Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, although I have to say to the lone Minister sitting on the Front Bench that I do not welcome this Bill. I fully understand and share the Government’s desire to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I understand and share the desire to keep the Union of the United Kingdom. I recognise the frustration and difficulty when the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are not in place and operating. I also share the Government’s desire to get that Assembly and Executive back operating for the good of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not believe, however, that this Bill is the way to achieve those aims.

In thinking about the Bill, I started by asking myself three questions. First, do I consider it to be legal under international law? Secondly, will it achieve its aims? Thirdly, does it at least maintain the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three questions is no. That is even before we look at the extraordinarily sweeping powers that the Bill would give to Ministers.

The Government’s claim of legality, as we have heard, is based on the doctrine of necessity in international law. The Government, as the Foreign Secretary said, have published a legal position, and that described this term “necessity” in the following way:

“the term ‘necessity’ is used in international law to lawfully justify situations where the only way a State can safeguard an essential interest is the non-performance of another international obligation…the action taken may not seriously impair the essential interests of the other State(s), and cannot be claimed where excluded by the relevant obligation or where the State invoking it has contributed to the situation of necessity.”

Let us examine that. First, if the necessity argument is to hold, this Bill must be the only way to achieve the Government’s desires, yet the Government’s legal position paper itself accepts that there are other ways. For example, it says:

“The Government’s preference remains a negotiated outcome”,

which was reiterated by the Foreign Secretary in her opening speech. The paper also acknowledges that another way to deal with this issue lies in the existence of article 16. The Government’s preferred option is negotiation, and then there is a second option, which is article 16.

Article 16 is referred to in the legal position paper, but when I read that I thought it was referred to in a way that seemed to try to say that the existence of article 16 somehow justifies the introduction of this Bill. Article 16 does not justify this Bill; the very existence of article 16 negates the legal justification for the Bill.

Let us also examine some of the other arguments for invoking the necessity defence. That defence cannot be claimed where the state invoking it has contributed to the situation of necessity. Again, in their legal position paper, the Government set out their argument that

“the peril that has emerged was not inherent in the Protocol’s provisions.”

I find that a most extraordinary statement. The peril is a direct result of the border down the Irish sea, which was an integral and inherent part of the protocol that the Government signed in the withdrawal agreement. It is possible that the Government might say, “Ah well, we knew about that, but we did not think the DUP would react in the way that it has.” I say to the Minister that the Government should have listened to the DUP in the many debates that went on over the withdrawal agreement, because it made its position on the protocol very clear at that point, and it was not positive.

Finally, necessity suggests urgency; “imminent peril” is the phrase used. There is nothing urgent about the Bill. It has not been introduced as emergency legislation. It is likely to take not weeks, but months to get through Parliament. As the former Treasury solicitor Jonathan Jones said in The House magazine,

“If the UK really did face imminent peril, you might think the government would need to deal with it more quickly than that.”

My answer to all those who question whether the Bill is legal under international law is that for all the above reasons, no, it is not.

Question two is whether the Bill will achieve its aims. I am assuming that the aims are either to encourage the DUP into the Northern Ireland Executive, or that the Bill is a negotiating tool to bring the EU back round to the table. On the first of those, so far I have seen no absolute commitment from the DUP that the Executive will be up and running as a result of the Bill. There were rumours that that might happen on Second Reading, but as far as I can see it has not happened. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wants to have a discussion with me about negotiations with other parties in this House on various matters, I am happy to do so.

If the Bill is a negotiating tool, will it actually bring the EU back round the table? So far, we have seen no sign of that. My experience was that the EU looks carefully at the political situation in any country. As I discovered after I had faced a no-confidence vote—and despite having won that vote—the EU then starts to ask itself, “Is it really worth negotiating with these people in government, because will they actually be there in any period of time?”, regardless of the justification or otherwise for its taking that view. I suspect those in the EU are saying to themselves, “Why should we negotiate in detail with a Government who show themselves willing to sign an agreement, claim it as a victory and then try to tear part of it up after less than three years?” My answer to the second question as to whether the Bill will achieve its aims is no, it will not.

My final question was about the UK’s standing in the world. The UK’s standing in the world, and our ability to convene and encourage others in the defence of our shared values, depends on the respect that others have for us as a country—a country that keeps its word and displays those shared values in its actions. As a patriot, I would not want to do anything to diminish this country in the eyes of the world. I have to say to the Government that this Bill is not in my view legal in international law, it will not achieve its aims and it will diminish the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world. I cannot support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the Back-Bench speakers so far, who have been very considerate of others in the length of their speeches, but I will after the next speaker have to introduce an eight-minute time limit in order to be able to give everybody equal access.

Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the very good speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and I echo her comments in thanking FCDO staff and aid workers around the world for the work that they do, often, as she said, in extremely difficult circumstances. I would also like to say to the Minister that I am grateful to Lord Ahmad for the discussions he is having with me on modern slavery and initiatives on modern slavery, and those discussions are continuing.

Before I come to the specific points I want to make on the estimates, I will make a general point on this debate, because I believe that, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) last week, the Prime Minister implied that this debate was a vote on 0.7%. Of course, it is a vote on the estimates for the FCDO. It cannot be used as a proxy vote on 0.7%, and I hope the Government will accept that and recognise that the calls for a vote on 0.7% are still there.

There are two issues that I particularly want to raise. The first is that, in the limited information available to us on aid spending from the Government, there seems to be little suggestion from the Government that they are actually paying attention to the important linkages between the different elements of spending in the aid budget. This is often an holistic matter, and these things cannot just be looked at in silos.

To give just one example of this, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly very keen to encourage girls’ education around the world. It has been a theme of Conservative Governments now for some considerable time. We have taken it up in G7 meetings, and we have encouraged others around the world to take up that theme. Of course, a girl who is educated is less likely to be lured into modern slavery. However, if we cut the programmes for dealing with modern slavery, that girl may not be able to get into education because the slave drivers and the gangs—the criminal gangs—may have got to her first. We have to look at these issues holistically and at the linkages between them.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting her, but she is making such an excellent point, and exactly the same argument can be made on tackling gender-based violence. If we want to succeed in getting women through education, then we must tackle gender-based violence. It is a comprehensive package, and that is why we need to be securing the 0.7%.

[Mrs May]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I gave just one example, but actually we have to look at aid funding holistically, and look at the linkages between areas and the impact of cuts in one area on another area. There is no evidence, I am afraid, from what I have seen from the Government, that that is what they have done. It does appear that they have just cut in silos. We see, for example, that the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery has an 80% cut in its funding and there is a 25% cut in funding for girls’ education, but these are linked. I urge the Government to look at those links.

I want to note that, in their response to the fourth special report of the Select Committee, in late September —28 September—last year, the Government said:

“The Government’s manifesto made clear that we would proudly maintain our commitment to spending 0.7 percent of our national income on development—a commitment enshrined in law and one to which the new Department will honour its responsibilities. The Integrated Review, which will inform the priorities and direction for this new department, will set an ambitious vision for the future of the UK as an active, internationalist, problem-solving and burden-sharing nation. Investing 0.7 percent of Gross National Income…on international development is at the heart of that vision; it shows we are an enterprising, outward-looking and truly global Britain that is fully engaged with the world.”

That was at the end of September 2020, and in November 2020 the funding was cut. Either one hand does not know what the other hand is doing in the Government, or they were just trying to calm everybody into a sense that everything was going to be okay before they actually wielded the knife on this particular issue.

The second point I want to make is about the impact on the UK’s presence on the world stage of the decisions that have been taken. This relates not just to ODA spending, but to the spending of the FCDO in general. I note that the Select Committee, in response to the decision to merge DFID into the FCO, said that it had

“significant concerns that the merger may jeopardise the ongoing effectiveness of future UK aid spending… In the long run, the creation of the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office could reduce the UK’s clout on the world stage.”

I fear that it is reducing the UK’s clout on the world stage, and this cut in overseas aid is but one example of that, although we focus, as we have in previous debates on this issue, on the very real impact on the ground of the money being cut from different programmes. The health programme has been mentioned by the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Rotherham, but there are others, including the cut in funding to starving people in Yemen, for example, and all of these are having a real impact on the ground.

The FCDO also needs to look very carefully at the DFID expertise that is now within the FCDO. As it looks across its estimates and at how it is spending its money in the Department, it needs to make very certain that it does not lose that expertise. There have been times in the past when people have rightly questioned the way in which our aid money has been spent, but I have to say that that has changed in recent years, largely due to and initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he was the International Development Secretary. We spend our aid differently, and we have developed—and successive International Development Secretaries did this too—real expertise. We are now hitting the needy across the world with a double whammy because they are losing our funding and they are losing our expertise as well.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the position is far worse than was set out when the so-called merger took place? What has happened is that DFID has been completely dismantled. Even in the days of her predecessor, Lady Thatcher, there was an overseas development administration within the Foreign Office, which was a sort-of department for development with a Minister of State in charge of it. There is nothing like that today. The whole thing has been completely smashed to pieces, as she is saying in her speech.

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for clarifying that point so well. If we are going to continue to be respected as a country that leads on overseas aid, it is absolutely imperative that we not only spend the money, but that we also have the expertise to ensure that it is being spent properly. Hosting receptions in the British embassy, and getting to know local businessmen and politicians, is a different skillset to knowing how to deliver aid on the ground logistically, so that British taxpayers’ money is spent in the most effective way.

Maintaining that expertise is particularly important if the Government are to be believed, as we hope they are, when they say that they are going to restore the 0.7%. When a programme is cut, we cannot just say, “Well, you are not having that money this year, but next year you are going to have it.” People will no longer be employed to give the aid on the ground. We need the expertise to be able to build the programmes up. We are looking at a perfect storm, where not only has the money gone away but, when the time comes—I hope it will be next year that the Government restore 0.7%—we will find that the people are not in the Department to ensure that that is being done, and being done effectively.

I say to the Minister that I sincerely hope that we can restore the respect that we have had around the world, through our funding and our expertise, restore the 0.7%, look holistically at the aid spending and not lose DFID expertise. If we do that, we might be able to return, as was said in the Government response to the fourth special report, to being

“an enterprising, outward-looking and truly global Britain that is fully engaged with the world.”

Sadly, at the moment, the message is rather different.

ODA Budget

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but the simple fact is that the UK Government have had to deal with an unprecedented, once-in-300-year economic as well as health event, and we have to respond, but we do so in a way that maintains our commitment to the poorest in the world.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

The integrated review identifies the United Kingdom as a “soft power superpower”, citing as one of the reasons our contribution to international development. Exactly how is that position going to be enhanced by the action of cutting aid to the world’s poorest, including those in slavery? I note that slavery was not even referred to in the written statement issued by the Foreign Secretary last week.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK is viewed globally as a soft power superpower. The conversations I have had since the announcements have been made demonstrate that the international community still very much sees the UK as a soft power superpower. Our development expenditure is an important part of that, and that is why we are committed to getting back to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. We will continue to work with partners, and to lobby, co-ordinate and convene our international friends and partners to support the poorest in the world. We will not step back from that just because of the temporary financial situation we find ourselves in. I can assure her that she and I and, as I say, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are as one, in that we aspire to be a global leader in soft power and in development, and we will recover back up to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

Global Britain

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend’s statement made only a passing reference to the agreement on internal security for the future. Unlike the Labour party, I do not expect the Government to publish their full negotiating mandate, but will they publicly make much clearer their intentions for that treaty in regard to key instruments that keep us safe, such as PNR—passenger name records—the Prüm convention and Schengen information system II? What is the final date on which that treaty can be agreed, such that it will become operational on 1 January 2021?

[Dominic Raab]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that she has done in this area. For more detail, I can point her in the direction of the Prime Minister’s written ministerial statement. She will know from her own experience of negotiating with the EU that there are difficulties because it claims that access to some of the instruments will be conditional on accepting free movement. I know that she will agree that we must bring an end to free movement. However, I accept that data sharing, extradition and our relationship with Europol and Eurojust are important elements of our law enforcement co-operation, and we will be looking forward to securing appropriate relations with the EU.

UK Telecommunications

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the considered questions he raises. He is right to do so. We have looked at this issue very carefully. He expressed concern about delay, but I think it was absolutely right that, on such a sensitive decision with such a range of complex considerations, from commercial and infrastructure to security, we took the time to get this right. He called for an objective and rigorous analysis; that is precisely what has gone into this decision through the telecoms supply chain review, the analysis of the National Cyber Security Centre, and the other work that has been done, including by the Huawei cyber security evaluation centre oversight board. As a result, we have a greater level of insight into the challenges and the opportunities relating to 5G—in particular the challenges in relation to high-risk vendors—than any jurisdiction in the world.

The hon. Gentleman asked about intelligence considerations. GCHQ has confirmed categorically that how we construct our 5G and full-fibre public telecoms networks has nothing to do with how we will share classified data. Intelligence sharing will not be put at risk—and will never be put at risk by this Government. It is worth saying that high-risk vendors never have been, and never will be, in our most sensitive networks. He will have heard the public remarks by Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, who said that he has no reason to think the UK’s intelligence-sharing relationship with the US will be impacted, and that the Five Eyes intelligence relationship was the strongest they have ever seen.

The hon. Gentleman asked a range of other questions. The reality is that the decision we are taking today allows us to build on what will be one of the toughest regimes in the world, protecting, and providing the right balance on the protection of, our 5G infrastructure. As I set out in the statement, the Government recognise the imperative to diversify supply. That will involve UK operators making sure that more challengers can come into the market place. It could well involve—this is something we will want to look at—international co-operation with like-minded, close partners, so that we avoid ever having that shortfall of competition and diversity of supply in this country.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the ambitious delivery of the 5G network and full-fibre broadband. That is precisely why we had to undertake rigorous analysis and take the time to get the decision right, and why it is so important to take the right decision, which is what the Government are doing today.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about enforcement. The initial approach will be through guidance, as I explained in my statement. We are committed to bringing forward legislation as soon as possible, but we will make sure we have the robust enforcement to go with the rigorous regime that I set out.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I commend the Government for taking a decision that protects our national security but also recognises the interests of our economy. That is right for the UK, because it recognises the construction of our networks and our capabilities, and gives us the toughest regime in the world. My right hon. Friend has already referenced the fact that we never have had, and never will have, high-risk vendors in our most sensitive networks, and the fact that this decision has no effect on our ability to share intelligence with our allies. My right hon. Friend also referenced the current market failure. He set out the steps the UK Government will take to rectify that. Does he agree that it is essential that our Five Eyes partners—all our Five Eyes allies—be willing to work with us and other like-minded countries to ensure the market diversification that is in all our interests in the long term?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the assiduous and rigorous work done under her leadership and by her Government, which has made possible the decision that we make today. I can confirm that, in her words, there will be no impact on intelligence. We seek to continue to work with the Five Eyes on intelligence; indeed, we want to strengthen that relationship as we depart from the EU. Co-operation should also expand in relation to dealing with the shortfall in, and the need to improve diversity of, supply in the telecoms network.

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

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

As is fitting for a debate on the Queen’s Speech, we have had a very wide-ranging and significant set of contributions from right hon. and hon. Members. Many speeches referred to human rights, to the European Union and to counter-extremism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) referred to housing development in Birmingham but also to international development; I pay tribute to his work as Secretary of State for International Development. The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) referred to buses, which of course were mentioned in the Gracious Address.

I will respond to some of the main points in a moment, but I first join the shadow Home Secretary in commending the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for his maiden speech. I apologise that I was not in the Chamber to hear it, but his predecessor was a much respected and well-liked Member of the House. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman reaching his century—I think he referred to that in his speech—and, from his contribution today, it seems that not only will he be an excellent representative for his constituents, but that he too will be a much respected and well-liked Member of the House.

I also commend the two opening speeches in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with characteristic authority, knowledge and understanding of the wide range of foreign affairs that require our attention. As he said, the world is becoming more dangerous and uncertain, and it is against that background that the Queen’s Speech referred to a number of issues of national security and defence, including Trident. I disagree with the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), because Trident is an important part of our defence and national security.

Against that dangerous background, it is right to ensure that our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies have the powers they need in today’s world, where criminals and terrorists increasingly use new technology. Our agencies must be able to operate in the digital age, and I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his comments on the exchange that we have had in the past couple days on a number of matters regarding the carry-over Investigatory Powers Bill. I intend to continue working with him and the shadow Immigration Minister—who made an important contribution alongside my ministerial colleagues in debates on this matter in Committee—to ensure that we provide a Bill that does what it needs to do, and provides those operational powers and also contains the necessary safeguards.

One of my abiding memories of this House is the day on which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) came to this Chamber following a by-election, and of the look—the beam—of absolute pride on his late father’s face at his son coming to this House. As he said, his father would not have agreed with the substance of what he said about the European Union, but he would have welcomed and been proud of the eloquence and passion with which the right hon. Gentleman put his case.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the European Union, including the hon. Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), and for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Some were not in favour of remaining in the European Union, including my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was concerned about some of the defence issues. I understand that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who serves on the Defence Committee, took issue with some comments that the Chair of that Committee made in the Chamber.

The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said that although he was originally against membership of the EU, he was now in favour of it because of the various protections that he felt it provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) reminded us that we need to remember Britain’s role in the world, as well as the benefits that working together in co-operation with other countries can bring.

[Drew Hendry]

Among many things to disagree with and criticise, I would like to focus on a positive point about work abroad. Stephanie Inglis is a Commonwealth games medal-winning athlete, and she is in a critical condition in a coma in Vietnam. She has received overwhelming public support for her GoFundMe page, in contrast to the refusal of insurance sold by Debenhams to pay out. I am in regular contact with the family, and they are very grateful for Foreign and Commonwealth Office support. They need more help with translation services, and I would like to reflect their good wishes that more work can be done. I wonder whether the Home Secretary agrees.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case about the sad circumstances in which his constituent finds herself. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was here earlier, and I think the hon. Gentleman was able to speak to him briefly about this issue. As he sees, other Foreign Office Ministers are present and have heard his point, as has the Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims. I am sure that support will be forthcoming for the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

A number of hon. Members referred to the proposed counter-extremism Bill. It is absolutely right that our proud tradition of defending shared values has allowed Britain to grow into the diverse, tolerant and inclusive country it is today. We live in a society where we are free to decide how to live, what to wear and how to worship according to our beliefs. We are free to take advantage of education and employment opportunities. However, we also have a responsibility to respect the rights of others. We should be concerned about, and stand up to, those who seek to sow the seeds of division between our communities, pushing us further apart rather than choosing to bring us together. Legislation can only be part of the answer, but where there is a gap in the law we must act. That is why we will introduce a counter-extremism and safeguarding Bill. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who raised specific concerns about the Bill, that there will be consultation. We recognise the sensitivities involved.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs May]

I do not have much time.

I mentioned the European Union. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) that I think he is trying to face in two directions at the same time on this issue. The hon. Member for Ilford South was absolutely right: the Scottish National party view appears to be to want to be in the EU, but it would actually like an exit vote so it can have another independence vote in Scotland. We should all be doing what we believe is right for the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Alex Salmond]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I have limited time in which to finish my remarks.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) referred to the institutions of the European Union. It is the Ministers in this Government who have been standing up in the EU for British interests, and long may that continue. As the shadow Home Secretary said, from everything I have seen, I believe we are safer and more secure inside the EU.

There were a lot of contributions on human rights, including from the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights; my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who referred to human rights in relation to Russia; the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry); the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier); and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who talked about human rights in Bangladesh. I can confirm, as the Foreign Secretary said, that human rights are mainstreamed throughout Foreign Office thinking. It is one of the issues we look at in other areas too, such as policing arrangements, exchange of legal information and so on.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding behind some of the contributions. Some Members, across the House, seem to think that human rights started with either the European convention on human rights or the Human Rights Act 1998. They did not. This is the country that has the proud tradition of Magna Carta. This is the country that has led the way on human rights. Human rights do not reside in just one piece of legislation—that is the important point. Our commitment is to bring forward the Bill of Rights. We will have significantly more consultation and scrutiny of the Bill of Rights than there was for the Human Rights Act, which was introduced without formal consultation and within just six months of the 1997 general election.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) referred to Hillsborough. Everybody in this House was shocked when they heard the verdicts of the independent panel. It is important that we learn the lessons, which is why Bishop James Jones will be working with the families on that.

It is the first duty of Government to ensure the safety and security of citizens. The measures in the Queen Speech will do just that. We are safer and more secure when our police forces are transparent and accountable, and when criminal gangs are no longer able to use the financial system to manage the proceeds of their crimes and evade justice. We are safer and more secure when our prisons are not just places to punish. We also heard many contributions on the importance of prison reform, including from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who did indeed, as Justice Secretary, start the Government down the path of this important prison reform.

This Queen’s Speech is the mark of a reforming Government. Its reforms will put justice at the heart of our public services, protect the vulnerable and reshape our criminal justice system in the name of creating one nation, and I commend it to the House.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

We have indeed had an extremely interesting debate and have heard a wide range of views.

The debate was opened by a powerful and thoughtful speech by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who set out the Government’s position with great clarity. I welcome the careful and serious response from the shadow Foreign Secretary and his hope that it will be possible to work together to address the challenges we face, for events in Ukraine, north Africa and most particularly the middle east all pose grave and significant challenges, and it is right that the House has had a chance to debate these issues fully.

Indeed, the role of Parliament, not just in debating these issues but in consideration of possible military action, was a theme referred to by a number of hon. Members, including my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). As the shadow Home Secretary said, there have been a large number of contributions to this debate. I might not be able to refer to all of them, but I will do my best during the time available to me.

A number of speakers referred to Ukraine, including the hon. Members for Preston (Mark Hendrick) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) raised a specific issue about the annexation of Crimea. I can assure her that this Government do not and will not recognise the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) reminded us that what is happening in Ukraine has had an impact on us here, by referring to the fact that sadly one of her constituents died in the attack on flight MH17.

A number of other Members focused on Israel, Hamas and Gaza. Not all of them shared the same analysis of these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about the threat from Hamas. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) also referred to these issues and asked about debating the US-UK mutual defence agreement. I can tell him that, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, proposed amendments will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny later in the year. The issue of Gaza was also referred to by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn).

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) raised some specific issues, including one relating to DEFRA. I will ensure that she gets a written response to her question.

For most Members of the House, however, this was an opportunity to refer to issues relating to Iraq and Syria. Some common themes came out from their contributions. The first—perhaps it seems an obvious one, but it is still worth saying—was that anything we do should mean acting in the national interest. A number of Members referred to the importance in doing that of considering our values, which underpin our actions. They included my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who advocated more funding for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—I am not sure whether the Foreign Secretary was here at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border also referred to the importance of the knowledge, understanding and expertise in the Foreign Office in looking at these issues, but also the understanding that we need to have of our place in the world and the values that underpin the actions we undertake.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) referred to the NATO summit, the latter saying that what came out of it underlined the United Kingdom’s place in the world.

There was also a shared analysis of the brutality and barbarism of ISIL and the threat that it poses to the United Kingdom. Reference to that was made by, for example, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the actions—the terrible actions in some cases—taken against Christians, not just in Iraq but in other parts of the world, and about the impact of those actions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) made a link, which I do not think anybody else made, between the operation of ISIL and its financing from criminal activities.

Another theme was the need to build alliances in order to deal with the threat. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said that we need a coalition to defeat the caliphate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) talked about working with states in the middle east and made reference to his long-standing concern about the need to work with communities here in the United Kingdom.

A theme in a number of speeches was that the Government should work to a strategy, but also that we should be prepared to take the action necessary to protect our national security. The possibility of air strikes was referred to by a number of Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). Having said that, there were some words of warning from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) —he is not in his place, so my pronunciation can pass by—and the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) referred to the need to talk more, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner).

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), spoke about the importance of an inclusive Government in Iraq and it is a concern shared by the Government. Other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), raised the need to ensure that there are adequate resources for our needs.

There was not always an agreed position on Syria. It was interesting to note that the right hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Neath (Mr Hain), both senior members of the Opposition and former Cabinet Members, joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), were all of the mind that there should be talks with Assad—a position not shared by the Government.

We are ever alert to the changing nature of the threat posed by terrorism to Britain and its interests abroad. In recent years, we have seen the threat continue to diversify, and it can come from any number of countries or groups. It is manifesting itself most sharply at present in Syria, but north Africa and the Sahel are also examples of this worrying trend. Extremist groups, including al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and like-minded groups in Libya, are increasingly able to operate across vast and ungoverned spaces.

Last year, we saw an al-Qaeda-linked group attack the In Amenas gas facility in Algeria, killing 40 people, including six British nationals. We have seen terrorist attacks in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, and a threat to British nationals of kidnap and attack. We are working closely with our Government counterparts in north Africa to support them in countering the terrorist threats more effectively, but tackling terrorism in such areas remains a real challenge, making it all the more imperative to take a robust and comprehensive domestic approach to countering terrorism.

Before I focus on Syria and Iraq in that connection, let me respond to a point raised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn about Iran and the issue of reopening an embassy in Tehran. We will do that as soon as the practical issues can be resolved, including those associated with re-establishing any visa service. I am sure he will understand the need for the appropriate infrastructure, staffing and the processes to ensure that we can offer a proper service. It is the practical considerations that are a matter of concern.

The collapse of Syria and the emergence of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant pose very significant challenges to our national security. As we have heard, we are seeing an unprecedented concentration of the terrorist threat in and from Syria and Iraq. Terrorist groups fighting in Syria are supported by increasing numbers of foreign fighters, including numbers in the hundreds from this country and thousands from elsewhere. This presents a significant challenge due not only to the number of people fighting with the many Syria and Iraq-based terrorist groups, but to their proximity to the UK, ease of travel across porous borders in the region and the availability of weapons. We are indeed looking to see what further powers we need to take here in the United Kingdom to be able to deal with the threat that these people pose.

People who insist on travelling to fight in Syria and Iraq will be investigated by the police and security services. We have already taken tough action on rules governing the use of the royal prerogative. The Serious Crime Bill, which is in another place, will close the gap in our powers to ensure that any British national who prepares or trains for terrorism abroad can be prosecuted in this country as if they had carried out those activities in the UK. We are also confronting the poisonous ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism—a point made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and referred to by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As the Prime Minister has said, we are in the midst of a generational struggle against a deadly, extremist ideology, and we will do everything we can, as a Government, to ensure that we have the powers that are necessary to deal with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and security.