Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Debate between Ben Gummer and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Bashar al-Assad is a very lucky man. Were we having this debate in 2002, following an attack on 21 August and the successful interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, it might have focused a little more on the maintenance of international humanitarian law. It might have focused a little more on our alarm at the use of chemical weapons next to a NATO ally and next to Israel, which we have a unique duty to protect, and it may also have focused a little more on our need to protect innocent civilians in the first use of chemical weapons on a battlefield in the 21st century—weapons not used even by Hitler in the second world war.

Assad is lucky, of course, that we are having this debate not in 2002 but in 2013. The year 2003, which so many have referred to, intervened. We must not beat around the bush—Tony Blair and his Administration were dishonest. The result has been to injure our democracy to a degree that no other single action has done, I believe, in the 85 years since women gained full voting equality. And so we are in a position now where our decision is being influenced by that failure in 2003, and we are asked to draw lessons from that.

[Mr MacNeil]

If the rebels were found to have used chemical weapons, would we feel it was fine for the Russians to bomb them using the same basis as that for our proposed intervention?

[Ben Gummer]

One of the problems of this debate is the number of counter-factuals that people have put before the House; the Prime Minister has answered a variation of the hon. Gentleman’s.

We are dealing with facts, in this instance, where most people agree that the full likelihood is that President Assad has bombed his own people. We are asked to draw lessons, in coming to a conclusion on this matter, from the experience of 2003. One of the principal lessons is that we should expect our leaders to act with transparency, conviction, consistency and principle and to accommodate colleagues who have doubts and be responsive to their concerns. I do not think that, on many of these points, President Obama, President Hollande or our own Prime Minister can be faulted.

But a lesson is not an excuse to prevaricate with questions of increasing sophistry. It is not an excuse to change one’s mind at the first whiff of political opportunity. It is not an excuse to come to the House with a view different from the one that might have been professed in private and in public some days before.

If we allow this ghost of Iraq to influence our decision in this important debate, we risk a double calamity. Because in not considering those things that we should do, we risk not intervening when we should because we intervened when we should not have. The victims in that would not just be international humanitarian law, which without force is meaningless and a dead letter. The victims would not only be the Syrian people, who will then be attacked with Assad knowing that he would get to response. The victim could also be our own Parliament, which was shown to have lacked resolve and conviction when it knows what it is right to do.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Ben Gummer and Angus Brendan MacNeil

Friday 3rd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

I welcome that sensible point from a new Member whom I admire enormously. I want to put on record the fact that I have really enjoyed his contributions. I think that I detected some agitation among Labour Members when I paid the hon. Gentleman that compliment! As I was saying, people might be in favour of x, y or z, but they know exactly how things pan out in reality.

The National Farmers Union of Scotland has discussed the issue. Incidentally, when Donald Stewart spoke about the issue, he said that he presumed “NFU” to refer to the National Farmers Union of England and Wales—which, for some reason, does not brand itself properly—rather than the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Anyway, if we are to believe newspaper reports, it seems that every farmer in Scotland is in favour of change. One newspaper stated:

“Scott Walker, NFU Scotland policy director, said today that the organisation had softened its stance towards the move, which would see clocks shunted forward by an hour throughout the year while retaining the changing of clocks forward in March and back in October.

‘If people can put a good argument forward to us as to why there should be change, we’re not going to be the ones who stand in the way of that change, if it’s for everyone else’s benefit’”.

That is not a resounding “yes” to change; it is only a “yes” to listening. I, too, am willing to listen, but I ask those on the other side not to indulge in a kamikaze leap—

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to indulge in a kamikaze leap.

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Gentleman is manfully presenting arguments against what seem to be manifestly sensible reasons for moving the times of day. May I put to him an argument that has not been put so far? The unofficial opposition to the Bill appears to have been mobilised by Mr Peter Hitchens. Is that not the clincher in favour of a successful passage for the Bill, or does the hon. Gentleman wish to find himself in alliance with Mr Hitchens?

[Mr MacNeil]

I am not very familiar with Mr Peter Hitchens. I believe that he writes in The Times or the Daily Express, or perhaps the Daily Mail. I have heard that Mr Peter Hitchens is involved, but I have had no contact with Mr Peter Hitchens, either positive or negative. Perhaps the word “kamikaze” could be attached to Mr Peter Hitchens; I have no idea. However, if Mr Peter Hitchens is on my side, I welcome that. What an eminently sensible man Mr Peter Hitchens must be. [Interruption.] I have just been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan that I did not want to say that. Hansard, strike it from the record! [Laughter.] It seems that Mr Peter Hitchens has been a torpedo to my argument, whoever he is.

I have raised all those issues in order to challenge data that have been used to suggest that opposition to this idea has all but evaporated. It has not evaporated. Eminently sensible members of all parties—and, it would seem, eminently sensible scribes in certain newspapers—are backing the argument against this move.

The Bill offers an even-handed new approach, save one part. It has much merit therefore, and the hon. Member for Castle Point has conducted herself very well in making her arguments, and I have enjoyed engaging in discussion with her. Changing the clocks will definitely advantage the south of England, while sunrise in Manchester and areas north of there will be after 9 o’clock for two months of the year. I was therefore surprised to note that there is no geographical requirement regarding the membership of the commission that will implement the change in the clocks. I hope—indeed, I am sure—the Bill will not pass, but under its provisions the commission’s membership would be selected by the Business Secretary, and we could have a commission comprising 12 people from London, Dover or Blackpool, for instance.

There is also no provision in respect of the Scottish Government or Parliament, and I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) arguing for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. I say to him, “Join me, brother, and let us have all powers pertaining to Scotland moved from here to Holyrood”, which is the rightful place and the most democratic forum in which to discuss Scottish matters. The hon. Gentleman might be coming my way a little bit. I welcome that and hope that he will move further in my direction.