Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have to say that I generally find it much more fruitful listening to the advice and thoughts of my hon. Friends than to the comments from the Opposition.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

We all noted that the Chancellor brought along the First Lord of the Treasury today for support, solidarity, counselling and hand-holding as he made his abject statement. Who first realised that the Government were in flagrant breach of their manifesto commitment—was it the Chancellor or the Prime Minister? If manifestos are now paramount and all parties must seek to implement them, will the Chancellor confirm, since he intends to go ahead with these changes, that they will appear in the Conservative manifesto at the next election so that the self-employed can vote accordingly?

[Mr Hammond]

I have made a statement today about the Government’s intentions: no national insurance contribution rate increases for the remainder of this Parliament. I am not making a statement about the Conservative party’s manifesto for the next general election; the right hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself for a while on that particular issue. On the question of who first raised the issue of the manifesto, I think, to give credit where credit is due, that it was Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC shortly after my comments in the Budget speech.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The point I am making is that Sir John himself identifies not the lack of remit, but the lack of qualifications of the members of the inquiry to reach that decision. He says that that could

“only be resolved by a properly constituted and internationally recognised Court.”

The hon. and learned Lady will know that a huge number of documents have been declassified and made available in this process, but clearly it is not possible to declassify every document.

Sir John goes on to find that, although the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, advised on 13 March 2003 that there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action,

“The circumstances in which it was ultimately decided that there was a legal basis for UK participation were far from satisfactory.”

Sir John, however, is clear that military action was not undertaken as “a last resort”— that there were further diplomatic steps that could have been taken to seek compliance by the Saddam regime—and that by moving to a military solution when the UNSC would not sanction such a development the UK, far from upholding it, was “undermining the Security Council”.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

The Foreign Secretary will have seen the comments of Robin Butler before publication of the Chilcot report last week. According to Robin Butler,

“The legality or illegality of the Iraq war was never a question Sir John Chilcot was asked to deal with”,

so why will not the Government release the documents which might give the public and Parliament an insight into why the Chilcot inquiry did not have the remit and was not qualified to deal with the legality question?

[Mr Hammond]

The point that I have made already and will make again is that as I understand it Sir John has not identified lack of remit as the reason why he has given no opinion on the legality of the war. He has identified a lack of appropriate skill sets in the inquiry, and he suggested that it should be a matter that is dealt with by a properly constituted and internationally recognised court. As I have said already, the Government in looking at the report of the Iraq inquiry—it will take some time to do that—will consider all these matters, including questions that the right hon. Gentleman is raising about whether any further documents can appropriately be declassified and made available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

It goes without saying that Ministers—indeed, all Members—should be completely truthful in their utterances to Parliament at all times, and the ministerial code makes that clear.

Specifically on the reconstruction effort, Sir John finds that

“the UK failed to plan or prepare for the major reconstruction programme required”

and that lessons that had been learned through previous reviews of post-conflict reconstruction and stabilisation

“were not applied in Iraq”.

On the issue of de-ba’athification, Sir John finds that early decisions on the form of de-Ba’athification and its implementation

“had a significant and lasting negative impact on Iraq.”

Limiting de-Ba’athification to the top three tiers, rather than four, of the party would have had the potential to be far less damaging to Iraq’s post-invasion recovery and political stability. The UK chose not to act on its well-founded misgivings about handing over implementation of de-Ba’athification policy to the governing council.

Turning to the equipping and resourcing of British troops, Sir John finds that the Government failed to match resources to the objectives. He records that by undertaking concurrent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Government

“knowingly exceeded the Defence Planning Assumptions.”

At least in part as a consequence, Sir John concludes that the military role ended

“a long way from success.”

Furthermore, he finds that

“delays in providing adequate medium weight Protected Patrol Vehicles and the failure to meet the needs of UK forces...for ISTAR and helicopters should not have been tolerated”

and that the

“MoD was slow in responding to the developing threat from Improvised Explosive Devices.”

At the end of this analysis, Sir John finds plainly that

“the Iraq of 2009 certainly did not meet the UK’s objectives...it fell far short of strategic success.”

These findings relate to decisions taken at that time, and the arrangements and processes in place at the time. It is, therefore, for those who were Ministers at the time to answer for their actions. This Government’s role is not to seek to apportion blame or to revisit those actions; it is to ensure that the lessons identified by Chilcot are learned, and that they have already led to changes or will lead to changes being implemented in the future.

The Government, including previous Administrations, have not stood still while waiting for the findings we have before us today. There were a number of important reviews relating to the invasion and occupation of Iraq before Chilcot, including Lord Butler’s review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, Lord Hutton’s inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, and the inquiries of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee of both Houses. As a result of each, lessons have been identified and changes have been implemented, so a good deal of the work has already been done.

[Alex Salmond]

I hear what the Foreign Secretary says about processes, but does he judge that the post-war reconstruction in Libya would give us any confidence that the lessons have been learned from the post-war reconstruction of Iraq?

[Mr Hammond]

I think the two things are completely different. In Iraq at the end of the war, Britain was a joint occupying power and shared joint responsibility for the occupation commission. We were in control of the territory, exercising all the functions and responsibility of Government. As a result of the decisions that were taken around Libya, British boots were never on the ground, we were never in control of that country and we were never an occupying power, so we did not have it within our capability to take the actions that we should have done.

Let me summarise the most important lessons that Sir John has drawn in this report. First, taking military action should always be a last resort. Only after exhausting all credible alternatives should we consider taking the country to war. I believe—this is my personal belief—that the political price that has been paid for apparently neglecting this important principle will ensure that future Administrations are unlikely to overlook it.

Secondly, how government is conducted matters. The failures of process, of challenge, and even of proper record-keeping identified by Sir John were serious and widespread. In part to prevent such failures in the future, the Conservative-led coalition Government established the National Security Council in May 2010 to ensure that there is proper, co-ordinated, strategic decision making across the whole of Government. The NSC includes the Chief of the Defence Staff, the heads of the intelligence agencies, and the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, as well as relevant Ministers—and now the Attorney General—alongside senior officials. It is properly supported by a dedicated secretariat led by the national security adviser, ensuring that all parts of the national security apparatus are properly joined up across Whitehall and beyond.

So we now have a system that ensures that decisions on serious security issues are taken on the basis of full papers and proper challenge and discussion, with legal advice fully explained and considered, and proposals stress-tested by Departments, with decisions formally recorded. Having sat on the National Security Council for six years, first as an occasional member, as Transport Secretary, and then permanently as Defence Secretary and now Foreign Secretary, it seems to me highly improbable that the process of conduct of business in relation to this matter through 2002 and 2003, as set out by Chilcot, could be repeated now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, but the questions and answers are taking too long. [Interruption.] Order. What we need now is a couple of pithy inquiries, not elongated ones.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

The whole of Scotland is deeply concerned about the personal future of the Foreign Secretary, given his apocalyptic statements during the recent referendum. For example, he told Chatham House on 2 March that leaving would take longer to negotiate

“than the second world war.”

Will it take longer to negotiate Brexit than the second world war? How would any future Chancellor of the Exchequer deal with such uncertainty?

[Mr Hammond]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the concern is this: if a future treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union 27 is deemed to be a mixed competence, it will have to be ratified by 27 national Parliaments. I believe I am right in saying that the shortest time in which that has been done in respect of any EU treaty is just under four years—that is after taking into account the time it takes to negotiate.

[Alex Salmond]

That is a yes then. Did the Foreign Secretary see the poll at the weekend carried out by YouGov across European countries? It showed two things: first, that the UK Government were deeply unpopular in every other European country; and, secondly, that massive majorities of the public in every country surveyed were looking forward to an independent Scotland within Europe. Why are the UK Government so unpopular, and why is Scotland so popular in Europe?

[Mr Hammond]

I would have thought if there was one lesson to take from the events of the past three weeks, it was, “Do not read polls”.

Europe, Human Rights and Keeping People Safe at Home and Abroad

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

No, I do not. Throughout the world, Britain is recognised as an important champion of human rights and a country in which many of the rights taken for granted today across the world originated. I hope we can have a constructive debate about these issues.

Before I conclude, I want to confront head on the notion, which have heard, that the Government are putting economic and trade interests before human rights. Yes, we are serious about increasing our global trade to secure more jobs and greater economic security for the British people, but that does not come at the expense of our values. The deeper and broader our relationships with other countries become, the greater our influence and the easier it is to have frank conversations about issues on which we disagree. Building economic and political relationships helps to build influence and leverage. It is not always visible—progress often takes place behind the scenes—but we should be ruthlessly focused on what works. On the occasions where private influence fails, we can and do speak out publicly. Ultimately, I believe the best way to achieve the positive changes we all want to see on human rights is to engage constructively as part of a comprehensive relationship.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Is the Foreign Secretary seriously telling us that right now our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a case of not putting human rights secondary to economic interest?

[Mr Hammond]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is around in five, 10 or 15 years’ time, so that we can look back from that vantage point on what is happening now. Something very significant is happening in Saudi Arabia. The “Vision 2030” plan that has been published by the deputy Crown Prince sets out a trajectory for Saudi Arabia’s development, which is inevitably going to change that country. It is not just an economic plan; it is far more than that. If we want to influence the direction of Saudi Arabia’s development, I strongly advise engaging with that project and helping to shape it rather than turning our backs on that country, as many have suggested we should.

Syria: Russian Redeployment and the Peace Process

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

It is possible that the Russian announcement is intended as a message to the Assad regime to say, “Don’t overplay your hand. Get to the negotiating table and engage.” It is also possible that it is intended as a message to the moderate opposition to do what is expected of them, because it has not been that easy to persuade them to attend the Geneva talks when Russian bombs have still been raining down on their positions. That is all positive, but unfortunately none of us knows what the intent of Mr Putin is when he carries out any action, which is why he is a very difficult partner in any situation such as this.

On the question of Turkey, I will just say this to my hon. Friend: Turkey remains an important NATO ally and a vital security partner for the UK. When we look at events in Turkey, we can refer, as he did, to recent legislative changes and actions of the Administration, but we should also acknowledge the terrible challenge that the Turkish people are facing from terrorism, with multiple deaths from the attack in Ankara on Sunday, hundreds of security force members killed over the past nine months, and many civilians—more than 100—also killed. We must understand the challenge that Turkey faces, and I assert, as we do in relation to every country, the right of the Turkish people and the Turkish Government to defend themselves when they face that kind of terrorist attack.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is almost five years to the day since the uprising against Assad. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, 11 million people displaced, and 80% of Syria’s children damaged by the civil conflict. When the House debated these issues two weeks ago, there was a huge amount of scepticism across the Chamber about the ceasefire. There have been significant breaches, but it has resulted in a huge diminution of violence. It is the only ceasefire we have. Following on from the question from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), is not the most credible explanation for the Russian announcement that it will pressurise the Assad regime into taking a more flexible attitude in the peace talks? If that is the case, instead of having the caveats first and then the welcome, would it not be better if the Foreign Secretary had the welcome and then the caveats—since it is not only the only ceasefire we have; it is the only peace process we have?

[Mr Hammond]

I think that we all start out with hope and we end up with experience. In dealing with Russia, putting the caveat first is probably always sensible. That is a credible interpretation of what Mr Putin has done, but, unfortunately, unlike with almost every other party with which we work in these situations, we have no insight at all into Russia’s strategy, Russia’s thinking and Russia’s tactics, so we are left guessing. Here we are, 24 hours later, none of us, including the Americans, with whom Russia apparently craves a bilateral partnership over Syria, has any real insight into what the purpose of this move is.

European Affairs

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Mr Fogh Rasmussen is not merely a former Secretary-General of NATO, but a former Prime Minister of Denmark. That country can tell us something about the binding and enduring nature of protocols that are made in EU negotiations. It is important to acknowledge that security comes in different parts: military security and defence, but also security against organised crime and against terrorism. The EU makes its most important contribution to our overall security in the latter two.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

The Foreign Secretary invokes article 50. Before notification was given under article 50, given that the referendum is an advisory one in terms of the constitution, would there be a vote in Parliament? Would there also be a vote in the Scottish Parliament, given the impact on devolved competencies under the Sewel convention?

[Mr Hammond]

The Government’s position is that the referendum is an advisory one, but the Government will regard themselves as being bound by the decision of the referendum and will proceed with serving an article 50 notice. My understanding is that that is a matter for the Government of the United Kingdom, but if there are any consequential considerations, they will be dealt with in accordance with the proper constitutional arrangements that have been laid down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall certainly give way to him slightly later.

I wanted to reflect on one point where I have particular experience and I think a bit of honesty is called for. I was the First Minister who lost a referendum and then resigned the next day. I did that because I do not think it is credible for a First Minister or Prime Minister to continue in office in these circumstances. I do not believe the Prime Minister—and I do not think probably the majority of his party and certainly of the country believes him—when he says he would sail on in office with a negative vote, to negotiate out of the EU, after telling people it was essential to the security and prosperity of the country, as he put it last week, for us to be in it.

There is evidence to suggest the Prime Minister has form on these matters. On 17 September 2014 he said in a statement that the question in the Scottish referendum was not about his future, but was about the future of Scotland and that he would continue regardless of the result, but by 28 September—11 days later—he confided to Scotland on Sunday the following:

“If the vote had been for Scotland to have left the UK, I genuinely would have been heartbroken. I would have felt winded and wounded. Emotionally, one would have thought, ‘I’m so saddened by this. I find it difficult to go on’.”

By “difficult to go on” I think he meant in office rather than anything more substantial.

That attitude has been confirmed by a number of sources since. I suspect that the idea that a Prime Minister could continue in office having lost such a vote is, to coin a phrase, “for the birds”, which is exactly why the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is right in one bit of his apparent calculation: that an opening would allow a new Prime Minister, as he puts it, to negotiate our way back into some sort of European construct on better terms. The second half of that probably is “for the birds”, but at least in the first half about a vacancy being available the hon. Gentleman’s calculation may be right. I think the Prime Minister should own up, because I think his current position lacks some degree of credibility.

The nature of this debate is already having big impacts on politics. Earlier this week, while people in this place were understandably fixed on the contest between the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and the Prime Minister in the European debate, there was the settlement of the Scottish financial position. Huge tribute should be paid to the First Minister of Scotland and the Deputy First Minister, and indeed to those on all sides of the negotiating team, on bringing that settlement about. But I wondered about the rapid change in position that was taking place, where only a couple of weeks ago the Treasury position was to arrange a £7 billion reduction from Scotland’s finances, which became last week £3.5 billion, £2.5 billion earlier this week, and then ended up at zero by Tuesday afternoon. I am prepared to suggest that one reason why that change of heart may well have come about is that if it had not come about—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary says there was no change: believe me, the dogs in the street in Scotland know there was a substantial change over the last few weeks, and one reason why it may have come about, I suspect, is that if the Prime Minister was in the position of not being able to deliver his pre-referendum promises or vows to Scotland, he would perhaps find it difficult to sustain the argument that 27 other European leaders might be delivering their pre-referendum vows to him. We are already seeing aspects of this debate having a very substantial influence on politics.

I asked the Foreign Secretary earlier about the circumstances that would arise if the vote went for out and when article 50 would be invoked, and I have been reading the Library paper in preparation on exactly that issue. The Library paper suggests that the likely formulation would be that there would be a vote in this Chamber before the Government invoked the position, but the Government could say it was an Executive decision and just go ahead anyway. What it then goes on to argue is of great importance.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I wish to clarify something. I answered the right hon. Gentleman on this point earlier, but I have taken advice since. It is the Government’s position that if the electorate give a clear decision in this referendum to leave, the Government will proceed to serve an article 50 notice; there will be no need for a further process in this House.

[Alex Salmond]

The Foreign Secretary says now, “No debate, no decision in the House”—right, fine. And I think that could be defended on the basis that it would be a brave person who took the position that the electorate had voted in a referendum and would attempt to gainsay it. But what I was going on to say to the Foreign Secretary is that perhaps he should pay some attention to what is in the Library paper, which goes on to put the position of what might be happening in the devolved legislatures. It says:

“As noted above, the competences of devolved legislatures and executives are circumscribed by EU law, and some positive responsibilities are placed upon the executives to implement that law. An argument could be made that the removal of these features on leaving the EU would prima facie alter devolved competence, and, insofar as it involved UK legislation, would require legislative consent from the devolved legislatures under the Sewel Convention.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend will know, and opinion polling shows, that many people in this country regard the question of migration and access to welfare benefits as the key area, but my right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. All our European Union partners, inside the eurozone and outside, recognise that that issue has to be addressed. As the eurozone integrates, as we believe it will have to do to be a success—and we very much want it to be a success—the interests of those European Union members not inside the eurozone must be protected. Only if we can be confident that those interests will be protected can we welcome the integration of the eurozone countries to protect their interests and the interests of the euro in a way that will not damage ours. So I agree that it is an absolutely vital area.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

The thoughts of everyone on these Benches will obviously be with those caught up in the incident in Istanbul.

As I understand it, the Prime Minister has called for a “united, harmonious and mutually respectful” debate within the Conservative party on the issue of Europe. In a united, harmonious and mutually respectful way, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to confirm that a referendum could not be held within six weeks of the date of the Scottish, Northern Irish, London and Welsh elections? If it were, that would be disrespectful to both the decision of this House and the people engaging in those elections.

[Mr Hammond]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not what the Bill provides for. But given the timescales involved and the fact that we now expect the conclusion to be reached at the February European Council, I think he can be confident that it will not be possible to hold a referendum before the date of the Scottish elections that he referred to.

[Alex Salmond]

I put it to the Foreign Secretary that if the referendum were held within six weeks after the date of the elections, the two campaign periods would intersect, with all the complications that would arise. Therefore I ask him again: will the date of the referendum be at least six weeks after the date of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections?

[Mr Hammond]

What I am trying to convey to the right hon. Gentleman is that that is not what the Bill provides for; the Bill does not place any prohibition on a referendum being held in that period. Ultimately, however, the decision will be made by this House because the date will be decided by a statutory instrument brought before the House.

Daesh: Syria/Iraq

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

On the Jordanian process, and the strand that is attempting to identify who should be considered terrorists, I spoke with my Jordanian counterpart on Monday evening. That work is progressing and all parties have fed in their views on the vast number of different groups. The Jordanians are currently seeking to distinguish those groups that have a significant number of fighters from those that comprise only one or two dozen people, and cross-referencing the views of the different coalition partners. That is work in progress.

On the question of the Turkish-Syrian border, I had a meeting yesterday with the US President’s special envoy, Brett McGurk, the successor to General John Allen, and we talked about this issue. He told me that there were clear signs on the ground that the Turks were moving to close the border along the 60-odd mile gap that remains open. That is very good news. On the question of the Iraqi national guard, the legislation to create a national guard, which we regard as important, is bogged down in the Iraqi Parliament. It is precisely for that reason that the rather pragmatic approach of creating an armed local police as a ground-holding mechanism in the absence of the ability to create a national guard has been taken.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me early sight of his statement. UK forces in theatre carry the admiration and support of those on these Benches.

I would like the Foreign Secretary to tell us more about three aspects of this issue. First, I welcome the new initiatives on finance and on information and propaganda. He said that the Chancellor would be going to the first ever meeting of Finance Ministers in the Security Council to pursue the Security Council resolutions. Does it not speak volumes that that is the first meeting to tackle the flows of finance, the financial institutions and the arms dealers without whom Daesh could not move a muscle or fire a shot? Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, after waiting so long for initiatives in this direction, these will be pursued as vigorously as are other elements of the tactics?

Secondly, the Foreign Secretary announced that a communications cell had been established. Can he tell us how many people—and how much money—have been devoted to intercepting, interrupting and counteracting Daesh propaganda? Given the extraordinary financial cost of military action, it would be of interest to the House to have that comparison between what is spent militarily and what is spent on countering Daesh’s poisonous propaganda.

Finally, on the subject of civilian casualties, I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary said that there had been no reported casualties as a result of UK action in Syria. However, he also knows that the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has reported in the last few days that 26 civilian casualties have resulted from the action of the coalition of which we are part, including the reported deaths of seven children and four women. As the bombing moves into urban areas and city centres such as Raqqa, where I understand there has been no bombing by UK forces as yet, will he tell us by what means we will take forward the NATO protocols on investigating reports of civilian casualties, and how that will be reported timeously to this House and elsewhere?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, particularly for his comment on the commitment of UK forces to their task. This will be the first meeting of Finance Ministers in the Security Council, and I think that sends a very clear signal about the importance with which we regard the issue. It does not mean that no steps have been taken; many measures have been taken already. Financial sanctions are in place, and a financial flows working group, led by Bahrain, has been operating for a year now, but the fact that Finance Ministers of the key countries in the world are going to New York tomorrow to sit in the forum of the Security Council to pass further sanctions measures is an important symbol of our commitment to shutting down this channel of Daesh’s lifeblood. We regard it as extremely important. We saw, in relation to sanctions on Iran, that getting the financial sanctions right was at least as important as getting the sanctions on flows of physical goods right.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the communications cell. The operation of the cell necessarily encroaches into the area of the secret intelligence agencies’ work, so I cannot give him details of the resources available to it or of the number of people deployed in it, but I can tell him that it is already having a visible and measurable effect on Daesh’s communication channels. He also asked me about deaths resulting from coalition action. Of course, any civilian death is deeply regrettable. I was referring to deaths attributable to RAF action, and I believe that while the House will obviously be concerned about civilian deaths more widely, it will be on the question of RAF-caused civilian casualties that hon. Members will want to focus, and I intend to ensure that the House remains updated if the situation changes in respect of any reports of any RAF-caused civilian casualties.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about the protocols for investigating civilian casualty reports as the campaign moves on. NATO has well-established protocols for investigating any incidents where CIVCAS are estimated to have occurred or where imagery suggests that there could have been collateral damage to civilian buildings, and it routinely publishes the outcome of those investigations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

The Foreign Secretary clearly has his itchy fingers on the trigger of military intervention, as indeed do the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister. With 12 other countries already bombing in Syria, what analysis has been done of what additionality or what further sorties would be flown by RAF Tornadoes, and what possible difference could they make to the military situation?

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has already made it clear—I remember saying the same, when I performed that role, more than a year ago—that the point is one of military efficiency. We are already flying reconnaissance missions over Syria, but our Reapers now have to fly over Syria unarmed looking for situations, which they then relay back to call in other allies to carry out strikes. That is not the most efficient way to carry out operations.

[Alex Salmond]

We could drop a few bombs from our reconnaissance aircraft, but what difference would that make to the military situation? Why does the Foreign Secretary not listen to his own Back Benchers? As a non-combatant nation, there are certain advantages in being able to make diplomatic initiatives. Given that the Prime Minister is meeting the President of China—another non-combatant nation and a permanent member of the Security Council—why not discuss a joint diplomatic initiative, instead of just thinking that additional bombing is the answer?

[Mr Hammond]

I have discussed the situation in Syria with my Chinese counterparts on several occasions. At the moment, I judge that the Chinese are not willing to take a diplomatic initiative that would separate them from the Russians. Let me be clear that we are part of coalition activities in Syria. We are not carrying out kinetic actions, but we are flying reconnaissance and surveillance missions and feeding back the output of those missions to the coalition.

Iran: Nuclear Deal

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

I know the Foreign Secretary will be aware that President Rouhani is a distinguished graduate of Glasgow Caledonian University. In his doctoral thesis, he wrote:

“This thesis verifies that no laws in Islam are immutable.”

That is true and it is also true of relationships between nations. Will the Foreign Secretary undertake not to listen to the prophets of doom, wherever they come from, but to see this welcome agreement as a start of a process of engagement that will bring the Government, and above all the people, of this remarkable country back into the community of nations?

[Mr Hammond]

I confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I was not aware that President Rouhani was a graduate of Glasgow Caledonian University, but I am delighted to hear it. It puts a new spin on my meetings with him where he relied on consecutive English translation; he clearly does understand what we are saying—or perhaps not.

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a huge opportunity to grasp, and it is in our interest and the region’s interest that we do so. We must ensure that we do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, indeed. The business view is important, and I have no doubt that it will make its view clear during the referendum campaign, but I emphasise again that the British people must make the ultimate decision.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Will the Government’s objectives, which the Foreign Secretary will not tell us about, require a treaty change, no treaty change or a deferred treaty change?

[Mr Hammond]

The Prime Minister has been clear about the areas in which we need change, and I have referred to one of them this morning: the relationship between the eurozone and the non-eurozone has to be definitive and protected so that we can be confident that our interests will be protected in the future. It is our belief and our understanding, and the legal advice that we are receiving, that the reforms that we want to see around access to welfare benefits, which were set out very specifically in the Conservative party manifesto, will require treaty change in order to proof them against judicial challenge in the European courts.

[Alex Salmond]

Was the Foreign Secretary one of the Ministers who persuaded the Prime Minister to reinterpret his line on collective responsibility in the referendum?

Britain in the World

Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Alex Salmond

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is just back today from the Shangri-La dialogue meeting in Singapore, where that has been a major theme. It is a matter of concern when any power, however great, starts to exercise its territorial claims in a way that gives rise to alarm among its neighbours. What we all fear is destabilisation in the South China sea. What we need to see is the many territorial disputes in that area resolved by arbitration and the application of the principles of international law, just as we seek to see those principles applied more widely.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

The Foreign Secretary has already mentioned a list of matters the world over that have within them threats to human rights. Does he therefore support this country’s withdrawal from the European convention on human rights?

[Mr Hammond]

That is not the proposal on the table. The proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is to ensure that our obligations in respect of compliance with the human rights agenda are overseen by judges in this country, in the context of what is happening in this country. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is looking now at how best to deliver that in a way that is acceptable to the British people and compliant with our obligations under international law.