Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to make a few more points.

This Bill represents a failure of statecraft and puts at risk the reputation of the United Kingdom. The arguments in support of it are flimsy at best and irrational at worst. The Bill risks economically harmful retaliation and runs the risk of shredding our reputation as a guardian of international law and the rules-based system. How in the name of heaven can we expect to speak to others with authority when we ourselves shun, at a moment’s notice, our legal obligations? A hard-won reputation so easily played with—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

I give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a good speech. Of course, the Bill is permissive legislation; meanwhile, negotiations are ongoing. He referred to a failure of statecraft—whose failure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

Well, it seems to me that whether it disadvantages or not is not something that Her Majesty’s Government get to decide. While I am clear that there are problems with the protocol, clearly there are aspects of it that are working very well, as indeed those on the Treasury Benches have admitted. I will set out some of the examples, particularly over trade, where it is not having the impact that we are told, in all aspects, that it is. I come from the point of view that trust has been broken between the UK Government and the people of all these islands, as well as between the UK Government and our international partners. That gets right to the nub of the issues about trying to renegotiate it.

We should not really need to say this, but it is absolutely vital that the UK Government should be able to respect the international obligations that they enter into freely. Lord Butler, who was head of the civil service for 10 years, has said that this country has repeatedly criticised states like Russia and China for breaking the rules-based international order and yet now holds that it is perfectly justified in breaching international law itself. It seems that in this Bill we are going from a “limited and specific” breach to something that is potentially extensive and egregious. General Sir Richard Barrons, the former chief of joint forces command, who served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland, has said that

“what the government is proposing is short-sighted tactics which will do much harm strategically in the wider world. In fact what is being done is particularly stupid.”

He went on to warn that these moves will empower our adversaries as

“it will undermine us with our enemies by giving them the opportunity to accuse us of hypocrisy when we call them out for breaking the rules-based international order. It will also undermine us with our allies who will doubt whether they can rely on us to keep to an agreement, keep to our word.”

[Dr Murrison]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with a great deal of interest. He is right to defend international law and international treaties. Did he raise the concerns he has just expressed when the European Union was busy breaking those treaties—for example, over subsidies to Airbus?

[Joanna Cherry]

Whataboutery!

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), although I profoundly disagree with the implication that those of us who decided Britain’s place in the world was best served by leaving the European Union view the EU—let alone the Republic of Ireland, for goodness’ sake—as “the enemy”, to use her words. Clearly, that is not the case.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is winding up, will be spoilt for choice when it comes to commenting on speeches. If I may say so, however, in a brief period of time the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) pretty much nailed it with his assertion in an intervention on the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). The status quo is clearly not compatible with the Good Friday agreement and the Acts of Union, and the doctrine of necessity certainly applies in this case.

It is remarkable, is it not, that the protocol’s supporters appear to be the opposition parties, while those who drafted it and are trying to change it sit on the Conservative Benches? I also enjoyed the remarks of one or two Opposition Members who appeared trenchantly to support the other place in the hope that it will defenestrate this Bill, which I sincerely hope it fails to do. That said, though I welcome this Bill, I hope it will be improved in Committee and in the other place, and in particular that some of the swingeing powers that it gives Ministers will be clipped.

I have to say to Ministers, while assuring them of my support this evening, that I remain somewhat bewildered by their refusal to consider in a meaningful way triggering article 16. That is already available to them, and nobody has marshalled a creditable argument—certainly not one that satisfies me—that it could not or should not be done. The grounds for triggering article 16 are clearly there, in that we do not have anything approaching proper governance in Northern Ireland—not at all. Despite the May elections, the Assembly has failed to assemble and the institutions are not working.

Surely to goodness, those are grounds—the strongest grounds possible—for triggering article 16. They are far stronger, I must say, than the grounds chosen by the President of the European Commission early in 2021 to trigger this thing, albeit very briefly and ignominiously, on the grounds of trying to prevent vaccines from transiting from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Does he agree that, from a legal perspective, if article 16 were to be triggered, at least we would be able to argue that we had used all means available to us under the protocol, as is necessary to meet the necessity test—in other words, that the state has exhausted all the options open to it before it acts unilaterally? That is exactly the value of using article 16.

[Dr Murrison]

I absolutely agree with that. It is argued—of course it is—that triggering article 16 is meant to be temporary. Those of us who have been around a bit realise that temporary very often turns into something far more permanent. However, that would certainly be a reasonable first step in dealing with this situation, which pretty much all of us—apart from the SDLP—agree is unsatisfactory. I am still unsure, despite the earlier remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, why the Government are not doing that. The Secretary of State, when he winds up, may like to address that.

I would also like to know where in this legislation there is a threat to the single market. Trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is pretty much a rounding error—a point that has been made by others. Companies such as Sainsbury’s do not exist in the Republic of Ireland, so goods going to Sainsbury’s in Northern Ireland from GB cannot possibly land up on Sainsbury’s shelves in the Republic, because there are none. There are more checks on this border than on the border with Chile, and checks for what? It is not clear to me why we need checks at this point in time, since we have an agreement on tariffs and we have standards and regulations that have not yet had the opportunity to diverge.

Many contributors today have talked about the doctrine of necessity, but what they have not mentioned is that there is a second part to that doctrine; it is a lesser part, but it is germane nevertheless. It does not deal with grave or imminent peril; it allows parties to rescind an obligation if to do so would not

“seriously impair an essential interest of the states towards which the obligation exists or of the international community as a whole.”

Where in this Bill, and where, indeed, in triggering article 16, would the threat to the single market come from? Indeed, I would argue, as Ministers certainly have, that the Bill is helpful in many respects to the single market, and it certainly is to the internal market.

So why is the EU doing all this? Why is it not giving Mr Šefčovič the powers he needs in order to negotiate properly with, first, Lord Frost and, secondly, the Foreign Secretary? We can all suggest geopolitical reasons for not doing that, and of course some member states are perfectly happy, for their own benefit, with the status quo. The Republic of Ireland is probably rather enjoying the current export opportunities as a result of Northern Ireland being unable to get what it needs from GB. But we have to hope that the EU, even at this stage, will recognise the damage this is doing to the Good Friday agreement and the prospects of ongoing peace and harmony in Northern Ireland, and that it will, even at this late stage, consider the interests of the people of Northern Ireland first, in which case this Bill will not be needed.

The Government, in my view, signed the Northern Ireland protocol in good faith. They were entitled to receive the same back from the EU, but after 18 months it is plain as a pikestaff that that reciprocation has not happened. It is not as if there are not technical solutions to the current problems. I wrote about this in my report when I chaired the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It distresses me that, all this time later, nothing appears to have been done about the recommendations that I made, and that others have made subsequently, to deal with this perfectly elegantly. Of course, things may very well get worse, with the SPS offset through the movement assistance scheme likely to be viewed as ultra vires by the European Court of Justice, and the prospect of energy VAT—I hope very much that it will be reduced in GB—not being reduced in Northern Ireland, completely contrary to the Good Friday agreement and the Acts of Union.

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who is no longer in his place, said that the EU “needs to move”. It does, but it will not; I hope this legislation gets it moving.

Ukraine Update

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the major world hunger issues we face as a result of Russian actions. That is why the UK and our partners have stepped up with the largest-ever World Bank financial commitment to developing countries, to support them in the face of this economic hardship that results from the appalling war in Ukraine. In our aid strategy and aid budget we have moved funding into humanitarian aid and are one of the leading funders into Ukraine, but we are also annually increasing our budget into Africa to support those countries at this very difficult time. I am in regular contact with the United States Secretary of State Tony Blinken, talking precisely about how we can provide direct support, both humanitarian and military, to Ukraine.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The geopolitical consequences of hungry people in poor countries are not lost on our NATO ally Turkey, which is preparing plans to escort merchant vessels out of Ukrainian ports using its resources. What assistance can we give the Turks in that respect, particularly given our long and distinguished history of mine clearance on land and at sea? What naval assets can we offer to assist them in their plan, and will we continue to assist efforts to ship grain overland to Baltic ports and ports in Poland, to extract grain through that route also?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are in talks with Turkey and our G7 allies about all the assistance we can give and all the UK resources that we can deploy, both for the sea route and, as he mentions, the rail routes. There is more that we can do to increase the capacity on those rail routes to get grain out faster, but ultimately to get the full harvest out, we need to use the sea routes as well, and that is why we are in talks with the Turks, and with our G7 allies.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been very clear in my statement that we are bringing forward legislation to sort this issue out and to deal with the bureaucracy that we are seeing—the requirement for customs declarations and customs codes from businesses that are simply operating within the United Kingdom. That is why we want to create the green lane that allows properly protected goods to move freely within the United Kingdom, and we are committed to that legislation. In the meantime, if the EU is prepared, in parallel, to move to a negotiated settlement to resolve the very issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, we are of course open to those talks, but we will not allow it to delay our taking the action we need to take to restore the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In the last Parliament, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, under my chairmanship, produced a comprehensive set of alternative arrangements that were workable and high-tech and that would erase the need for the current perniciously applied checks that most in this House agree are unnecessary. Given that they would satisfy the EU’s stated objections, why does she think that the EU have stonewalled them?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am not going to speculate as to why the EU has not changed its negotiating mandate, but it is very clear that there is a solution—my right hon. Friend worked very hard on that—that satisfies the requirement to protect the EU single market and, at the same time, restores the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We need to make sure that we move forward as fast as we can to that solution.

Ukraine

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is right that it is absolutely crucial that we cut off Russian funding from hydrocarbons. That is currently accounting for a third of the Russian economy, so it is a target of the United Kingdom to get others to follow our lead. We are ending all imports of coal, oil and gas by the end of 2022, and we want to see a timetable for others to do the same. It will only be when we cut off that supply of money from hydrocarbons that Putin will no longer have the funding he needs to supply his war machine.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary is right to encourage the freezing of assets both by ourselves and by others, but what will be the conditions for unfreezing those assets? Does she agree with me that all the billions owned by the kleptocrats and oligarchs ought to be turned to good purpose in due course, because we are going to need a Marshall plan eventually to rebuild Ukraine and undo the mess as best we can that the killer Putin has imposed?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do agree with my right hon. Friend. We are looking at what we can do in the long term with those assets, and I am working very closely with the Treasury on that. We have also put asset freezes on 18 major Russian banks, and we would like to see other countries follow us. We have barred over 3 million Russian companies from raising money on our capital markets.

What has been very important in all of these efforts is that they have been closely co-ordinated across the G7, with the EU and with other partners around the world, including the Singaporeans, the Australians and the South Koreans. We have also taken decisive action on trade. We have cut Russia off from World Trade Organisation terms. We have banned high-tech exports and we have announced a ban on all new outward investment into Russia.

However, we cannot stop here; we have to keep increasing the pressure. As was asked about earlier, we do need to stop the imports of Russian hydrocarbons, and we need a new wave of sanctions. We are working on that with our partners to make further progress and put further pressure on the Putin regime. There are some people who say that the west cannot afford this, but we simply cannot afford not to do it, because if we do not end Putin’s war in Ukraine and we do not see Putin lose, we will see even worse consequences for the whole of European security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is one of those domino moments where we can hold the advance and prevent the next one from falling, or we can watch a series of them going down.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend spoke of victory. I wonder what he thought victory looked like. Given that it is unlikely that Putin is going to capitulate, how do we provide an off ramp for him to secure some sort of peace? Does it mean, for example, insisting that he gets out of Crimea? Does it mean insisting that he gets out of Donbas? Does it mean providing a guarantee that we will not entertain Ukraine’s membership of the European Union or NATO?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend knows extremely well that we have no say either on anybody’s membership of the EU or on how the Ukrainian Government decide to assert their sovereignty over their sovereign territory. That is a matter for European Union members, of which we are not one, and for the Ukrainian people, of whom we are not some. So it is essential that we leave that to them to decide. On the NATO question, again I would argue that free countries and free peoples can associate freely with whoever they like. They can choose to make alliances or not to make alliances as they wish. We exercised that sovereignty only a few years ago in changing an alliance position, in changing a relationship with a large bloc, and it is for the Ukrainian people to have the same right and sovereignty to make those choices. It is not for me to tell them how to do it, and I am sure nobody in this House would make that choice for them. I did not actually use the word “victory”, my right hon. Friend did, but I am very happy to address it, because what he is touching on is: where does this end up? That is a very difficult question to answer. However this ends up, Putin already could, if he chose, sell this as victory at home. He could easily turn around and, using his propaganda machine, say that the dysfunction and disturbance he has caused in Ukraine—undermining the west, the disruption to our lives and the incredible violence he has brought to the people in Ukraine—has already, as he would put it, ended its move to the west. He could claim that as victory. The fact that he chooses not to do so should not mean that it is up to us to construct a story for him to lie to his own people. It is up to him to construct his own dishonesty. It is up to him to deceive his own people. It is not up to us to help him to do it.

Our job is to stand by those free people who are showing remarkable courage under the extraordinary leadership of President Zelensky. What is up to us is to decide where our line is. Today, for the people of the United Kingdom, we should be very clear—I am very glad that the Government are—that the people of Ukraine are on the frontline of freedom. What they are doing is defending fundamentally not just our interests in defending the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of alliance and the sovereignty that we pride ourselves on so much on in our own country; they are also defending the rule of law and the freedom of trade and commercial agreement that defends fundamentally our economy, our people and our interests.

This is the final stage—forgive me, I have taken a little longer than I hoped—that we need to be looking at. Three great revolutions have happened in the past few years: Brexit, covid and the Ukrainian war. Each has pointed to the need for us to have greater resilience. Each has taught us the absolute imperative for us to look at our own country and see what lessons need to be learned here at home. The lessons on resilience are clear. They are about being able to produce and manufacture the essential items we need, whether personal protective equipment or weaponry, here at home. They are about the essential need to be able to support our own domestic agricultural economy, whether that is growing more of our own food or producing more of our own fertiliser. They are about the need to make sure that our economy, our country, is resilient—through education, economic output, manufacturing and agriculture—and reliant on itself as much as possible and with partners we can rely on and trust. That is a lesson the three revolutions have taught us and it is about time we learnt it. The very clear lesson from Ukraine is that we may not get a fourth lesson. The fourth lesson could come in a way that surprises us all and leaves us all exposed.

It is said that it is only when the tide goes out that we know who has been swimming naked. Let us hope the tide does not go out too soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to take part in this debate, but what a pity that we are forced to have it. There is a grinding inevitability about where we are going with Mr Putin’s war. It is clearly going to escalate, and we need to be prepared for that. It is also a time to take stock of what Mr Putin has achieved, because no doubt those around him have been doing the same. One of the things that Putin wanted to do was to deny Ukraine’s statehood. Well, states are built out of conflict very often. Their founding mythologies often emerge from conflict. What a fine job Putin has done in forging a state in eastern Europe, if it did not exist already, because this conflict has given Ukrainians a sense of added statehood and of nation, and my word should they be proud of themselves.

Putin wanted to contain NATO. Well, that has gone well, hasn’t it? Sweden and Finland are applying for membership and Germany is at long last spending more than 2% of its GDP on defence and galvanising the alliance. Putin no doubt thought that it was an opportunity to display the might of Russia’s military. Well, that has gone well, hasn’t it? There are 15,000 dead without NATO having fired a single shot; a swathe has been taken through Russia’s starred officers; and there has been a decimation of its materiel and the sinking of the flagship Moskva.

As a cold war warrior, I have to ask why we were quaking in our boots all those years. Where is the threat of those Russian tanks sweeping across the central plains of Europe? My word, at this rate, they would struggle to wheeze their way through the Smolensk gate, let alone the Suwalki gap.

Why has Ukraine confounded our expectations? One reason is that it has something that Russia does not, which is what we pompously talked about in staff courses as the moral component of warfare. Ukraine has it; Russia has not. As Napoleon said,

“The moral is to the physical as three to one.”

He should jolly well know, and the people of Russia should know too, as a country with an acute sense of its own history.

The moral component has three elements: motivation, leadership and sound management. Together, they produce the will to fight, as we have seen graphically displayed in Ukraine. They are all contained, happily, within UK doctrine, which is why our armed forces are so good. The moral component is sadly lacking in a country that treats its own as dirt. People should not let the pompous goose-stepping theatre of 9 May fool them. From the sinking of the Kursk two decades ago to the destruction of the Moskva and its crew, the Kremlin has shown a cynical disregard for its people and their people.

Russia’s non-commissioned officer cadre is not a middle management cadre that we would recognise in our armed forces. The fixers, the doers, the cajolers, the junior leaders, the men who get things done—they are largely absent from Russia’s armed forces, which is part of the reason we have seen the destruction of the Russian army and its divisions. We should feel for Russia’s private soldiers, who are directionless, demoralised and disoriented. Bonaparte was correct: I would swap three Russian squaddies for a single Ukrainian any day.

None of that is necessarily good news, however, because a cornered animal lashes out. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) did not mention Goliath’s ultimate cosh—the thing that he has hidden behind his back. Russia’s Comical Ali, Sergei Lavrov, hints at nuclear escalation and we must steel ourselves for that. That he has even hinted at it shows how bad things are in the Kremlin.

The key, of course, is China, which could switch off this barbarism in a heartbeat. Where will Beijing stand when the Geiger counters start clicking over way beyond eastern Europe? Its soft power, regional and global ambitions, and attempts to present a more positive image to the global community have all taken a severe knock. Its supposed neutrality is not being borne out by its actions, but coercing, cajoling or bullying it is unlikely to be helpful.

Turkey has been doing its best, but it needs a great power to broker some sort of deal or off ramp, given that we are unlikely to be favoured with the Kremlin’s capitulation. Putin’s use of a low-yield nuclear weapon to awaken the Chinese dragon may just be what is needed in this scenario, but it may equally be his greatest misstep and the beginning of the end for him. All that then will be left will be for him to join his fellow mass killers Hitler and Stalin in the annals of infamy, and for his cronies to crawl away under whichever stones they can find, awaiting judgment and retribution from the world’s civilised communities. Slava Ukraini.

Iran Detainees

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

On the individual whom the right hon. Gentleman named, I must respect the individual’s request of whether their case should be raised in public. That is why we mention publicly only those individuals who have asked to be named. Of course, we continue to supply support to all British nationals who have been unfairly detained. As I said, there are many issues over which we do not have agreement with Iran, but I will continue to talk to the Iranian Foreign Minister and work with him to ensure that we do resolve issues between us that pertain to the British national interest.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

This news is like sunshine on a rainy day. Congratulations to all involved. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that particular tribute needs to be paid to Sayyid Badr and the Omani Government, who are establishing themselves as interlocuters and mediators par excellence in the region? Will she say what assurances she has got that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will simply not replace Nazanin, Anoosheh and Morad with other dual nationals? Will she reiterate her warnings to dual nationals who may fall within the Iranian jurisdiction that they should tread very carefully indeed?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Minister Badr and the Omani Government have been incredibly helpful in assisting us with this issue and I want to pay tribute. They flew the detainees out to Muscat. I have been in regular touch with Minister Badr since I first met him in December last year and they have been instrumental in making this happen. They are true friends of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend is right in what he says about dual nationals, but fundamentally we need to change the incentives on the system so people can travel freely without fear of unfair detainment.

Russia

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. The UK remains supportive of Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations, in line with the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration. As I have already pointed out, NATO is a defensive alliance, as the Russians know perfectly well. We should not buy into the narrative that somehow NATO is the problem. The problem is the troops that are being amassed on the Ukrainian border. We have to be absolutely clear that those troops are being amassed by Russia, not by NATO.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome the statement, but I encourage my right hon. Friend to be far more robust in defence of pro-democracy forces in Kazakhstan and to condemn unequivocally the collective security treaty organisation intervention there in support of a highly questionable regime. What discussions has she had with players in the wider region about the instability that may be caused by Russia’s intervention in mid-Asia, in particular Azerbaijan, in which we have significant interests? What are the implications of what is going on in the region for the recently concluded ceasefire in relation to Nagorno-Karabakh?

[Elizabeth Truss]

On the subject of the violent clashes in Kazakhstan, as I have said, we condemn those acts of violence, but I think it important to remember that Kazakhstan has a sovereign choice when it comes to whom it chooses as its allies. Any forces deployed must have a clear mission and must act proportionately in any use of force to defend the legitimate security interests in Kazakhstan. It is important that, while regretting these acts and ensuring that our thoughts are with those who have lost their lives, we respect the fact that Kazakhstan has that sovereign choice.

FCDO Staffing

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The situation in Afghanistan remains terrible, which is why we have doubled our financial support to it, for the very reasons that the hon. Lady highlighted. We will continue to work through diplomatic channels both internationally in support of stability and improvement in Afghanistan and with the countries immediately neighbouring it. Our commitment to Afghanistan remains undiminished, notwithstanding the fact that we no longer have a military presence there, and we will encourage the Taliban to do the right thing to abide by the commitments they have made with regard to such things as girls’ education, women’s freedom and not being a home for terrorism. We will judge them on their actions, not their words.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing his urgent question and thank the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa—my successor—for the reassurances that he has given. There can be little doubt, however, that over time, the FCDO has been diminished, although it remains formidable. Given that the talent base has been reduced over time, what thought has the Minister given to widening the net from which senior appointments overseas are drawn, noting particularly the need to promote trade and commerce as part of our international effort and the actions and appointments of countries with which we can reasonably be compared, such as France and Germany?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend and predecessor for that point. Diplomacy and the nature of international relations are changing. We have to invest in future-facing resources, which means things like IT, most obviously, as well as ensuring that we have a network of experts across a wide range of fields, including commerce. In response to his former point, we already see a very close integration in London and around our overseas network of trade, development, aid and diplomacy. I can only assume that that will continue to be the case when it comes to our people.

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action: Iran

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes? I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful for having secured the time for this important debate, which is timely given Iran’s escalating nuclear violations and the continuing uncertainty around negotiations on the JCPOA nuclear deal. This is one of the most serious and most pressing foreign policy challenges of our time.

Before I get into those arguments I would like to take a moment to recognise the contribution to this Chamber made by our dear friend Sir David Amess. As we heard yesterday, Sir David never missed an opportunity to use whatever debating opportunities were available to press Ministers on the causes and issues that were close to his heart. He certainly used Westminster Hall to its fullest. As a member of the Panel of Speakers, he chaired many of the debates that took place here. I know that colleagues will miss seeing him in the chair, masterfully overseeing proceedings in a way that one can only do with 40 years of service under their belt.

There is every chance that Sir David would have sought to speak today. Last December, I had the pleasure of following him in a debate on this very subject. As ever, he spoke with great authority about Iran, his hopes for real, positive change in that country, and its need for true democratic revival. In his own words,

“I am now, unfortunately, in my fourth decade of saying negative things about the Iranian regime; it would be good to still be here in Parliament when I can say something positive about it.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 431WH.]

How sad and how tragic that he is not here to contribute today, and that he will not be able to say something positive about the country that he knew very well and loved. As a man of faith and strong conviction, a man who loved history, he had a deep interest in and affection for the wider middle east. He demonstrated that being a friend of Israel is no barrier to being a friend of Arab nations, too. In many ways, he was an embodiment of the Abraham accords long before they were signed.

Just a few weeks ago, Sir David tried to bend my arm into joining his delegation to Qatar. He knew of my interest in and desire to visit that country, and we both spoke in a debate on UK-Qatar relations a year ago. Unfortunately, constituency activities meant that I could not go, but I knew that travelling with Sir David would have been a very enjoyable experience. He was on the delegation on my first visit to Israel with the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I can say from first-hand knowledge just what a wonderful, funny, kind and generous travelling companion he could be.

Sir David was clear-sighted about the true nature of the Iranian regime and its malign influence throughout the middle east. In his speech last year, he spoke about Iranian terror activities in the region and here in Europe, and he warned of Iran’s ballistic missile programme and uranium enrichment activity. When it came to Iran, Sir David was simply someone who got it. Yes, he was hopeful, and almost romantically he longed for positive change for the Iranian people, but make no mistake: he was hard-head and clear-sighted about the immediate threats and challenges posed by Iran, and the need for strong countermeasures. That is very much my theme for this afternoon as we return to the subject of Iran’s compliance with JCPOA.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on sponsoring this important debate. Does he agree with me that if our colleague’s concerns were correct then—they certainly were—they would be even greater now, since a difficult Government in Tehran have been replaced by a Government who are simply beyond the pale in their principlist agenda, and in their view, as articulated by President Raisi, that sanctions are an opportunity for Iran, rather than something to be feared? Does my right hon. Friend fear, as I do, that dealing with a man who deservedly has the title of the “Butcher of Tehran” is going to be murderously difficult, notwithstanding the fact that the Biden Administration are far more positive than their predecessors when it comes to advancing the JCPOA?

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is entirely correct. The truth is that the situation has moved on at some pace in the 10 months since we last debated this subject, which is why it is so timely to bring it back to the House this afternoon. It is an uncomfortable truth that Iran can now be described as a threshold nuclear weapons state. The regime is enriching uranium to greater purities than ever before; it is in retention of ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear and conventional payloads; and it continues to impede the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to sites, personnel, and even monitoring equipment and data. The director general of the IAEA has spoken about this very subject today. That has far-reaching and serious consequences for UK foreign policy, for our national interests and for international peace and security. Given Iran’s well-documented systematic non-compliance with JCPOA, it is unsurprising that there is widespread apprehension about the future of the nuclear deal. Make no mistake, the reason that talks have stalled is that Tehran prefers to build more leverage through its nuclear violations.

While much of the focus of commentators on the JCPOA talks in Vienna has been on the intentions of the Biden Administration and the actions of Tehran, questions need to be asked now about whether the JCPOA is even capable of addressing the realities of Iran’s nuclear programme in 2021. Accordingly, I believe it is essential that the UK works with international partners to utilise the remaining diplomatic levers available to curtail Tehran’s nuclear belligerence before the situation deteriorates even further.

Aside from Iran’s continuing nuclear violations over the past year, it is worth pointing out that Iran has also engaged in a shadow bombing campaign against oil tankers navigating international waters, with one such attack involving the killing of a British national. Iran and its network of Shi’ite ally militia groups have routinely attacked military personnel in Iraq with dozens of drone and missile strikes, again killing a UK serviceperson. Iran has plotted the kidnap of foreign nationals and continues to hold British citizens and dual nationals hostage. An Iranian diplomat was sentenced in February for his involvement in a bomb plot against an Iranian opposition rally in Paris, which was attended by a number of our colleagues from this place, including Sir David Amess. Mercifully, that attack was foiled just in time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Wherever Iran seeks to operate and influence, it creates roadblocks to peace and long-term prosperity for peoples throughout the middle east.

Against that backdrop, Tehran has also spent the last year systematically and aggressively advancing its nuclear activities. Iran’s nuclear programme is now deep into uncharted territory, and its new hard-line Government have thus far shown no inclination or intention to stop. That represents a comprehensive breach not only of the JCPOA but of safeguards obligations, as well as the non-proliferation treaty. Iran is openly enriching uranium to 60% purity for the first time ever, meaning that it is just a short jump to the level required for a nuclear weapon and a world away from the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA.

Iran has installed advanced centrifuges, capable of enriching uranium at greater purity levels and in greater quantities, including at its controversial underground nuclear facilities. Iran now has stockpiles of enriched uranium far in excess of the limited amount permitted by JCPOA. The IAEA has confirmed that Iran has produced hundreds of grams of uranium metal, which is a significant component of nuclear weapons and has no credible civilian application. Iran has also repeatedly stonewalled the efforts of the IAEA to monitor its nuclear activities and investigate worrying discoveries of nuclear materials at previously undeclared sites. Many of those advancements are irreversible. The international community may yet—I believe it is unlikely—reach agreement with Iran to remove some stockpiles of enriched uranium out of the country. However, the technical knowledge, the know-how and the advancements cannot be rolled back and those are the very building blocks of a weaponised nuclear programme.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous and is right to say that technical understanding and knowledge cannot be unpicked. That, in a sense, is more important than the quantum of enriched uranium. Does he agree with me that Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid are right to be deeply concerned about what is going on? I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees with me that the state of Israel has to be protected against an existential threat from what is happening in Iran.

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the position of Israel and the fears and concerns within Israel. However, it is not just Israel; numerous other countries throughout the region live in fear of an Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons.

It is a view widely held in security and academic circles that Iran’s breakout time—the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon—may now be as little as several months. Some analysts are even talking in terms of a matter of weeks. That is an alarming decrease from the estimated 12 months’ breakout time that was at the heart of the JCPOA in 2015. By extension, a return to the JCPOA would not represent a return to the JCPOA of 2015. The situation has fundamentally changed for the worse and there is a new baseline.

I recognise that the ongoing negotiations will make it difficult for the Minister to touch upon specifics, but I encourage him to ensure that the UK considers the implementation of supplementary nuclear restrictions by the UK, our E3 partners and the US to compensate for the reduction in Iran’s nuclear breakout time. I particularly hope that restrictions such as the destruction of advanced centrifuges or components and a moratorium on centrifuge R&D and production are under consideration. The IAEA still has an essential role to play in the enforcement of the restrictions. Accordingly, I urge the Minister to ensure that the IAEA continues to have the UK’s full support and that it is empowered to finally verify the full extent of Iranian activities, both declared and otherwise.

I feel the international community keeps missing opportunities to hold Iran accountable. I believe that the Biden Administration have miscalculated by choosing to ease political and economic pressure on the Iranian regime, and that the expectation that doing so will lead to Iran renegotiating a stronger and longer JCPOA is misguided. I understand Iranian officials have already flatly rejected the idea. Conversely, the deliberate failure to meaningfully respond to Iranian non-compliance has led the country to commit ever greater acts of defiance and escalation. It seems that the collective failure to reprimand Iran for each acceleration of its nuclear programme simply underwrites its next transgression.

I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments this month about working

“night and day with our friends and allies across the world to stop”

Iran from becoming a nuclear power. That is unmistakably an important commitment. I have said that the UK needs to be clear-sighted about its policy towards Iran. I have also reflected that the belief shared by some in Government back in 2015 that the JCPOA and our re-establishment of diplomatic ties with Iran would lead to rapprochement was not well founded. The regime has long since stopped warranting the benefit of the doubt. The Iranian Government have a consistent track record of banking any concessions they are given and using whatever means are at their disposal to push for more concessions, while never really altering the fundamental trajectory of their foreign policy and military goals.

I have heard it said—in fact, I read it in an article just last month by a former UK diplomat—that Iran is effectively posturing to secure maximum economic and diplomatic concessions, and that actually it has limited interest in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. I regard such views as dangerously naïve, reflecting a long-standing desire on the part of some in western diplomatic circles to keep giving Iran the benefit of the doubt. There is a misguided and dangerous notion that if we keep showing more love and give more concessions to Iran, that will trigger a fundamental change of posture in Tehran, and it will emerge as a responsible member of the international community. I fear that Iran is continuing to play the international community like a fiddle.

As I listened to the Foreign Secretary’s recent remarks about Iran and the need for a network of liberty, I could not help but think that now—[Interruption.]

Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Joint Committee

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s desire to get information to at-risk Afghans. It is not possible for me to give credible advice based just on the information that she has sent through. She makes the point about the website. While it is not necessarily the duty of Members of the House to understand the machinery of government, it is worth while them understanding that, when the Foreign Office has received emails, sometimes with the details of hundreds of individual cases, it is very difficult at times even to double-check to see whether those details have already been passed to us. Even in the case of British nationals, we have received cases that have been a mix of British nationals, potential ARAP scheme Afghans and other Afghans who are likely to come through in the Home Office scheme that has been announced. Working through them—triaging and distributing them—is an incredibly time-consuming and complex process, which we have to do with care.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is obviously right that we crack through this casework as soon as possible, particularly in relation to UK nationals and those who come under the scope of the ARAP scheme. That is a UK responsibility and we will be faced with a refugee crisis—of that there is no question. We will therefore need a much bigger programme to take as many people as is reasonable, with our partners. The expert in this matter is the United Nations, which has of course provided triage, relatively recently and contemporaneously, in the Syrian resettlement programme, so what discussion has the Minister had with the UN about how to manage this situation, particularly in relation to those who have now fled Afghanistan?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend and I will come on to that point shortly.

As we work through this process, those MPs who have particularly complex cases will ultimately be contacted directly by the ministerial team—they will be phoned by a member of the ministerial team—to update them on the progress of those cases and, where necessary, to establish further information to allow us to process them.

A crisis of this magnitude demands a wider strategic response from the international community, as my right hon. Friend said. The UK is very much leading in that response. We are galvanising actions around four key priorities: first, preventing Afghanistan from ever again becoming a haven for global terrorism; secondly, preventing humanitarian disaster and supporting refugees; thirdly, preserving wider regional stability; and fourthly, holding the Taliban to account for their conduct, including their record on human rights. We will be at the UN General Assembly next week to take forward those priorities with our international partners. Working with the international community, we must set credible tests to hold the Taliban to the undertakings that they have made.

Turning to the motion before the House, I note that there is already a comprehensive range of scrutiny of the Government on the issue. The Select Committees on Foreign Affairs and on Defence have already launched inquiries on Afghanistan; further scrutiny will no doubt come from the House of Lords Select Committee on International Relations and Defence, and possibly from other Committees of this House or the other place. It is not clear what additional value a Joint Committee of both Houses would add.

The motion states that the proposed Joint Committee would

“consider…Government policy on Afghanistan from…February 2020 to…August 2021”.

In fact, the Government’s policy on Afghanistan during that period has been clear and there have been many opportunities to question Ministers and the Government on their approach.

Afghanistan: FCDO Responses to Members

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

As I have said, the Foreign Secretary visited the region and spoke extensively with regional partners, including Pakistan. We will continue to explore with those neighbouring countries what means can be put in place for Afghans to come to the UK, where that is their most appropriate destination. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman pays tribute to the officials in the Government Departments, most notably the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. Many other Departments provided volunteers to reinforce our work, and I also pay tribute to them.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank the Government for responding positively to the representations I have made on behalf of Afghans at risk. May I ask my right hon. Friend about what will happen? Given that the Taliban will increase their grip and become less and less helpful, the only way for people to get out of the country will be to run to the border. That brings them into the scope of neighbouring jurisdictions and the United Nations. What discussion has he had with the UN about trying to assist people to leave to appropriate countries, such as the UK, and specifically triage them, as has happened with the Syria resettlement programme?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for congratulating the officials who have been working so hard on this. I note that it is surprisingly common to be thanked by Opposition Members in private, and less so in public, but I will take the thanks wherever it comes. With regards to engagement, I can assure him that we are engaging multilaterally and with countries in the region. We will explore all routes for helping Afghans evacuate, whether that be land crossings or the re-establishment of air corridors.