European Union (Referendum) Bill

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

I had forgotten the hon. Gentleman’s record of having voted against every referendum brought forward by the previous Government. It had slipped my mind that he had such a distinguished and principled position on this matter. However, we must also recognise that things change, which is why in my earlier comments, not long into my speech today, I said that we are in the age of the referendum. We have had so many referendums on so many things. It would seem farcical then to try to deny the referendum on such an important thing that matters to so many people.

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

Thanks to that well known source of information Guido Fawkes we have here the Labour party briefing, which says:

“Labour does not support this Bill...This is a Conservative Party Bill that sets out the Tory Party’s position—which we are opposed to.”

[James Wharton]

I thank my hon. Friend. He has made clearer the position of the Labour party than the Leader of the Opposition has yet managed to do. There may be a vacancy there for him soon if he were to choose to apply for it.

Iran

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The last point is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but clearly our policy can change only if the circumstances change. The fact that there has been a certain election result does not mean that we can judge immediately that everything has changed. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the importance of the human rights issues. The fact that we designate individuals for human rights violations under our sanctions legislation shows how seriously we take such matters. I stress that the main issue of contention in international relations between ourselves and Iran, and between most other countries in the world and Iran, is the nuclear issue. If we could solve that, there would be many new ways in which we could work together. That does not mean that we would stop deploring human rights violations in Iran or in any other country, but solving that issue would be a major diplomatic breakthrough.

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

My right hon. Friend will have gathered that the mood of the House is one of hope and expectation at the election of President-elect Rouhani. I urge my right hon. Friend, through his good offices, to take the next couple of months until Mr Rouhani comes to power to assess all the offers to Iran that have been on the table. The Iranian people have voted for change and hope. It was notable in the election that no matter how hard-line a presidential candidate was, most of them were talking about the economic failure of the last eight years. The Iranian people obviously want to change that economic failure. That provides a glint of light and suggests a way in which we might be able to tempt the new President. I urge my right hon. Friend to spend the next two months considering whether there is a chink of light that we can exploit when Mr Rouhani comes to power.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, and that takes us back to the nuclear issue. We have made a clear offer to Iran that in return for its suspending enrichment above 5% and addressing concerns about its stockpile of uranium and its enrichment capacity, we would commit ourselves to lifting some sanctions. The opportunity to improve the economic situation is there.

G8 Foreign Ministers

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That was an important agreement and across parties we should be proud that this year we are hitting the 0.7% UN target on overseas aid. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that not all G8 members have done that—not all are even increasing their aid, let alone hitting the target. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be chairing the Heads of Government meeting, and he is of course passionate about this subject. I will put the hon. Gentleman’s point to him.

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

I was a strong supporter of the arms trade treaty and I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the work done by his office in ensuring that it became a reality. The world will be watching how that is engaged with in the situation in Syria. I wish to highlight to the House and the country something important that the Foreign Secretary said, which was that time is not unlimited in finding a diplomatic solution to Iran. I urge him to ensure that in E3 plus 3 meetings he takes the opportunity to encourage Russia and China to ensure that a proper strategy is in place to engage effectively and as ruthlessly as can be done with the new President of Iran who will arrive later this year.

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. The E3 plus 3 group has been united in its approach in its negotiations so far, and I hope that will continue in any negotiations that take place after 14 June and the Iranian presidential election. My hon. Friend is right to say that that will be an important period, and if there is no diplomatic breakthrough with Iran before then, it will be seen across the world as crucial. When the elections are over and there is a new President of Iran, that period will be seen as the test as to whether Iran is going to engage seriously with the rest of the world.

Syria

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

A no-fly zone is sometimes advocated, including at international meetings. The greatest difficulty with a no-fly zone is, of course, that it is a response of a totally different nature. It is a military intervention of the sort that we have been talking about and against which many hon. Members have warned. It would require military force externally on a substantial scale. A good argument of principle can be made for that on the basis of relieving human suffering by doing whatever is necessary, but the willingness of nations around the world to implement such a military intervention is limited, for understandable reasons. Indeed, such a no-fly zone could be achieved in practice only with the full participation of the United States of America, so major practical difficulties are involved. What we must not get into is saying that there are protected areas or humanitarian corridors, but then not being able to protect people. There is a sad and tragic history of those things. We should only take the step that the hon. Lady is talking about if the world and the international community were truly ready to bring it about.

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

My right hon. Friend is right to say that Syria can count on being shielded by some countries at the United Nations; not least, we know that Russia had the opportunity to bring about some sanctions in the Security Council early on. Will he start talking to his counterparts in the European Union and, indeed, in the United States about saying to the Russians, “If you don’t want to take part in this and put on the blue berets, get on the ground and do something, there will be consequences”? If the Russians refuse to take that sort of action, and are willing to stand by and let tens of thousands of people be slaughtered, we should work with our European partners, the US and south American countries to say to them, “We are not going to come to your country to showcase it in the World cup in 2018.”

[Mr Hague]

I say to my hon. Friend that we must use every art of persuasion we know in our talks with our colleagues in Russia. I can assure him that we do that. The shadow Foreign Secretary argued earlier that we must put the case to Russia about the growth of extremism in Syria and so on—and we do. I have lost count of the number of occasions on which I and other western Foreign Ministers have put the case to our Russian counterparts that everything Russia most fears in Syria is more likely to come true the longer the conflict goes on. That includes the rise of international terrorism and instability in the whole region. The Russians clearly have a different analysis, and we have not had any meeting of minds on the issue. I have to say that I am not a great fan of sporting sanctions. As a country that has just hosted the Olympics, we have a well-established position on that, but we will use every other art of persuasion in dealing with Russia.

Middle East

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Earlier I gave the information that I have about the operation of health centres as well as food distribution centres. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has just left the Chamber, but she heard all the comments that other hon. Members have made. If we think it is necessary for the United Kingdom to do more on that, do not worry—the United Kingdom will certainly do so.

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

Do not my right hon. Friend’s comments about Iran supporting Hamas illustrate starkly the threat to Israel of an emboldened Hamas and Hezbollah if an anti-Semitic Iran becomes a nuclear armed power?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. It is very important to prevent wider proliferation in the middle east and for Iran’s nuclear programme to be solely for peaceful purposes. That is the purpose of the negotiations that we are engaged in, as well as the sanctions that we are applying to Iran. My hon. Friend reinforces the importance of this very well.

EU-UK Relationship (Reform)

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he has made some really good points and I will address just a couple of them. It is absolutely the case that the EU is regulating us into being globally uncompetitive—uncompetitive not only within the EU but outside it as well. There are huge opportunities in China and the other emerging economies for Britain’s services, high-technology, financial services, manufactured goods and so on. Reform is essential.

As for the collapse of the euro project—the European project—it is true that, although we can certainly tolerate those who want to create some kind of federal Europe, at the same time Britain cannot be hampered by that movement. In a sense, therefore, their move to ever-greater fiscal union indicates the need for us to move towards having a far more clearly defined role that works better for British interests.

The Fresh Start project is all about saying that what we need is to renegotiate our EU membership—to remain within the EU but to have our absolutely best attempt at renegotiating a relationship that works for Britain, with full and free access to all EU assets, but without being hampered in a global world by EU regulation. What I want to see is fundamental reform.

What the Fresh Start project started to do just over a year ago, and with the support of more than 120 Conservative MPs, was to carry out a serious research project to see how different policy areas within the EU have affected Britain and British national interests; to make a cost-benefit analysis; and to see what we could change and how we could do that. It has been an enormous piece of work, which makes a splendid door-stop—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is weightlifting today as he carries copies around with him. I congratulate him on doing so.

In June, just before the recess, the Fresh Start project published our green paper setting out the options for change. We colour-coded green those things that we can do ourselves, of which there is a surprising number: the British Parliament could simply decide to reform the way that we do certain things and get a better deal for ourselves without even making reference to our European colleagues. Amber options are those where negotiated treaty change would be necessary, but it has often been the case that we have never even attempted to negotiate those treaty changes and we should certainly have a go at doing so. The red options defined in the options for change are those things where we need to say, in Britain’s best interests, that we are no longer willing to entertain EU sovereignty over British sovereignty, and therefore we wish to withdraw.

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

On the green options—the things that can be done straight away—does my hon. Friend agree that the present situation is a consequence of the pro-Europe Labour Government, who gold-plated so much EU legislation to interfere in our lives and used the EU as a good excuse to do it?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a very good point. That was never more true than in relation to the working time directive. Having recently carried out an inquiry with all the royal colleges, I know that the evidence is overwhelming that the training of doctors is suffering seriously as a result of the negotiated on-call hours, which the last Government presided over and allowed to happen, to the detriment of our NHS. They should be ashamed of that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on the immense work she has done in leading on this important subject.

I was born in 1976, two years after the last referendum on Europe. A great many of my colleagues—I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker)—have had absolutely no say in Europe. We are now Government Members and this cancer of Europe has eaten away at debate throughout almost my entire political career, from the moment I was delivering leaflets on the doorstep 20 years ago. It is time to get this problem sorted out.

The constant rush for federalisation will have precisely the opposite effect to what the European Union was set up for in the first place. The laudable point of a European union was to try to prevent another war in Europe, but if people’s sovereignty is withdrawn, they will strike back: eventually, right-wing parties will get elected and say enough is enough and rise up in nationalistic fervour. Those who do not think that such things could happen only have to look back 20 years to Yugoslavia and see how dangerous it can be when people do not feel they have control of their destiny. We need a sensible way forward.

I do not propose that we withdraw from the European Union, although I fear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) outlined, that might be where we end up; but we do need to renegotiate the relationship and to withdraw from the interference in our lives. When I say to people, “You had the vote and you decided,” they reply, “No we didn’t. We voted for a common trading area.” That is the point: the people voted for a common trading area, not for a European Union of increasing federalisation. This review is a very important piece of work. The Minister would have the support of the vast majority of Government Members if the Government worked to ensure that we have a common trading area, not a federal Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

That question might be more appropriate for the Foreign Office Minister. The point that I am making, if the hon. Gentleman will listen, is that it is more likely that we will be able to prise open markets and change the rules of the game on intellectual property rights and other issues if we are part of the collective weight of the European Union. China, with 1.3 billion people, has much more interest in forming a trading relationship with a European Union representing 500 million consumers than with a single country within that Union.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady said about being in Europe to negotiate such trade terms. Will she clarify whether that means that we should have much further integration to open up those markets?

[Emma Reynolds]

That was not my point. We have much more influence and weight in international trade negotiations acting as part of the European Union than we do alone. I now want to make some progress.

Our membership of the European Union is also vital to attracting foreign direct investment. I want to agree with one point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, which is that it would not be in our national interest to be in the position of Norway. A recent report by some Norwegian academics pinpoints a democratic deficit in Norway’s relationship with the EU, because the country is bound by the single market’s rules, regulations and laws, over which it has no say. If we were to put ourselves in that position, it would not be in our national interest, so I agree with the hon. Lady on that.

We are in favour of our membership, but we are not defenders of the status quo. We would like to see a Europe that is more outward looking, that is stronger in the world, that is—crucially, at the moment—better able to deal with the eurozone crisis and that reforms some of its internal policies. We would like to see the multi-annual financial framework more focused on growth and job creation, a reform of the common agricultural policy and, crucially, a completion of the single market in services. The only way to achieve such reform, however, is to have influence in the EU and not to be stranded on the sidelines.

Regrettably, as a result of the Prime Minister’s walk-out at the European summit in December, our stock in Europe sits at an all-time low. [Hon. Members: “ Rubbish.”] If hon. Members visited European capitals and discussed with other politicians the stock of UK influence, they would have a pretty bad surprise. Negative tactics such as vetoes and empty chairs are instruments of last resort; they are open to member states and we should be prepared to consider their use in defence of a vital national interest, but in December no vital national interest was defended. The Prime Minister’s protocol on financial services was rejected as a retreat from existing single market rules, and the rest of Europe simply carried on without us. The Prime Minister’s action therefore incurred a loss of influence for no tangible gain. Ironically, as a result of what he did in December, the Government are more reliant on an institution that many Conservative Members love to hate, the European Commission, which we must now depend on to protect the single market and its integrity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will not answer that question directly this morning. I urge him and others, however, to engage positively and constructively with the forensic analysis of the balance of competences, which will feed into a national debate about the relationship that we should have with the European Union.

I want to be up front in ensuring that all hon. Members understand that the Government have been absolutely clear that there should be no further transfer of competence or powers from the UK to the EU over the course of the Parliament. That is in stark contrast with the Labour Government’s record. They were clearly wrong to sign the Lisbon treaty without consulting British voters in any way. They were quite wrong to give away £7 billion of our rebate and to get nothing in return, and they were quite wrong to drop out of our opt-out from the social chapter, which means that employment laws are decided in Brussels, not here.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does that not illustrate the folly of the comments by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds)? She said that Britain is more isolated by taking a stance. We gave away all that money, and what did we get for it?

[Mark Simmonds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister’s veto back in December played a significant role in ensuring that he and the Government are always seen to be protecting the UK’s national interest. That is absolutely right. The comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on this matter are confusing, particularly in view of her unwillingness to rule out British membership of the euro, which the Government have done.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

No. I want to list them to the House.

In Africa we have reopened an embassy in Côte d’Ivoire and opened a new embassy in South Sudan; we are reopening our embassy in Madagascar, which should never have been closed; we are opening an embassy in Liberia; and we have set aside funds to open an embassy in Somalia as soon as circumstances permit. We have opened a new embassy in strategically important Kyrgyzstan, and we are establishing a new honorary consul network for economic and commercial diplomacy in Turkey.

In Latin America we have already opened a new consulate in the north of Brazil; we are reopening our embassy in El Salvador, which was closed in 2003; and on top of that we are strengthening many links with the people of Latin America, with an agreement for example to welcome 10,000 Brazilian students and researchers to British institutions by 2014. I stress that this focus on stronger ties in Latin America goes hand in hand with our absolute commitment to the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to self-determination and to develop their own economy.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hague]

I have more to say about that, but I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I will come to the middle east peace process later in my speech, but at the EU Foreign Affairs Council yesterday, we issued an important new and detailed statement about our approach to the two settlements, in particular. I will come back to that, but perhaps I will take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on this point.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My right hon. Friend has done a huge amount in his time as Foreign Secretary to go to countries throughout the world and to reinvigorate the Foreign Office, which was sidelined by the previous Government. Indeed, under the Blair Government the Foreign Office was seen more as a nuisance than as a help. Will my right hon. Friend outline to the House some of the countries that he has been to which have not been visited by a Foreign Secretary in a great many years?

[Mr Speaker]

We look forward to the Foreign Secretary’s Cook’s tour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

We will have to see what, if any, proposals Iran makes in Baghdad on 23 May, but if my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that we should be cautious about making large-scale concessions, of course I agree—we will be cautious. It would, in any case, require agreement across the E3 plus 3. We will see what the Iranians say. If they propose and start to implement concrete steps, of course there would be ways in which we would want to respond, but very serious and significant steps would have to be taken for us to change, in any way, our approach to, for example, the imposition of the oil sanctions that I just described.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking time to negotiate the position in Iran, which contrasts starkly with when former Prime Minister Blair stood at the inquiry and said that we should take immediate military action against Iran. The Foreign Secretary’s approach should be commended, and I very much hope that he carries on developing those relations, especially with Russia and China, which will have such an important role to play in helping Iran out of this situation.

[Mr Hague]

One hundred per cent. of our efforts are devoted to a peaceful, negotiated, diplomatic solution to this problem, although we have never taken anything off the table. The House endorsed that approach by an overwhelming majority when we debated it in February. We will maintain the pressure of intensifying sanctions until genuine progress is made, and that includes the sanctions I just described.

We will also continue to raise our concerns about the state of human rights in Iran, which are documented in the FCO’s annual report on human rights that I published two weeks ago. We are increasing the funding of FCO human rights work by 30% in the coming year, with an additional £1.5 million of funding devoted to projects to promote freedom of expression online and the implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

There is a rare moment of unity between myself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that I am not sure it is entirely wise to speculate today about which countries have a future within the eurozone. But I would certainly concur with my hon. Friend’s point that the Labour Government did make the right choice in saying that the economics did not make the case for Britain entering the euro. I know that it was the present Foreign Secretary who argued that we had 24 hours to save the pound. I checked, and I think we have had 90,192 hours since he made those remarks, and as far as I am aware, we all still have a pound in our pocket, thanks to the actions of 13 years of a Labour Government and a little time from the Conservatives thereafter.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I have been generous and I am keen to make a little progress.

Alongside the welcome measures set out in the Bill to allow for the establishment of a eurozone-only bail-out fund, further steps are needed if we are to have hope of a genuine recovery in Europe, including a real capital lift for the European Investment Bank, new infrastructure bonds and a comprehensive review of how EU structural funds operate.

Before I leave the subject of Europe, let me ask the Foreign Secretary another question that curiously he omitted from his lengthy remarks today. The Government defined themselves in opposition and in the early days of government by their commitment to publish a White Paper on the repatriation of powers from the EU back to Britain. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will update the House on when we can expect that White Paper to be published. With great flourish, he announced another White Paper was due to be published on the overseas territories, but he curiously omitted any mention of a White Paper in relation to repatriation. The last time he mentioned it in the House was November 2011, when, in a written answer to me in February, he said:

“The Government’s stated intention is to examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences. That review does not have a pre-determined outcome.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 366W.]

Can he at least confirm to the House whether it has a pre-determined time frame? I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will be able to share that information with the House.

If there is one example of where the European Union could serve to amplify Britain’s voice and maximise our influence, surely it is in the middle east and north Africa in the wake of the extraordinary events we have witnessed over the past 18 months. In the early part of last year we saw protests spread, from Morocco in the west to Iran in the east, with the success of one set of demonstrators giving energy and inspiration to others. But the Arab spring has not been uniform in its impact, and nor are its outcomes guaranteed. We see continuing and very different challenges in countries as diverse as Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain. In the case of Syria, I can assure the House that there is bipartisan support for the continued efforts the Foreign Secretary spoke of to stop the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on its own people.

At a time when the waves of change are sweeping through the region, it is surely a matter of deep regret to us all that progress on the negotiations in Israel and the Palestinian territories remains frozen. Our shared goal across the House is to secure a universally recognised Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state. The international community and the majority of Israelis and Palestinians share a common view of what the principles of a final agreement should be based upon: land swaps around the 1967 borders, Jerusalem as a shared capital, and a fair settlement for refugees.

--- Later in debate ---

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

In the time available, I would like to focus on two areas: the situation in Iran and the international development aid budget.

I want to highlight the huge importance of the E3 plus 3 talks that are taking place in Baghdad on 23 May. My starting position, as I think many will know, is that I want everything we do in this place to avoid, as far as possible, the death of innocent people. Politicians have the highest moral responsibility to ensure that innocent people do not die, and war is indeed the failure of politicians. We must therefore work in the organisations that exist. I hope to outline in my speech that I am not just talking about whether we take military action against Iran, but—to return to the premise of trying to protect innocent lives wherever we can—what some of the consequences of not taking military action might be.

Many have said that we should leave things be—that this is another area that we should not get involved in. As a parliamentarian, I have a commitment, along with everybody else in this Chamber, to ensure the best interests of the UK; as a constituency MP, I have a duty to protect my constituents’ standards of living from the knock-on effects that international events can have. Hand in hand, those two points show the importance of negotiations, however protracted and however frustrating. We must work within the organisations that are out there. As Churchill said,

“To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.”

We saw with the Iraq conflict, almost a decade ago now, the serious consequences that impatience with the diplomatic process can lead to. As I outlined in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary earlier, we must use Russia and China in the best possible way to help get the negotiations that we hope to achieve with Iran.

But what if Iran moved towards having the bomb? Some people say, “Let’s not intervene—let them have the bomb.” Would the Iranians use it? I doubt it. However, returning to the fundamental point about protecting innocent lives, I do not believe that Iran would have to drop the bomb to make a fundamental difference to the balance in the middle east or, indeed, to cause uprisings and conflict elsewhere in the middle east, with the idea of a nuclear-armed Iranian Government behind them. We have seen proxy wars take place in the middle east as recently as last year. The Arab spring uprising in Bahrain quickly became a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. What were the consequences of that? We saw many innocent people lose their lives. They were trying to protest for greater freedoms in their own country, but they got drawn into a bigger conflict between a Shi’a Government and a Sunni Government, who fought their proxy war through those people. That is the point I want to highlight to the House. We are simply not in a position to take no action at all; however, we must make every effort possible to ensure that we remove the threat, but through peaceful negotiations.

I also made the point that one of our jobs in this place is to protect the standard of living in this country, for our constituents as much as for anything else. The fact is that a major conflict in the middle east would lead to a devastating rise in the price of oil. If a war or even a stand-off took place between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and if traffic were limited in the strait of Hormuz to ensure that shipping did not go to either country, we might then look on petrol at £1.50 a litre as the good old days. The price could literally double in price overnight, which would have a terrible effect on our constituents.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the conflict in Bahrain. Does he share my concern that Iran was partly responsible for intervening and trying to destabilise the existing regime there?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Yes, I absolutely agree. Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make about what would happen if Iran went down the road and became a nuclear-armed country, because where else does its influence lie in the middle east? It lies with Hezbollah, certainly, and there is even evidence coming forward about some of the military equipment finding its way to Hamas. My point is simply this. We cannot just make the argument in foreign affairs that says, “Let’s not take any military action against Iran because we don’t want to cause the deaths of innocent people.” I absolutely support that point; but we also need to ensure that negotiations work, and that is why we should be involved, because we could cause the death of innocent people by doing nothing. Those proxy wars are important.

I am worried about the rhetoric on military action against Iran that was coming out three months ago. If we were to take such action, what would happen? Another western-led invasion of middle eastern land would certainly serve as a recruitment tool. Such action would also lead to the deaths of innocent people, not only those who were under the bombs when they landed, but those whose infrastructure we would probably take out along the way as part of any military campaign, leading to a degradation of the standard of living of those people. Indeed, tens of thousands of people have died in Iraq as a result of the loss of such infrastructure. Negotiations are absolutely vital, and we must ensure that we use the support of Russia and China to make a deep impact on Iran.

Moving on to international aid, there is a lot of criticism in the country at large about retaining our aim to spend 0.7% of gross national income on international aid. People say that we cannot afford it, but one of the great advantages of having a statement of how our taxes are spent would be that they would be able to see that the proportion being spent on international aid is actually tiny. I do not care if I get criticism from some of my constituents for saying that this is a moral, Christian obligation that we have to carry out and achieve. We simply cannot stand by and let innocent people die through a lack of the most basic infrastructure.

The problem with the international aid budget related to where the money was going before, but the actions taken by the Secretary of State in the first two years of this Parliament have gone a long way to restoring people’s faith in the process. Some £100 million-worth of projects in 16 countries have been closed because they were not delivering and the funds were not getting to where they were needed. Money is no longer going to countries such as Russia and China that have developed and moved forward. I can look my constituents in the eye when they say, “You’re just giving money to Robert Mugabe”, and tell them that that is exactly what we are not doing. The money that we spend on international development is going to ensure that the lives of people in the developing countries get better.

I ask hon. Members this question: if we had spent millions of pounds in 1990, when the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan, to ensure stability in that country, would we now be spending billions of pounds and suffering the loss of more than 400 of our servicemen trying to defend the area? I do not believe that we would; the investment that we make in international aid and development saves us money in the long run and helps to protect innocent lives.

I was going to outline some of the areas covered by our international aid programmes, but my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) has already done so. I believe that the House can get behind a lot of the projects that we take part in. They are relatively cheap and they bring stability to the countries concerned. That reduces pressures on our borders, and it is vital to carry on moving forward in that way. It is my core belief that this is a fundamental moral responsibility. We are a developed nation; we are, in the grand scheme of things, a wealthy nation. We cannot ignore the plight of our neighbours, because if we do, they will come to our doorstep. This investment is not only a moral obligation but the sensible thing to do if we are to ensure the long-term prosperity of our country as well as theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I would like to emphasise that the hon. Gentleman seems to be under some illusion, probably based on stuff he has read in the media or on certain internet sites, that the Conservative party is not committed to 0.7%. He listened to my speech earlier and I hope he is not going down the road of saying that we are not committed to it, which is deeply offensive to many Conservative Back Benchers.

[Mr Lewis]

I read in the hon. Gentleman’s manifesto and I read in the coalition agreement that 0.7% would be enshrined in legislation in the first Session of Parliament. We are now at the beginning of the second, yet there is no intention to do so. That is why people have doubts.

I am concerned about other aspects of the Government’s policy direction. The Secretary of State recently provoked controversy by linking aid to India with a defence contract—a breach of his commitment to maintain our policy of de-linking aid from specific trade deals. Will he confirm in his response that de-linking remains Government policy? He is demanding an ideologically driven rapid expansion of DFID’s private sector spend, to which I have no objection in principle, but this raises serious concerns about a lack of focus on ethics and responsibility, and fundamental questions about the Department’s capacity to ensure the spend is effective.

In government, we were very clear that both our taxpayers and poor people in developing countries have a right to see tangible results from UK aid spending, so I support the Secretary of State when he places an emphasis on results. Meaningful results, however, are often about long-term sustainable change, not simple quick fixes or easy-to-measure outcomes. It would be an abdication of responsibility if support for state building, the empowerment of women and civil society were sacrificed for easier headlines.

I am concerned that many Government objectives require DFID to work in partnership with other Government Departments. On Rio+20 and private sector/tax transparency issues, I am not convinced that this is happening or that DFID is playing a leading role across Whitehall.

Turning to the future, I welcome the Prime Minister’s appointment by the UN Secretary-General to co-chair the high-level group considering the future millennium development goals framework post 2015. It is good that, after a golden decade of UK global leadership on development, the UK has a further opportunity to help shape the direction of future policy. My test for the Prime Minister is whether he understands that development is about social justice and human rights, not charity, and that an ideological approach that espouses “private good”, “public and NGO bad”, would be a missed opportunity.

A new global covenant for development must recognise that in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Arab spring and the new concentration of poverty in middle-income countries, the world has changed. A new covenant must be developed on an equal basis by developing, developed and middle-income countries—not by a settlement imposed by developed on developing countries. It must seek to address the big global challenges of fair trade, sustainable growth, climate change, inequality, social protection, universal human rights and responsible capitalism. Instead of global targets, it may be more appropriate to have a matrix of indicators that enables every country to set its own targets.

As we face these big questions, I hope DFID will continue to be a thought leader and policy innovator, not simply an aid agency. It is one of the main reasons why, when we left office, DFID was regarded as the world’s leading state development agency—a source of great national pride. The complex challenges of today’s world require defence, diplomacy and development to be deployed in a strategic and integrated way. Britain has a distinct and crucial role to play, working with allies old and new, to help build a stable, fairer world. The Government must step up to the plate and ensure that their antagonism to the EU does not lead to isolation in Europe and marginalisation in the world. That would be a betrayal of Britain’s national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I will deal directly with that in a moment. The point I seek to make is that we have made changes through the bilateral aid review, which determined that bilateral aid to 16 of the countries supported by Labour under the programme should be wound up, and through the multilateral aid reviews, where we found that 10% of the multilateral agencies that Britain was funding were not delivering value for money. We have made these tough decisions and we have, therefore, been able to refocus the programme and make it far more effective.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, we have made sure that girls and women are at the heart of British development policy; we have set up the independent evaluation of British aid, so that the public can judge for themselves what we are achieving; we have emphasised the building blocks of wealth creation—trade, a vibrant private sector, property rights and a low-carbon climate-resilient economy; we have completely overhauled CDC; and we sold our remaining 40% share in Actis to rectify the shameful deal done by the previous Government, from which the British taxpayer has not seen a single penny.

DFID now plays a full part in the National Security Council and has brought much greater focus to fragile and conflict-affected areas; we have ensured that the British public have a say in how part of the aid budget is spent; and our new UK aid match funding scheme has already made commitments that will directly benefit more than 2.7 million people in some of the world’s poorest countries—we have provided match funding for Sightsavers, Sport Relief, WaterAid and Save the Children.

We have also introduced a wholly new system of support for Britain’s brilliant international charities, which means that we will be able to help smaller non-governmental organisations to reach more people by launching fresh rounds of the global poverty action fund, which in its first year supported 56 charities and organisations that will help nearly 6 million people.

Over the course of this Session, we will host a major global summit this summer, with Melinda Gates, which will bring a renewed international emphasis and much-needed action on family planning. The aim will be to halve the number of women in the poorest parts of the world who want access to contraception but cannot get it.

The Prime Minister has been asked by the United Nations Secretary-General to co-chair, along with the Presidents of Liberia and Indonesia, the high-level panel that will consider what framework might succeed the millennium development goals in 2015. This will be a major issue for the international community over the coming years, and the UK will ensure that it helps to steer an open and consultative process, on which I look forward to engaging with colleagues.

We will continue to work with the rest of Whitehall and the international community to tackle the urgent and long-term issues in Somalia. We are championing the case for more effective resilience and humanitarian reform, especially in the light of the recent crisis in the horn of Africa, about which many colleagues have spoken.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My right hon. Friend has outlined the list of achievements by the Government under his stewardship of the Department. Does he take the same umbrage as I do at the suggestion that this is all just a detoxification? This actually is something we believe in, it is a moral obligation and we find it deeply offensive to be told that it is just a detoxification.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend, in his eloquent contribution, brings me directly to the issue of the legislation. Many hon. Members have raised the question of the legislation—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) would stop mumbling from a sedentary position and trying to put me off, he will hear the answer to the question that his colleagues have been asking in respect of the legislation. [Interruption.]

Iran

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

That does not answer the actual question. That is circumstantial evidence; it is not concrete evidence of a nuclear weapons programme. It is as straightforward as that. I challenge the hon. Gentleman who asked the question: if he could point to concrete evidence, it would be useful for the House.

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

Will my hon. Friend outline when in his view circumstantial evidence becomes actual evidence—is it when the bomb has dropped, for example?

[Mr Baron]

It is very straightforward. There has to be evidence of nuclear weapons. We were told, for example, that there was no shortage of circumstantial evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it turned out that there were no WMD there. That shows how careful we need to be and how clear we need to be about the difference between circumstantial evidence and concrete evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

Yes, although I suggest an exception: keeping an option on the table that heightens tensions and makes a peaceful outcome less likely is less worthy, and we have to examine that position.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Baron]

No, I am going to make a little progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McCann]

I shall make progress. The hon. Gentleman has just had the opportunity to move the motion. He should not try to come in again so swiftly.

The pacifists among us do not always recognise that their position lacks remedies in the harsh territory of international conflict and that at times it can be seen as a white flag in the face of tyranny. What is more difficult to absorb are those non-pacifists who disagree with a particular decision and then seek to stand astride the moral high ground after the event and lecture us about how they did not support the action in the first place.

Iraq is the most obvious recent controversy. I have often mused about what would have happened in March 2003 had the French and Russians put their vested interests aside and supported a united final UN resolution. Would Saddam have capitulated? We will never know. I have no issue with those who seek to post-rationalise events, but I do have an issue with those who seek to do so in a manner which neglects to mention that they did not have a feasible proposition to resolve the original problem—in the Iraq context, Saddam’s refusal to abide by the will of the international community. Now we look to Iran.

I do not support the motion; I support the amendment. In reaching that decision I have examined the actions of the Iranians thus far, and in particular the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the issues. What actions have the Iranians taken thus far? The International Atomic Energy Agency stated on 8 November 2011 that Iran had sought to design a nuclear warhead, that Iran was continuing its atomic weapons programme research, that it could have a nuclear bomb in months and that preparations to install a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile were taking place.

To this I add the Iranians’ rhetoric that the holocaust did not take place and President Ahmadinejad’s declaration that Israel should be wiped off the map; I refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay. If that declaration was somehow misinterpreted, were the Iranians also misinterpreted when they said that the holocaust did not take place? We must also question the Iranians’ close relationship with Syria.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

It appears that President Ahmadinejad likes to cherry-pick his arguments. Clearly, he is an anti-Semite who is intent on getting rid of the Jewish people by denying the holocaust. He also talks about getting rid of the occupation of Jerusalem, but that is just looking at the past hour’s news. Look at the years before that, when the Jews were there before the Muslims. When President Ahmadinejad makes such statements, his intent towards the Jewish people is clear.

[Mr McCann]

Absolutely. The question is the degree to which President Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite rather than whether he is an anti-Semite in the first place.

The close relationship with Syria is headline news at the moment, and there is also state sponsorship of terrorism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I wondered whether that would come up. That is the phraseology in the hon. Gentleman’s motion today, but it is not the phraseology that we used. We talked about opposing military action against Iran. That was written before—[Interruption.] No, it is not weasel words. It is about moving with events. It was written before the attack on the British embassy and before Iran, in effect, threatened the use of military force to close the straits of Hormuz. It would have been better to say clearly that we opposed preventive military action against Iran. That is why I do not support the motion, which rules out the use of force, apparently in any circumstances. We have minesweepers in the Gulf: if those came under attack, would we really rule out the use of force?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Is not the real point about the Liberal Democrat manifesto that one simply cannot rule anything in or rule anything out in what is always a moveable feast?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and I endorse entirely what he said about the importance of the BBC World Service. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), a fellow member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on initiating the debate, but I will not support him in the Lobby. I will support the well drafted and measured wording of the amendment, not because I believe that we should be engaged in military action against Iran, but because I want to stop military action against Iran and a war that would be a precursor to a conflagration in the region.

I am concerned about the potential consequences of the current crisis. I recently held discussions with a senior figure in the Pakistani Government, who said that the consequences for Afghanistan and Pakistan of a conflict involving Iran would be dire. Anybody who has been, as I have, to Herat, the Afghan city close to Iran, and seen how calm and peaceful the area is will recognise that it is no accident; it is because that border between Afghanistan and Iran is stable and calm, and that would not necessarily be the case if there were a conflict involving Iran.

Similarly, Iran’s borders are very complicated. Reference has already been made to some Gulf states, including Bahrain, but other neighbours such as Qatar and Kuwait are in range of Iranian missiles, and the Iranians would not even need to send missiles; they could send people with bombs in bags or in suitcases.

Reference has been made also to Iraq.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Mike Gapes]

I will give way in a moment.

With the Defence Committee several years ago, I visited the KBOT terminal at the top of the gulf of Hormuz, just south of Basra, from where, along with the ABOT terminal, most of the Iraqi oil from Basra leaves. That was a few weeks after motor launches from Iran had set off bombs underneath the terminal to try to destroy it. The area is now much more strongly protected, but the potential for a conflagration involving Iran, leading not necessarily to a blockage of the strait of Hormuz, but at least to attacks on facilities, urban centres or bases in the area, is great. We as an international community therefore need to be careful and measured and to send out clear signals, whether in relation to mad speeches by Newt Gingrich or to the Israeli Government, that the use of language referring to military action is not necessarily the best solution to the crisis.

I can understand why politicians in Israel are worried. I would be worried if not just the President of a country but a succession of its leaders had said that they wanted to wipe out my state, which they regarded as a cancer, but we need also to point out, as senior figures in Israel have, that military action by Israel will not be in its own long-term interests regarding its relations with the Arab world.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I am glad that we have had the chance to have this incredibly important debate. If I had been asked about this subject 12 months ago, I would have spoken out in favour of the motion that my hon. Friend has tabled. That was my original position, and it stems from a simple fact: I want us, as politicians, to do everything we possibly can in this place to try to ensure that we do not kill innocent people. All politicians need to start from that position.

When we talk about a campaign in Iran, we wonder what we would actually do. Would we drop bombs from 36,000 feet in built-up areas? Would we put troops on the ground? The Iran-Iraq war led to a million deaths, but only one mile was covered in eight years, and that was with the full backing of a landlocked country with western support. We wonder what we would do, but we have to look at the bigger picture. I believe that my sentiments back then were naive, to use the word the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) used. It was a naive position for me to take, because a country does not actually need to use a nuclear weapon to have a devastating effect on the region if it so wishes. The Iranians would like to believe that they have a right to some of the United Arab Emirates. They could walk into those islands and occupy them through the use of totally conventional forces, but what can we do about it if there is the threat of a nuclear weapon in the background? What will we do if they are at that stage with a nuclear weapon? What suffering will be meted out to the people in those states?

Much has been said tonight about a proxy war, which I believe could only be ratcheted up if Iran had a nuclear weapons capability. I fear that organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas would be empowered by the fact and would be bolder in their terrorist activities and the steps they take against the state of Israel simply because they would know that they had such a powerful ally behind them. What will be planted out on those organisations if a nuclear weapon lies behind them?

I was elected in 2010, but I remember clearly watching the debates in this House on the Iraq war a long time before the war began. I remember listening to Tony Benn, who stood on this side of the House and said that war with 24-hour news coverage is too sensationalist and that too many people out there would revel in the fact that bombs would be falling on Baghdad. I think that we have a problem with the 24-hour news cycle, because it is almost as if it wants military action because it makes such great television pictures. It appeals to people and entertains them, but the reality is far more harsh.

Equally, I remember the speech my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) made when the House debated the Libya campaign. He graphically described the reality of war and the photographs, brought back to him by colleagues he had served with in the armed forces, of burned and dismembered bodies. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) described how one of his constituents took his own life as a result of the mental trauma he had suffered in Afghanistan. It is never an easy decision to talk about military action. I have said in the House before that war is the failure of politicians—of people like us, in the safety of this House, in this country—to work within an organisation, but does that mean that we should hamstring ourselves at the start and say, “No matter what you do, there will be no military action”?

Military action could simply be provoked in the strait of Hormuz. If that waterway were closed, if British or any shipping were attacked, we would have no choice but to react. We have minesweepers and other ships in the area. If we pass the motion today and say that we will take no military action, we will send out an even worse signal to the world, but, even though I shall support the amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), it does not mean that I do not sympathise with the motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay has tabled.

This has been an intelligent, heartfelt and engaging debate, and the one message from every speaker, whether they have been for the amendment or for the original motion, has been, “We want to avoid military action,” but I am slightly concerned that at times the debate has appeared to be about military action tomorrow. Military action tomorrow is simply not on the agenda, and if next week the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister came to the House and said, “We are going with the Americans to attack Iran because we can’t go any further,” I do not think that the House would be supportive. I do not think that at this stage of events the mood of the House would be to support such military intervention.

I return to the point, however, that that is not what we have been discussing today. We have been discussing whether we remove the option completely from the table, and I do not believe that we can. We need to work hard diplomatically and with countries such as Russia and China. We must have far better diplomatic negotiations with Russia to try to push Iran away from nuclear proliferation and ensure that it focuses on energy needs, because I am quite sure that the Russians do not want a nuclear-armed Iran and, then perhaps, an escalation in the middle east, just as much as everybody else does not, but unfortunately they are not prepared, for other reasons, to support the United Nations and the west in those areas.

I have absolute faith in this Foreign Secretary; I really do. This Foreign Secretary and this Foreign Office have moved the Department to a new standing in the world, something that had declined in recent years, and the Foreign Office and the people in it are well respected. As the Foreign Secretary said in his speech today, an entire section of the Foreign Office is engaged purely in negotiations with Iran and in diplomacy in the area, and that is to be applauded. I imagine that that is where all Members want the situation to move to, but much as none of us actually wants to use the military option, it does not mean that we can take it off the table.

North Africa and the Middle East

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am not sure that in this situation it is helpful to get into all the hypothetical scenarios of what may come. Clearly, we are planning for scenarios, particularly on the humanitarian and stabilisation side, as I said, but we have to concentrate on the implementation of the resolution and on taking such work forward. A whole variety of scenarios could be foreseen, but to get into providing a commentary and speculating on each of them would be helpful neither to our forces involved at the moment nor in achieving our immediate objectives.

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

May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the work that he not just did, but continues to do, with the UN in making sure that the action is wholly legal? It restores faith in this place after the years that have gone by. Has he considered, or has an assessment been made of, the potential situation in Lebanon, and is the diplomatic service in high-level talks with Israel to ensure that that border situation does not exacerbate the situation crossing the region?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend draws attention to another point of tension in the middle east, one that I discussed intensively with President Assad when I visited Syria at the end of January. Of course, we want to see stability in Lebanon. In particular, we want to see the special tribunal for Lebanon continue to conduct its work, so that it is clear that crimes cannot be committed with impunity there; and of course, we want to see stability on that border. It underlines the importance and urgency of taking forward the middle east peace process, as several other hon. Members have said, because that is one way to bring about a greater assurance of stability between Israel and Lebanon.

Libya and the Middle East

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I set that out earlier, so I am not sure that it is necessary to go over it again. Clearly, some of the judgments are difficult. The previous weekend, we sent armed people into Libya to perform different missions, so such judgments unfortunately have to be made quite regularly. This mission turned out differently from those on the previous weekend.

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

May I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s reiteration today that there will be no major intervention without the UN’s backing, unlike what happened under the Labour Government? Will he outline the role of UK diplomats in the consular service in evacuating citizens from Libya?

[Mr Hague]

As I said earlier, the measures for which we are making contingency plans require demonstrable need, a clear legal basis and clear support from the region for them to be implemented. UK diplomats have done an amazing job. For example, the people in our rapid deployment team who went to Tripoli airport the week before last worked day and night for four to five days, assisting British nationals to be evacuated. They did an outstanding job, which has not always been widely recognised in the commentary on those matters. I pay tribute to them today.