welcomed not only by his party, but by mine.

[Mr Hague]

That is further evidence—to the deep disappointment of Opposition Members—of how well coalition government is now proceeding.

I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 14 June in Luxembourg. As I have long said, it is strongly my view that the nations of Europe should do more to use their collective weight in the world to advance shared values and interests. The problems have not been institutional, but political, including a lack of will and consistency. That is the spirit in which we will approach these matters.

I mentioned last week in the debate on the Queen’s Speech that this Government will give greater weight to elevating our relationships with emerging powers across the world, and that policy will, I hope, be complemented by other European nations doing the same. Indeed, some of them are further ahead than us in doing this, and it will form part of our collective work in the EU. The Council’s agenda will include Iran and the western Balkans. It will also be important to discuss recent developments in Gaza, how the European Union can give fresh momentum to the middle east peace process and what role we can play in helping to address the crisis in Gaza.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I understand that my right hon. Friend has recently visited Bosnia, a part of Europe that is often overshadowed by other international events, but tensions there remain high. There are frictions over the constitution, and I wonder whether he agrees that the EU and the UN would be wrong to dismiss Bosnia. We need to invest time and energy to ensure that the cycle of violence that we have seen in the past 10 years does not restart.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Bosnia is one of the major issues that I will discuss with the European High Representative, Baroness Ashton, this evening. I will say more on the issue in a moment.

I wish to update the House on the British nationals caught up in the incident in Gaza and improve on the information that was given yesterday. The latest information I have is that 34 British nationals were involved, not 37 as I informed the House yesterday. Two of those who were reported as missing do not appear to have been in the flotilla, and we are seeking to confirm that. Another was a duplicated name with different spellings. All the remaining 34 are now accounted for. One British national was deported directly earlier in the week, 32 have arrived in Turkey and one, who is a dual national, has been released and is in Israel with family. Of the 32 who have arrived in Turkey, one has returned to the UK and 31 remain there. We are offering assistance through our consulate general to British nationals who seek it.

As I said, Iran will be on the Foreign Affairs Council’s agenda. We remain extremely concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran has failed to suspend its nuclear activities in line with UN Security Council resolutions, has shown no serious intent to discuss its programme with the international community and has failed to address the outstanding concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For those reasons, we are pursuing—as we speak—new sanctions, and a draft resolution is now being discussed at the UN Security Council. The EU has agreed to take measures to accompany this process and we will work hard with our EU partners to ensure that we take strong measures that have an impact on Iran’s decision making. The House will be aware that on 17 May Iran, Brazil and Turkey announced that Iran had agreed a deal to supply fuel for the Tehran research reactor. While that deal, if implemented, could still help to build confidence in Iran’s intentions, it cannot do so while Iran’s other actions show a complete disregard for efforts to engage it in serious negotiation, such as continuing to enrich uranium up to 20% despite having no apparent civilian use for that material.

A comprehensive diplomatic offer has been made to Iran and remains on the table. The EU High Representative, Cathy Ashton, made it clear in her statement of 21 May that we stand ready to meet Iran at any time to discuss its nuclear programme. The onus is on Iran to assure the international community of its peaceful intentions and to enter into negotiations. Until it does so, we have no choice but to continue to pursue the path of sanctions. The House will need no reminding of the risks associated with nuclear proliferation in the middle east. The pressure placed on Iran must be peaceful, multilateral and legitimate, but unless it is intensified, the opportunity to change Iranian behaviour on this issue may be lost.

The Government have also made it clear that we believe that the European Union must sharpen its focus on the western Balkans—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said—until all the countries of the region are irreversibly on the path to EU membership. Achieving this and helping to turn the page decisively on the painful chapters of the region’s past will be a major test of what the EU can accomplish in world affairs. An EU without the western Balkans would for ever have a disenchanted and disillusioned hole near its centre. The western Balkans matter to stability and prosperity in Europe, and we cannot afford to ignore developments there, especially the current lack of progress in Bosnia, which demands sustained international attention. I yesterday attended the high-level meeting of EU and western Balkan Foreign Ministers, and set out our support for a clear strategy of firm action from European countries, as well as concrete steps by the countries of the region. We will work actively and intensively with our European partners, the High Representative and the Governments of the region to take this work forward in the coming months.

The issue brings me to enlargement more generally. In Britain, we have had a strong consensus on the principle that widening the European Union is a good thing, and I hope that that will continue. Widening of the European Union must go along with the rigorous application of the entry criteria. The Government will continue to champion the European Union’s enlargement, including to the western Balkans and Turkey. We will be assiduous in working with Ankara and other member states to resolve outstanding issues.

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that continuing peace and stability in the western Balkans cannot be taken for granted, and does he also agree that the constitutional changes necessary in Bosnia and Herzegovina are critically important to enable that country to progress its accession to the EU?

[Mr Hague]

I very much agree. It cannot be taken for granted that the problems have been solved. The 5+2 conditions necessary for the closure of the office of the High Representative have not yet been satisfied. As I have often said, I believe that European nations will have to be more forceful about this, and we will have to be prepared to push as well as pull some people in the western Balkans towards EU membership.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

[Mr Hague]

I have given way for the last time: I owe it to the House to allow the shadow Foreign Secretary and others to speak.

We continue to support the negotiations to re-unify the island of Cyprus—I am pleased that they restarted last week. Although we do not underestimate the difficulties, it would be very greatly in the interest of both communities on the island for those talks to succeed.

The House will also want to know about the institutional aspect of the EU’s external relations, the establishment of the European External Action Service. As the House will know, my party did not support the creation of the External Action Service, but it is now a fact. We warned that its creation would not necessarily lead to greater inter-institutional harmony in Brussels and that has unfortunately proved to be the case so far. It is now our task to ensure that the service is both useful to the nations of Europe and respects the role of national diplomatic services. The European Parliament has made its suggestions on how the service is to be organised, and there are discussions on the matter with the High Representative and the Spanish presidency. I hope that the European Parliament will recognise that the service will be a success only if it commands the confidence of member states. That is a crucial consideration.

The High Representative has made a good start to her very challenging role. We wished her well when she embarked on the task, and we look forward to working with her closely in the future.

The last Conservative Government left a considerable legacy in the European Union: the creation of the single market; the enlargement from nine to 15 members; and the setting in train of further eastwards enlargement. I will not take away from the last Government their achievement in helping to complete that enlargement, but in other respects their legacy is to be regretted: the alienation of the British public from the EU; the failure to stand up for Britain’s interests on the budget, and so on. The new Government have started as we mean to continue—with activity and energy in European affairs. We will play our role with enthusiasm, while vigorously advancing our country’s interests and never taking the British people for granted.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Gaza Flotilla

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

With permission, I will report to the House on the events surrounding the interception of boats in the “Free Gaza” flotilla, on the immediate action that the Government have taken, and on our planned next steps.

In the early hours of 31 May, the Israeli defence forces intercepted six of the eight boats sailing in the “Free Gaza” flotilla. The incident led to injury and deaths of a number of passengers, mainly on one of the vessels. We await details of all the casualties and fatalities, but it is clear that many will be Turkish citizens. The Prime Minister and I have spoken to the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister respectively to offer our condolences. The six intercepted vessels were brought to shore in the Israeli port of Ashdod. Two of the boats have been delayed by mechanical difficulties and remain at sea. We believe that they are en route to Gaza.

I can inform the House that it now appears that a total of 37 British nationals were involved in Sunday’s events. That is different from the number given by the Prime Minister a short time ago, which was based on what the Israeli ambassador had said previously. I spoke to our ambassador in Tel Aviv in the past 45 minutes or so before coming to the Chamber, and I repeat that the latest figures are of 37 British nationals, including 11 dual nationals. We have so far received access to 28 of those individuals, one of whom was deported yesterday. We understand that four more British nationals agreed to be deported this morning and that the remaining British nationals are likely to be transferred to the airport soon. We have expressed our disappointment to the Israeli Government about the levels of preparedness on their part, and the fact that we have not yet been given full information about British nationals detained and access to all of them. We are urgently pressing the Israeli Government to resolve the situation within hours.

There is real, understandable and justified anger at the events that have unfolded. The Government’s position is as follows. Our clear advice to British nationals is not to travel to Gaza. However, we have made clear in public and to the Israeli Government that we deeply deplore the loss of life, and look to Israel to do everything possible to avoid a repeat of this unacceptable situation. The United Nations Security Council and the European Union have rightly condemned the violence that resulted in the loss of these lives. We continue to demand urgent information and access to all United Kingdom nationals involved. Their welfare is our top priority at this time, along with support for the families, who are understandably very worried. We are seriously concerned about the seizure of British nationals in international waters, and that aspect of the Israeli operation must form a key part of the investigation into the events.

The Prime Minister has spoken to the Israeli Prime Minister, I have spoken to the Israeli Foreign Minister, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has been in close contact with the Israeli ambassador in London. The embassy in Tel Aviv has been in constant contact with the Israeli authorities. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have already been in contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about their constituents and their families, and who have provided information. We recognise the intense concern for those involved, and the need to keep Members updated.

Israel has told us that it wants to move as quickly as possible to deport people from the flotilla who are currently held in Israel. If they agree, they will be deported very quickly. Those who remain unwilling to leave will be allowed to stay for 72 hours in detention, which is the time limit allowed for them to appeal against deportation. Our understanding is that they will be deported after that. We also understand that the Israelis have begun to transfer to Jordan detainees from countries that are not represented in Israel. We understand that the individuals who were allegedly involved in violence against Israeli servicemen during the boarding will have their cases examined in line with Israeli legal advice. We do not currently believe that there are any British nationals in that last category, although I hope the House will appreciate that this is a fluid situation.

Our partners in the international community are working, as we are, to facilitate the swift release of those detained. Turkey is sending six planes to fly out their nationals, and the Turkish authorities have indicated that detainees of other countries may join those flights. We believe that some of the British nationals to whom I referred earlier are on those flights now.

The United Kingdom has played its full part in the European Union and the United Nations in agreeing on the need for a full, credible, impartial and independent investigation into these events. Our goal is a process that ensures full accountability for the events that occurred and commands the confidence of the international community, including international participation. Further discussions are taking place in other international forums, including NATO and the United Nations Human Rights Council. We will take the same principled stand in all our diplomatic efforts, and will stress to the Israeli Government the need for them to act with restraint and in line with their international obligations, given that their actions appear to have gone beyond what was warranted or proportionate. We need to know whether more could have been done to minimise the risks, or to reduce the number of deaths and injuries.

The events aboard the flotilla were very serious and have captured the world’s attention, but they should not be viewed in isolation. They arise from the unacceptable and unsustainable situation in Gaza, which is a cause of public concern here in the United Kingdom and around the world. It has long been the view of the British Government—including the previous Government—that restrictions on Gaza should be lifted, a view confirmed in United Nations Security Council resolution 1860, which called for

“sustained delivery of humanitarian aid”

and called on states to

“to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation”.

The fact that that has not happened is a tragedy. It is essential that there be unfettered access not only to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza, but to enable the reconstruction of homes and livelihoods and permit trade to take place. The Palestinian economy, whether in Gaza or on the west bank, is an essential part of a viable Palestinian state which I hope will one day live alongside Israel in peace and security.

As the once productive private sector has been decimated and ordinary Gazans have lost their jobs and their incomes, it is tunnel entrepreneurs and their Hamas backers who benefit. Hamas now has near total control of the economy. Other groups, even more radical and violent, are finding a place amid the misery and frustration felt by a generation of young people. In this context, current Israeli restrictions are counter-productive to Israel’s long-term security. We will therefore continue to press the Israeli Government to lift the closure of Gaza, and plan early discussions with Israel as well as with our other international partners about what more can be done to ensure an unfettered flow of aid while also ensuring that aid reaches those who need it and is not abused. I discussed that with Secretary Clinton last night, and we will be taking forward our discussions on the subject urgently.

The House should not forget the role played by Hamas in this conflict. It continues to pursue an ideology of violence and directly to undermine prospects for peace in the region. Violence has continued in recent days, with rocket fire from militants in Gaza and Israeli military incursions and air strikes in response. We call on Hamas to take immediate and concrete steps towards the Quartet principles, unconditionally to release Gilad Shalit, who has been held in captivity for four years, and to end its interference with the operations of non-governmental organisations and UN agencies in Gaza.

It is more clear than ever that the only long-term and sustainable solution to the conflict that produced these tragic events is a two-state solution that achieves a viable and sovereign Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel, with its right to live in peace and security recognised by all its neighbours. The proximity talks that are under way are more important than ever. These events should not undermine those talks, but instead should underline just how important they are, and the Government will make it an urgent priority to give British diplomatic support to buttress that process. The Government will continue to keep the House informed of developments.

[David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for advance sight of it.

I said in the Queen’s Speech debate last week that a policy of ignoring Gaza in the search for peace will not work. In the early hours of Monday morning, we saw why the blockade of Gaza is a barrier not only to vital aid and reconstruction materials, but to any hope of peace at all. The attack by the Israeli defence forces is the latest in a series of self-defeating and deadly moves by successive Israeli Governments in Gaza. We on the Opposition Benches join the international condemnation of an operation that was not self-defence but defence of a failed policy. Israel does have rights to security against terrorism, but we are talking here about a policy that has done nothing to defeat terrorism. Until the people of Gaza can be confident of an education for their children in schools not crumbling around them, of being able to feed and clothe their families adequately, and of being able to live without a prescribed list of what they can and cannot use in their kitchens, there is no way that the call of negotiation and peace will be heard.

As Foreign Secretary, I negotiated UK-sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1860 in January 2009, which eventually brought the Gaza war to an end. It demanded the full flow of humanitarian and reconstruction materials into Gaza, and an end to the trafficking of weapons into Gaza, and its implementation by all sides must be the central demand of the international community. That needs UN, EU and Quartet pressure, not just engagement.

The continuation of the blockade, not just by Israel but until yesterday by Egypt too, brings misery to Palestinians and does nothing to weaken the hold of Hamas on the territory—the alleged aim of the policy. In fact, revenue from smuggling taxes funds Hamas. The latest episode cost innocent lives, undermines Palestinians and Arabs who believe in co-existence and the peaceful path to statehood, and further isolates Israel in the international community. The only people smiling are the rejectionists. The answer to them is a political process with drive and momentum. I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary talk about proximity talks, but proximity talks are worth having only as a short prelude to substantive negotiations, and, frankly, they have gone on for too long already without getting to the big issues.

I have five sets of questions for the Foreign Secretary, the first of which is about the welfare of British citizens. The lack of clarity about the position of British nationals is completely unacceptable. We are talking about 37 people, not 37,000 people. They have a right to consular support; it says so in their passports. They should be given that support immediately. If it is being denied, we should be denouncing that, not saying that we are disappointed by it.

Secondly, on the legality of the action, I spoke to the Turkish Foreign Minister in New York last night, and it is clear that the Turkish Government intend to pursue that question. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he believes that the action, which took place in international waters, was illegal, whether he has discussed the issue with the Turkish Government, and if not, why not?

Thirdly, the Foreign Secretary says that he wants to know whether more could have been done to minimise the risks or to reduce the number of deaths during the raid on the flotilla, but surely the question to ask is why on earth armed and lethal force was used at all. A fundamental principle is involved; the language of condemnation is used very sparingly in international relations, but it is the view of those on the Opposition Benches that the loss of innocent civilian life should always be condemned. We have done so since Monday, and the language was repeated in the United Nations presidential statement on Monday night, which said that the Security Council

“condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded”.

We welcome that, but the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have not used that language themselves. We call on them to say loudly and clearly that the British Government do condemn the loss of innocent civilian life. If they will not do that, they are setting a very dangerous precedent and sending a very bad message indeed.

Fourthly, on the Government’s intentions, we note the UN’s calls for an independent investigation, and of course we welcome them, but there are outstanding requests for investigations into incidents that took place during the Gaza war 18 months ago. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore explain to the House whether Her Majesty’s Government argued in the UN on Monday night for a UN investigation now? If not, why not? In that context, can he tell us how long he will give the Israeli Government to agree to an independent inquiry before he supports a UN inquiry?

Finally, the argument that opening borders only benefits Hamas has been exposed, because the present situation only costs innocent lives and actually damages Israel. What action does the Foreign Secretary propose to take through the UN and the European Union to drive forward improvements in the daily lives of people living in Gaza? Is it not the case that the EU has standing capacity waiting to be deployed to man checkpoints into and out of Gaza? Do we not need urgent engagement to get an agreement, as per resolution 1860, for those forces to be deployed?

This is a political crisis, not just a humanitarian one. Rocket attacks will be defeated only by a substantive political process towards a Palestinian state. That is where the greatest responsibility lies for all the parties. We will support all efforts on the part of the Government to make Gaza part of a wider international drive for peace in the middle east, backed by the UN and the EU, in support of US leadership, because without such an effort there will be no peace in the middle east.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for his broad support for what is clearly a bipartisan policy shared across the Floor of the House. His concern for the people of Gaza is felt very deeply in all parts of the House. As he reminded the House, he played an instrumental part in the negotiation of UN resolution 1860 and he has always argued, as we have argued, that ignoring Gaza will not work; this problem must be addressed. I am grateful for the implicit support that he has given to the Government’s position and for the argument that he makes that the Israeli policy towards Gaza does not loosen but tightens the grip of Hamas on the people of Gaza.

I shall now respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. He can tell that I am disappointed and very dissatisfied with the Israeli response, as it has gone on over recent hours, on consular access. The reason why I do not condemn the Israelis unequivocally is because there is a complicating factor: many people on board the ships did not have their passports or had destroyed all their papers, so it is not necessarily immediately obvious to which nationality they belong. In addition, there has been a clear lack of preparedness by Israel for handling this number of people and dealing with this number of consular inquiries. That is why, in some cases, our consular staff, who have been working extremely hard, have had to go to the prison at Beersheba to hammer on doors and ask people whether they are British. It has been chaotic, it is completely unsatisfactory and I am glad that some of the people are now able to leave the country. None the less, it is the most immediately urgent part of our work to ensure that that is put right and that all the British nationals have been identified and seen.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I had spoken to the Turkish Foreign Minister. I did speak to him. Of course, one reason for an investigation will be to learn more about the legality of what may have happened. However, to connect this to one of the right hon. Gentleman’s other questions, the Turkish Foreign Minister particularly thanked me for the role played by our ambassador at the UN Security Council, because the presidential statement delivered to the council was, of course, made on behalf of the members of the council, including Britain, so it is very much our language as well. We certainly condemn acts that lead to the deaths of civilians—I have done that before, but if the right hon. Gentleman has not heard me do so, I do so again—so there need be no difference between us on that point.

Critically, an investigation must be prompt, independent, credible and transparent. It is my view and, from the discussions that I had last night, the view of the United States that the investigation should as a minimum have an international presence. It is possible for Israel to establish such an investigation and inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that commissions or inquiries have on occasion been established in Israel that have delivered stinging criticism of the Israeli Government and armed forces, although on other occasions such inquiries have not done so when we might have thought it was merited. However, we look to them to heed the international calls for such an inquiry and investigation, and if they simply refuse to do so—to answer his question—it would not be long before we added our voice for one conducted under international auspices.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that urgent work needs to be taken forward on providing the mechanism for access to aid into Gaza, and for trade in and out of Gaza, while giving the Israelis sufficient assurance that it will not be used for the smuggling of arms, which none of us wants taken into Gaza. We are now taking forward that urgent work with our partners in the EU and the United States, and it is something on which we will need to return to the House.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is easy to be condemnatory of Israel and to argue for the raising of the blockade, but we must ask ourselves whether these things, taken by themselves, will bring about the solution that we all seek. Drawing on our colonial experience and recent experience in Northern Ireland, is it not clear that sooner or later, however controversial it may be, Hamas will have to be brought into the circle of discussions?

[Mr Hague]

I always listen to my right hon. and learned Friend—I think I can now call him that, given that we are sitting on the same side of the House—with great care on these matters. He will be aware of the Quartet principles, which have been very clear for some years: Hamas must forswear violence, accept previous agreements and recognise the state of Israel. That has been the long-standing position of British Governments, the United Nations and the whole of the Quartet, including the United States, the European Union and Russia. I referred earlier to the need for Hamas to make concrete movement towards those principles in order for the rest of the international community to engage with it, and I continue to believe that that is the right position. It is a long-standing position and one that we have in common with our allies and the rest of the international community acting on the affairs of the middle east. That position must be sustained.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

In welcoming the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s statement and his condemnation of the loss of innocent life, may I ask whether he recognises that those innocent lives might well have included any of the 37 United Kingdom citizens present when the Israelis committed a war crime of piracy in international waters, kidnapping and murder—and all in pursuit of upholding an illegal blockade on Gaza that amounts to collective punishment, as I saw for myself when I led an international parliamentary delegation there early this year? Will he assure the House that, if the Israelis fail to comply with the perfectly modest and satisfactory request that he has made of them, further action will be taken to make Israel rejoin the international community?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, it is very important that Israel responds to the call from across the whole world, to which we have added our voice, for a prompt, independent, credible and transparent investigation or inquiry. As I mentioned earlier, in my response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, if no such investigation or inquiry is forthcoming, we will want to advocate such an inquiry under international auspices. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is right that whatever precise words we use, a blockade of Gaza is counter-productive; it is wrong and it does not even serve the interests of the security of Israel. He is also right to point out that fatalities could have occurred among the British nationals who were caught up in this. It is our strong advice to British nationals, as it has been in the past and will be in the future, not to travel to Gaza—let me make that absolutely clear—as they would be going into a dangerous situation, but it is absolutely wrong to maintain the blockade. That is the clear position of the Government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who were able to enter Gaza in the aftermath of the last Israeli incursion could only come to the conclusion that there had been a wholly disproportionate use of lethal force of very, very dubious legality? Does he agree that there has now been a repeat of precisely that? What will the British Government do to try to ensure that there is not the same repetition again and again and again?

[Mr Hague]

Hopefully, I covered that point in my statement. I referred to the actions that have been taken by Israel as appearing to go beyond what was warranted or proportionate, and I weigh those words very carefully. I also said that that is unacceptable and that Israel must act with restraint and in line with its international obligations, so we have given a very strong message to Israel. In the conversations that I had with the Israeli Foreign Minister and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with the Israeli Prime Minister, there could be no mistaking how strongly we feel. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) adds force to how we feel.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Bearing in mind that the ship was a peace ship in international waters, is not attacking such a ship against international law and should it not be condemned by the Foreign Secretary as an illegal act?

[Mr Hague]

One has to agree that to board a ship in international waters can legally happen only in the most exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, so that is the basis we are working from.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

My constituent Hasan Nowarah was injured when the flotilla came under attack, although he is now, thankfully, safely at home with his family. He was motivated by a desire to help people in the most dire need, but the 45 tonnes of medical equipment that he helped to collect is currently floating aboard the ship, the Rachel Corrie, in the Mediterranean. Will the Foreign Secretary use his diplomatic efforts to persuade the Israeli Government to let that vital medical aid be delivered to hospitals in Gaza?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I very much take that point. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, has just undertaken, as we were listening to the hon. Lady’s question, to look into what is happening to that specific shipment. I believe that some of the aid on some of the ships involved is now arriving in Gaza, but we will look into the shipment that she mentions.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a dreadful and deplorable tragedy, but will the Foreign Secretary tell us what urgent steps he will take to ease the transfer of essential goods through the crossings so that Israel’s security needs can be met? Does he accept that Israel has legitimate security needs against the enemy that is determined to destroy it?

[Mr Hague]

Of course Israel has legitimate security needs. That is why I stressed in my statement the role and responsibility of Hamas and the need for it and anyone else in Gaza to end rocket attacks on Israel. That is a very important part of the entire situation as well. We need to find a way in which Israel can be assured that the smuggling of arms into Gaza does not take place while the flow of humanitarian aid and general economic trade can take place. Clearly, some additional assurance is going to be necessary for that to happen, and that is what we are working on urgently.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

May I welcome the clear but restrained way in which the Foreign Secretary dealt with this very difficult matter? May I ask him a very precise question: has it not been clear for a long time now that the blockade of Gaza is illegal? Does it not therefore amount to cruel and unusual punishment, and is it not contrary to all international law and the Geneva convention?

[Mr Hague]

The argument that I make is that, whatever the arguments about the blockade’s legality, it is unwise—it does not achieve its objective. In a practical world, it is not the right thing for Israel to do. No doubt, the Government of Israel would make a different legal argument from that of my hon. Friend: they maintain that the blockade is lawful because they are acting in their own self-defence. Therefore, the thing that they must be persuaded of is that the blockade does not serve their security interests and that a change of policy is urgently required.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I note the Foreign Secretary’s demand for free and unfettered access to Gaza but, in the absence of a blockade of shipping into Gaza, how does he believe that the people of Israel can be protected from the unprovoked assaults by rockets and other armaments that are being imported into Gaza by the supporters of Hamas terrorists?

[Mr Hague]

That is why I have referred to the international work that needs to take place to try to give assurance that such importation of arms cannot take place while humanitarian and economic aid, and general economic trade, is going on. However, I stress again that it does not serve the interests of Israel’s security to maintain the current position, which is putting more power into the hands of Hamas and driving the people of Gaza into its arms. That does not serve the security of Israel.

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

Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ask Israel to desist from using selective footage to make its case through the media rather than engaging in the full inquiry into this terrible incident that should take place?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, although we will be doing very well in the world if we can persuade everyone to stop using selective footage in the media. It may be a little ambitious to think that we will be able to persuade Israel to do that, but that underlines the need for the impartial and credible inquiry for which we have called.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In the past 18 months, Israel has killed 1,400 people during Operation Cast Lead. It has also carried out an assassination in Dubai using false passports, and now it has killed people on the high seas. On each occasion, there has been ritual condemnation, as there is today. I support that condemnation, but is it not time for us to take sanctions against Israel, such as lifting the EU-Israel trade agreement? Israel must understand that it cannot act illegally with impunity, and that it cannot kill people on the high seas in the way that it has just done.

[Mr Hague]

Israel will be listening to the condemnation in this House, including from the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt about that, but I do not think that the right policy is to impose sanctions. I think that the right policy is to urge on Israel the course of action that I have set out today. The restrictions and the blockade of Gaza should be lifted, and a truly credible and independent investigation should be set up. They are part of the practical way forward that we should concentrate on, and therefore they are the right foreign policy for this country.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but does he agree that the effect of the brutal Israeli blockade of Gaza is to drive all trade into the tunnels? Some of the tunnels are now large enough to accommodate 4x4 vehicles, and of course there is no restriction whatever on the importation of weapons through them.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, and my hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. What in effect happens is that Hamas is able to tax the importation of goods through the tunnels, providing funds for itself while further impoverishing the people of Gaza. That is a further reminder that the blockade is not an effective policy.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is it at all possible that the Israelis are aware of the worldwide revulsion at what has happened this week? The killings on the high seas had no justification whatsoever, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke about other measures that Israel has taken. Is it not clear that Israel seems to show no concern at all for international opinion, and that it is out of control? Unless firm action is taken by the international community, will we not see further tragedies of this kind?

[Mr Hague]

I would not necessarily reach the conclusion that there is no awareness or concern about international opinion in Israel. In fact, there has been a good deal of criticism of the Israeli Government in the Israeli media over the past couple of days. Remember that Israel is a democracy. There is free expression of opinion. Sometimes that is bitterly critical of their own Ministers, and sometimes of their own armed forces. We saw that in the aftermath of the Lebanon war four years ago. I think it would be over-simplifying the situation to describe it as the hon. Gentleman did a few moments ago. There is a consciousness in Israel of international opinion. That is why we have to express ourselves in a way that is forceful but responsible, and ask them to do reasonable things that are in their own best interest. That is the position that we have taken.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that there has been up to 1 million tonnes of aid from Israel to Gaza since January 2009? Will he also acknowledge that the reason for the blockade, which we all want to end, is continued terrorism by Hamas, the hijacking of aid convoys and the smuggling of arms from Iran into Gaza?

[Mr Hague]

It is very important to remember the role played by Hamas. It is important to remind people all the time, as I did in my statement, that we need to see an end to the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, as well as the other measures that we have called on Israel to take. My hon. Friend brings that necessary balance to the questions asked today.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Foreign Secretary will know that the terrible siege of Gaza has been ongoing now for three years, with huge suffering caused to people, but given that the condemnations and criticisms of Israel never seem to change the Israeli authorities’ actions, what further action does he propose to take? In the EU association agreement with Israel, for example, there is a clause that provides for its suspension in the light of human rights abuses on either side. Will not his refusal to consider suspending that EU association agreement give the message that we are not serious about taking action with Israel, and that we are not serious about our EU agreements either?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I do not think Israel will be in any doubt about the seriousness of the message. The fact that a Security Council statement was agreed so rapidly, with the support of the United States as well as of the United Kingdom, will have made an impact on Israel; the hon. Lady can be sure of that. If she could have heard the conversations that we have had with out Israeli counterparts, she could also be very confident that they are aware of the strength of opinion and our deep concern about these issues.

The EU-Israel agreement is not exactly progressing at the moment anyway. I take the point that she makes about that, but it is not an additional measure for this particular situation. As I have explained in answer to previous questions, I want to concentrate on trying to make sure that that credible and independent investigation takes place, and that the case is understood in Israel for the lifting of the blockade of Gaza in their own best interests. It is important that we put it in that way.

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

The flotilla, which was probably doomed to fail, was an expression of the frustration of ordinary people at the failure of the United Nations, and in particular of the Quartet, to get Israel to comply with its UN obligations. The Foreign Secretary has had conversations with Mrs Clinton. I understand that he is also meeting the EU High Representative. Does he believe that between us we can encourage the Quartet to take firmer action with Israel, which still in its statements today seems not to understand the gravity of the situation?

[Mr Hague]

There is a real international focus on these matters now, and that is true in the United States. I was with the EU High Representative, Baroness Ashton, last night in Sarajevo, and she certainly has the same focus on these issues, as do many other EU Foreign Ministers. This morning I was at the EU-western Balkans high-level meeting in Sarajevo, and many of the Foreign Ministers discussed the issue in the margins of that. One of the results of the action was to bring the issue centre stage. It has shone a spotlight on the problems of Gaza, to which so many right hon. and hon. Members have referred. It is now important for us to take the momentum from that and make sure that the necessary work continues over the coming weeks and months to improve the situation.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary not accept that what he said today really amounts to saying that the United States, Britain and Europe will continue to tolerate the Israeli blockade of Gaza? Does he not agree that this toleration should be brought to an end, and, if necessary, Britain and the other European members of NATO should say that if another flotilla sets off for Gaza, we are willing to give it naval protection, with the Royal Navy reverting to its traditional role of protecting the freedom of the seas?

[Mr Hague]

I understand, in every case in which right hon. and hon. Members express their outrage at what has happened, the strength of feeling in many parts of the House and of the country. As I have explained, in the pursuit of practical foreign policy we should concentrate on the two things that I have identified—the setting up of the right kind of investigation and inquiry, and doing so quickly, and making the coherent case, including to the Israelis, for lifting the blockade on Gaza. Those are the right things to concentrate on. The right hon. Gentleman refers to British naval protection and deployment, but the previous Prime Minister promised a British naval deployment in the Mediterranean to try to stop arms smuggling to Gaza, and no ship was ever sent. I will not make empty promises; we will concentrate on the two issues that we have identified as necessary.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Given the importance of the investigation that the Foreign Secretary referred to, does he not also believe that there is a very powerful case for referring this to international arbitration and/or the international court at The Hague? After all, this involves not only questions of international law. The political causes are well known, but they have not yet been resolved by the political intervention of the Quartet, and so forth, and international arbitration may well be a very good move to adopt.

[Mr Hague]

The position that we have taken does not exclude those things, but they are quite difficult things to bring about and seek agreement to, so the priority is to have an inquiry and investigation established as soon as possible that meets the criteria that I have set out. However, we have not excluded advocating other courses of action if that is not heeded.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I think that we have pussy-footed around Israel for long enough. The only language that it understands is not the language of diplomacy but the language of the hobnail boot, by which I mean sanctions, telling it to stop building any more settlements, and insisting that it has talks with people—both sides—who represent the Palestinian people, as the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will develop a much more robust foreign policy towards Israel.

[Mr Hague]

Again, the right hon. Lady illustrates the strength of feeling in the House. I have not immediately donned my hobnail boots, because the right way to approach the matter, which will make sense to people in Israel as well as to the rest of the world, is to advocate the measures that I have called for today. That is a crucial ingredient for Israelis themselves to see—that this needs to be properly investigated to international standards in a way that the international community can respect and take seriously, and that the blockade of Gaza makes no sense even from their own point of view. Israel is a democratic country. It is possible to make these arguments and to have them heard there, so I favour concentrating on that method of proceeding rather than the hobnail boots that she wants me to put on.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear this afternoon that he thinks that the blockade is counter-productive because of the suffering that it causes to the people of Gaza. Will he therefore press the international community to lift the blockade as a precursor to a full middle east peace settlement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

It is a very important part of any middle east peace settlement, and my hon. Friend’s question reminds us that it is very important to continue the work on a middle east peace settlement overall. The proximity talks have been taking place and we want them to become much more serious. European nations now have to look to how we can buttress the efforts of the United States to push those talks forward. It is one of the things that I want to discuss around European capitals next week. Ending this blockade of Gaza is an integral part of finding any such durable solution.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Is it not clear that Israel believes that it has done absolutely nothing wrong when it sends armed commandos to attack in international waters ships carrying humanitarian supplies to a tiny strip of land where more than 60% of the population are food-insecure? Could that not be because, for many years now, Israel has put itself above international law, without consequence from the international community? What does the Foreign Secretary think the practical consequences should be if Israel does not abide by the will of the international community this time?

[Mr Hague]

We will see whether Israel thinks, in the end, that it has done nothing wrong. The Israeli Cabinet is, as I understand it, meeting this afternoon for the first time since the incident and since Mr Netanyahu returned from north America, and we will see what, if indeed anything, comes out of that in terms of the investigation—the inquiry—that we and most of the rest of the world have called for. Again, I stress that it is important to make the case for those two things, the investigation and the lifting of the blockade, because it would be wrong to characterise everyone in Israel as insensitive to international opinion. This is an argument that has to be won within Israel, as well as in the rest of the world. That is why I am taking the approach that we are taking and, indeed, previous Governments, broadly, have taken; and I am sure that, for now, that is the right approach.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a little rich for the Israeli Government to justify their behaviour on the ground that they are denying matériel to a terrorist organisation when they have in the recent past shown themselves perfectly willing to import proscribed munitions for use against civilian targets?

[Mr Hague]

Again, my hon. Friend adds to a strength of feeling and to points made that will be widely noticed and, I hope, taken note of in Israel itself.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly said that we need a credible and independent inquiry. This was an illegal act in international waters, involving citizens from many countries throughout the world. Surely the only way in which we can have a credible and independent inquiry is if it is an international, credible inquiry. Does the Foreign Secretary support that? If not, why not?

[Mr Hague]

We shall see about that. The hon. Gentleman may be right in the end, but, in answering his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), I referred to the fact that Israel has previously held inquiries—into some of the events in Lebanon in the 1980s and into the Lebanon war in 2006—that certainly were independent and credible by international standards, and that meted out considerable and, sometimes, severe criticism to the authorities in Israel. It is possible for them to do that. Today I have made the additional case that such an inquiry and investigation should have an international presence and, therefore, be not just an Israeli inquiry. But I have also not excluded this Government from advocating the sort of inquiry that the hon. Gentleman would prefer to see, if no other action is taken in the meantime.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Behind Hamas lurks the spectre of both Syria and Iran. Were the Gaza blockade to be lifted at some point in the future, what practical assistance could Her Majesty’s Government, the European Union or NATO offer to Israel in order to stop the smuggling of weaponry from those two rogue states?

[Mr Hague]

Such assistance and such assurance is very important, and that is why we are now consulting other nations on the best vehicle for providing it: whether that is best done under United Nations’ auspices, and how much more the European Union can do. There have, of course, been previous attempts to provide it under EU auspices, but it is very important to be able to stop the flow of arms into Gaza, just as it is so vital to be able to open up Gaza to humanitarian aid and to more normal economic activity. My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join my colleagues in condemning the actions of the Israeli Government. Two of my constituents, Sarah Colbourne and one other woman, are currently in detention in Israel. I thank the consulate for its work with them, but I am concerned about their position. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that an international flavour to an investigation, and an independent investigation, are important. Notwithstanding that, will he or the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), agree to meet my constituents and others who were there—because nothing beats hearing it from the horse’s mouth—in an attempt to shape this Government’s foreign policy towards Israel?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. In fact, my hon. Friend is already working on plans to meet such a group when they have returned, if they desire such a meeting.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, in particular the call for an international and impartial element to an investigation. However, is it not crucial to ensure that the peace talks resume and that the role of Turkey, which had been an important regional ally of Israel’s, is both supported and encouraged?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, that is very important. It is important that the proximity talks turn into something much more than proximity talks. Turkey has become very active diplomatically in the whole region, and in a very welcome way; in our proceedings this afternoon, we have referred several times to the role of the Turkish Foreign Minister. Turkey has tried hard in recent years to bring Syria and Israel closer together and it has sometimes come within an ace of bringing permanent peace between the two countries. In general, Turkey has played a very constructive role in the region, and I am sure that she will want to do so in future.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The unauthorised boarding of a vessel in international waters by armed combatants is normally referred to as piracy. The Foreign Secretary is a Yorkshireman noted for his blunt speaking. Will he not use that word on this occasion?

[Mr Hague]

The blunt Yorkshireman has been converted into a Foreign Secretary who weighs his words carefully, dramatic transition though that may be. As we are advocating a prompt, independent, credible and transparent investigation and inquiry, in the terms that I have put forward, it is important for us to be prepared to see what it produces before feeling that we need to add any other language to how I have expressed things today.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

This afternoon, the Secretary of State appears to have ruled out a number of options for dealing with Israel within a European Union context. What exactly is the United Kingdom doing within the European Union to maximise diplomatic pressure to end the blockade on Gaza?

[Mr Hague]

I am not conscious of ruling anything out, and I am not ruling anything out. But again I must stress that there is an enormous amount of pressure. I had dinner with many of the European Foreign Ministers in Sarajevo last night and I have seen many more of them this morning. They are all expressing themselves in very similar ways, and very emphatically, to the Government of Israel. There is no doubt about the intensity of the feeling and pressure from the European Union. Clearly, we will now want to discuss as a body what more we can do and, most importantly, what we can do working with the United States to try to give new momentum to the middle east peace process as a whole. The issue is right up there on the agenda and in the minds of European Foreign Ministers, and there will be a great deal of pressure.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

As someone who has been to Gaza twice since Operation Cast Lead, I ask the Foreign Secretary to exempt Members of the House, at least, and other people who can bear witness, from the advice not to travel to Gaza. Perhaps he would like to go himself. Having a news blackout and hiding the appalling situation is exactly what the Israeli Government want, as they did during Operation Cast Lead. May I add that the Foreign Secretary’s testy conversations with Mr Lieberman are not going to get us anywhere? We need sanctions if Israel is to lift the blockade at all.

[Mr Hague]

Testy conversations with Mr Lieberman are part of what we need to do. I have explained our overall approach and my reaction to the suggestion of sanctions. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling and knowledge about the situation in Gaza. Our general travel advice is not to go to Gaza, but sometimes Members of Parliament are able to go in a privileged and particularly safe way. Such visits must happen and are welcome; it is important for this House to have as much knowledge and information as possible about what is happening on the ground. I am not discouraging right hon. and hon. Members from going under the right circumstances, but let us not mistake that for our general travel advice to the British public.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Foreign Secretary mentioned, under Israeli law aid workers may face charges. Should not the killers of the aid workers face charges under international law?

[Mr Hague]

Since we have called for an investigation, I do not think that we can pre-empt such matters. I stress that, as far as we know, the aid workers, activists, or people who were aboard the ship—however we want to describe them—and who may be in that position do not include any of the British nationals. Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a point that illustrates the strength of feeling in this House. That is one reason why we need to continue to call so strongly for the credible investigation to which I have referred.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has rightly referred to the strength of feeling in this House, and, indeed, almost on a global basis. However, he will be as aware as anyone that Israel has a well-founded reputation for toughing out these crises, hoping that they will go away, and has been very successful in doing that. He made the point, again rightly, that these events are the recruiting sergeants for terrorism. Can he tell the House—this is a serious question—what will be different this time?

[Mr Hague]

I cannot guarantee to the hon. Gentleman what the course of events will now be. I can say, slightly reiterating what I said earlier, that these incidents have shone a particular spotlight on to the situation in Gaza. The speed and unity of the diplomatic response is unusual. I referred earlier to the ease with which the UN Security Council statement was agreed, including with the United States—I stress that point. I think that that will have been duly noted in Israel; in fact, I know that it has been duly noted in Israel. Can I promise what reaction the Israelis will now provide? No, I cannot, but we will watch it very closely and minutely, and we will argue very strongly for the measures that I have set out today, not excluding other courses of action in the future.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

It is an unusual and impressive sight to see a Yorkshireman linguistically restrained, but I thank the Foreign Secretary for what was, in the main, a robust and refreshing statement. I also include the shadow Foreign Secretary in that.

The Foreign Secretary mentioned that the Rafah crossing has been reopened. We have been told in the past that that will open up an enormous amount of access for munitions and weapons of war. If some good has come from this bloodstained horror, it is the opening of the Rafah crossing. Will this be monitored, will there be a report to the House, and will we be able to consider, in this House, whether the truth of the Rafah crossing is that it is simply another border crossing, and not an access point for matériel for Hamas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

There were three questions, but one answer will suffice.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, it is very important that this is monitored, and I certainly welcome other opportunities for the House to discuss these matters and to be updated on these events.

[David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that resolution 1860, as well as calling for an end to the blockade, acknowledges that the international community itself has responsibility to ensure that weapons are not smuggled into Gaza? We know that the Foreign Secretary does not want to send a gunboat to ensure that this happens—[Interruption.] I think that a gunboat has a rather different aim from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) wanted. Given that, what practical steps can the international community take to offer assistance not only to Israel, but to Egypt, to ensure that weapons are not getting into the Gaza strip, which will reassure the great mass of Israeli public opinion, which I believe will be as horrified about these events as are people in this House?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on what is required. There have been previous attempts at various forms of international presence and activity around Gaza that were meant to give assurance. Clearly, that has not worked, so we now have to find a new mechanism for doing so. Britain stands ready to help in many ways. When the hon. Gentleman referred to needing a gunboat, one of my right hon. Friends said, “We haven’t got one.” That was indeed how it turned out under the previous Government, when such a thing was offered but never materialised. That is why I am not making any rash promises. However, given the huge importance of this issue in international affairs, the United Kingdom will do whatever we can to assist.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

My constituents want more than pressure. Will the Foreign Secretary come back to the House and report on a timetable for the discussions on a diplomatic solution, just as we did on Ireland?

[Mr Hague]

I think that there will be many more discussions in this House. I am not offering a timetable today, but I have indicated that we have not excluded other actions and pressures in the future. I would be very disappointed if we did not have a further opportunity to discuss these things.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr MacShane]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the robust condemnations and statements from the Foreign Secretary and from my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, but is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Hamas charter states:

“There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility”,

that

“our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging”

and that

“Israel…will remain erect until Islam eliminates it”?

Such anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish language is the official doctrine and policy of Hamas. I share in all the points that the Foreign Secretary made and wish him well, but Hamas is part of the problem, not yet part of the solution.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—I never thought I would say those words, but I am. I hope that I made that point in my statement in a slightly different way, by referring to the ideological motives of Hamas and reminding the House that there is a Hamas dimension to the whole problem. It has refused to forswear violence, recognise previous agreements and recognise Israel’s right to exist, and until it starts making some concrete movement towards those things, it will be very difficult for the international community to discuss the future with it. The right hon. Gentleman adds force to that argument.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation, as a result of which everyone who wanted to contribute on the statement was given the opportunity to do so.

Foreign Affairs and Defence

Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

It is a privilege to open this year’s foreign affairs and defence debate on the Gracious Speech, the first of this new Parliament and of this historic coalition Government. It is one of the strengths of this country that a strong thread of bipartisanship runs through large areas of foreign policy.

I am glad that the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) has just made it into the Chamber in the last few seconds as, in our exchanges across this Table in our previous roles, he and I often reflected that bipartisanship in many areas. He is now standing for another position that I would not wish on anybody, given my experience as Leader of the Opposition. I will not wish him well with that, in case it damages his chances of election—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, I am resisting that temptation. However, for as long as his role as shadow Foreign Secretary lasts, and where appropriate, the briefings and consultations that he extended to me will, of course, always be extended to him.

The agreement of the coalition Government reflects our sense of common purpose and responsibility and sets out an ambitious programme in foreign affairs, as it does in domestic policy. As a new Government, we have the opportunity for some new beginnings in foreign affairs, learning from where there have been mistakes and setbacks, but of course retaining the strengths.

Today’s debate takes place against a background of serious economic strain across the world, the continued deployment of 9,500 British troops in Afghanistan—to whom the whole House will join me in paying fulsome tribute—and daily reminders that, more than ever, our prosperity and our security are bound up with those of other nations.

It is no secret that we live in a world where economic might is shifting to the emerging economies and that the relative size of the economies of Britain and the rest of Europe are declining in relation to those powers. In this new landscape, where both threats and opportunities are more diffuse, there can be no suggestion that it is in our national interest for our role in the world to wither and shrivel away. This Government reject the idea of strategic shrinkage. We believe that this would be to retreat as a nation at the moment when a more ambitious approach is required.

If we are to make the most of the opportunities of the 21st century and secure our economic prosperity for the future, our foreign policy must become more ingenious and more energetic, and we should aim to build up our engagement in the regions where those opportunities increasingly lie, particularly in the Gulf, north Africa, Asia and Latin America. At the same time, we must retain our global diplomatic network, increase our close understanding of complex parts of the world, expand our development efforts and enhance our ability to detect and contain threats to our national security, often in unstable and inaccessible regions.

Our security and our economic prosperity require an ambitious and coherent approach to world affairs. Constrained national resources is not an argument against this approach; it makes the case for it more compelling. We will pursue a distinctive British foreign policy that is active and highly activist in Europe, that builds up British engagement overseas in the areas I have mentioned, that upholds our belief in human rights, political freedom, free trade and poverty reduction, and that promotes our national interest. What I like to call our enlightened national interest is no narrow affair; it involves being a force for good in the world as well as seeking the best for our own citizens and society. This approach will require a greater degree of co-ordination of our foreign, defence, development and security policy than ever before, so that our efforts are part of a coherent strategy that can command the widest possible support in this House and across the country.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Why does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the Defence Secretary, who said that it was his priority to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and that he could see no reason for spending taxpayers’ money on defending the education policy in a “broken 13th-century country”?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman has a particular view on Afghanistan, which he often expresses and which we must respect. It would be rather starry-eyed of him to believe that the Defence Secretary agreed with him, however. If anyone had seen our visit to Afghanistan at the weekend, they would have witnessed the total agreement between the Defence Secretary, the International Development Secretary and myself. I will come to the matter of Afghanistan in a moment and deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I love listening to the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but he is so entertaining that I think we should store up his intervention for a little later in my speech. I will certainly allow him to intervene when we need a bit of refreshment.

The Government have established the National Security Council to bring together strategic decisions about foreign policy, security and defence policy and development, and we have appointed a National Security Adviser. Unlike the National Security Committee of the previous Government, which seemed to have little discernible impact, our National Security Council is at the centre of decision making in Government on these issues. It has already met three times in the two weeks since we took office, including this morning at the Ministry of Defence, and it will be a major means of involving domestic Departments—many of which have an increasingly international aspect to their work—in the pursuit of national foreign and security policy objectives, so that foreign policy will run through the veins of the domestic Departments of Government as well as those of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Foreign Secretary—something that Conservative Members have been looking forward to for a long time? One of the biggest criticisms levelled at the present Opposition when they were in government is that they failed to update the House regularly on what was happening in Afghanistan, and failed to keep the nation involved. May I ask my right hon. Friend to honour his promise to keep this place updated? Perhaps he could begin by outlining what he found on his recent visit to Afghanistan, what is happening in Nad Ali and Marjah, and in impending operations in southern Kandahar.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The brief answer to his question is “Yes, we will honour that commitment” and I shall set out in a few moments how we are going to do that. When we were in opposition, we called for more regular reports and quarterly reviews about the position in Afghanistan to be presented to this House. We shall certainly honour that and we will make a major statement on how we see things before the Kabul conference takes place. If my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument in a logical order, I will come on to Afghanistan in a few moments.

I was about to say that in the opening days of the new Government, we have reached out immediately to our allies. The Prime Minister has visited Paris and Berlin, and I had extensive discussions with my European counterparts at the EU-Latin America and Caribbean meeting in Madrid last week. As I speak, my hon. Friend the—

[Mr MacShane]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

We have not yet reached the desired point, but we are coming to it.

As I speak, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend—I think I can call him that—the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) is in Madrid for a summit with our ASEAN—Association of Southeast Asian Nations— partners. Within two days of taking office, I met the US Secretary of State in Washington for discussions on Iran and Afghanistan, and over the weekend the International Development Secretary, the Defence Secretary and I made our joint visit to Afghanistan.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention before developing the point on that visit.

[Sandra Osborne]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. If he takes the view that all Government Departments should have an input into foreign policy, does he agree that all the Departments should therefore pay their share of the subscriptions to international organisations such as the UN?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

My colleagues in the Foreign Office would be delighted if all Departments joined in paying international subscriptions. That is true, but I think I will take the hon. Lady’s point to the Chancellor as an input into the comprehensive spending review.

[Mr MacShane]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

Because the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) is so bursting to intervene in the debate, we must allow him to do so.

[Mr MacShane]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary, who is a good Rotherham man. On the issue of the EU-Latin America meeting and political freedom, will he tell us what was in his mind when, in Cuba this winter, he met, with Lord Ashcroft, communist officials from the Cuban Government while Orlando Zapata was dying in prison under communist torture, particularly given that the EU has a rule that there should be no meeting with communist Cuban officials unless there is also a meeting with the democratic opposition? I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, then shadow Foreign Secretary, met the opposition, so does he understand how upset people are about that meeting?

[Mr Hague]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the Foreign Secretary returns to the Dispatch Box, I say that we must have a degree of order in this debate. Interventions are, frankly, already becoming mini-speeches when there is a lot of pressure on time, as many right hon. and hon. Members wish to make a speech. Interventions must be brief; that will be enforced.

[Mr Hague]

In response to the right hon. Gentleman—I accept his praise as being a good Rotherham man and thank him for that—I would say that when one is in opposition, shadowing foreign affairs, it is very important to increase one’s understanding and engagement with the world to the maximum possible extent. He says that there is an EU policy, which indeed there is, but I was preceded in Cuba by two EU Foreign Ministers who also visited the country. It is thus a policy that is not always honoured by all EU nations, which I think the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge. It is very important to understand and talk to the leaderships of other countries with which we sometimes—and in the case of Cuba, nearly always—disagree. That is, after all, the point of diplomacy—talking to our enemies, adversaries and those who disagree with us, not just talking to our friends. In office, we will want to stand with a united EU policy, but I make no apology for exploring these issues with whoever it is possible to explore them with while in opposition.

Moving on to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Prime Minister has made it clear that our top foreign policy priority is Afghanistan. The duty of care that we owe to our armed forces will be at the forefront of our minds. Whatever differences may be expressed in the House on other matters, I believe that we are united in gratitude to them. I also pay tribute to the many British civilians—including those in the Foreign Office—who are working to build a stable and secure Afghanistan.

Our objective in Afghanistan can be expressed quite simply. It is to help Afghans to reach the point at which they can look after their own security without presenting a danger to the rest of the world, with the Afghan security forces and the Afghan state capable of withstanding the range of security threats that are currently present in their country. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence pointed out, the sooner that they are able to do that, the sooner our troops—who make such sacrifices—will be able to come home.

It is vital for Parliament and the British public to be given regular and comprehensive updates on the situation, and on the progress being made against Government objectives. Let me answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East by saying that we will begin the quarterly reports to Parliament that we think should have been instituted in the past, delivering on the pledge that the Conservative party made in opposition. The Government will wish to report to the House on where matters stand on Afghanistan before the Kabul conference, and the quarterly report to Parliament will be instituted thereafter.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

We all pay tribute to British troops in Afghanistan, and rightly so. There is no division of opinion in the House about that. Is the Foreign Secretary aware, however, of growing anxiety about the fact that, after eight years, there is not the slightest indication that this is a winnable war? How much longer are British troops going to stay in Afghanistan, and when are we going to realise that, first and foremost, some sort of political solution—it will not be a military solution—is necessary in that country?

[Mr Hague]

I think that we also all agree that this is not a problem to which there is just a military solution. That point was often made by the previous Government—it was often made by the right hon. Member for South Shields—and we have always agreed with it.

One of the matters that we discussed with President Karzai in Afghanistan at the weekend was the process of reconciliation for which the peace jirga is about to be called. Sixteen hundred representatives from all over Afghanistan will be asked to come together to give the Afghan Government a mandate to proceed with a process of reconciliation, as well as a reintegration of former Taliban fighters at local level.

Of course there are huge concerns about the situation in Afghanistan, and we must respect those concerns. That is why the Government are spending an enormous amount of time on the issue, and that is why our first foreign policy priority is to show, and to know ourselves, that we have a proper grip on the situation. We must show that we are taking stock of the political situation in Afghanistan and our military role—taking stock not in the sense of deciding whether to support the international strategy there, but in the sense of deciding how best to support it in the months and years ahead.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I welcome the commitment to a long-term political solution and the recognition that there has to be such a solution, but ultimately, if the Afghan people are to embrace a political solution, they must feel confident that the NATO forces are there for the purpose of a long-term commitment to bring sustainability and hand over security in a way that will not cause them to see the political system failing around them. If they are to buy into that future, they must believe that a long-term commitment exists.

[Mr Hague]

That is a very good point. Where progress is being made in Afghanistan, it is being made because the people in those areas have faith in the continuation of the security improvements that have been made, and in the continued presence of the forces that have helped to deliver them.

It is possible to see those improvements. This weekend, for instance, when my right hon. Friends and I were in Nad Ali—a much-contested place—we were able to walk about and meet local people. We could walk around the whole town, visit the bazaar, go to the local clinic, and walk freely in the streets with the district governor. That would not have been possible only eight or nine months ago. Amid all the anxieties about Afghanistan and the casualties that we commemorate and recognise in the House each week, it is important for us also to explain to the British public where things are succeeding in Afghanistan, so that the full context is available to them.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

During his early consultations with Paris and Berlin in particular, did the Foreign Secretary receive a commitment from our NATO partners to continue to support the action in Afghanistan, not just in words but in deeds?

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Lady knows, those countries are committed to supporting the NATO strategy. We have, of course, often wished that other allies in NATO could do more, and on our visit this weekend we certainly identified that there is a need to increase further the ability to train the Afghan national security forces. That is a particular area in which our close allies in Europe may be able to do more, so we will be having further discussions with them about it, including, I hope, on my visits to Paris and Berlin in the very near future.

[David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that while it is very difficult to articulate what victory in this conflict will look like, it is very easy to articulate what defeat would look like, and how utterly disastrous that would be—a return to brutal internal repression and a safe haven for the export of fanatical jihadism—and that such a defeat must be avoided at all costs?

[Mr Hague]

That is exactly right, and it is the counter argument to the concerns about the situation expressed by his party colleague, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). As I have said, there are plenty of things to be concerned about and give attention to, but what the hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) has said is why we have embarked on this, and why more than 40 nations are part of the coalition that is embarked on it. That is the spirit in which we are doing this work.

Achieving our objectives in Afghanistan requires close co-operation with the Afghan Government, who must make progress on their commitments in the areas of good governance, corruption, reconciliation and reintegration. We discussed these issues at length with President Karzai and his Ministers over the weekend, and we remain strongly committed to a comprehensive co-ordinated strategy, bringing together the political, security and development aspects of our support to Afghanistan.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that making any consistent progress in Afghanistan will also require some measure of stability in the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and between India and Pakistan and India and Afghanistan? That is a crucial part of the way forward.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and she beautifully anticipates the next paragraph in my speech. Indeed, I intend to visit Pakistan in the next few weeks because of its close connection with the issues that we have been discussing in Afghanistan.

In Pakistan we will likewise pursue a broad strategy of engagement that focuses not just on security, but on education, development and building up democratic institutions. We will explore with Pakistan ways to strengthen our bilateral relationship, building on so many shared goals and long-standing ties between Britain and Pakistan. Secretary Clinton and I agreed in Washington that it is crucial that the United States and Britain work extremely closely to co-ordinate our efforts in Pakistan given the colossal American resources that are deployed in Pakistan and the enormous British expertise about Pakistan. Those factors need to be brought more closely together.

The single biggest foreign policy priority after Afghanistan and Pakistan is to prevent nuclear proliferation in the middle east. Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability could unleash a cascade of nuclear proliferation and significantly destabilise the region. A comprehensive diplomatic offer to Iran remains on the table, but it has refused to discuss its nuclear programme and has forged ahead, announcing its intention to build 10 new enrichment plants and beginning to enrich uranium up to 20%, which is well above the level needed for the production of civil nuclear power.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his appointment to the post. Does he recognise that as Iran is still a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and—as I understand it—he supports a nuclear-free middle east, membership of the NPT is a vehicle for achieving that goal? Does he not also acknowledge that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and has 200 warheads, so should it not be engaged actively by the western Governments—particularly the big five—in pursuing a degree of nuclear disarmament on its part, in order to bring about the prize of a nuclear-free region?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know—although he may know this already—that one of the proposals on the table at the NPT review conference that is taking place in New York as we speak is to take forward the 1995 commitment to a nuclear-free zone in the middle east, with a conference of all the relevant nations. Therefore, there are the beginnings of an effort to activate this subject in the international diplomatic arena. Of course there is, however, no chance of achieving that objective if Iran succeeds in obtaining a nuclear weapons capability or in constructing nuclear weapons. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who clearly believes in a middle east free of nuclear weapons, will join me in supporting every possible measure to increase the peaceful pressure on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

We note the efforts of Brazil and Turkey to engage Iran on the deal to supply fuel for the Tehran research reactor, but even if Iranian intentions are genuine on that confidence-building measure, the broader concerns would remain unanswered. We are therefore playing a significant role in negotiations at the UN Security Council on a new sanctions resolution. It is important that European nations are ready to build on UN action by adopting strengthened EU sanctions in order to send a strong signal to Iran. As we approach the anniversary of the presidential election in Iran on 12 June, the whole House will want to recall those in Iran who are striving for a better future for their country. Only Iranians can determine how their country is governed, but this House should make it clear that we deplore human rights abuses, wherever in the world they occur, and that we will always stand on the side of victims of oppression—other countries such as Burma are very much in our minds in this context.

Although much of our immediate concern about nuclear proliferation is concentrated in the middle east, technological advances and the blurring of the line between civil and military applications of nuclear technology pose an urgent and critical threat to global security. Stemming an uncontrolled spread of nuclear know-how and equipment, deterring any country that might be tempted to try to acquire nuclear weapons from doing so and keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists must be a top foreign policy priority of any British Government.

The conference to review the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which I just mentioned, began during our election campaign and has entered its final week in New York. In opposition, my party promised decisive UK leadership in this effort if elected, and the coalition agreement pledged an immediate and strong UK role at the conference. So I am pleased to announce today that, for the first time, the Government will make public the maximum number of nuclear warheads that the United Kingdom will hold in its stockpile—in future, our overall stockpile will not exceed 225 nuclear warheads. This is a significant step forward on previous policy, which was to publish only the number of warheads classed as “operationally available”, the maximum number of which will remain at 160. We believe that the time is now right to be more open about the nuclear weapons that we hold. We judge that that will further assist in building the climate of trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states, which has been lacking in recent years, and will contribute to efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons worldwide. I can assure the House that this disclosure poses no threat to the security of the United Kingdom. Together with similar announcements made by the United States and France, it helps to set standards of transparency that all states with nuclear programmes should follow.

I can also announce that the Government will re-examine the UK’s declaratory policy as part of the strategic defence and security review. The purpose of our nuclear weapons is to deter attack, and the UK has long been clear that it would consider using them only in extreme circumstances of self-defence, including the defence of our NATO allies. This country has been deliberately ambiguous over the precise circumstances of use, although we have offered some assurances to non-nuclear weapons states. We have decided that the time is right to look again at our policy—the US has done the same in its recent nuclear posture review—to ensure that it is fully appropriate to the political and security context in 2010 and beyond. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is, as I speak, attending the review. He will repeat these announcements there and will meet other delegations to help promote a positive outcome to the conference. These concrete actions show how seriously we take our obligations to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty and to move towards the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons while ensuring that we maintain our credible minimum nuclear deterrent.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I, too, offer my congratulations to a fellow south Yorkshireman. In the spirit of what he is describing, and in the light of the domestic defence review, it might be possible for the Foreign Secretary to contemplate sharing the cost of and future planning for any renewal of nuclear capacity for this country in order to reduce massively the cost to the British people and avoid cuts in essential services elsewhere. Such an approach would involve co-operation between the UK and France in an entirely new environment.

[Mr Hague]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. As he knows, the Government are committed to maintaining a nuclear deterrent. As with all Government programmes, we will, of course, be reviewing the Trident programme for value for money. He has put forward a radical idea and we will feed that idea, as his representation, into the strategic defence and security review.

North Korea’s nuclear programme is another area of serious concern where robust international diplomacy is needed. In that context, we deplore the unprovoked act of aggression by North Korea that led to the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel. We strongly support President Lee’s announcement of proportionate action in response to that act, as well as a referral of the incident to the UN Security Council.

On the middle east, there will be much agreement across the House on the need to make urgent progress on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before the window for such a solution closes. Our goal is a secure and universally recognised Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, with Jerusalem the future capital of both states, and a fair settlement for refugees. We will seek to buttress the diplomatic initiative—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for South Shields is remarking on the fact that those are the same words that he used—I did stress that there was some bipartisanship in foreign policy, and there ought to be on the middle east.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

You should just say, “I agree with David.”

[Mr Hague]

I used to say that I agree with him, but now he will have to say that he agrees with me; the situation has changed. We seek to buttress the diplomatic initiative of President Obama’s Administration and the proximity talks that are under way, and we will be strong supporters of those building the institutions of a future Palestinian state while actively exploring with our European partners the scope for further EU action.

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

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his elevation. During the general election campaign a full-page advertisement was placed in the Jewish Chronicle on 16 April by the Conservative party. It stated:

“Universal jurisdiction will be amended at the earliest opportunity to enable Israelis to visit the UK”.

I noted that the Queen’s Speech contained no reference to “universal jurisdiction”. Will the Foreign Secretary clarify whether that is because of a disagreement in the coalition or because the Government are not prepared to introduce legislation in the near future to resolve this matter?

[Mr Hague]

That is a perfectly legitimate question. I will go on to say in my speech how we will proceed on this issue, so if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reach that point, I will explain the exact answer to his question.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I, too, give my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman. As he has said, the words that he has chosen are exactly the same as those used by the former Government, but a number of us feel that the problem is that what he has described is not happening and that progress is not being made. It is important that on this issue, which is vital to world peace, everybody should know exactly where Governments and Prime Ministers stand. On the day following another Israeli attack on Gaza there is some concern about whether or not this Government acknowledge that Operation Cast Lead, which took place last year and caused such carnage in Gaza, was disproportionate. The former Government were clear that it was disproportionate, but do his Government take that view?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have got the point. The interventions are still too long.

[Mr Hague]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. I can assure him that I share his frustration that not enough is happening. One of the things that I discussed with Secretary Clinton in Washington was this subject and how we could support the efforts of the United States to push forward the peace process. It will be one of the subjects that I particularly want to discuss in European capitals over the next couple of weeks in order to see how the European Union and its member states can exercise more leverage in this important process.

I do not want to spend my time redefining any attitude to past conflicts; this is a new Government and we will set out our position on what happens in the future. However, I will say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) that we call on the Government of Israel to freeze all settlement activity and to allow unfettered access for aid to Gaza, where we are seriously concerned about the deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation and about the effect on a generation of young Palestinians. At the same time, of course, the rocket attacks from Gaza must cease and Hamas must make concrete movement towards the Quartet principles; we will have no truck with those who espouse or practise terrorism. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that this Government will give our energy to that and also try to ensure that there is European leadership in trying to drive the middle east peace process forward.

The conflict matters to British national security. We will take every opportunity to help promote peace and we will now examine—to deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes)—how to deal with the totally unsatisfactory situation that has had the effect of barring Israeli politicians, among others, from visiting the UK without weakening our commitment to holding accountable those guilty of war crimes. We will report to the House in due course. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question more explicitly, this is a coalition Government and we have to discuss together the way forward, although we are absolutely clear that the current situation cannot be sustained.

[Mike Gapes]

“In due course” is not the same as at the earliest opportunity. Will he explain the difference?

[Mr Hague]

Consideration of this will not be long delayed, I can assure the hon. Gentleman. Given that the previous Government said in December that it was urgent to deal with the matter but had done nothing about it by April, I will not, after two weeks in office, take lectures from the Opposition about the speed with which we are dealing with it.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his elevation. Everyone will look at his words in detail and he just said that this is a coalition, and the inference was that action on Israel was somehow being held back by someone in the coalition. Is he saying that the Liberal Democrats take a softer view on action on Israel or that his own party has a softer view? Coalition difficulties must, presumably, have some source.

[Mr Hague]

I am merely saying that there are a range of issues for the Government to address. I explained earlier how our concentration in our collective discussions on international affairs has been very much on Afghanistan. The three meetings of the National Security Council that we have had so far have concentrated overwhelmingly on Afghanistan. We have not yet determined the exact action that we will take on universal jurisdiction. However, that is after two weeks in office. As I said, the former Government had a good deal longer to try to deal with these things.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Although most of the comment so far has concerned Tzipi Livni and visitors from Israel, the Foreign Secretary knows as well as I do that these powers could be used against any visitor from many other countries around the world, including the United States. If there are any difficulties in reaching an early decision, I hope that those who are cautious about making such a change will bear in mind that this is not simply about Israel but about the United Kingdom being able to welcome visitors from many countries and not being prevented from doing so by some technical aberration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend is completely right. That was why I referred a moment ago to the barring of Israeli politicians among others. That is absolutely the correct point. We will set out the way forward quite soon; it is important to get it right and to ensure that we deal with an unsatisfactory situation without weakening our commitment to holding accountable those guilty of war crimes. That bears at least a little examination by an incoming Government before we make our statement about the way forward.

I hope that there will also be wide agreement in the House on the need to support the democratic process in Iraq and I look forward to the early formation of a representative and inclusive Government.

We will renew our efforts to foster stability in Lebanon and maintain constructive dialogue with Damascus on the need for a positive Syrian role in the region, without being starry-eyed about the obstacles and real concerns about some of Syria’s actions. We will continue to support regional efforts to promote reform and long-term stability in Yemen, as well as co-operating closely with the US and other partners on countering the terrorist threat from the region.

The middle east is a region of great opportunity and promise where we have many friends and potential allies. It should not be viewed through the prism of threats and security challenges alone. We have long called for the elevation of British links with many of the countries of the middle east, north Africa and the Gulf, not only diplomatically but in matters of culture, education, commerce and security, for the reasons I set out earlier. We will now take forward the work of developing that long-term initiative, which I hope will have cross-party support, through the Foreign Office and National Security Council and we will keep the House informed of progress.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend. On this day, when direct talks have resumed between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders, will he reaffirm the Conservative manifesto commitment to support a just, balanced and lasting settlement to reunite Cyprus at long last?

[Mr Hague]

That is a manifesto commitment I can easily reiterate, and my hon. Friend has just done it for me.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he say a word on his approach to piracy off the coast of Somalia and whether he thinks enough is being done to combat it?

[Mr Hague]

It is very important to increase the international efforts to deal with that. There are a number of complex issues to deal with, such as what happens to pirates once they are captured. Of course, we will be looking at how we, with our allies, can carry out that work. My hon. Friend can be assured that we will be discussing that in the House over the coming weeks and months, too.

To complete the point that I was making, the need to renew British engagement with the world does not apply solely to the middle east. The deepening of our alliances beyond Europe and north America is a strategic necessity if we are to engage and influence the emerging powers, gain access to new markets, secure inward investment and maintain an open global economy. We will therefore seek to strengthen the UK’s relations with countries in the fastest-growing regions of the world economy, such as Brazil and Japan, enhance our partnership with India and carry forward the strategic dialogue with China while continuing to urge all our partners to observe high standards of human rights.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr MacShane]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I know that time is passing because I am being asked so many questions, so I shall give way just one more time. I shall have to disappoint the right hon. Member for Rotherham in his hope of another intervention.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and I add my congratulations to him. He mentioned India, and it would be remiss of me to miss the opportunity to ask whether in the list of engagements and discussions that he will be having will be a discussion about Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

[Mr Hague]

The last thing a new British Foreign Secretary should do is lecture other people about Kashmir. The British position is long standing and well known, and it has not changed with the arrival of a new Government—[Hon. Members: “What is it?”] It is well known by Opposition Members, too.

Human rights are not the only consideration in forming a nation’s foreign policy.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

I shall have to try to get to the end of my speech at some point.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

As a major concession, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I shall then try to conclude.

[Tony Baldry]

I want to give my right hon. Friend the opportunity to amplify what he just said about India and China. The coalition agreement, published last week, highlighted strengthening and deepening relations with India and China as an important part of coalition foreign policy. My right hon. Friend has mentioned it, but will he amplify how he sees the Government doing that in practical terms?

[Mr Hague]

They are different from each other, of course. I am glad to say that when the right hon. Member for South Shields visited China before the general election, he concluded agreement on a strategic dialogue with China, which is something that we have wanted across the parties. The immediate priority is to take that forward. I shall seek an early opportunity to visit China in order to do exactly that. We have some very important British work in the commercial sense going on, particularly at the Shanghai Expo where there is a tremendous British pavilion. Every opportunity should be taken to pursue our commercial links. With India, there are of course also considerations of expanding commercial links but there is an even greater opportunity to expand our cultural, educational and scientific contact. There is more catching up to do in our relationship with India, which has been uneven at times. We will commit ourselves to doing that.

[Mr Cash]

I am extremely grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way, and I would not want to disappoint him. As he appears to be reaching the end of his remarks, I should like to ask him a simple question. In the context of our relationship with the European Union, which is familiar territory in debates of this kind, but to which he has not really referred in any detail, will he be good enough to confirm that the proposals that would help us to underpin negotiations with the European Union will necessarily include a gold-standard sovereignty Act, which would enable us to ensure that we negotiate for a position of strength and that we reaffirm the right of the House to determine how we are governed in this country?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that I am coming to Europe. I am trying to get to that part of my speech so that I can conclude. We have said in the coalition agreement that we will examine the case for that Act. Let me be explicit. The Conservative party was committed to it in its manifesto, but this is a coalition Government: we have to look at the issue with our partners in the coalition, and the agreement says that we will do so. I will state our European approach in a moment, but I am conscious that other people wish to speak.

We remain acutely concerned about the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, Sudan and the horn of Africa. The Government are fully committed to achieving, from 2013, the UN target of spending 0.7% of our gross national income on overseas aid. We will enshrine that commitment in law, as we believe that locking in our commitment is both morally right and in our national interest. That will place Britain in a position of clear international leadership and will encourage other countries to live up to their commitments. Value for money will be central to everything we do. So, the Department for International Development will be completely transparent about the cost and performance of British aid programmes, using independent evaluation and a focus on results to drive a step change in the effectiveness of Britain’s aid efforts.

The European Union is the last major subject that I want to tackle. The Government will be an active and activist player in the European Union. We will be very vigorous and positive in the promotion of this country’s national interests in the EU while working to make the European Union as a whole a success. All the countries of the EU face profound challenges that will require us to work together using the means and institutions of the European Union. Our efforts will be concentrated on Europe’s global competitiveness, on tacking climate change and on global poverty. The current economic difficulties pose questions for each nation, varying with the state of their public finances, but collectively we need to encourage growth and job creation, so we will press strongly for the expansion of the single market and the removal of obstacles to business. It is also in our interests and in the EU’s general interest for the nations of the EU to make greater use of their collective weight in the world. We share many interests and values, and taking common action to advance them is, where appropriate, greatly to our general benefit—Iran’s nuclear programme is an important instance of that.

The EU’s standing in this country has fallen in recent years.

[Mr MacShane]

Thanks to you!

[Mr Hague]

Or perhaps it was the responsibility of some of those who have been the Minister for Europe. The right hon. Gentleman might reflect on that.

The British public have felt that they have had too little democratic control over developments in the EU. To remedy that and to provide what we regard as necessary protections for our democracy, the Government will bring forward a Bill amending the European Communities Act 1972. The Bill will require that any proposed future EU treaty that transfers areas of power or competence from Britain to the EU will be subject to a referendum. The British people will then have a referendum lock to which only they hold the key. The measure will cover any proposal to join the euro.

We also need greater democratic scrutiny and accountability over provisions in treaties that allow the rules of the EU to be modified or that provide options for existing EU powers to expand without the need for a new treaty. The use of any ratchet clause or passerelle will require an Act of Parliament to be passed, and the use of any major ratchet clause, such as the abolition of national vetoes over foreign policy, will require a referendum for its authorisation.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I cannot take any more interventions, but, on my hon. Friend’s point, in this context, we are considering and discussing the case for a United Kingdom sovereignty Bill. In addition to the Bill, the Government have agreed and determined that there will be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers from the United Kingdom to the European Union in this Parliament. We will also examine the current balance of competences between this country and the European Union.

As set out in the coalition agreement, we will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% and by working towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions and explore the creation of new international sources of funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation. At the Cancun conference in November we will have the opportunity to establish a strong framework for global climate action.

I know that I have spoken for too long, Mr Speaker, but every time I mention a country, someone asks me a question about it. I want briefly to mention two areas of Europe of particular importance to our foreign policy—Russia and the Balkans. We make no criticism of the previous Government, who faced significant difficulties in relation to Russia and always had our full support, but it is not in the interests of Britain or Russia to be in a state of permanent confrontation. A sustained improvement in our relations will require a major effort on both sides. On Britain’s part, the door is open to an improved relationship and we hope that invitation is taken up. We attach great importance to progress in the western Balkans. A prosperous and stable western Balkans will aid the general prosperity, stability and security of Europe. I intend to attend, next week, the meeting in Sarajevo to consider these issues.

Many of the issues I have touched on are immensely challenging and will require years of international co-operation to be overcome. But despite the sometimes seemingly bleak horizon in foreign affairs, the themes of opportunity, optimism and faith in human nature should run throughout our foreign policy. As the Gracious Speech confirmed, this year holds many opportunities for the United Kingdom to seek the strengthening of international institutions and effective multilateral co-operation. We look forward to the G8 summit in Canada and the G20 summits in Toronto and South Korea. Her Majesty the Queen will pay a royal visit to Canada in June and to the United Nations in July. It is remarkable to reflect that Her Majesty, who last addressed the General Assembly in 1957, will do so again not only as Queen of the United Kingdom and of 15 other UN member states but also as Head of the Commonwealth, which is itself a network of 54 states. We should be alive to the extraordinary diversity and youthfulness of an organisation such as the Commonwealth, which is very important in a networked world.

We look forward to the papal visit in September.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

I am sorry, but I must conclude.

The papal visit will be an event of great significance and meaning to British Catholics.

As we survey the world’s changing landscape and consider the UK’s place within it, there is every reason for optimism and hope. As a country, we possess great assets and advantages. The foundations are there for us to build our influence and engagement in the world if we choose to take the opportunity, and this Government have every intention of doing so.