European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

I want to deal with that issue and the comments of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). The contribution made to this country by EU citizens is not disputed by me or any Opposition Front Bencher. What my hon. Friend said about that positive contribution and people paying taxes is absolutely true. It is also true of the many British people living and working in other EU member states. I completely agree with him that the argument is not about contribution, value, rewinding the clock or any of the other general points. The issue is about precedents in other referendums concerning such matters in other countries. We looked at the precedents and every referendum we found regarding accession to the European Union, joining the single currency or European treaty change was restricted to citizens of the relevant member state. That does not mean that they think that citizens of other countries living in that state do not make a contribution or pay taxes and are not valuable citizens, but that precedent has been set time after time when countries make significant decisions about their own future.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) failed to enunciate any specific undertakings, responsibilities or rights for voters elsewhere in the European Union who are British citizens. Can the shadow Minister share with the House any specific rights that would be circumscribed or removed as a result of a decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union?

[Mr McFadden]

I do not think that is clear at all. It is very uncertain what the rights of British people living in other member states would be in the event of the UK leaving the European Union. The hon. Gentleman raises an important question, which is one of many. I do not want to get sidetracked into the arguments for in and out tonight because I want to concentrate on the amendments. I do not think that anyone can say with confidence that there would be no effects on those citizens in the event of Britain leaving the European Union.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

Thank goodness, we are not disagreeing. That is the point that I tried to make earlier, but in a more complicated fashion. The issue about turnout is how people are incentivised to vote, but the minimum we can do is increase the access to voting procedures. We have done that through postal voting, as my hon. Friend says, and we have just introduced electronic registration, to assist in the registration process. It was argued that once we had introduced electronic registration we would revisit online voting, but unfortunately that is not the case in this legislation. I hope that the tabling of the amendment will make the Government go back to the Electoral Commission and ask it to make detailed proposals. Even if we have to pilot electronic voting in some areas in this referendum, we may be able to overcome some of the problems that have been identified.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) speaks good sense, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman has neglected to answer his point, which is that since the advent of postal votes on demand, there has been no demonstrable increase in voter turnout. Indeed, voter turnout since 1997 generally has gone down. Will he address that point?

[John McDonnell]

There was a slight increase at the last general election. The hon. Gentleman is right, because I can remember turnouts at around 77%. In some areas we went down to 56%, but this time round we went from 60% up to about 65%, so there was a slight increase—a significant increase in some areas—from the introduction of postal voting. If he looks, he will see that where the pilots that were undertaken throughout the 2000s were implemented effectively, turnout was increased significantly. I recommend examination and exploration of the Shrewsbury pilot, which took place in 2005.

I will not delay the Committee any further, but I refer Members not just to the findings of the Electoral Commission, but to the statement by Jenny Watson, chair of the Electoral Commission, that it would return to this issue as its main feature of work in the coming period and report in due course. Again, the Electoral Commission’s argument is simply about bringing our electoral system into line with practices in the rest of society, which is now largely online, and facilitating democracy by the use of online voting in that way. I also refer Members to the executive summary of the report undertaken by WebRoots Democracy—I will circulate it rather than delay the debate—which identifies the ability of online voting not only to increase turnout, but to reduce the cost of balloting procedures.

I raise this issue briefly on an amendment because it is something we need to return to rather than neglect; it has been neglected over the last few years. It is something that many Members will want to explore in a way that facilitates the improvement of democratic processes in our society, but I also give this warning: I will be raising this matter time and again. I mentioned the trade union Bill. We will be tabling amendments to such Bills to ensure that we establish the principle that this House will facilitate access to democracy on every occasion we can. Electronic voting is one mechanism through which we can enhance our society’s democratic processes.

[Mr McFadden]

I would like to talk to amendment 3, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. Friends. On Tuesday, the Committee agreed amendment 55, which ruled out the possibility of holding the referendum in May next year, when there are other important elections taking place throughout the country. However, amendment 55 did not deal with the potential for a poll held in May 2017 to clash with local elections, which are scheduled in both England and Scotland, and the mayoral elections taking place in some places. Our amendment 3 deals with that, because it would rule out holding the referendum on the same day as local elections, as well as the other elections that are listed in the amendment.

There are two separate reasons why we believe the referendum should be held on a separate day. The first is that a referendum on such a large constitutional issue deserves its own campaign and its own moment of decision. The focus in a competitive election when parties are battling to control a local council or another elected body is different from that in an election on a yes/no constitutional question of this kind. The focus in a local election battle should be on who will run the body that is up for election. In a referendum, the focus is different. Views on the European referendum will cross party lines.

[Mr Jackson]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but can he confirm that Her Majesty’s Opposition opposed holding the AV referendum in May 2011 on the same day as local authority elections, but that to a certain extent that referendum drove up turnout for those elections, to 42%?

[Mr McFadden]

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously holding up the AV referendum in 2011 as a model of democratic engagement, I am afraid that, based on my experience, I beg to differ. I really do not think that is a model we should follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I shall deal first with the arguments about combination advanced by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I shall then respond to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about electronic voting. If time permits, I shall also say something about clause 3 stand part and conduct rules.

Let me begin with combination. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we settled the issue of May 2016 on Tuesday, by means of amendment 55. In practice, what we are discussing today is whether we should also rule out any possibility of May 2017. I am not yet persuaded that the arguments are sufficiently compelling. The principle ought to be that the timing of a referendum concerning our future in or out of the European Union should be determined by the progress of negotiations at EU level. I suspect that once those negotiations have concluded and the Prime Minister is ready with his recommendation, there will be a pretty strong appetite in all parts of the House of Commons—and, I think, an even stronger one among British voters and, indeed, our partners in the European Union—for the issue to be brought to a head and settled as soon as possible, in so far as that is compatible with a campaigning period that is seen to be fair and that allows all the arguments to be set out clearly so that people can make a well-informed and deliberate choice.

Ultimately, it will be for Parliament itself to decide whether to approve the specific date that the Government propose. The Bill includes an order-making power for the Secretary of State to set down the referendum date, and that date must be approved through a statutory instrument, which must be tabled in accordance with the affirmative procedure. I can give an undertaking that the debate, whenever it comes, will take place on the Floor of the House. It will be for the House of Commons as a whole—and, separately, the House of Lords—to decide whether, in all the circumstances of the time, to agree to the date that the Government have proposed. Given the reservations that have been expressed about a hypothetical combination with local elections in May 2017, the Government will need to make a persuasive case at that time.

The right hon. Gentleman advanced his argument with his characteristic courtesy and in a constructive tone, so I shall try to respond in kind. I think that he underestimates the British public: I think that voters will be able to distinguish between the different outcomes that they want.

[Mr Jackson]

I have not always been too helpful to my right hon. Friend this week, but I hope to be helpful now. He will have noted that the Opposition spokesman did not address my point that there was a constitutionally significant vote in May 2011—whether or not he agreed with its taking place in the first place—and, at the same time, very important local elections. One did not invalidate the other. Also, in terms of purdah, voters were clear about the issues they were deciding on at the time. He did not address that issue in his remarks.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The precedent, from 2011, is that the British public were able to make that distinction perfectly reasonably in their own minds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

1. What his policy is on continuation of EU sanctions on Russia until that country complies in full with its obligations under the Minsk agreements.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

7. What his policy is on continuation of EU sanctions on Russia until that country complies in full with its obligations under the Minsk agreements.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Sanctions were imposed because Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and intervened in eastern Ukraine. They can be rolled back when Russia has taken steps to comply with international law and its own commitments, starting with the full implementation of the Minsk agreements.

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of helping the elected Government of Ukraine. The United Kingdom has provided Ukraine with technical assistance to support economic and administrative reform as well as humanitarian aid and non-lethal military assistance. We stand ready to discuss with the Ukrainian Government what further ways we might be able to help them in their task.

[Mr Jackson]

Will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the Defence Secretary to ensure that the toughest possible sanctions are applied to Russia until all the Minsk II protocols are met, and that Russia is aware that threats to Moldova and the Baltic states will result in the most severe repercussions?

UK Relations with China

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard]

The InterContinental Hotels Group is an important British company employing a lot of people around the world. Clearly, it must make commercial decisions with the information available. I would hope that it had some dialogue not only with the Chinese authorities but with Tibetans in exile and the people in Tibet who are being oppressed by the Chinese authorities. I will come to Tibet later in my speech. If InterContinental did not consult, I hope that it will learn lessons from the example of Tibet.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

To return to the point that my hon. Friend made about the sharing of crucial information about critical infrastructure with foreign powers, is he aware of the book written some years ago by Richard Clarke, former Assistant Secretary of State in the US State Department, which makes it clear that the Chinese have an advanced cyber-warfare capability that could be aimed at critical infrastructure, including utilities, across the United States and Europe?

[Mark Pritchard]

I have not read that book, but I am not surprised, because I am not as well-read as my hon. Friend, as he knows. He reads about three or four books a week, which is even more than my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). My hon. Friend makes a serious point. It is interesting that the last director-general of the security service, unusually, named China among the countries, notably Russia, that regularly try to infiltrate Government IT systems. Cyber-security is an issue. The Russian and Chinese states must desist from trying to penetrate our systems. I am glad that the coalition Government have invested a record amount in ensuring that we have resilient and robust systems and can counter cyber-attacks. He raises an important point.

The recent announcement by the Chancellor will also allow Chinese banks to submit applications to set up branches here in Britain, giving them full access to their reserves. Both announcements will have wide-ranging benefits for the City of London and will make it much easier for British firms to invest in China, both of which are good news for UK jobs and investment.

There will be a new, simplified and streamlined visa application process, which is also welcome. The UK is already the No. 1 destination for Chinese investment in Europe, attracting £2 billion in 2012 alone, and under the new visa regime, that is likely to increase further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

In my experience, the Chinese people are generous and open-hearted, but we are talking about the Chinese Government and the ruling elite. Aid cannot be disaggregated from China’s muscular expansionism or its territorial disputes in the region, not only with the Philippines but with Russia, Vietnam and other countries.

As an aside, the international community has to make it crystal clear that it will act in unison to stand fast against any Chinese aggression. The Chinese are unlikely to act against a country that has, for example, a military treaty with the United States, such as the Philippines or Thailand, but some countries do not have such a treaty, including Vietnam. The international community must prepare for such an event to ensure that it is united in its response. If we did not respond—I am referring not to military action but to a timely, swift and overwhelming diplomatic and political response—it would be seen as appeasement, as the weakness of the west, and would give a green light to China to continue its expansionism in the region. We would be giving over other islands in the area and giving up on countries. That would be a dangerous time for the world, and the balance of power might shift overnight if we did not have a resolute response.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to animal welfare, I want to address Tibet. He talks about the international community being minded to take a tough approach, but as we speak there are human rights abuses in Tibet. There is self-immolation, and dissidents are being driven into the Dharamsala mountains. There is collective punishment and an attempt to eradicate the culture and language of Tibet. Is that not something on which the international community should be taking a tough stance, rather than kowtowing and acquiescing in the bullying of China when, for instance, the Dalai Lama visits various international communities?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The interventions are getting longer and longer. I hope there might be a bit of discipline. The frequency is fine, but the length is getting a tad like a speech.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

This morning, I was in the Tea Room. It was packed with salivating Tories. The atmosphere was that of a students’ refectory before a students union debate: full of impotent expectation. I say impotent because the Bill is a constitutional nonsense, as we all surely realise.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that if we have a Conservative Government after the next election—God forbid—he will renegotiate Britain’s membership of the EU and then hold a referendum. He is supporting the Bill because it is about a referendum in the next Parliament. However, as we all know, it is constitutionally impossible for this Parliament to make a decision that binds a future Parliament.

What we are engaged in today is a pantomime. The Bill is not about the country’s needs. It is another bone for Eurosceptics to gnaw away at until they eventually go blue in the face. I am sad because this pantomime is also a tragedy. The Bill poses a grave risk to the economic interests of this country. I very much regret that the Prime Minister and Conservative party are more concerned about that party’s internal politics than about the best interests of the people of this country. In seeking to place a question mark over Britain’s membership of the European Union, the Bill creates enormous strategic uncertainty for Britain’s place in the single market. As Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of the advertising group WPP, said in response to the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech, it is

“another reason why people will postpone investment decisions”.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wayne David]

Time is short so I will not. The Bill seeks to create four long years of damaging uncertainty about Britain’s future relationship with the single market. In so doing, it maximises the possibility of the UK no longer being seen as a sound location for inward investment. Let me be clear: the single market is of central economic importance to this country and 3.5 million jobs depend on that market—150,000 in my country of Wales. Some companies say that leaving the European Union will make no difference, but many others hold a profoundly different view. The Smiths Group of advanced technologies, the Weir Group of leading engineering businesses, easyJet, Ford and Toyota have all expressed concerns at the idea of the United Kingdom not having access to the single European market.

As the Financial Times stated in January, “many” entrepreneurs “strongly support” Britain remaining part of the European Union. We would be profoundly mistaken to put at risk this country’s economic well-being for the interests of the Conservative party.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

I very much hope that the amendment will be rejected. In essence, it is less than honest—it clearly opposes what the Government are proposing, but does so in a technical and bureaucratic way. It worries me that, if it were passed, we could be enshrining in British law a stipulation that what happens in this country depends on what happens in others, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out. It is important for this country not to be the last nation in the European Union to respond. We should play our positive role within a reasonable time scale, as is suggested by the Bill.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but frankly I am astonished by the insouciant comments and complacent remarks of some Opposition Members. They ask, “How can this country have the temerity to make a value judgment on legal proceedings with regard to this mechanism?”

There seems to be a fundamental dichotomy for those unable to see the wood for the trees and who will support any initiative from the European Union. They tell us, “Well, this is just one more signature, treaty or concordat that we need to sign up to for us to be at the top table of Europe, and it may be in the UK’s interests or to the contrary.” Yet they then ask us, how dare we make a value judgment on the Pringle case at the Irish High Court—on which, incidentally, the European Court of Justice constitutional decision may hang?

Whatever happened to subsidiarity? Whatever happened to the autonomy, authority and independence of the 27 EU nation states’ own judicial systems? I am concentrating on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) in saying that it is absolutely right for us to be certain of our facts and for us to respect the decisions taken by other countries.

I defer to no one in my admiration for the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is the Nostradamus of Eurosceptics. He has ploughed a lonely furrow on the Labour Benches for many years. He has been saying unfashionable things. The unfortunate thing, from the point of the view of the Labour party, is that he is a socialist and can see the catastrophic economic calamity being visited on working people in Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy. For what? For a Franco-German political construct. The lives of millions of our fellow Europeans are being sacrificed for the sake of a dead idea and the creation of a political entity called Europe.

It ill behoves the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) to quote opinion polls. There was an opinion poll on the Lisbon treaty that said that we should have a referendum and give the people their say. That was the policy of her party in the previous Parliament, and her party reneged on it. Opinion polls say consistently, as they have over a number of years, that we should have a plebiscite on giving the British people the right to make a decision as to whether they wish to remain part of the European Union. That decision is coming, because the people’s voices will be heard by the end of this Parliament. Any party, including my own, that disregards the voice of the people and thinks that they know better will pay a very heavy price at the ballot box.

This is about kicking a can down a road. It is about putting the welfare, careers, vision, energy and lives of a plutocratic Euro-elite before the lives of real people. Real people’s lives are being wrecked. Children in Greece are being adopted because their parents cannot afford to feed them. People are going hungry in Greece because of the economy. That is the human cost of the words of a desiccated calculating machine, as Aneurin Bevan put it, that came out of the mouth of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). It is not just about a political idea; it is about real people. It is time that the House of Commons understood what the European Union is doing to the lives of those people, because we are complicit in that crime in allowing it to go on.

It is time that Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Government understood that this is not an academic issue or a matter of simply saying that it is in our interests to support the continuation of the euro at any price There is a world out there—Latin America, south Asia, the far east. We are a global trading nation, but we are locking ourselves into a sclerotic, backward-looking, high-tax, high-regulation customs union. It is destroying people’s lives, and we have a moral obligation to say that. It is appalling that the Government do not have more courage and determination to say that what is going on in Europe is wrong and we should not be part of it.

[Emma Reynolds]

When EU leaders agreed to set up the permanent bail-out fund, the ESM, the intention was to introduce it earlier this year. Regrettably, the original date has been delayed owing to the constitutional issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), such as the court cases going on in Ireland and Germany. I agree with him to the extent that he raised some important issues about the EFSF and the EFSM on which I look forward to the Minister’s response. However, while it is important that those constitutional issues are ironed out, they should not in themselves delay the UK’s ratification of the treaty change. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) suggested, if each member state were to delay their ratification in order to wait for the ratification of the next member state, we would have a mass stalemate. Ultimately, that would produce an inertia that perhaps the supporters of the amendment would like to produce—but I will not make any judgment on that. I do not want to intrude on the private grief of Conservative Back Benchers and the Minister, but there seems to be a contradiction between saying on the one hand that the Government got a good deal while on the other arguing for a delay. I am sure that the Minister will tackle that.

On the ESM and more widely, it is regrettable that there have been several delays and that there has been a lack of political leadership and inertia and inaction at a European level which has served to deepen the eurozone crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) set out, we believe that the stability of the eurozone is in the UK’s national interest and that the ESM will, if used appropriately, contribute to that stability. Any further delay, such as that proposed by the amendment, would act manifestly against that stability and our national interest. It is complacent to suggest that we should not ratify the Bill, so we oppose the amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Our assistance takes many forms. Our main assistance comes from what the Department for International Development is doing in support of international agencies and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That is helping to fund the supplies for people in camps who have crossed the border into Jordan and Turkey. Again, through international agencies, a lot of that aid is getting to people inside Syria as well. There are specific projects, for instance to help the victims of sexual violence who have gone to Jordan, which I talked about yesterday, and to help buttress Lebanon and support the work of its armed forces in maintaining its own security. So we have a lot of specific projects, too.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the UK’s bilateral relationships with Latin America; and if he will make a statement.

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

The Foreign Office has totally transformed Britain’s relations with Latin America after years of neglect. There have been more than 30 ministerial visits to Latin America in just the last 15 months. We have opened an embassy in El Salvador and a consulate in Recife, Brazil, and we will reopen in Paraguay and Haiti in 2013. Our extensive co-operation with Brazil on the London 2012 Games has been the closest ever seen between consecutive hosts.

[Mr Jackson]

Undoubtedly, the Foreign Secretary’s speech to Canning House in 2010 opened a new chapter in relations with south America, and I support the Government’s aspiration to double exports to Brazil, Colombia and Mexico by 2015. However, we must not neglect our traditional staunchest allies, such as Uruguay and Chile. Given our historic role as a trading nation, and the implosion of business confidence in the eurozone, what practical steps is the Minister taking to bolster UK trade with Latin America?

[Mr Browne]

I share my hon. Friend’s analysis. We have a very close working relationship with Chile, which is the most developed economy in Latin America, as well as with Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and other countries with an outward-looking free trade disposition. We continue to work closely to promote British trade and, more generally, wider British interests, including our political interests.

UK-Turkey Relations

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am delighted that the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, “UK-Turkey Relations and Turkey’s Regional Role”, which was published in April, has been chosen for this debate, and I start by paying tribute to the staff of the FAC who worked hard and long through the night to help the Committee produce the report.

Turkey’s role on the world stage is influenced by its geography. To the west, it looks to the long-established nations of Europe that are swept up in economic turmoil and that note its economic performance with envy, while, to the south and east, it looks to an unstable region with an uncertain future that can only dream of the democracy that Turkey enjoys.

The Arab spring, with its tidal wave of anti-Government protests, has unleashed forces of violence and instability, and Syria, whose Government are standing their ground, is sinking further and further into a bloody civil war, yet its neighbour and former ally, Turkey, has not looked on in silence. The force of events has obliged it to abandon its policy of zero problems with neighbours and make an outspoken condemnation of Syria’s brutal response.

Syria’s shooting down of a Turkish jet has raised the stakes, and Turkey is now on red alert, with six F-16 fighter jets positioned near its border with Syria. Given that Turkey has, until recently, been a long-term friend and ally of Syria, this is a remarkable development. I am sure we all welcome President Assad’s announcement yesterday in which he reportedly expressed regret for the downing of the Turkish plane.

The Foreign Secretary attended a meeting of an action group on Syria in Geneva last weekend, and, as colleagues might have noticed, there was a significant development. For the first time, all the permanent members of the Security Council, including Russia and China, reached a consensus on positive steps to support the Annan peace plan. It might turn out to be a turning point in the conflict. In responding to this debate, I would be grateful if the Minister set out what he understands to be Turkey’s intentions with respect to Syria and the risk of armed conflict between the two.

How the crisis will unfold is uncertain, but it is clear that Turkey has an important role in securing democracy, illustrating its importance as a strategic partner for the UK in the middle east. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister visited Turkey shortly after taking office, having placed it after only France, Germany, Afghanistan and the US for his early visits, and we share his view that Turkey is an inspiration that other countries can follow. This has particular resonance since the outbreak of the Arab spring.

The response to the Arab spring has brought Turkey closer to its western allies, and, at the same time, it has maintained strong relations with the Arab League. Having started its democratic path in the 1950s with the army sitting on its shoulder, Turkey has increasingly emerged as a strong democratic force, with the army focusing on security rather than politics, particularly since the 2011 general election.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I want to take my hon. Friend back to the issue of neighbour relations. Is he aware that the European Commission’s 2011 progress report on Turkey’s accession to the European Union concluded that no progress had been made in the previous year on the normalisation of relations with Armenia?

[Richard Ottaway]

I am aware of that and if I my hon. Friend will allow me, I will discuss extensively the EU accession point in just a minute.

The past 10 years have seen a shift in Turkey’s balance of power. It has moved from the Ataturk-style, secular military regime that suppressed Islamist political groups to a much more healthy partnership, involving an army that can live with a moderate Islamic Government under the Justice and Development party—sometimes known as the AKP—led by Prime Minister Erdogan. Now, Turkey is a good example of a secular democracy in a predominantly Muslim country, and the Foreign Office is quite right to treat it as an inspiration. It is an example that can be followed in the emerging democracies in north Africa and the middle east, and no more so than in Egypt, which has just elected its first non-military leader since 1952. Both countries have Sunni majorities and a long history of military dominance, and we can now welcome Mohamed Morsi, from the Freedom and Justice party, as Egypt’s new President. In conducting its parallel inquiry into the Arab spring, my Committee had the privilege of meeting Dr Morsi, and we wish him well in his task of continuing the transition towards democracy in Egypt. The closer we work with both Egypt and Turkey, the better for Britain and the west.

The current climate presents a great opportunity for Turkey to lead by example in the middle east. Western responses to Prime Minister Erdogan’s Government have often mistakenly been influenced by his party’s so-called Islamist roots. However, we were quite struck by the situation when we visited Turkey last autumn, and our doubts were removed. There was very little evidence that the AKP Government were seeking to Islamicise the Turkish state. The AKP is best seen as akin to a socially conservative Christian Democrat party continuing to govern within a secular state. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Turkey has made an overarching foreign policy realignment away from the west. We should not underestimate the extent to which the increased independence and regional focus of Turkish foreign policy may generate differences between Turkish and UK perspectives and policies. However, as long as its foreign policy efforts are directed towards the same ultimate goals, Turkey can add value as a foreign policy partner precisely because it is distinct from the UK.

The Government are right to continue to support the case for Turkey’s membership of the EU. Turkey’s accession would boost the EU’s economic growth and international weight, and at a time of long-term change across the Arab world, its influence could be invaluable. However, Turkey’s application to join the EU has had a troubled history, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has just pointed out. Progress is slow, but the problems can be overcome. Two major stumbling blocks exist: the opposition of other EU countries, predominantly France, and the continued lack of a settlement on Cyprus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I loved his idea that diplomats should get out and walk across the dusty plains of Anatolia. Perhaps one of them might write a book about such an excursion or go off and become a political commissioner, giving out political instruction and wisdom to others. I concur with his lament about foreign languages. It is terribly heartening to hear a Conservative Member say that a language other than English is spoken in the world. He spoke about the notion that promotion in the Foreign Office should depend on linguistic ability. Heaven forfend that that should be applied to Ministers. He was right to be lyrical.

I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s view that nothing had happened in Turkey until the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which he is a distinguished member, made its visit. I recall a most distinguished diplomat, Sir Peter Westmacott, who is now our representative in the United States, spending a great deal of time acting, with great linguistic ability, as the most effective bridge between any European state or any NATO member state and the Turks during his time in office there. I recall him working with Mr Erdogan and the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had invested an enormous amount of time cajoling, persuading, bullying, nudging—all the things that he was rather good at—his fellow European leaders to accept the opening of full negotiations with Turkey. That was touch and go. When I was Europe Minister, I remember being there right through to 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning as Mr Blair, Mr Erdogan and Sir Peter formed a troika that got Turkey to the start of discussions with the European Union.

I differ somewhat from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), a distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who seemed to finger France as the main problem. It was General de Gaulle who, in 1963, insisted that the European Economic Community should open a relationship with Turkey. He thought that the Europe that he dreamed of—the “Europe des patries”, as he called it—would have to be as large as possible and that to exclude a great, important and historic state such as Turkey simply did not make sense. On the whole, French political leaders have been quite good friends of Turkey from that moment on. President Chirac certainly supported Turkish admission, and the former Prime Minister Michel Rocard wrote an excellent book two or three years ago—in French, and sadly it is not available in English, although perhaps it is in Turkish—on the need for Turkey to join the EU and why France should support that.

President Sarkozy pandered to the part of the electorate that exists in all our countries that sees anything foreign as a bad thing. He pandered to the idea that any immigrants coming to France were a bad thing and that, as long as the gates of a nation are shut to incomers, that country will somehow be strong again. I am glad that in the presidential election President Hollande rejected such hostility to immigration and the idea that there is a need to place a cap on the number of immigrants coming into France. As we know, President Sarkozy’s reactionary anti-immigrant language was defeated.

I have been going to Turkey for nearly 30 years, first to small left-wing trade union meetings in the 1970s and then to the trial of Orhan Pamuk in 2005, when I was pushed to the ground and kicked by a few nasty right wingers. I keep going there as often as I can, and after each trip I come back more impressed but more perplexed. I am more impressed by the vitality and excitement—it really is one of the most exciting countries in the world to visit—but more perplexed by my failure to work out how the Rubik’s cube of Turkey is put together. I do not speak Turkish, and I do not think I am going to learn that language.

On one level Turkey is all the things that hon. Members have said it is. It is dynamic and growth-focused, and it has brought an enormous number of people into middle-class prosperity. Istanbul has some of the youngest and most exuberant art in the world. The last time I was there, I had dinner with Orhan Pamuk, who had won the Nobel prize and was threatened with death by Turkish nationalists and imprisonment by Turkish judges. We went to a restaurant on the Bosphorus and he was accompanied by a bodyguard. He was stopped by somebody and had a little chat. I asked, “Who was that?” He said, “Oh, that was the state attorney-general, who a couple of years ago was trying to put me in prison permanently. He said to me, ‘Orhan, you’re down to one bodyguard, are you? You see, we are making progress.’” I think that is true.

The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report is absolutely first-rate, and I commend its detail and thoroughness and the work of the Committee’s Chairman and members. I have some brief points to make about it. We need to reconsider our visa regime. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border talked about people learning Turkish and Turks getting to know Britain. It is a travesty that it was easier to visit the Soviet Union in the old days than it is for many Turks to get a visa to come to the United Kingdom. We have to grow up—we cannot say that we are open for business and be closed to foreigners. I am sorry if that language does not sit well, but it is the truth.

On page Ev 80 of the evidence published in the Committee’s report, Migration Watch UK states:

“The Poles are Catholics of European heritage…the bulk of Turkish immigrants in this country, and elsewhere in Europe, are poorer, less educated Muslims of Middle Eastern heritage who form the majority of Turkey’s population.”

That is the evidence presented by this wretched organisation, Migration Watch UK, to the Committee. One hundred years ago, we passed the Status of Aliens Act 1914, using exactly the same argument about Jews coming from the poorer parts of eastern Europe. Until we grow up and stop the Islamophobic dislike of people from outside Britain coming here, we will not have the influence we need.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently conflates two totally separate issues: first, his value judgment of the language used in the French elections; and secondly, the fact that the French legislature and courts made a value judgment on the systematic denial of the Armenian genocide of 1915. That is a separate issue and still going through the French courts. He should not conflate the electioneering language with an issue of principle.

[Mr MacShane]

The electioneering language from then President Sarkozy and right-wing politicians in France was simply hostile to Turkey, as it is in Germany and Austria. And believe me, if we want to list the politicians, newspapers and political cultures that are hostile to Turkey, we should look across the Rhine rather than in Paris. I wrote an article in Le Monde, which I am happy to send to the hon. Gentleman, condemning the absurd notion that the French Parliament would decide what was genocide and what was not. That is a matter for history, not politicians.

We need to ask one or two serious questions of Turkey. It demands absolute solidarity, which personally I give, in its fight against the PKK and its wretched killer terrorist leader, Ocalan, but when exactly the same type of organisation, Hamas, insists on its right to kill Jews and Israelis and to blow up people in the region, and the Israelis take the necessary action to protect their state from Hamas, Mr Erdogan supports Hamas while demanding condemnation of the PKK. Turkey must be asked to support not only friendly relations 360° around the compass, as its Foreign Minister said, but absolute geopolitical consistency. If we are to support Turkey’s campaign, action and language against the PKK, Turkey must ask itself why it supports terrorist organisations elsewhere in the region.

Mention has been made of Cyprus. The European Council first committed itself to opening trade links with northern Cyprus but then reneged. That said, Turkey does not need to maintain two full military divisions of 35,000 men stationed in the tiny area of northern Cyprus. It can withdraw any number of them, while still leaving an adequate security presence, and show to the world it is looking for a new relationship with Cyprus. Turkish-Cypriot relations are bitter and poisonous. I do not agree with the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said he thought, after a visit there, that it would all get better next year. There needs to be a huge sea change on both sides. My own view is that in any of these conflicts, the bigger, the more powerful and the more dominant nation—and, in 1974, the invading nation—should be the one to find the confidence to come to a better accord with the people it cannot find a solution even to talk to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

There are not many benefits to being a Back Bencher, but one is that we can sometimes ruffle feathers and say what we think and, above all, challenge the received wisdom. I accept that the majority view in this debate is that the accession of Turkey to the EU would be a good thing. I agree that, in many ways, that is indeed the case, and it would be churlish and remiss of me not to acknowledge the very important point that Turkey is a major trading partner, with the 17th or 18th largest economy in the world and growth that is five times the EU average—although that is not particularly difficult to achieve nowadays.

Turkey has made progress in many key areas, and it was the eastern outpost of NATO command through the difficult years of the cold war. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, made clear, it has been a loyal supporter of both the UK and the United States over many years. The strategic importance of Turkey is not in doubt either, as it stands at the juncture of the west, the near east and the middle east.

I can well understand why Turkey still harbours strong ambitions to join the EU. The fact that that is in our strategic interests is based on two presuppositions, however: that we should filter out issues other than the economic progress of Turkey, and that we accept, to a certain degree, that our strategic geopolitical interests are the same as those of the US. It has always been in the US strategic interest for Turkey to be a bulwark against potential Islamist difficulties, whether in the form of violence or the exertion of influence in the sub-region.

I accept all that, and that Prime Minister Erdogan is making a good fist of reform in the country, but it is important to strike some notes of concern on human rights, free speech, crime, justice and immigration, as well as on an issue that should not be dismissed lightly— as it was by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane)—which is the continuing affront and offence of the systematic denial of the world’s first modern genocide. That word was invented in 1943 to describe what happened in the Ottoman empire, beginning in April 1915, to between 600,000 and 1.5 million ethnic Armenians. The fact that there is still that systematic denial causes great concern to many people across the world, most recently in France.

I am also mindful of the fact that insufficient work has been done in examining the possible ramifications of Turkey’s accession to the EU. I commend to the House the comprehensive Home Affairs Committee report of last July, “Implications for the Justice and Home Affairs area of the accession of Turkey to the European Union”. It made some very important points, but before I discuss them, let me point out that there are other areas of the criminal justice system that should cause us concern. One of them is the ill-treatment of prisoners in Turkish prisons. The Amnesty International 2012 report stated that allegations of torture persist and that there are ineffective investigations into alleged human rights abuses by state officials.

As has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), no progress has been made in protecting the rights of children in the judicial system. There are 47 states whose citizens can apply to the European Court of Human Rights, and at the end of 2011 Turkey applied for 10.5% of the 151,600 cases pending, requiring a judicial decision.The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report highlights concerns about Turkey’s domestic judicial capacity and the major backlog of cases, with 1.4 million criminal cases and more than 1 million civil cases pending at the end of 2010.

Serious concerns have been expressed over many years about the media and freedom of expression. In addition, women’s rights and equality remain a persistent concern, particularly, even though the numbers are decreasing, in the context of honour killings, domestic violence, sexual assault and forced marriage. The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, like my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), rightly refers to religious freedom in Turkey, and states:

“We recommend that the FCO should remain vigilant on issues of religious freedom and discrimination and should ensure that its Turkish partners are clear about its stance in this respect.”

Not so long ago, Human Rights Watch said:

“As the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government focused on promoting Turkey’s regional interests in response to the pro-democracy Arab Spring movements, human rights suffered setbacks at home. The government has not prioritized human rights reforms since 2005, and freedom of expression and association have both been damaged by the ongoing prosecution and incarceration of journalists, writers, and hundreds of Kurdish political activists”,

particularly through the misuse of the overly broad terrorism laws that, to give him his due, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Committee, has mentioned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

No, I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as he has not been present for the whole debate.

I have concerns about justice and home affairs. I find it quite astonishing that the Home Office—or any Government Department—has not looked in any systematic way at how many people would be likely to move from Turkey to other European countries if the freedom of movement directive applied and after any transition period that was put in place. Figures ranging between 500,000 and 4.4 million are often cited.

Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, has stated that Turkish criminal groups are significantly involved in various forms of organised criminality, including the trafficking of heroin and synthetic drugs and the trafficking of cocaine to Europe from South America via Turkey and the Balkans. It has described “very high” levels of human trafficking to Turkey and high levels of trafficking through the country, as well as people smuggling and other criminal activities including fraud, firearms trafficking, money laundering and copyright offences.

Turkey has become a prominent stepping stone in irregular flows of migrants coming from further afield who aim to enter the European Union. The Turkish ambassador to the United Kingdom recently told the Home Affairs Committee that nearly 800,000 illegal immigrants have been apprehended while attempting to cross Turkish territory over the past 15 years. By October 2010, 46% of all irregular immigration detected at the EU external border took place at the land border between Greece and Turkey and the authorities estimated that up to 350 migrants were attempting to cross the 12.5 km land border near the Greek city of Orestiada every day.

EU accession would have implications. The length of the external land border with Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Iran and Syria would put great stresses and strains on the EU’s external border, given that the EU has already been critical of the Turkish border security capacity. The Minister may wish to comment on the fact that there has been no impact analysis of Turkish accession on future migration trends. We need to take a serious look at that, even though accession may be many years away.

It is appropriate to mention the Armenian genocide, which is an issue of great hurt and offence to Armenian people across the world. It began on 24 April 1915 and, with the systematic deportation and murder of up to 1.5 million people, it is the first modern example of genocide. Armenians perished as a result of execution, starvation, disease, the harsh environment and physical abuse. A people who had lived in Turkey for nearly 3,000 years lost their homeland and were decimated in the first large-scale genocide of the 20th century. I concede that that was 97 years ago, but it is difficult to accept the fact that the Turkish Government refuse to countenance the idea that it is an incontestable historical fact.

[Mr Walter]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. For many years, historians have tried to define genocide. He is trying to condemn the Government of the modern Turkish state post-1923 for a crime that was, or was not, committed by the Ottoman empire, of which both Armenia and the Turkic peoples were part.

[Mr Jackson]

I yield to no one in my enormous respect for my colleague in the Inter-Parliamentary Union and his great love for Turkey and affinity for the country. I bear no malice as a candid friend to the wonderful, decent people of Turkey but I quote Leo Kuper, who was an eminent academic at the University of California, Los Angeles and said:

“The Armenian genocide is a contemporary current issue, given the persistent aggressive denial of the crime by the Turkish government—notwithstanding its own judgment in courts martial after the first World War, that its leading ministers had deliberately planned and carried out the annihilation of Armenians, with the participation of many regional administrators.”

My point is not that that series of events did not happen at the end of the Ottoman empire in Anatolia, which is now part of modern Turkey, but that a key issue in assessing the suitability and fitness of a country seeking to be part of a club founded on the bedrock of legality, fairness and equality is the fact that it should acknowledge past mistakes and crimes that took place almost 100 years ago. In that respect, just as the Turkish Government have to move on the issue of Cyprus and countenance the right of the Cypriot people to self-determination, democracy and freedom, they must accept that the Armenian genocide happened. They have to apologise and move forward, as happened in Northern Ireland, South Africa and elsewhere, with a truth and reconciliation process to put to rest that disastrous, despicable, appalling series of events almost 100 years ago.

We have had an interesting debate. I do not agree with everyone who has spoken, but these issues are of such great importance and clarity historically that they must be raised.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am glad to say that I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

This Government can be commended for their engagement with Latin America, which was marked by the Foreign Secretary’s Canning House speech in November 2010. The Minister will know that the Argentine Government’s and President Kirchner’s diplomatic campaign has been ongoing for many years. With that in mind, will he have a gentle word with his colleagues in the US State Department and remind them that their policy positions and use of language are extremely important to the persuasiveness of the British case?

[Mr Lidington]

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

Iran

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In certain quarters in the middle east, it is felt that double standards are being applied in that Israel has developed nuclear weapons and the west does not seem to worry about them. [Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) suggests that the evidence is circumstantial, and I am willing to grant him that point.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend name any experts in the field who would explain how enrichment to a 20% threshold, currently being undertaken by the Iranian regime, could plausibly be for civilian and not military use?

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which I will address later in my speech, but I say to him now that there is a world of difference between nuclear capability and actually having nuclear weapons. I am sure that the House would accept that difference.

A second inconvenient truth relates to the usual depiction of Iran as intransigent and for ever chauvinistic in her foreign policy. Western Governments, I suggest, too easily forget that Iran is not totally at fault here. There have been opportunities to better relations between Iran and the west, but the west has spurned those opportunities. We forget, for example, that following 9/11, Iran—unlike many in the middle east street—expressed solidarity with the US. We forget also that attempts were made to develop contacts during the early stages of the Afghan war. What was Iran’s reward? It was to be labelled or declared part of the “axis of evil” by President Bush, which led directly to the removal of the reformist and moderate President Khatami. Despite that, there were further attempts at co-operation in the run-up to the Iraq war, but those efforts were similarly rebuffed.

Again, I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is prepared to deny that the west has made mistakes in its dealings with Iran and has missed opportunities to better relations. I would genuinely like to hear his views on that and would welcome an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

It will be clear from my remarks that that is not what I am calling for, although I will shortly come to some of the arguments about it. It is very difficult to speculate about what the actual physical impact of a military strike would be, as it would depend on who did it, what they did it with, and exactly which facilities were struck. However, it is not something that we are advocating, as will be clear from my speech.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend like to disabuse the House of the notion that were it not for 9/11 there would have been a rapprochement with the Iranian regime, given that well before that period Iran was the leading state sponsor of international terrorism, as we have seen most recently in Azerbaijan and Bangkok?

[Mr Hague]

I am about to come to that point, so I will make some more progress in doing so.

It is our assessment and that of our allies that Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons—that is in line with what the right hon. Member for Blackburn said—and is steadily developing the capability to produce such weapons should it choose to do so. A nuclear-armed Iran would have devastating consequences for the middle east and could shatter the non-proliferation treaty. On that point, I differ from the right hon. Gentleman, because I believe, given everything that I have seen and heard in the region as Foreign Secretary so far, that if Iran set about the development of nuclear weapons, other nations in the middle east would do so as well, and that there would be a nuclear arms race in the region.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) suggests, our well-founded concerns that Iran’s intentions may not be purely peaceful are heightened by its policies in other areas. It is a regime that recently conspicuously failed to prevent the sacking of our embassy premises in Iran; that conspired to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States on American soil; that only last week was accused of planning and carrying out attacks against Israeli diplomats; that is providing assistance to the Syrian Government’s violent campaign against their own people; and that supports armed proxy groups including Hezbollah and Hamas. Taken together with Iran’s nuclear activities, this behaviour threatens international peace and security. That is why Iran is one of the very top priorities in foreign affairs for this Government, just as it was for the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

We must do everything in our power to avoid nuclear weapons first proliferating and secondly falling into the hands of non-state actors. When we reflect even for a moment, as the Foreign Secretary did for the elucidation of the House, on the track record of the regime in Tehran in supporting non-state actors and their violent methods, even in recent days, we should redouble our efforts to avoid a scenario in which Tehran would have that choice. That would be a deeply worrying prospect not only for its immediate neighbours but for global security more generally.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be foolish to take any options off the table, given that many foreign policy specialists believe that President Ahmadinejad is under severe threat, that he and his supporters might be removed from the parliamentary elections in 2012, and that he might be excluded from the presidency in 2013 and replaced by revolutionary guard-supported politicians and a more theocratic, militarist, jihadist regime?

[Mr Alexander]

For the reasons that I have outlined and will continue to outline, I believe that it would be wrong to take those options off the table. When calibrating the way forward, one has to factor in the potential for change within the Iranian regime, given the prospect of elections next month. We are facing some critical months in terms of judgments to be reached in Tehran and elsewhere. That is why the responsible course at this juncture is to advance the twin-track approach that has characterised the attitude of the international community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the gracious stance taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and to the articulate and sincere way in which he put his case. That is as much as I can say to him, because I will vote not for his motion but for the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). I share much of my hon. Friend’s analysis, but unfortunately from his point of view I reached an entirely different conclusion.

I should like to focus on the political background in Iran, which was touched on by my hon. Friend, and to test the efficacy of sanctions, if they are plan B. It is not too fanciful or exaggerated to say that we might be in a moment similar to Europe in the mid-1930s. Iran is a state that presents an existential threat to its neighbours and has designs on regional and possibly global hegemony. The Foreign Secretary was right at the weekend to describe it as having the potential to set off a chain reaction cold war in the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other states. Iran also has a record of significant lack of compliance with IAEA inspectors and an appalling human rights record, which was mentioned in a Westminster Hall debate last month in which I was fortunate enough to participate.

We are at an historic juncture, and the Foreign Secretary is right to point out the dangers to the world of a nuclear Iran. However, unlike, for instance, North Korea, Iran is not a monolithic regime. It has varied centres of power and influence. There is institutional conflict within the regime and among the dominant conservative strain within the elite, particularly between the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and President Ahmadinejad. There is a battle between theocracy, republicanism, nationalism and clericalism. As I mentioned in an intervention, there is a chance that President Ahmadinejad will be impeached or removed before or in 2013.

One important factor in the development of a jihadist, militarist theology is the impact that the revolutionary guards could have on parliamentary elections and in suppressing the green movement, as we saw in 2009. There is also an ongoing power struggle between the President and Parliament over political appointments.

We should bear in mind in all decisions we take—particularly any decision to remove the option of military action from the table, or decisions on the current sanctions regime and the positions we lay out in Israel, Europe and the United States—that we could still see the consolidation of the power of hard-line clerics, the revolutionary guards and their militia, the Basij. The starting point could be that a candidate much more extreme than Ayatollah Khamenei is in place by the end of 2013. A military regime with a theocratic basis would threaten the greater middle east region and the world. We face that prospect.

No one seriously thinks that Iran has not developed a nuclear capability. Its enrichment of uranium to 20% of the threshold can be for no other reason than military use—it has no plausible civilian use. The IAEA has previously said that Iran has 5 tonnes of low-enriched uranium of 3.5% and if enriched to 90% this would be enough fissile material for four to five nuclear bombs. Experts have predicted that once Iran acquires more than 150 kg of uranium enriched to 20%—by, say, early 2013—it would need just two weeks to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.

In short, the regime has the knowledge, technology and resources to create a nuclear bomb. Specifically, it has the high-explosive test site at Parchin, computer models, precision detonators and—most importantly—missile delivery systems. If plan B is sanctions, will they work, given that Iran has set its face against the west and a more peaceful negotiated settlement of this issue? People make much of the EU oil sanctions, and it is true that 18% of Iran’s exports are oil to the EU—450,000 barrels a day. Severe disruption to the oil industry would be problematic for the state, given that oil revenues are 60% of the Iranian economy, 80% of exports and, more importantly, 70% of government revenues. We know, however, that other countries would take up the slack. South Korea and Japan each take 10%, and China and India take 34% of Iran’s oil exports between them and would surely step in to buy the oil rejected by the EU.

Iran may discount oil prices, but it is estimated that even with a 10% drop in shipments, the reduction would be just $24 billion in a $480 billion economy. Sanctions will undermine state spending and perhaps cause a deficit of up to 2% of GDP, but Iran has a low debt to GDP ratio—only 9%, as against well over 100% for some EU countries, as we know. Raza Agha of the Royal Bank of Scotland says:

“The public finance impact seems manageable in the immediate future…given the bulwark of public sector deposits and other domestic financing options”.

Iran has also put its interest rates up for long-term bank deposits, so it has plenty of foreign reserves to see it through the difficulties of short and medium-term sanctions.

We can take options, including military action, off the table only if we are absolutely certain that sanctions will work and will force Iran back to the negotiating table. Sanctions may serve to destabilise the existing political regime in Iran. The west faces the most profound foreign policy problem since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and for that reason we have to have courage, firmness of purpose and intellectual coherence in facing down this problem. Israel will perhaps attack Iran before the end of June. None of us wants war, but the alternative of a militaristic, jihadist country threatening its neighbours may be a lot worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

We are neglecting to acknowledge that Afghanistan was the incubator for a violent jihadist, Islamist ideology that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 men, women and children on 11 September 2001, and we should not casually disregard that.

[Mr Leigh]

Not for a moment does anyone in this House casually disregard it. I have always argued that there had to be a means, through special forces or even through the limited use of air strikes, to have controlled a Taliban Government. However, I am with the hon. Member for Newport West so far and, to an extent, I am also with him and with others who opposed the Libyan conflict. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), and I also accept the argument that we should not assume that deterrence would break down if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon. However, Iran’s having a nuclear weapon would be of a different geopolitical order from what we were confronting in Iraq. Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a calamity, but a pre-emptive strike at this stage would be calamitous. Therefore, we are in an extraordinarily dangerous position. I do not need to say this, because it is so obvious, but as a Government we need to urge our American and Israeli allies to proceed with extreme caution.

There has not been a great deal of debate so far about what is actually happening on the ground. I do not accept the argument that all the evidence is circumstantial. The Fordow site has enriched uranium to 20%. Enrichment of 90% to 95% is required for weapons, whereas only 5% is required for less sophisticated civil reactors and more sophisticated reactors run on 3% or less. There is no doubt that this enrichment is for military purposes. I am not necessarily arguing that Iran would take the final step to acquire a capability to deliver these nuclear weapons, but I believe that we are in a very dangerous position.

An attack would be extraordinarily difficult. It would not be simple like the Israeli attack on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. As we have heard, the Iranian programme is geographically, as well as functionally, extensive. It includes not 15 sites, as was mentioned earlier, but up to perhaps 30 sites, which could not be destroyed in a single attack—it would likely take an air war lasting several weeks to do that. In addition, as we know, the Qom facility was kept secret. I do not believe that Israel alone could stop Iran’s nuclear progress; only America could reliably destroy the nuclear capability. The conclusion must be that Israel does not have the capability to attack effectively; it could wound but not kill, which might be the most dangerous thing of all. Israel does not have the capability and America does not have the will, and if Israel were to attack, it is plausible that Iran would retaliate against not only Israel, but, much more worryingly, Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is only 150 miles from Iran at its closest point and shares a maritime border with Iran along the length of the Gulf. There are only 258 troops from US central command in Saudi Arabia at the moment. General Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of the elite revolutionary guard, has threatened retaliation, stating:

“Any place where enemy offensive operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran originate will be the target of a reciprocal attack by the Guard’s fighting units”.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there were an attack on Iran it would elicit an immediate and perhaps devastating response against Saudi Arabia. Israeli planes would experience problems, even in attack, and would have to overfly a combination of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia just to reach Iran.

Will economic sanctions work? We have to proceed on that basis, but they may not, which is why I come on to the second part of my speech. I am sorry that there is not a simple solution, but I cannot follow the hon. Member for Newport West in saying that we can do nothing—that we can accept the motion and rule out force and that somehow things will be all right. Yes, it is calamitous to attack, but it is even more of a calamity if that country acquires nuclear weapons.