Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2)
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
First, I am sorry to see you go, Mr Speaker, because you have stood up for Back Benchers in the past 10 years, and you have been a great respecter of the Chamber. I wish you and your family all the best for the future.
I do not intend to speak for long, but suffice it to say that I agree with the Prime Minister. He uses the same language as me when he says, “Put it to the people”. He considers that the people should be engaged in the final say, so let them have it in a confirmatory ballot on the issue of Brexit in a people’s vote. It is wrong to conflate Brexit, which is a decision for a generation, with a general election campaign, which is meant to decide a programme of government for a maximum of five years. I think the Prime Minister knows that.
Phil Wilson
No, I am not going to speak for long.
The Prime Minister has been found out. It is about eight weeks to 31 October, but he wants to take up the next four or five weeks with electioneering, rather than going to look for a deal. I have some words of advice for him: go to Brussels, and begin to negotiate. Bring back the deal that you have promised the country, and put it to the House. I will help to facilitate its passage through Parliament, as long as it is put to the British people so that they can decide whether they want to go ahead with it or stay in the EU in a confirmatory ballot.
The Prime Minister has lost the Father of the House, Winston Churchill’s grandson and his own brother. I understand that in the past few days the Duke of Wellington has left the Conservative party. The Prime Minister has met his Waterloo. The Conservative party can change its mind on no deal, but it refuses to allow the British people to do the same on Brexit. They need to have a final say on Brexit. After three and a half years, on the will of the people and the generational decision of Brexit, they have the right to be asked again in the light of the fact that this Government are hellbent on moving towards the EU exit door without a deal. The Government will say it would be a betrayal of Brexit and the British people if we do not deliver on Brexit. I will tell you what is a betrayal of trust: leaving the EU without a deal and not telling the British people that it is not a clean break. Like any Brexit deal, but even more so in the event of no deal, it will lead to years of uncertainty and economic woes for the majority of the people in this country, including unemployment. But of course the main pursuers of Brexit are not the ones who will be losing their jobs.
We need to resolve Brexit with the confirmation of the British people. That is how it began in 2016, and that is how it should be brought to a conclusion. The people have the right to compare the facts today with what was promised to them three and a half years ago. Brexit started with the people and it should end with the people. Prime Minister, resolve Brexit first and then let us have a general election. I will not be supporting the motion tonight.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Nobody can argue that tonight we are not facing an impasse that affects not just our relationship with Europe, but the very constitution of our country. Sadly, I find that a people’s vote is not an answer, because this question is not just one question; it is every question. The only way to answer it is to ask the British people who they want as their advocates in this House, who they want speaking for them not just on one issue but on every issue. The question is: who will stand up for the British people. Let us call an election and ask them who governs Britain. [Interruption.]
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about the case she has raised. I will ask Ministers in the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign Office to look at the issue and get back to her on it. When these PTAs are signed, we expect that they will do the job that they are intended to in enabling prisoner transfers, but I will ask that the relevant Minister write to the hon. Lady on her specific case.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Apart from an extraordinary leak, which I will not go into, the decision being discussed in many parts of the world is the possibility that we will be nesting a dragon in the critical national infrastructure of the UK by allowing Huawei to build the cyber-network that will power 5G. This decision is frankly extraordinary, given the advice of the National Security Agency in the United States and the Australian Signals Directorate. Could the Prime Minister explain why she feels that ignoring two of our closest intelligence allies and putting in danger a 70-year intelligence-sharing relationship that has underpinned the security of the UK is worth it for Chinese commercial gain?
The Prime Minister
We are committed to taking decisions, supported by a hard-headed, technically-informed assessment of the risk. We discuss security issues very closely with our allies. We have put in place a review of the 5G supply chain to ensure that we have a secure and resilient roll-out of 5G, and the decisions of that review will be announced in due course. Our priorities for the future of telecommunications are stronger cyber-security practices, greater resilience in telecoms networks and diversity in the market, and those priorities drive our thinking.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
Britain is a global trading nation and is about to become more global, so we want to promote the strengths of Northern Ireland’s business community to a global audience. So far, I have visited CM Precision Components in Downpatrick, the Causeway Chamber of Commerce, Randox in Antrim, Coca-Cola in Lisburn, Queen’s University Centre of Excellence in Precision Medicine in Belfast and many Northern Ireland representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses, Chamber of Commerce, Confederation of British Industry and Institute of Directors.
Tom Tugendhat
On every visit I make to embassies in my role as Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, it has been made very clear to me that Northern Ireland has an amazing economy that is growing and has a rightful place around the world. Does my right hon. Friend—forgive me, I meant my hon. Friend; the day is young—agree that Northern Ireland’s economic achievements would only be greater if the Northern Ireland Assembly were out there assisting and promoting it through the Northern Ireland Executive?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Boris Johnson
Just one second. In Brussels, they think we have nothing left in our tank and that we want to do a deal at any price. As we all think about this vote and what we are individually going to do, and thinking about the attitude in Brussels towards us, now is the time for us to show them that they grossly underestimate this country and this House of Commons and our attachment to our liberties. There is an alternative. There is another way. We should not pretend, after two years of wasted negotiations, that it is going to be easy, but it is the only option that delivers on the will of the people and also, I believe, maintains our democratic self-respect as a country. That option is obvious from this debate, and from every poll that I have seen. We should go back to Brussels and say, “Yes, we want a deal if we can get one, and yes, there is much in the withdrawal agreement that we can keep, notably the good work that has been done on citizens.”
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
When you went to Russia, did Lavrov give Ukraine back?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, compares the European Union to Lavrov and Russia. I think that that is an entirely inapposite comparison. These are our friends. These are our partners. To compare them to Russia today is quite extraordinary.
We should say that we appreciate the good work that is being done to protect the rights of citizens on either side of the channel, but we must be clear that we will not accept the backstop. It is nonsensical to claim that it is somehow essential to further progress in the negotiations. The question of the Irish border is for the future partnership, not the withdrawal agreement. It was always absurd that it should be imported into this section of the negotiations. We should use the implementation period to negotiate that future partnership, which is what I believe the Government themselves envisage—and, by the way, we should withhold at least half that £39 billion until the negotiation on the new partnership is concluded.
EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful for the chance to lead for the SNP in the debate. May I commend Opposition Front Benchers for allocating time to debate what is clearly a fundamentally important question? While I agree that the wording of the motion could have been tighter, the Government had to amend their own European Union (Withdrawal) Bill about 100 times in the Lords because the version that had passed through the Commons was such a mess that the finest legal minds in the country did not have a hope of making any sense of it.
I note with some encouragement the comments from the Minister, and it seems to me that there is a way of getting some kind of agreement. What is fundamentally important, however, is that when 650 of us take the most important decision we will ever take in our lives—short of a decision to go to war—every one of us is absolutely certain that we are armed with the best information and advice that can possibly be given.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are other avenues for getting that advice? I have been approached by any number of legal charities, which have offered advice on many different things, but particularly on the EU. I know that Speaker’s counsel has been extremely generous in giving advice to Select Committee Chairs, and such advice is certainly available to me. I also know that many other people in the House can give advice—not least the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), whose legal intellect is, frankly, second to none. The ability to acquire legal advice in this place is enormous, so it seems odd to force the Government to disclose their own advice, and therefore to undermine their own ability to pursue a case, when other avenues are available.
Peter Grant
I was about to say something very similar. Others in this House are much better qualified than me to decide what mechanism would best make sure that all Members of Parliament have possession of the facts, information and advice that we need. Whether that is achieved through the exact wording of the motion or a better way can be agreed in discussions elsewhere is not for me to rule on.
I come to this debate with one significant disadvantage compared with a lot of others who will take part in it, and with one significant advantage. The significant disadvantage I have is that I am not, have never been and never intend to be a lawyer. The significant advantage I have is that I am not, have never been and have no intention to be a lawyer. That means that I have no conflict of interest in saying that the law and lawyers are there to serve the public. Parliament and parliamentarians are here to serve the public, not the other way round. In this context, the law and lawyers are here to serve Parliament; Parliament is not here to serve the lawyers.
A number of really extraordinary concerns have been raised about what the motion, amended or otherwise, would mean if it was agreed. As far as I can see, this is not about abolishing the convention that legal advice is privileged or confidential, or about insisting that from now on every Attorney General who ever gives evidence has to do so on the assumption that it will be on the front page of the Daily Express by the next day. It is not about that at all. Simply reading the wording of the motion makes it perfectly clear that that is not what is being asked for.
I have heard concerns from Conservative Members. People are worried that they will be expected to vote for something but then, after they have done so, somebody else will interpret what their vote actually means. Some of us have been thinking about that since 23 June 2016, because that was exactly what happened to 33 million people after they cast their vote in the EU referendum. There is a significant danger that that is precisely what has been set up to happen to us when we are asked to vote on the Government’s deal or no deal. We will be asked to give a commitment to agreeing to something without really understanding what we are being asked to vote for. When something is so fundamentally important, that is simply not acceptable.
We should be under no illusions whatsoever about the consequences of our getting it wrong when we come to vote on a proposed deal. Whether we end up with a bad deal or no deal, the Government’s own analysis points to an economic hit that would be bigger than the crash of 2008, including a 9% reduction in economic growth; hundreds of thousands of jobs put at risk; £2,300 per year out of the pockets of every family in Scotland; the rights of millions of citizens called into question; and, as has been mentioned, the very real risk of undermining that precious but fragile peace that allows people on both sides of the Irish border to do what most of the rest of us take for granted—live normal lives. It would be a criminal dereliction of the duties entrusted to us if we willingly took that decision in the knowledge of the possible consequences and the fact that there was expert advice about what those consequences might be, but did not even ask what that advice said.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We recognise that we need to take action in relation to rough sleepers. We have a commitment to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and to end rough sleeping by 2027. That is why we have already published a strategy to deal with this; we have put initial funding of £100 million into it, and there are pilot projects being worked on in various parts of the country. If he is interested in this issue of rough sleeping, I hope he will support the proposals that the Government have put forward, which were confirmed in the Budget, for increasing stamp duty on those purchasing properties in the UK who do not live or work in the UK, with that money to go into supporting people who are rough sleeping.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me, when she goes to the Cenotaph next Sunday, in paying tribute not only to our own war dead from this country, but to the 3 million who came from the Commonwealth to serve in the cause of freedom? I will, sadly, not be in Tonbridge this weekend; I will be laying a wreath in Delhi, paying my own tribute—and, I know, paying tribute on behalf of the whole House—to those who suffered and died.
Will the Prime Minister join me also in wearing a khadi poppy at some point, the reason for which is that the homespun cotton remembers Gandhi’s and India’s contribution to the effort? It is a vital reminder to all of us here of our links around the world, but particularly to India.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the vital contribution that was made by soldiers from around the Commonwealth—he has highlighted particularly those from India. I also pay tribute to him for his own military service. We must never forget that over 74,000 soldiers came from undivided India and lost their lives—eleven of them won the Victoria Cross for their outstanding bravery—and he will know they played a crucial role in the war across multiple continents. I would also like to congratulate the Royal British Legion and Lord Gadhia on their efforts in recognising this contribution with the special khadi poppy, honouring the sacrifice of everyone who served a century ago.
I am certainly interested in wearing a khadi poppy at some stage over the period as we lead up to Armistice Day, just as I am pleased to be wearing—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who is on the Front Bench opposite, says she is wearing one, which I am very pleased to see. I would also like to say that I am very pleased to wear the ceramic poppy today—I see a number of hon. Members are wearing them, and they were created by children at a school in the north-west. [Hon. Members: “St Vincent’s.”] St Vincent’s, indeed. It is very important, at this centenary, that we all recognise and that younger generations understand the immense sacrifice that was made for their freedom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
The Cabinet Office and the independent Electoral Commission published their respective findings in July that the pilots worked well. The overwhelming majority of people were able to cast their vote without a problem, and there was no notable adverse effect on turnout. The success of the pilots proves that the measures are reasonable and proportionate.
Chloe Smith
My hon. Friend is correct. Our surveying alongside the pilots found no indication that the ID requirements changed the reasons for not voting for any specific demographic group across the participating authorities. That is important evidence.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend knows well that elections are expensive to conduct. Sevenoaks District Council and Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council do excellent jobs of conducting elections not just for themselves, but for this place and for the county council. Is she planning to consider ways of speeding up payments to those borough and district councils?
Chloe Smith
Yes, I am working with the Association of Electoral Administrators to see how the process can be improved. I take this opportunity to thank all the electoral staff in my hon. Friend’s council and elsewhere, who work so hard. The fact is that they have six months in which to submit an account. These things can sometimes be left to the last minute, which creates a bulge in the process, but we want to improve that.
G7
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady refers to the international rules-based order. That can be looked at in a variety of ways. If we take an issue such as the norms that we all accept or have been accepting on chemical weapons, there is absolutely no doubt about the strength of support there is for action to ensure that those international norms and that rules-based order are maintained. As we say in the communiqué, we recognise in areas like trade that the World Trade Organisation needs reform. Its dispute resolution mechanisms are very slow, and we need to work to ensure that it provides frameworks for not just the economies of the past but the economies of the future—in digitisation and services, for example.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the building of the international order, which has enriched us all in the freedoms that we now have, has been paid for not just with the industry of American and British diplomats, but with the lives of the soldiers given in wars and conflicts to protect the freedoms that we enjoy? Does she agree that protecting, defending and, indeed, expanding that order is not only in our interests, but in the interests of all free peoples, including the United States?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is that we as politicians stand and talk about the values that we share, but it is our servicemen and women who actually put their lives on the line to defend those values. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that we are doing them the service of working together to maintain that rules-based international order.
Syria
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
It is not a question of the Government rejecting that principle. If I can return again to the written ministerial statement, it observes:
“The Cabinet Manual states, ‘In 2011, the Government acknowledged that a Convention had developed in Parliament that before troops were committed the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter and said that it proposed to observe that Convention except where there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.’”
It subsequently goes on to make other references and, as I just said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), states:
“In observing the convention, we must ensure that the ability of our armed forces to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 10WS.]
When the Government take a decision and act without a debate in Parliament, as has happened on this occasion, it is right that I come to Parliament at the first opportunity to explain that decision and to give Members an opportunity to question it, and to hold me and the Government to account.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I can only imagine the burden on the Prime Minister’s shoulders as she took this onerous decision. From the other side, I can say that when such orders are received, they are about the most sobering thing that one can ever get. I congratulate her on taking action that I believe to be not only legitimate, but right and, indeed, urgent. I also congratulate her, her colleagues and our international partners on standing together on this matter. However, will she reinforce the efforts of the Foreign Office? Few have been shouldering the burden as heavily as Karen Pierce at the United Nations, although others in our diplomatic network have done so. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Foreign Office’s role is to promote the aims and interests of our Government and our people whom we are here to represent, not to wait for a veto and the news that Moscow says no?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it must be the UK Government who determine UK foreign policy. We must not hand over our foreign policy to a Russian veto. It is absolutely essential that we determine our foreign policy; the Foreign Office, of course, is a key part of delivering that.
National Security and Russia
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We do, of course, look at the resources that are provided to the BBC World Service; obviously, the BBC World Service television is on a slightly different basis. It is important that we reinvigorate the BBC Russia service, as it can provide an important independent source of news for Russian speakers.
As the House knows, we already have the largest defence budget in Europe and second largest in NATO, meeting the 2% standard and set to increase every year of this Parliament. As I mentioned previously, we have also commissioned the national security capability review, which will report shortly, and the modernising defence programme, to ensure that our defence and security capabilities are optimised to address the threats that we face, including those from Russia.
Following the incident in Salisbury, we have of course taken further measures. We are dismantling the Russian espionage network in our country and will not allow it to be rebuilt. We are urgently developing proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity—this will include the addition of a targeted power to detain those suspected of such activity at the UK border—and considering whether there is a need for new counter-espionage powers to clamp down on the full spectrum of hostile activities of foreign agents in our country.
We are making full use of existing powers to enhance our efforts to monitor and track the intentions of those travelling to the UK who could be engaged in activity that threatens the security of the UK and our allies. This includes increasing checks on private flights, customs and freight and freezing Russian state assets wherever we have the evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am grateful for the position that the Prime Minister is laying out. She has my wholehearted support, particularly on private flights, which is an area that covers many sins. Will she also talk a bit about the media here? Some media organisations are acting as state assets, even though they claim independence. They are not journalists at all, but agents of propaganda and information warfare.
The Prime Minister
As I am sure my hon. Friend will know, the question whether there are certain media outlets such as broadcasters operating here in the UK, and the licence under which they operate, is a matter for Ofcom as an independent body.
We are also cracking down on illicit and corrupt finance, bringing all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites, neither of whom have any place in our country.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, particularly when we have had such a demonstration of moral relativism—such an apologia, in many ways, for a regime that has really done nothing to justify the explanations that have been permitted it.
May I welcome the clarity that you have brought to this debate, when all that we have had from some parties is very much the opposite? We have had obfuscation, deception and dissimulation. We have had all the tricks and all the terms that we are used to when we talk about a regime that has institutionalised lies, deception and dishonesty not, as Churchill put it, as vanguards for the truth, but instead of the truth. These are attempts not to build a better world, but to destroy one that is trying to serve the people of these islands and our allies and friends.
I am privileged to be speaking today about security. We have heard—and no doubt we will hear more—about how security is built on military hardware, and Members will not, quite understandably, hear me resile from that point. However, security is, of course, not built just on military hardware. It is not built just on the training teams that, even now, are helping the Ukrainians to defend themselves against the Russian tanks that are in Donetsk and in the Donbass, and that care about the overflights over Ukraine. It is not just about the British battalion that is, even now, in Estonia, demonstrating to the Russians that the NATO commitment is real. Those British troops are not there just because they are capable, but to demonstrate that an attack on one is an attack on all.
Leo Docherty
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to consider the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is on record publicly as stating his belief that NATO should be closed down? Does my hon. Friend agree that that sends a deep signal of alarm across these Benches?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but he is slightly limited in what he said. He should have said, quite accurately, that it sends a deep signal of alarm across this House, and I look here even at friends in the Scottish National party and at many on the Labour Benches, who will remember, of course, who it was who built NATO: Clement Attlee. Who was it who built the independent nuclear deterrent? It was the Attlee Government, who recognised that the United Kingdom had a role to play as a force for good in the world. That was an era when socialism loved Britain and did not hate it. That was an era when socialism respected the west and did not hate it. That was an era when socialism stood for something and did not stand for nothing.
Chris Philp
The Leader of the Opposition, in his speech a moment ago, made reference to the 1930s and 1940s. Does my hon. Friend agree that the one lesson those unhappy decades teach us is that appeasement does not work?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although he will forgive me if I do not join in the comparisons between Russia and Nazism. They are not accurate. Nazism was a hateful ideology that sought the death of millions. It deliberately sought to persecute and murder thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of people, including Jews, gays and Gypsies. We are not dealing with that in today’s Russia. We are not dealing with an ideology; we are dealing with a kleptocracy. We are dealing with a simple thieving regime under the leadership of one man who has enriched himself beyond the dreams of Croesus or avarice. He has made sure that even his cellist, a man none of us has ever heard of, has, according the recent Panama papers, earned more in his short life and professional career than any musician we have ever heard of. He has, apparently, over $2 billion in assets. Who can dream of such wealth? Certainly none of the musicians we could name. Perhaps I should have stuck with those lessons, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We are dealing with a very real threat, which is why I particularly welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is here to lead the debate herself. She has demonstrated, not only through her premiership but through her time as Home Secretary, how seriously she takes these matters and I am grateful for her leadership.
Mr Simon Clarke
Had I had the opportunity to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question in an intervention I would have asked him whether he supported the continuation of our nuclear deterrent. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is absolutely critical and the lynchpin of western security?
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend will not be at all surprised to hear that I am not only very glad that we have maintained our nuclear deterrent but that I voted in favour of renewing it. I was very glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used the words she did at the Dispatch Box when she was asked if she would use that terrible weapon. The answer has to be yes, not because she wishes to, but because the point of the nuclear deterrent is that, yes, it should never be used, but it will only deter if it might be. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
This is a debate on security and we have focused, more than I would have perhaps chosen, on the military aspect. I would like to turn to the diplomatic aspect and pay tribute again to the Government for their success. Indeed, I pay tribute to Members from all parts of the House who have used the past two weeks to speak to friends and allies across these islands, across the continent and around the world, and to speak up and remind people why it is that we have called for aid at this moment, why it is that we have cited the attack in Salisbury as particularly important, and why now is the time for them to stand up.
I remember very clearly a conversation I had only a few days ago with a Minister in the French Government when the Select Committee was in France. I pointed out to her that she must be under no illusion, as she talks about European defence co-operation, that as far as we see it this is a moment for that defence to be shown real and for that alliance to be proved true, so that we can move forward and build on it. I am delighted to say that there was no divergence in the Committee, which is made up of Members from Labour, my party and the Scottish National party. There was complete unity. I was very pleased with the message we were able to convey: that the British people are united as one. Whatever our divisions on other issues, we are united on this being an attack on the British people and not just an attack on two people in a park in Salisbury.
This matter is not just about diplomacy either. Too often our intelligence services are overlooked. In the security service, the secret intelligence services and the Government communications headquarters, there are people who are working even now in secret and in silence to keep us safe, and to ensure we are prepared and ready—indeed to ensure that we never know about the next attack because it will not happen. That is so hard to measure, but it is the most essential element of our defence. Without it, we are blind. Without it, we are deaf. Without it, we cannot speak. Like the three wise monkeys, we would be left merely as an ornament and not as an actor.
Britain is nothing if not an actor on the world scene. We have been so because we have played our part in the last 70 years in building the international order that has kept us safe. In the post-war era we have been instrumental in building the United Nations, an organisation with many flaws but without which we cannot imagine modern life. We have been instrumental in building NATO, another organisation that asks for many improvements but still guarantees that we can sleep safely in our bed. We have been absolutely fundamental in writing some of the rules that underpin it, including—I know that on this I do not have the universal support of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches—the European convention on human rights, which has reflected British law around the continent.
The tragedy is that throughout that journey—well, most of it—we have been partnered by the Russians. In the 1940s, the Russians were part of building that new world order. They were a part of writing the universal declaration on human rights. The Soviet diplomats at the UN were not our friends—they were already rivals—but they understood that the rules-based international order was something for all of us. In it was the guarantee that we could all have a future and that we could all have a safe idea of where we were going. They challenged us on what that future would be—their view of the future was actually Soviet despotism—but they still understood that there were rules that had to be applied.
What we see today is the reverse. What we see today is a Russia that does not believe in the rules. In fact, it actively believes in no rules. What it is doing is seeking out every tie that binds, every alliance—everything that we hold dear and true—and trying to break them. That is why the repetition of lies by useful idiots, the propagandising of untruths by adjuncts, is not just a foolish thing to do and not just unwise but is actually and actively harmful. That is why we stay away from Russia Today and Sputnik: not because they show an alternative vision, but because they deliberately undermine the truth.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech with which I fully agree. When we were putting sanctions on Russia after it annexed Crimea, I was privy to information on discussions with the European Commission about how the octopus arms of the Russian state were all over the energy sector across the European Union and how it was using devious means to get its way. May I therefore invite him to take on the logic of his speech that we use not just military but diplomatic means, so that we can use energy policy to take the money away that is fuelling Mr Putin’s military and intelligence?
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I of course agree with him. Energy policy is essential to playing our hand properly. From this House, I urge my German friends, as I have done face to face, to not bow to the Russian idea of a pipeline straight to Germany. That would effectively remove the diplomatic and political leverage that countries to the east otherwise have. It would weaken Germany and it would weaken all of us, because we are stronger when we stand together and weaker when we are divided. We must look at eastern Europe not as a sphere of influence, and not, as some do, as an area in which the west has provoked Russia, as though the Ukrainian people are some sort of slave adjunct to the Russian empire. That is not true. They are free people, as we are free and as any country is free, and they have the right to determine their own future. Energy policy is being used as a weapon against them.
I must make some progress. I hope the House will forgive me as I speed through and point to a few of the violations and the lies that have been used. We have heard Crimea cited—the first time a border has been changed by force since the second world war. We have heard about the occupation of Georgia—I wish that Her Majesty’s Government would refer to it as such, because it is one—and we have heard time and again about the attacks in Montenegro, the lies in Berlin and the fraudulent electioneering in France and possibly even in the United States. We have heard again and again about these deceptions, and we must now hear much more actively about the response. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out some good starts and very strong ideas and I welcome them, but I now want to see them being used.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said the other day in the Committee that he was looking forward to seeing the Magnitsky Act being used, but that it was not a political tool. Technically, he is right: it is a legal tool and therefore for the police, but it will demand that our embassy staff, our intelligence officers and others put forward the cases, so that the police know who the human rights abusers are and who the people are who should be caught up in this. It will also require the tools of our diplomats and intelligence officers, so that we know who the oligarchs are who are part of the Russian/Kremlin/mafia-controlled kleptocracy. We need to know them and identify them, and by doing so, we need to act against them.
If I may, I will ask for one last thing: that we look at Russian sovereign debt being traded here in London even now. We hear again and again about the importance of London’s capital markets, and they will find few greater supporters than me, but through the London clearing house—an absolutely essential element of world trade that underpins in so many ways the debt markets that allow us all to prosper—we have links around the world. One of them is to Russian sovereign debt. The Russian Government, unlike other Governments, do not use Russian sovereign debt merely to finance themselves; they are now using it to sanctions bust. They are using their sovereign debt to refinance and capitalise organisations that have otherwise been banned. One of them is VTB Bank, which we heard about a little while ago—it has been reported on and I must pay tribute to Emile Simpson, who has done extraordinarily well to expose so many of these issues. We can use sovereign debt here too, as a tool and a weapon, because we are being fought on every single level in a cross-spectrum battle by an organisation that does not work for the Russian people, but feeds off them. It does not work for prosperity, but feeds off it, and it does not work for stability, but destroys it.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out, and I look forward to supporting her as she enacts those policies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. May I also thank the Government for holding this general debate in their time? As the Leader of the Opposition made clear earlier, we agree with all the key points made in the Prime Minister’s opening speech, and we agree unequivocally with all the measures the Government have taken in response to the Russian attack. It has been clear throughout this debate that there is clear consensus across this House on the need for a strong, united response to Russian aggression—this is exactly the response we would expect from this House when our country has been attacked and exactly the response Russia needs to hear. So in summarising some of the key contributions made in this debate, I will cite Members from all sides.
Before I do so, let me note that last week marked 75 years since the battle of Rzhev—15 months of horror on the eastern front that left the Russian army with up to a million dead. It is a reminder that despite the grave differences that exist between the two countries today, we must always remember the critical role Russia played in defeating the Nazis in Europe and never forget the horrific losses they suffered to that end. Indeed, as we reflect on the struggle that our people shared 75 years ago, forever symbolised by the heroes of the arctic convoys, it is all the more harrowing that relations between the two countries on issue after issue now stand at such a low ebb. That is most immediately and shockingly illustrated by the monstrous and reckless act of violence committed by the Russian state in Salisbury.
As, among others, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said, what happened to Sergei and Yulia Skripal on 4 March was a vicious act of violence. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, what characterised the attack was not just the insidious brutality of that assault on the Skripals, but the sheer indifference that the perpetrators showed to the inevitable wider consequences for the public and the emergency services, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey.
As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, we have seen exactly the same indifference in the three weeks since, in the complete failure of the Russian state even to try to offer any plausible alternative explanation as to how the attack could ever have taken place, other than the one that is so glaringly obvious and is now so clearly proved by the intelligence and chemical analysis, which we assume will soon be confirmed by the OPCW. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly outlined the importance of the OPCW’s independent verification of that analysis.
The Government’s response is fully justified. As many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) —perhaps the only Member of Parliament to have been, as we learned tonight, chucked out of Russia for standing up for human rights—and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) have made clear, the Government will have our full support for going further in cracking down on money laundering by Putin’s billionaire allies here in London, as called for by the pro-democracy campaigners in Russia.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said in his brilliant and eloquent speech, we stand by the pro-democracy campaigners, LGBT activists, students and journalists who have been so dismayed by the re-election of President Putin. It is truly baffling that any world leader—whether the President of the European Commission or the President of the United States—could have seen fit to congratulate Putin on that victory. As my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party has said, we hope that the Foreign Secretary will criticise them equally for doing so, and by the same token make it clear that he will not congratulate President Sisi of Egypt in the coming days.
Despite the lapses of judgment from Brussels and Washington, we all applaud the co-ordinated action that they and others have taken in response, in terms of today’s diplomatic expulsions which, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, will have resonated loudly in Moscow. We hope to see further resonant, multilateral actions in support of the UK in the months to come.
On the wider threat posed by Russia to British national security and democracy, we heard powerful contributions on the dangers of disinformation and cyber-warfare from the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), and on the risks of electoral interference from my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who, as he reminded us, has for too long been a lone voice on many of these issues. He is a lone voice no longer.
It is genuinely welcome that there is now such a strong consensus in all parts of the House on the need to deal with these new and real threats. As the Leader of the Opposition asked earlier, will the Foreign Secretary reassure us that preventive measures and contingency plans are in place across our critical national infrastructure, and that simulation exercises have been conducted to test the readiness of each key sector and identify any required improvements?
Beyond the threat here at home, we have heard many powerful contributions on the wider Russian threat to the security of our allies and the wider world. In that context, it is so important that the House has sent such a strong message today—most vividly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling)—about our commitment to article 5 of the NATO treaty. In addition to our military commitments, it is vital that we stress to our European counterparts our commitment to continue to work with them to maximise the power of our collective sanctions against any future Russian aggression, and to assure them that that will not be diminished by Brexit.
On the wider geopolitical threat posed by Russia, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition spoke of their anger at President Putin’s bellicose, boastful presentation on Russia’s nuclear capabilities three days before the attack on Salisbury. It was almost as though Putin had seen Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un trading barbs about the size of their nuclear buttons and, rather than dismissing them as overgrown toddlers, had decided to join them in the ball pit. On that issue, as on climate change, Syria and Iran, it is vital that we recognise the global danger. If Russia retreats increasingly, almost willingly, into the role of rogue state—when it is so essential to resolve all those issues—we need to keep it round the table. Of course, if we have to continue negotiating with Russia, there is not a single person in this House, or any right-thinking person in this country, who would not wish that we were not negotiating with Vladimir Putin.
I must say one single point in Putin’s defence. Here, I find myself in rare agreement with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—despite his outrageous slur in his speech that socialists in this House do not love their country—that, for unleashing the second world war and for killing 6 million Jewish men, women and children, Adolf Hitler deserves to stand alone in the innermost circle of hell, and comparing his crimes with any other individual alive today, especially a Russian individual, is grossly offensive.
Tom Tugendhat
I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has very kindly allowed me to reply to her slight. Does she agree that Nazism did not start with the camps and the horror of war, but that it started with the images of hatred that built up over the years and poisoned the minds of people—those images that have been approved by her leader, whom she has so obviously backed? Is that not the hatred that she claims to stand against? Is that not the action that socialism fought?
Emily Thornberry
The hon. Gentleman is right about how racism and hatred develop, which is why it is always important to be completely clear in one’s condemnations. Any time a mistake is made, an apology and a withdrawal must be made, and that, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if he looks into this properly, is exactly what the leader of my party has done.
I was talking about the grossly offensive, so I will move on. It takes me back, finally, to my opening remarks about the end of the battle of Rzhev and to remember a time when we stood as allies with the Russian people. It is sadly true that, both literally and figuratively, we are 75 years away from that today.
As we speak with one voice today in supporting robust action against the Russian state for its attack on Salisbury, we must continue to send a message to the Russian people, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) said so well in his contribution, that we long for a day when we can stand as friends and allies again.