Yemen

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the conflict in Yemen.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and I am also very grateful to you, Mr Turner, for presiding over our proceedings today.

When I spoke last spoke on Yemen in Westminster Hall, in February, I said that I had never personally feared for Yemen’s future as I did then. Unfortunately, the crisis in the country is now even worse than could have been imagined a few months ago. I know that Members here today share my concern for this beautiful country, which is one step away from famine and a humanitarian crisis on an unprecedented scale. Today, the all-party group on Yemen released its first ever report on the crisis, and I am extremely grateful to all those organisations that have been involved in preparing that report. I will lay out nine recommendations made in the report, which I believe are necessary and realistic measures that the UK Government can take in an effort to stop the crisis worsening. First, though, I will express what Yemen means to me.

I was born in Aden in Yemen, and left with my mother and sisters in 1965. I look back incredibly fondly on my time there. Yemen is an easy country to fall in love with—the people were so kind to my family when we lived there. I am not alone among MPs in having been born in Yemen. The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) was also born in Aden, and I am very pleased to see her here today. As an officer of the all-party group, she takes a strong interest in the future of the country, as does my sister, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz).

I have returned repeatedly to Yemen, including as chair of the all-party group. When I was last in the country, we were required to sleep under guard in a fortified pod in the embassy grounds; it was the first time that I have slept in the camp-bed of an ambassador. Of course, our embassy in Yemen is now closed and it does not look as though it will open again.

On 20 January this year, Houthi rebels abandoned an agreed political process. They launched an attack on Sana’a, stormed the presidential palace and forced out President Hadi. A coalition of Gulf states and other countries in the region, led by Saudi Arabia, responded to President Hadi’s request for intervention. The coalition began a campaign of air strikes against the Houthi rebels, to

“restore stability to Yemen by crippling the Houthis”

and to facilitate

“returning President…Hadi…back to power”.

The United States, the Arab League, Turkey, Canada, France and the United Kingdom approved of the campaign, following the Houthi rebels’ disregard for the legitimate political process. More than six months on, however, I believe that it is in the interests of all parties to agree to an immediate ceasefire and to end the bombing campaign.

Put simply, Yemen is now in ruins. The damage to the cities of Sana’a and Aden and to civilian infrastructure across Yemen is so significant that in August the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Peter Maurer, said that after five months of war in Yemen, the destruction appeared similar to that in Syria after five years of conflict.

The figures on the current crisis are shocking. Aid organisations believe that more than 21 million Yemenis—80% of the population—are in need of food, water and medical aid. That makes Yemen the largest humanitarian crisis in the entire world. The Danish Refugee Council estimates that, as a direct result of the fighting, more than 4,628 people have died and 28,598 people have been injured. Of those killed, 573 were children. On average, 210 people have been killed every week since the end of March. By the end of today, another 30 people will have died. In addition, more than 1.4 million people in Yemen have been internally displaced, raising the risk of a refugee crisis. Before the conflict, there were already more than 600,000 refugees in the country from neighbouring Somalia and Ethiopia. The damage to Yemen’s already limited infrastructure makes aid delivery difficult, and it will make post-conflict reconstruction an unimaginable struggle. As a result of the damage, at least 160 healthcare facilities have been closed down across Yemen. A lack of fuel has restricted the use of water pumps, which has left nearly 13 million Yemenis—50% of the population—struggling to find enough clean water to drink or to grow crops.

Despite this situation, Yemen has not received the same level of international, media or public attention as Syria has. The UK Government should ensure that the Yemen crisis is given a higher priority on the global agenda for the provision of emergency aid and the Department for International Development should continue to lead global efforts to provide emergency assistance to the population.

A critical factor in the crisis is the de facto blockade on imports. Saudi and Egyptian forces established a blockade to enforce an arms embargo on the Houthi rebels, as set out in UN Security Council resolution 2216, but the blanket inspection of all ships has brought deliveries of aid and commercial shipping to a grinding halt. Yemen relies on imports for 70% of its fuel requirements, 90% of its food and 100% of its medicine. The UK is in a position to work with the coalition to streamline this process, using a more targeted approach to get shipping flowing much more quickly.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mr Turner. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? If aid reaches somewhere such as Aden, are there not distribution streams to get that aid to where it is required outside the city—up-country, as it used to be called?

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is not just about getting aid in, but making sure it gets to the people who need it, and we should work to ensure that the distribution network is effective. There is a number of aid organisations already in Yemen, and we should take their advice on how that should be done. Facilitating the flow of emergency aid would be in the interests of the coalition, because it would help to avoid a famine and economic disaster that the states neighbouring Yemen do not want on their doorstep. The United Kingdom should support the newly announced United Nations verification and identification mission established to ensure that deliveries by sea do not include shipments of arms, but which also speeds up the inspection process. That and a move to targeted inspections would allow vital relief to reach Yemen’s population.

As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) suggested, the delivery of aid within Yemen has also been plagued with problems, as aid workers have faced incredible danger. Since the crisis began, six Yemeni Red Crescent volunteers have been killed while carrying out humanitarian work. Aid offices have been looted and attacked, due to the absence of the rule of law. Organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières struggle to deliver aid across front lines, requiring consent from multiple groups on the ground to do so and facing significant delays and administrative burdens. The United Kingdom should work with both parties to ensure that processes are put into practice that will allow aid to be safely given to those who need it, and so that the distribution of aid throughout Yemen is predictable and unimpeded.

Emergency aid and a better flow of imports will be vital in the short term, but bringing both parties to the negotiating table should be the No. 1 priority of the international community. The UN’s special envoy, Ismail Ahmed, has previously brought the two sides together to agree on temporary ceasefires, but those have been short-lived. Two such ceasefires agreed between 12 and 17 March and 10 and 17 July were broken within hours, with each side blaming the other.

Four factors are blocking a political solution. Neither side has achieved a decisive military victory. There is only limited international pressure on the parties to resolve the conflict. There is a lack of trust between the parties. UN Security Council resolution 2216 has been a stumbling block to negotiations, as it is used by both parties to justify non-participation in peace talks. If resolution 2216 continues to be an impediment to a diplomatic solution, the Security Council should consider a new resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire and the free flow of humanitarian supplies into and within Yemen.

We should not forget that in 2011 the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, now Lord Hague, and Minister of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), led the international community in resolving Yemen’s last political crisis. The former ambassador of Yemen, Abdullah al-Radhi, and the current ambassador, Dr Yassin Saeed Noman Ahmed, feel a strong bond with the UK, and the Yemeni Government value our friendship greatly. I agree with the vice chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who unfortunately could not join us today, about the long-term settlement needing to be agreed by the Yemenis themselves. We can bring them to the negotiating table, but both sides need to agree to long-term dialogue and restore the terms agreed in the national dialogue conference in January 2014 and the peace and national partnership agreement signed in September 2014.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise, Mr Turner. I am new to the House.

I first want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for securing this debate. The situation in Yemen is a tragedy that must be addressed by the international community and, more importantly, by the British Government. There is an urgent need to review the alleged war crimes, to seek accountability and to alleviate the desperate humanitarian situation. More than 21 million people, including 9.9 million children, are in humanitarian need, making Yemen the country with the greatest number of people in humanitarian need in the world. As was recently stated by the International Red Cross,

“Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years.”

The atrocities in Yemen are the result of a complex civil war that has also turned into a battleground for the regional superpowers, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Evidence uncovered by Amnesty International suggests that both sides could be guilty of committing war crimes. Investigations into 21 airstrikes in Sa’da in the north of Yemen uncovered that some of these strikes appeared to be directly targeted at civilians. The strikes killed 241 civilians and injured more than 157. The number of known civilian casualties since the conflict escalated in March has risen to more than 8,000 people, including more than 2,000 people killed.

I want to use my speech to address the British Government’s role in this conflict. Britain has given tens of millions of pounds in aid this year to help alleviate the crisis, and yet, because of the British arms trade with Saudi Arabia, the Government are complicit in these killings. That fact will remain until they change their stance on the arms trade.

In 2014, £83 million worth of arms were authorised for export to Saudi Arabia. The Government are providing weapons to a country that indiscriminately targets civilians and are supporting a regime that uses its membership of the UN Human Rights Council to block an independent inquiry into its conduct in Yemen. Instead, the council adopted a resolution tabled by Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Arab states involved in the conflict. It is in part thanks to our own nomination that Saudi Arabia is on the council. It is time to stop propping up a regime that abuses human rights inside and outside its borders. There is an urgent need for accountability.

I call on the Government to address their obligations as set out in the national arms export licensing criteria and articles 6 and 7 of the arms trade treaty and to send a clear and open message to Saudi Arabia that we do not condone its violence. The Government must condemn the violence and press for an independent inquiry into violations of humanitarian and human rights law by parties involved in the conflict.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. Saudi Arabia is supporting the legitimate Government of President Hadi, who is trying to restore order in the country. That legitimate Government are supported by the UN Security Council; it is a little worrying if the hon. Lady is suggesting that we should stop Saudi Arabia from supporting a legitimate Government, giving the Houthis free rein.

[Kate Osamor]

I am not saying we should stop such support. I am saying we need to look at what has happened thus far and have an independent inquiry.

Lastly, the paradox of aid and arms that is central to British involvement in Yemen cannot be ignored and the Government must act to change this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I congratulate my friend, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), on securing this debate, and on his chairmanship of the all-party group on Yemen, which has produced an outstanding report, although I have not had the chance to read it properly as I have only just received a copy.

I hope Members do not mind, but, since I am, I think, the oldest Member present—looking around, I can see I am probably the oldest person in the room—I would like to give the historical perspective on Aden, because it is very important to British people. The south-eastern end of the Arabian peninsula was once crucial to the functioning of the British empire. A small settlement at Aden was occupied by Royal Marines in 1839 and became a bunkering port for passing ships. After the opening of the Suez canal in 1869, it became a vital staging post for ships going to and from India and the far east. When coal turned to oil as the main fuel for ships, the importance of Aden was reinforced, particularly as it was so close to the middle eastern oilfields. Unsurprisingly, BP built a large facility there.

As time passed, Aden and its hinterland became a formal part of the empire called the Aden Protectorate, but government of the interior in particular needed the consent and involvement of local tribes, which was no easy matter. By the 1950s, some tribes were in open rebellion against British authority, which led to a protracted insurrection. By 1967, the United Kingdom had had enough: Aden was given independence and our armed forces withdrew. It was renamed the People’s Republic of South Yemen—I am looking to the right hon. Member for Leicester East to confirm that that is correct.

[Keith Vaz]

indicated assent.

[Bob Stewart]

The Yemen Arab Republic was to its north. In 1990, north and south joined to become Yemen.

My interest in Yemen comes from the fact that as a child I lived in Aden between 1954 and 1957. My father was a company commander with the 1st battalion the Aden Protectorate Levies, a branch of the RAF Regiment—I am wearing the RAF Regiment tie today as I am a member of the RAF Regiment officers’ dinner club. I am not the only Member who has close ties to Aden. The right hon. Member for Leicester East and his sister, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) were all born there. But I am too old to have been born in Aden; I was born in 1949, before we went there.

We would all like to revisit the place of our childhood, but that currently seems impossible. Since 1990, Yemen has gone from bad to worse. It is now such a dangerous place that it would be utterly foolhardy for British subjects to go there without protection. The situation is so bad that Sana’a, Yemen’s inland capital, has had to be abandoned and the country’s Administration, such as it is, must take place, when it can, from Aden. Yemen is now the poorest country in the middle east and an incredibly fragile state.

I do not propose to dwell long over Yemen’s recent history before 2011, because it is incredibly complicated, difficult and perhaps less prescient than what has happened since. Suffice it to say that in November 2011, after some 30 years in charge of what was essentially a military republic, President Ali Abdullah Saleh was forced to hand over to his deputy, Vice President Mansur Hadi, which was apparently meant to avert immediate civil war. There was some international hope that Yemen might be on the road to some form of recovery, but that hope has come to nought. Too many of those with power in Yemen are plundering what oil revenues it has left, sending untaxed income abroad and deliberately resisting reforms that might restrict their ability to loot their country. We will argue about this, but the World Food Programme estimates that some 46% of the 10 million people living in Yemen do not have enough to eat. You don’t see fat people like me in Aden.

It is difficult to simplify what has become a truly impossible situation, but Yemen has essentially become a cockpit in which the branches of Islam are fighting tooth and nail. The Government of Yemen, under Sunni President Hadi, is now backed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan and the Gulf states, which are all quite strong allies of both the United States and the United Kingdom. The rebels, mainly from the northern Shi’a Houthi grouping and ex-Premier Ali Abdullah Saleh loyalists, are backed by Iran. It was the rebel Houthi group that forced the Government to flee from Sana’a to Aden in February. Yemen’s security forces have split loyalties, with some units backing President Hadi and others backing the Houthis and President Hadi’s predecessor Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has remained politically influential. President Hadi, who, as we discussed in a pre-meeting is actually living in Saudi Arabia, is also supported in the predominantly Sunni south of the country by militia known as Popular Resistance Committees and local tribesmen.

To complicate the situation further, so-called al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or AQAP, perhaps the most dangerous of all al-Qaeda factions, now has a firm foothold in Yemen. As a result, the United States has carried out several drone assaults against it. Both the Yemeni Government and the rebels are equally opposed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. AQAP has been pretty active, carrying out a series of indiscriminate attacks against both the Government and the Houthis—goodness me, what a situation. It is Kafkaesque in scale.

Just to make the situation even more enigmatic, the so-called Islamic State, which the right hon. Member for Leicester East, myself and others prefer to call Daesh because it is such a rude word in Arabic, has appeared on the scene, jostling to be more influential in the country. Daesh claims to have carried out a number of suicide attacks in Sana’a this year. After Houthi rebel forces attacked the Government’s southern de facto capital Aden in late March, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia responded to a request by President Hadi to intervene and launched air strikes on Houthi targets. As I mentioned, Saudi Arabia is collaborating with the five Gulf Arab states, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and Sudan, with Somalia providing airspace. Some of these air strikes have clearly gone badly wrong and have killed innocent people, which is utterly tragic.

The world’s foremost international authority, the United Nations, is the obvious catalyst for action. In April 2015, the Security Council passed resolution 2216, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, calling for an immediate stoppage of fighting and for the Houthi rebels to withdraw from territory that they had taken. The resolution was passed unanimously. Four permanent members of the Security Council sanctioned it. Russia did not, abstaining and allowing it to go through. But what has actually happened since that decision by the world forum where everyone is supposed to go for top authority? Damn all. There has been no effect whatsoever on what is happening on the ground. Other agencies of the United Nations have tried to send experts into Yemen to report on human rights violations, but a draft Dutch resolution supporting just that has recently been withdrawn as it would have failed, and, astonishingly, Saudi Arabia, has been elected as the chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

It would be marvellous if our debate could result in agreement on a way to gain some form of peace and security for the poor, wretched people of Yemen. However, the United Nations has been effectively ignored, the great powers do not want to get involved and the situation on the ground is getting increasingly complex and worse. Innocents are dying all the time. As matters stand in Yemen, I cannot think of an effective and decent way ahead with any chance of success. I hate the idea that we are impotent and apparently unable to do anything with all our power. In the end, I suppose that history will have to take care of it. One way or other, one of the factions will prevail, but who knows who that will be at the moment?

To date, Yemen has been an utter failure of international politics. We should do all that we can to try to correct that. In that respect, I am delighted that the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen has produced a report highlighting the crisis. If nothing else, this debate highlights the fact that Yemen is still a matter of real concern. We must not forget that.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. We have 40 minutes left. I call Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be speaking in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. It is the first time I have had the opportunity to appear before you. The privilege is indeed mine.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for raising the very important topic of what is happening in Yemen and for making us aware of his strong family connections there, which were demonstrated by the passion with which he delivered his argument. His speech was engaging, informative and very instructive. Before summarising some of the points made in the speeches we have heard this afternoon, I should mention the interventions made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who also gave a speech, and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

The right hon. Member for Leicester East spoke of the need for an immediate ceasefire, describing the situation in Yemen as the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. He said that it must be given a higher priority and that we should be putting a process in place to ensure that aid, including emergency aid, is swiftly given, and that there is a better flow of imports, including some of the aid items that are required. He spoke of the importance of bringing the parties to the table again, given the dramatic escalation, and of the international community having a very small window to show what they can do. He also mentioned the escalation in the conflict now due to the involvement of Daesh—I am grateful to him for referring to them as that, which is exactly what they are.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is a member of the International Development Committee. She spoke about the children, and it brings things home to think about the 1.8 million children who are at risk of malnutrition and the 20.9 million people who are in need of fresh water, sanitation and hygiene support. She spoke of the shortage of fuel and medical supplies and the medical staff needed to deliver the aid, and she said that 60% of the population need very basic healthcare. She also paid tribute to the humanitarian workers who continue to serve in the most difficult circumstances, and asked the Minister to address the fact that more needs to be done and whether he agreed that more should be expended through DFID to help these people.

We were then privileged to hear from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who, like me, is a new Member. She spoke passionately about the need to review the war crimes that have allegedly taken place and about the 21 million people in humanitarian need—in fact, Yemen is the country with the greatest number of people in humanitarian need in the whole world. She used her speech to raise many issues that are clearly close to her heart, such as whether the UK Government are complicit in killings due to the part they play in the arms trade. She mentioned that it was perhaps time to stop propping up the regime, asked that the Government condemn all violence, and finally spoke of the paradox of aid and arms that cannot be ignored.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), who was also born in Yemen—

[Bob Stewart]

It produces very beautiful women.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I choose to ignore that remark. She spoke of the long-term effect on children that would be seen for generations, which should be of tremendous concern to us all. She said that poverty was at 50% before the conflict and it is now at 80% and that the crisis in Yemen must be given a higher priority. She said that 90% of its goods were being imported previously and now only 15% are, which again demonstrates the difficulties that aid agencies are encountering. She expressed concern that negotiations are not going anywhere and about the lack of a political solution. She spoke of the Minister from Yemen who, I think, said, “What future? There is no hope.” She said that it was a failing state, attracting first al-Qaeda and now Daesh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I have not seen that particular quote. I spoke to Mr O’Brien at length, and I know there are many reports on that. I will, of course, refer to it. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who I very much welcome to her place, also raised that issue. If there is any evidence, it needs to come forward.

The conduct of war is always a difficult thing. As a former soldier—there are others here who have served—I know that in operational environments, we need to ensure that the rules of engagement are adhered to as much as possible. If there are human rights violations, they must absolutely be looked into, but I am not aware of any such evidence at the moment. We need to be careful about hearsay. If NGOs have evidence, they must bring it forward.

The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) does not seem to be in her place, so I will address other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) brings a huge amount of value and knowledge to the debate. She spoke of the damage to ports. Unfortunately, the cranes in Hodeidah have also been destroyed, so even when the city is liberated, there will be a delay in getting support.

Yemen is hugely reliant. It is a very poor country and does not have the wealth of oil, gas and hydrocarbons that other Gulf nations do. We have called for and continue to call for a ceasefire. That was discussed at the meeting I chaired in New York. We are seeking to bring parties together in the next few weeks and get them back around the table. We have got to this point in the past but have never managed to secure the actual ceasefire document itself, but Britain is certainly calling for that important document to be signed.

I think that I have answered the point from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on human rights violations. He also mentioned history and gave the example of Sir William Luce, one of the many governors of Aden, who played a significant role in running that particular protectorate.

The description that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) gave of Britain’s involvement in the region was a tour de force. He is another person who, by birth—

[Bob Stewart]

Not by birth—I was made in Germany.

[Mr Ellwood]

Not by birth—firmly stated. My hon. Friend referred to the role of the Royal Marines and the military. He also touched on something that others have elaborated on: the expansion of Daesh or ISIL in these pockets. Extremism in any form looks for vacuums of governance, and that is what we are seeing in Yemen. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has been established in Yemen for an awfully long time. The plans for the Charlie Hebdo attack, for example, originated in Yemen. It is a hotbed of extremism.

[Bob Stewart]

It would interest me, and perhaps everyone else, if the Minister were able to answer this question: is Daesh actually at war with AQ in the Arabian Peninsula? That would be a good thing.

[Mr Ellwood]

The relationship between the two is very complex indeed. There are places where they team up together, where there are local ceasefires and where they have a localised objective and work together, but in principle, they are competitors. I do not want to wander down this avenue too much, but al-Qaeda is seeking to exert change in western understanding of and influence in the middle east, whereas Daesh is trying to create a caliphate and its own space within the middle east. They have different philosophies completely but are both very active in Yemen; that is the trouble.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham also spoke about the Houthis, and I hope he does not mind my correcting him—he called them Shi’as. It is important to distinguish between the Zaydis and the Twelvers—the Iranian Shi’as. They are different forms of Islam.

[Bob Stewart]

I accept the reprimand. I did know it, but—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. If Colonel Stewart stands up, the Minister can then decide whether he wants to listen to him. If not, he will sit down again.

[Bob Stewart]

Sorry, Mr Turner.

[Mr Ellwood]

I always want to listen to my hon. Friend; he speaks volumes.

It is a delight to see the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) in her place. She has a lot of knowledge of middle eastern matters. She spoke of the Daesh threat, which I have covered, and what more work DFID can do in this area. I will pass that on to the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne). She also touched on the conduct of war and the importance of watching out for alleged war crimes.

I will cover another basic issue that was raised: the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. Nations have a right to defend themselves. They also have a right to join in coalitions and, if invited, to participate and to protect another country. President Hadi has made that request. The coalition has been formed. Had that not happened, the Houthis would have flushed out any legitimate Government support, all the way down to the port of Aden. We must keep a careful watch on the conduct of war, but we have the right to sell arms. We have one of the most robust arms sales policies and one of the most transparent export programmes in the world.

Gibraltar and Spain

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on securing this debate and on his introductory remarks. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, it is appropriate that we should be talking about Gibraltar in the same week that we have celebrated Gibraltar day in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke and I joined Members of both Houses from a range of political parties, and a couple of thousand other people, at the Guildhall on Monday night to see the Chief Minister and to demonstrate our continuing support for Gibraltar and for the wish of the people of Gibraltar to remain under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

I thank those who have taken part in this debate: the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). We have learned today of a family relationship across party lines, which came as a revelation to a number of us. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East on his reappointment to the Opposition foreign affairs team. I confess that I was glad to hear the news. I was slightly surprised, but I suspect my surprise was a lot less than his. I welcome his reappointment.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I intercede only to say that the families of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and I have both known the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) for several centuries, and we have known him as a traitorous little chap.

[Mr Lidington]

We have had to relearn the lesson this morning that clan feuds can run deep.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

When the Minister visited the Royal Navy Gibraltar Squadron, did he look at the patrol vessels? They came from Lough Foyle and they are old, small and not powerful enough to deal with the strait of Gibraltar. The Foreign Office might consider advising the Ministry of Defence to up-gun our patrol vessels.

[Mr Lidington]

I not only had a chance to look at the vessels, but went out on patrol with one of those vessels, to see for myself the conditions that the Royal Navy experience.

We make a formal protest against every unlawful incursion by Spanish state vessels. The level at which that protest is made depends upon the seriousness of the incursion, which itself depends on, for example, how long the incursion takes and how deliberately ostentatious the incursion is. Some of the incidents that have been cited in the debate today are ones that we certainly regard as very serious indeed. The majority of incursions are subject to a protest by note verbale. We will sometimes take up the protest at senior official level and sometimes directly with our Spanish opposite numbers at ministerial level; it depends on the nature of the incident.

We treat the summons of the Spanish ambassador—indeed the summons of any ambassador—as a serious step. Other countries have a different practice and regard a summons to an ambassador as a routine measure. As was pointed out earlier, the Spanish ambassador has been summoned at a rate matched only by the ambassadors of Syria and of North Korea during the lifetime of the present Government and the coalition Government. I do not want to devalue the political and diplomatic weight attached to a formal summons by making the practice more general. The jet ski shooting incident on 24 June 2013 was raised immediately by me at ministerial level with my Spanish opposite number and raised subsequently by the Prime Minister with Prime Minister Rajoy less than a week after the incident had taken place. We take such events very seriously indeed and respond at the appropriately senior level.

This summer, there were several serious unlawful incursions by Spanish state vessels and aircraft. Those included a Spanish customs officer firing near a recreational fishing vessel, Spanish customs helicopters entering British Gibraltar territorial airspace and dangerous manoeuvring by Spanish state vessels on a number of occasions, which put at risk the safety of both UK and Spanish personnel. While any incursion is a violation of sovereignty, incursions do not threaten or weaken the legal basis of British sovereignty in Gibraltar or British Gibraltar territorial waters. However, such behaviour by Spanish state vessels is unacceptable. On each occasion, we have raised it immediately with the Spanish authorities. They have since reassured us that the safety of lives at sea is a top priority for all concerned and that their law enforcement agencies will operate with respect for that principle in future.

My hon. and right hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence keep under constant review both the number and type of vessels available in Gibraltar. The nature of our assets in Gibraltar is subject to regular reassessment by the MOD, and that process of reassessment and review will continue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke asked about the number of incursions. I will write to him with the exact number so far in 2015. However, I will try to give him and the House some idea of the pattern. In 2013, there was an average of 40.5 incursions a month; in 2014, the monthly average was 32.3; and by the end of August this year, which is the most recent period for which I have figures, the monthly average for this year was 37.4. That gives some idea of the number of incursions and, as I said earlier, the incursions vary in seriousness.

I am afraid that I cannot help the House on the question of the rules of engagement. For reasons that I am sure the House will understand, the Government follow a policy of not discussing in public the rules of engagement for our military, and I do not propose to depart from that principle today. It is not a policy that is specific to Gibraltar; we apply it across the board.

Spain has now agreed to our proposal of 28 August to step up law enforcement co-operation to fight against organised crime. We worked in close consultation with the Government of Gibraltar to achieve this agreement and all three Governments—Spain, Gibraltar and the UK—have an interest in tackling criminal activity in this area of the Mediterranean, and we all know that the agreement will be truly effective only if we can work together. Although the unacceptable incursions have continued, it is also a fact that, at the same time, there have been occasions in recent months when Gibraltarian and Spanish authorities have worked together to bring criminals to justice, and I warmly welcome that.

To give one example to the House, on 10 September a co-ordinated operation between the Guardia Civil and the Royal Gibraltar Police resulted in the arrest of suspected drug smugglers. We want to see more practical co-operation of that type, and I know that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar is very keen indeed that that kind of co-operation should be strengthened.

We will continue to press Spain to ensure that it honours its agreements, both to respect safety at sea and to work with us against organised crime, and I did that most recently on 12 September, when I met the new Spanish Minister for Europe, Fernando Eguidazu.

It would be remiss of me to let this debate pass without my saying something about aviation, because, as the House will know, there has been a long-running battle at EU level about whether Gibraltar should be included in EU aviation legislation. It is the Government’s view that the treaties of the EU are absolutely clear that, for the purposes of aviation policy, Gibraltar and Gibraltar airport are part of the EU. Therefore, it would not only be a political move but a breach of the European treaties themselves if there were to be any measure that purported to exclude Gibraltar from the ambit of such legislation. We will continue to oppose any further attempts by Spain to have Gibraltar excluded from EU aviation legislation. In the past 12 months, we have seen such attempts repeatedly, and they have all failed. We have delivered a very clear message that the treaties require that aviation measures must be applied to Gibraltar, and we shall continue to lobby both the Transport Commissioner and other EU member states to try to ensure that that principle is upheld.

A number of speeches today mentioned Gibraltar’s economic success. Frankly, I think that Gibraltar’s vitality and its determination to create economic success are the envy of the region. The Campo is an area of Spain that tragically suffers from very high unemployment and, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, something like 30,000 Spanish citizens work in Gibraltar. Spain already benefits hugely from both enhanced economic co-operation with Gibraltar and the success of the Gibraltarian economy, and it could benefit even more.

Civilians in Syria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Cox]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, and we do share common cause on the need for humanitarian protection for civilians in Syria.

Let me get back to my point about a myopic focus on ISIS being counterproductive. If selective air strikes against ISIS are the only action the west takes in Syria, we will never defeat ISIS—and we could even strengthen it. At least 75% of all civilian deaths in Syria are a result of action by Syrian Government forces; aerial bombardment by the regime is by far the biggest killer, taking around 200 lives every week. It is horrifically indiscriminate; 95% of the victims are civilians. For these reasons, and in the light of the fact that an ISIS-only approach will not protect us from the threat it poses, our objective must be to stop the indiscriminate aerial bombardment in Syria. Not only would that provide much-needed relief to Syria’s embattled population, who are still being bombarded by 50 to 60 barrel bombs a day, but it could help empower Syria’s remaining moderate opposition, who are essential not only to finding a political solution but to holding back and ultimately defeating ISIS.

Stopping the bombs would also take away a significant radicalising factor in the conflict and could breathe new life into the political process, changing Assad’s calculations and forcing him to the negotiating table. As we saw in 2013, the Syrian Government’s response to the credible threat of force was to make a political deal, not to risk escalation. As such, I believe it is time for the Government urgently to consider deterring the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilians in Syria through the willingness to consider the prudent and limited use of force.

A no-fly zone would be an enormous military undertaking, and would entail significant risks, particularly now that Russia has joined the regime in the Syrian skies. But what I call a no-bombing zone, enforced from maritime assets in the Mediterranean so as to avoid engaging Syrian air defences, would save lives, uphold international humanitarian law and breathe life into the political process.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I totally endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said about the hon. Lady making a brave speech. My worry is that she can do nothing without a Security Council resolution, which gives political top cover and the legal right to go into a sovereign country.

[Jo Cox]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. I agree that we should try to secure a UN Security Council resolution, but I do not think we should limit ourselves to not acting without one. I believe a no-bombing zone is feasible if it is enforced from maritime assets in the Mediterranean, so as to avoid engaging Syrian air defences. This would save lives, uphold international humanitarian law and breathe life into the political process. A well-designed deterrence operation would impose a cost on the Syrian regime for any indiscriminate bombing of civilians—for example, by targeting the military airbases where barrel bombs are stored and flown from. Any attempt by the regime to escalate would trigger additional punitive strikes, rendering aerial bombardment counterproductive. In those circumstances, it is far more likely that Assad and Russia will be forced to the negotiating table.

To conclude, this conflict has proved time and again its propensity to escalate month on month, year on year. For moral reasons—and national self-interest—we can no longer afford to ignore Syria. Indeed, inaction will only see a growth in the number of Syrians killed, the number of refugees fleeing and the potential threat to British national security from ISIS. I urge all Members to look to the best traditions in the history of their parties and to think about the personal role that they can play to protect civilians in Syria and further afield.

The voices of Syrians have been absent from this debate for far too long. They have been asking for protection for years and no one has been listening. It is now time for us to listen and to act.

Srebrenica Genocide (20th Anniversary)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide.

At least 8,372 men and boys were murdered by the Bosnian Serb army within a couple of days, starting on 11 July 1995. At the time, I was in the Army and the Chief of Policy at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe at Mons in Belgium. I was there when the first reports of what was happening in Srebrenica came through. The operation in Bosnia then was a United Nations operation rather than a NATO one. Despite Srebrenica being declared a UN safe area under the watch of the UN protection force, Serbian paramilitary units over-ran and captured the town. Then General Ratko Mladic and his Bosnian Serb forces systematically rounded up and murdered well over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys. It was an act of genocide.

Mladic’s men methodically and coldly separated out men and boys, and herded them away. Fusillades of shots were heard throughout the area, as batches of the men and boys were cold-bloodedly and methodically shot. Mladic himself had promised that no harm would befall anyone, but it was immediately obvious to the local people that that was a total lie.

For their part, the 400-strong Dutch battalion under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Karremans, which was charged by the UN with protecting the citizens of Srebrenica, did very little by way of protest, and even surrendered men and boys to the Bosnian Serb army. At the time in Mons, I asked the SHAPE staff why the Dutch battalion charged with protecting Srebrenica had not used its weapons to safeguard the people. I was told that they had been ordered not to get involved, which I found appalling—under the Geneva conventions of war, those in command have a duty to protect civilians. Unbelievably, I was also told that the Dutch had used the excuse that they could not open fire because their anti-tank weapons were out of date. That is astonishing, considering that most of the belligerent forces’ weapons were out of date anyway by that time.

There is overwhelming evidence of a huge number of atrocities. Men and boys were taken away and summarily murdered in batches; individuals were cut down at whim; and large piles of bodies were pushed into huge pits by bulldozers. Some of the victims were undoubtedly buried alive. One child, who could not have been more than 10, was ordered to rape his sister and was killed when he could not do so. Mothers had their babies’ throats slit before they themselves were raped. Many people chose to commit suicide and some people, particularly women, hanged themselves in the woods around Srebrenica. Agony and death were everywhere, and yet the Bosnian Serb army and its friends carried on committing cold-blooded acts of murder against anyone who they thought was a Muslim. The situation was sheer hell.

Despite being far away in Belgium at the time, I felt a deep affinity with the people on the ground in Srebrenica. Some two years before, it was my soldiers who had first gone into Srebrenica and it was my UN commander, General Philippe Morillon, who had declared on 16 April 1993 that Srebrenica would be protected.

When I learned what was happening in Srebrenica two years after I had left, I felt sick at heart and in some way responsible for what was happening. In truth, the people of Srebrenica had been abandoned to a ghastly fate by the rest of the world. In February 1993, as commander of the British UN battalion in Bosnia, I had witnessed such bestiality at a place called Ahmici in central Bosnia. We even had to dig a mass grave into which we placed more than a hundred bodies—children, women and men. But the horror did not stop there; it continued.

On 1 March 1993, as their commander I ordered soldiers of B Squadron 9th/12th Royal Lancers to cross the lines from Tuzla to see what could be done to help people in Srebrenica, who were being besieged by the Bosnian Serb army. My intelligence organisation suggested that the situation in Srebrenica was very grim, and intelligence officers heard repeated commercial radio calls from Srebrenica for someone—anyone—to come and save them. It was heart-rending.

During the next two days, my soldiers managed to get to Srebrenica after a very difficult passage through hostile Bosnian Serb army territory. When they arrived, they found an appalling situation. About 20 civilians had been killed by incoming shellfire when our vehicles appeared, because they had naturally clustered around us; they were surrounded by people who they believed were their deliverance. One officer—my interpreter, Captain Nick Costello—was talking to a woman holding a baby when the baby’s head was blown off by a shell splinter.

A few days later, we escorted General Morillon into Srebrenica. He was welcomed almost as a saviour but after a while, when he said he was going back to his command headquarters in Sarajevo, the people blocked him in and refused to let him leave. Off his own bat, he declared Srebrenica to be a UN protected area. None the less, there was a crying need to get innocent people out of the place and to safety. Between March and April 1993, British soldiers under my command, including pilots flying helicopters provided by French forces and the Royal Navy, evacuated several thousand Bosnian people from the Srebrenica enclave. Shortly afterwards, the UN ordered British soldiers to be replaced—first by Canadians and then, a year or so later, by an ineffective Dutch battalion.

The Bosnian Serb army finally took the town of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995. Upwards of 10,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys attempted to walk 63 miles across mountains, rivers and minefields to reach safety in the nearest Muslim territory of Tuzla. Only about 2,000 of them made it.

When I visited Srebrenica recently, I met Nedžad Avdic, who was only 17 in July 1995, when he was shot. He was with me yesterday in Parliament but cannot be here today. Despite being badly wounded, he survived and crawled out from under the bodies of his friends. I wish to place on the record what he said. His testimony is chilling. This is what he told me:

“In July 1995, when Mladic’s offensive started, the Dutch forgot us, left their checkpoints and fled. We had no option but to follow them and wait for help, but it did not come.

We were afraid of going to the Dutch HQ at Potocari and feared for our lives. After days of hiding in the woods and hills around Srebrenica, my father, uncle and I headed in the direction of Tuzla on a long, unknown and uncertain road through the woods and minefields.”

Those minefields were extensive: it took us a huge amount of time to negotiate them and get there.

“We were an endless column of men and boys under constant bombardment by Serb artillery from the hills. Many of us were killed and the wounded cried out, in vain, for help.

In the chaos, I lost my father and ran through the crowd crying and calling for him. Lost in the middle of the forest, we did not know where to go. Bare-footed, exhausted and frightened we gave ourselves up. As many as 2,000 men and boys were loaded on to lorries, including me.

We were tortured and were dying for a drop of water. We were forced to take off our clothes. One of the soldiers tied our hands our backs. At that moment, I realised it was the end. We were told to find a place and lined up, five by five.

I thought I would die fast without suffering. Thinking that my mother would never know where I finished they begun to shoot us in the back. I don’t know whether I lost consciousness, but I lay on my stomach bleeding and trembling. I was shot in my stomach and right arm.

The shooting continued and I watched the lines of people falling down. I could hear and feel bullets hitting all around me. Shortly after that I was wounded heavily in my left foot. Men were dying all around me. I was dying in deadly pains and had no strength to call them to kill me. I said to myself: ‘Oh my God, why don’t I die?’

The pain was unbearable. It was midnight and the lorry moved away. Trying to raise my head I noticed a man who was moving. We untied one another”—

can you imagine the pain this boy was going through?—

“and avoided the next arriving lorry.

After days of wandering through woods, hiding in streams, sleeping in grave-yards and crawling with my terrible pains, we reached territory under Bosnian government control. My father, uncle and relatives who sought shelter with the Dutch soldiers in Potocari did not survive.”

The Srebrenica-Potocari Memorial Centre, situated on the opposite side of the road from where the Dutch battalion was based, records the known deaths of 8,372 people murdered by the rampaging Bosnian Serb army. Nobody can be absolutely certain, but most certainly 6,066 bodies are buried in the Potocari cemetery and about 7,000 genocide victims have been identified through DNA analysis of body parts recovered from mass graves.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Stewart]

I give way to my very good friend.

[Karen Lumley]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent, powerful speech. Last year, I travelled to Srebrenica to see that centre and worked with a local charity, Medica Zenica, which looks after people who were raped during the war. We met a woman there who had been raped so many times she did not even know who the father of her child was. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the mums of Srebrenica, because they have tirelessly worked to make sure that this will never, ever be forgotten and should never, ever happen again.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend for her very appropriate intervention. It is highly appropriate and a great honour that some of the mothers of Srebrenica have just arrived in this Chamber. All of us in Parliament pay tribute to them for what they have had to endure. Many families in Srebrenica lost all their menfolk.

I have seen some 1,000 body parts that are yet to be formally identified. Of course, some people’s remains will never be found. I am president of the British charity, Remembering Srebrenica. It has organised remembrance events in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I thank colleagues from those countries who have helped those events take place. Yesterday, there was a large remembrance service in Westminster Abbey—2,000 people attended—and there are continuing remembrance events throughout the country this week.

There is another charity that does sterling work in the Srebrenica area, but it gets scant funding recognition from the British Government and I wish that to be put right. The charity, officially called The Fund for Refugees in Slovenia, was founded in 1992 by my friend, Lady Miloska Nott OBE, who is here today. Despite its name, the charity’s main thrust has always been in Bosnia. There it has done long-term, sustainable work in the Srebrenica area— not so much the town, but 20 km out from it, in an area that was deeply affected, too. It has built 144 houses and 14 schools for those most affected by the 1995 genocide. It has also built a medical centre. I pay a huge tribute to all that Lady Nott and her charity have achieved.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Stewart]

With the greatest pleasure.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on securing this debate. Before being elected as an MP in June 2009, I visited Srebrenica. It was an extremely moving experience that left a lasting impression on me. I echo what my hon. Friend says about the charity; Lady Nott helped organised the visit for me and other colleagues. I commend her work and that of the organisation. I echo what my hon. Friend says about working with such charities, to continue the rebuilding in Srebrenica and ensure that this genocide is never forgotten.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which I endorse and want to add to. One of the things that Lady Nott’s charity does is to take Members of Parliament to spend the night in some of the houses that her charity has built. Through that experience, colleagues get a real feel for what is actually happening on the ground.

I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government recognise this great work. Please, if they can, will our Government contribute financially to the work of a charity that is extremely well run, has good due diligence and makes such an impact on the local area?

I will finish now. This morning, we paused to remember the 7/7 bombings. This Saturday, 11 July 2015, we should all pause to remember that, 20 years ago, the hopes and lives of a small town—8,372 men and boys—were agonisingly destroyed by Bosnian Serb bullets. God bless their memory. All our prayers go to those who survived the Srebrenica massacre and to the mothers of Srebrenica, who still live with what happened every moment of their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate. I end by expressing my gratitude for the support we have had from behind us—from the Mothers of Srebrenica and some of the victims, who are here today. It is probably not parliamentary protocol to say that, but we are here for them. God bless them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide.

Britain in the World

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I shall deal shortly with the hon. Gentleman’s point about that part of the franchise.

Let me also say to the Foreign Secretary that reform in Europe is not solely down to what one country asks for at one moment in time. It is about building alliances and making friends, as the Prime Minister is now discovering, and that approach too can bring big change over time. The fundamental challenge that we face now is to make the case that Britain’s place lies in a reforming European Union. Why? Because this is about jobs, investment, growth, influence and security.

Last year we marked the centenary of the outbreak of the great war—the muddy slaughter that claimed the flower of a generation from Europe—and this year we commemorate the end of the second world war. We should never forget, bearing in mind that what we thought would never happen again is now happening in other parts of the world, that as the leaders of post-war Europe looked upon the names of the fallen carved on their gravestones, row upon row upon row, they resolved they would bring the nations of Europe together in the interests of peace. Seventy years on, that has lasted, but we can never take it for granted, and we can never take for granted the other benefits that membership of the EU has brought.

The removal of barriers to trade has helped to create and sustain jobs. It gives us access to a market of 500 million people. Nearly half the trade and foreign investment in this country comes from the EU, and competing in the single market with the best companies in the world helps to drive innovation and creates new markets for British businesses. The EU has improved living standards throughout Europe and for British workers by giving them, for instance, the right to paid holiday and equal treatment.

Given all that, it makes no sense for us to turn our back on Europe, and to leave it on the wing and a prayer of a better deal outside. Those who point to Norway and Switzerland should note what the Foreign Secretary himself told the House recently, when he drew attention to the terms that those two countries had negotiated for access to the single market. He said:

“those terms require the Swiss and Norwegians to accept wholesale the body of EU law without having any say in the making of it, to contribute financially and to abide by the principles of free movement.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2015; Vol. 593, c. 807-08.]

Those are some of the many reasons for Labour’s belief that the European Union is central to our future prosperity, and by the end of 2017 the British people will make the most important decision about our place in the world that they have faced for 40 years when they vote on our membership of the EU. We will campaign for a yes vote, and we will argue for British 16 and 17-year-olds to be given a say in that decision, because it is about their future too—just as we argued in the general election so recently fought that the franchise for all elections in this country should be extended to them.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman argue that 16 and 17-year-olds should be sent into battle? I think it wrong that although we do not allow our soldiers to go into battle until they are 18, we—or some people—are quite prepared to envisage 16 and 17-year-olds voting to send them into battle.

[Hilary Benn]

No, I would not change that age, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that, when one thinks that the law allows a 16 or 17-year-old to give full consent to medical treatment, leave school, enter work or training, join a trade union, pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits, consent to sexual relationships, get married—albeit with the parents’ consent—change their name by deed poll, become a director of a company and indeed join the armed forces, it seems to me that we ought to be able to trust them to participate in that democratic decision.

Ensuring peace and security around the world must be at the heart of our diplomatic and security efforts. We live in a differently dangerous world today, with a multiplicity of threats, military, political, natural and cyber. The ultimate responsibility of Government is to defend the nation, and we remain committed to a minimum credible independent nuclear capability delivered through continuous at-sea deterrence while supporting global, multilateral disarmament negotiations and further reductions in stockpiles and numbers of weapons. We are also committed to upholding the rights of the Falkland islanders to remain British, including by ensuring the defence of the islands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who spoke graciously, as ever, but when he was listing the institutions in this country that are unsettled by our relationship with European Union he should, I think, have included the Conservative party. After all, he and I were both in the 1992 Parliament in which that unsettling looked to have reached extreme proportions. I fully expect to see a huge amount of unsettling of the Conservative party in this Parliament on the European issue.

I am happy to contribute to this debate as the lead spokesperson of the Scottish National party for international and European matters. As you noted last week, Mr Speaker, I have brought a few friends along with me since I last spoke in this House to help me out in case I encounter any difficulty. It may help the House if I introduce some members of the SNP team who hope to catch the Speaker’s eye later in the debate.

My hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) have the trade and investment and the international development briefs, respectively. They both bring extensive personal knowledge to those briefs.

The European brief is handled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), who has already made a very impressive maiden speech, and the climate change brief by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who has both a constituency and a personal interest in that hugely important issue.

My deputy in these matters will be my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is on his way to join our proceedings by ferry, plane and train. I hope the Hebridean realities of transport will be borne in mind in future by Government Whips when they table Scottish business. I have a great fondness for my hon. Friend. Back in the 2005 election I was convinced that he would romp home in his constituency, so I spent an entire week practising how to pronounce Na h-Eileanan an Iar because I was confident that on election night I would be asked to pronounce it by David Dimbleby or some other interrogator. I went through that entire election night after my hon. Friend romped home and not once was I asked to pronounce the name of the constituency, so hon. Members will forgive me if I mention Na h-Eileanan an Iar a great deal in our coming debates.

The team is completed by my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson). In that 2005 election we had great success. We increased our numbers in this House to six. We now have 56 Members and we intend to make Scotland’s voice heard on international and European affairs across the range of responsibilities.

I shall contribute today mainly on European matters, but first I want to say a word about Iraq and make a contribution on human rights. I heard this morning on Sky News the American commander say that it is important that we learn the lessons from the fall of Ramadi. That American commander did not seem to share the Foreign Secretary’s complacency about the importance of that development. The American commander seemed to think it was a very important reversal and that lessons would immediately have to be learned. I was surprised that not until provoked by the shadow Foreign Secretary did the Foreign Secretary mention what has been happening over the past few days in Ramadi.

These lessons are important to learn and I hope there is no complacency on the part of the Foreign Secretary. If it is important to learn the lessons of what is happening in Ramadi, is it not even more important to learn the lessons of what provoked this nightmare in the first place? It is now 12 years, two months and 13 days since this House voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq. It is five years, 11 months and 14 days since the announcement of the Chilcot commission. I hope that when summarising this debate, the Front-Bench spokesman will be able to give us some indication, after five years, 11 months and 14 days, when the country and Houses of Parliament are going to be informed of the findings of that commission, and whether there has been a foreclosing of any possible legal consequences for those who may or may not be criticised.

It is important that we make a serious attempt to learn those lessons. It is less than two years since this House almost voted for a ground incursion in Syria. If that had happened, it is entirely possible that right now British forces—

[Bob Stewart]

I do not think we voted two years ago for a ground incursion in Syria. We voted to keep the military option on the table.

[Alex Salmond]

I said “almost voted for a ground incursion in Syria.” If the Government had not been defeated, make no mistake, there would be an extreme likelihood of British troops in Syria. If British troops had been in Syria at present, they would perhaps have been simultaneously fighting against President Assad and some of the opponents of President Assad. Keeping that option open can be called many things, but it could not be called a coherent military or foreign policy. I hope that we learn the lessons that Chilcot has to teach and that there is a proper examination of that report, and indeed of those whom it might criticise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is with real pleasure that I note that becoming Father of the House has done nothing to dampen, soften or ameliorate the rigour with which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) pursues his causes. Indeed, I recall that, many years before I entered the House, in the period of 1988 to 1991, when the right hon. Gentleman was shadow Foreign Secretary, I greatly admired the skill with which he manoeuvred to try to extricate the Labour party from some difficult defence positions in which it had managed to entangle itself. I am sure he will feel some satisfaction at that achievement, even though—sadly from his point of view—he still has to address the Government from the Opposition Benches.

I want to say a few words of appreciation for the electors of New Forest East, who did me the honour of electing me for the fifth time since the seat was created—[Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear”.] I am pleased to get such ringing endorsement from my colleagues. As well as thanking the electors, I would like to pay tribute to the candidates of the four other parties that competed in the election, who, without exception, conducted themselves with good humour and integrity. It was pleasant to take part in a general election on that basis.

It was notable that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) repeatedly asked “Who would have thought this would have arisen?”, “Who would have thought that would have arisen?”, and “Who would have thought the other would have arisen?” In making those rhetorical observations, the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the heart of the problem that affects defence policy in times of peace. In times of peace, those who try to predict the way in which peaceful times will be disrupted will almost invariably fail. Invariably, when conflict arises, there is little or no warning. That is why, in peacetime, it is always a struggle to persuade the Government of the day that they ought to invest as much in defence as defence-minded Members of Parliament would like.

In my brief remarks, I shall touch on just three topics: decision making in defence, the nature of defence reviews, and the issue of NATO and deterrence. Decision making in defence has suffered in recent times. It is no exaggeration to say that the chiefs of staff have become the chief executives rather than the heads of their services, and that is not good for defence and strategic planning.

In a report published just before the election, which therefore was not given the attention it might otherwise have received, the Defence Committee said that

“the…Chiefs of Staff Committee is too detached from the central policy-making process in the MoD and also, crucially, from the NSC”

—that is, the National Security Council. We recommended

“that the roles of the Chief of Staff should be redefined to give greater weight to their function as strategy advisors. We recommend that the Chiefs of Staff…should become the official military sub-committee of the NSC, in order to tender to it joint military advice”.

That is important, because in recent decades too much responsibility for the tendering of strategic advice has fallen on the shoulders of the Chief of the Defence staff, his vice-chief, and the Chief of Joint Operations. A more effective vehicle is one in which the heads of the armed services sit in committees and tender joint strategic advice to the politicians. I believe that that partly explains why some of the decisions made by those politicians have been rather shallower, and certainly more reactive to events, than they ought to have been.

The second aspect of decision-making difficulty arises from what has happened in the higher reaches of the civil service. There is a parallel with the arrangement whereby someone can become head of the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force, but end up with no major role in the tendering of strategic advice. People are no longer required to be domain-competent to hold the highest jobs in individual Departments. In other words, someone can rise to very near the top of one Department, and if a vacancy arises for a permanent under-secretary in, for example, the Ministry of Defence, the person’s next promotion can be to that post, although he or she may have absolutely no defence background.

[Bob Stewart]

Just like Ministers.

[Dr Lewis]

We, however, rely on the combination that involves lay people who become Ministers being guided by the expertise of the professional civil service. Now, the civil service has adopted a policy of opening up the possibility of more top jobs to its most high-flying people, but if they are not to be the experts, who is?

I shall now say something about my second topic—the nature of defence reviews—which may not make me entirely popular with those my own side. I have said it before, and I intend to go on saying it: the 1997-98 Labour strategic defence review went about things in a better fashion than our review did in 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) was good enough to acknowledge that ours was Treasury-driven. By gum, yes, it was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

We have listened to four fantastic speeches from four hon. Ladies—my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper). I had better get my game up a bit to try to match their eloquence.

The last strategic defence and security review, in 2010, imposed an 8% cut in the overall defence budget, which resulted, arguably, in a 30% reduction in capacity across all three armed forces. For our military, SDSR 2010 was an excruciating exercise and hurt deeply. For instance, the RAF, shockingly, sacked a quarter of its trainee pilots—many just as they were awarded their flying wings.

In 2010, the SDSR negated two factors: first, the military threat from Russia, which has grown enormously since then and, secondly, the explosion in upheavals in the middle east following the so-called Arab spring, which had not, of course, begun five years ago. Both those factors must now be placed into the planning assumptions for SDSR 2015, and I will say a few words about each.

In real terms, the Russian defence budget has increased by about 53%. The weekend before last, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister, remarked on television that tanks do not need visas, and he has a point, given that we see Russian T-72 tanks cruising through eastern Ukraine.

According to MI5, the current threat level for the UK is classified as severe. That means that our security services believe an attack is highly likely, partly from supporters of al-Qaeda or Daesh. I do not want our Army to go abroad to fight and to lose lives again, but it may have to do just that if our enemies pose a sufficient threat to the people of our country.

[Mrs Moon]

I should just warn the new women who have joined the House of Commons that they will hear the hon. Gentleman’s gallantry many times when he is referring to the women of this House—he is well known for it. However, does he agree that two threats really face this country? Russian Bears and Russian submarines have been seen off our coasts numerous times. Also, in terms of the successors of IS, jihadi groups across the middle east and north Africa now see IS as the group to follow if they are to gain any foothold in their own countries. We need to address those issues urgently.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention—she has given me an extra minute, which I will not use. [Interruption.] Will the SDP just keep quiet? [Interruption.] The SNP—sorry. [Interruption.] You have actually used my minute up now.

The most crucial question we have to answer in SDSR 2015 is how much military power we need to generate for operations abroad, whether high-intensity symmetric campaigns, probably as part of a coalition, or asymmetric operations, probably at a lower level. Our armed forces must still be designed to deter state-on-state conflict, and Russia’s actions in eastern Europe are signal warning of that. The thought of war between states is not dead—we may hope it is, but we must not count on it.

In the last Parliament, the Defence Committee called for at least 2% of GDP to be allocated to defence. So did I, and I do so again. France is increasing its defence budget by €4 billion, and Germany by €8 billion. In this SDSR, what we need for defence, and not for cost cutting, must be the paramount assumption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Having listened to the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), I am sure you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are going to have a dynamic, robust and diverse Parliament.

In seeking to influence international events, we have to make the most of what we have. We have a lot going for us: an open, welcoming, free-trading, entrepreneurial economy; some of the world’s best universities; a global financial hub; the fourth-biggest defence budget; ring-fenced aid spending; and, of course, the English language. Then we have our history, which, for better or worse, binds us to much of the rest of the world. This month marks the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, and much has changed since then.

[Bob Stewart]

At the battle of Waterloo, we had a stumbling problem with the French, but the Germans came to our assistance in the end. Does my hon. Friend think that that will work in our EU referendum?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Indeed so. My hon. Friend has stolen my punch line. Back in 1815, the main issue confronting His Majesty’s Government was how to prevent Europe from being dominated by a single over-mighty power hellbent on imposing one law across the continent, and as he rightly points out, with a little help from our German friends, we triumphed, to the benefit of all Europeans. I hope that this sets a precedent for our Prime Minister’s renegotiation strategy.

The century and a half after Waterloo saw the rise and fall of a global empire. We are still living with that legacy. The question of what role a post-imperial Britain should play in world affairs has never been conclusively answered. I welcome the comments and commitment in the Gracious Speech that the Government will seek a political settlement in Syria and offer further support to the Iraqi Government, but if we are to make good on those commitments, we need to answer that question. It is not enough just to say that we might be a small island but we punch above our weight. It is very true, but it is not a substitute for a serious foreign policy strategy based on a realistic assessment of what we can achieve.

The nation-building approach of the 2000s was not realistic. We deposed dictators, we held elections and then we cut and ran. We know all too well that without a lasting political settlement, it does not work, yet the west’s current approach to the world’s trouble spots, while most realistic, is not serious. Now we do the bare minimum, acting piecemeal and always reactively. We can see that in the current conflict with ISIL. Despite the warnings of regional allies, the capture of Mosul took us by surprise. Our response has been, yes, a few airstrikes and some small arms grudgingly supplied to the Kurds. That approach does not deliver results. It leaves our regional allies high and dry and helps to feed the middle east’s vast conspiracy theory industry. On the Arab street, the word today is that the west itself is behind ISIL’s recent victories, and that we are employing the classic colonial tactic of divide and rule.

We need a new approach for foreign policy—one that recognises that, although we cannot design the world in our own image, we are not powerless to influence events and that it is still possible to play a constructive role through intelligent long-term engagement. That requires us to be more flexible, more innovative and, dare I say, more patient. We need to recognise that, although we cannot act alone, we occupy a unique position in international diplomacy, with disproportionate soft power as the closest ally of the world’s only superpower and with the finest diplomatic service in the world, a tradecraft honed over many centuries of global engagement. As we seek to exert our influence, we need to bring all three advantages to bear.

We also need to get better at working with the reality on the ground rather than trying to fit the facts into a preconceived policy. In Iraq and Syria today, the reality on the ground is that the best the west can hope for is a form of loose federation, with high levels of autonomy for each of the region’s communities, a fair division of the oil wealth and a federal Government that are seen to govern in the interests of all. Our middle east policy, which has always been based around unitary states with strong centres, now needs to reflect the reality. That means effectively arming the Kurds, who have proved to be one of our most reliable allies in the region. We should be talent spotting the next generation of Sunni politicians, whose support is vital to a lasting peace in both Iraq and Syria.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I will do my best, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I always like to start on a point of agreement with the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) where I can, and I can certainly agree with him that whenever there is a major conference of this sort coming up, it is only fit and proper that it should be debated in advance on the Floor of the House of Commons. Therefore, he can always count on me to assist him from my very different point on the disarmament versus deterrence spectrum, and the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) can count on me to assist her, as I did on this occasion, to obtain the debate. I shall always approach the Backbench Business Committee for these debates, just as the hon. Gentleman has always assisted me when I wanted to have a debate about the importance of Britain’s strategic minimum nuclear deterrent. That, I am afraid, is as far as the points of agreement go.

In the brief time available I will take up a number of the differing suggestions and arguments that we have heard so far. “Who are we to criticise this, that or the other country for obtaining nuclear weapons if we persist in renewing ours?” I’ve got news for people who use that sort of argument: countries that are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons are not going to take a blind bit of notice of exhortations or criticisms from the likes of us. When countries acquire nuclear weapons, it is the result of a hard-headed reading of their own strategic interests. They do not do it by reference to whether a peaceful democracy that has a minimum nuclear deterrent, as we do, decides to keep hold of it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What seriously worries me is the fact that Russia has declared that we are an enemy and also suggested that, if necessary, it will use nuclear weapons to pursue the problems it faces abroad. That worries all of us.

[Dr Lewis]

It certainly does, and to show the ecumenical nature of that concern, let me quote from a recent article in The Herald of Glasgow by a former Labour Defence Secretary, later the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson:

“Those people seduced by the SNP’s obsession with abolishing Britain’s nuclear deterrent should perhaps Google the Budapest Memorandum of December 1994. They would see there a document representing the deal struck when Ukraine, holding the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile, agreed to give them up in return for solemn security assurances from Russia, the US and the UK.

These countries, with France and China as well, promised to a) respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in its existing borders, b) to refrain from the threat or the use of force against Ukraine, and c) to refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics. Don’t these promises look good in the light of the carnage we see on our TVs every night?

Yet that is what Ukraine got in return for unilaterally disarming. Some bargain. And it is legitimate to ask this; would Crimea have been grabbed and Eastern Ukraine occupied if the Ukrainians had kept some of their nukes?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

Taken over the period, I have given the accepted figure. I am not going into the details. I know the arguments, but the figure is realistic. The costs are enormous, but for the waste it is even greater. Forget about the cost of Trident, just concentrate on the cost of the clean-up that is going on at the moment. The clean-up of Sellafield has just been nationalised by the Government. The Labour Government actually privatised it some seven years ago.

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who I heard on “Desert Island Discs” say that her greatest regret in a very distinguished parliamentary career—I had the great honour of being part of her team with Robin Cook in the late ’80s on the different subject of social security—was that progress has not been made on nuclear disarmament. I think there is a mistaken impression that there are those who believe in getting rid of all weapons overnight. That has never been the aim of the anti-nuclear movement. The aim has been to progress towards countries reducing their stockpiles and reducing the risks, until eventually there are probably just two nations possessing nuclear weapons: America and Russia. I believe that is the likely way ahead.

The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has been making speeches on this subject for many years. I believe he is in a state where he ignores from his calculations the existence of the United States and regards us as the key player. That is only right if we believe we are back in the gunship days of the 19th century. If there is an attack on the Baltic states, they will not come looking for us to defend them; they will look towards the United States. The NATO countries met in my constituency in September. Of those 28 nations, how many are nuclear powers? Just three of them. The rest are not. The belief that we must punch above our weight—a hangover from Victorian times—has done us much damage. We did it in Iraq and Helmand. We punched above our weight, spent beyond our interests and died beyond our responsibilities.

I received a letter today from the Minister about the event on Friday to recall the heroism of those who died in Afghanistan, saying we had to be grateful to them because they reduced the threat of terrorism in Britain. No they did not—our being in Iraq and Helmand increased the terrorist threat. We did not get rid of the Muslim bodies threatening us; we multiplied them. We went from small organisations in one or two countries to a threat in many countries throughout the world. I was once expelled from the House for saying that Ministers were not telling the truth when they said to our soldiers, “Go to Afghanistan and you will stop bombs coming to the streets of Britain.” It was never true. It was never true when Tony Blair said he was going into Iraq to stop terrorism.

We have this whole mismatch—this idea that the threats in the world can be held back by nuclear weapons—but the threats are very different. We cannot hold back terrorism with nuclear weapons. We cannot hold back global warming with nuclear weapons. We cannot provide clean water to our planet with nuclear weapons.

[Bob Stewart]

But we can hold back the Russians from firing their weapons at us with nuclear weapons, and they have declared they are prepared to use them.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the Russians would do that, knowing they would be committing suicide and that they would be attacked by America, not us? This is the delusion. We do not believe that the 28 countries of NATO, protected by America’s weapons, will ever be attacked by Russia with nuclear weapons. Thank goodness, we have had this long period of 70 years during which, by luck and good management, no nuclear weapons have been dropped—well, four were dropped over Palomares, and one of them has never been recovered, but we have never had a situation where a nuclear event seemed likely, with all the consequences that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned but about which we have forgotten: of a global winter and other horrors.

We have to learn lessons and unite the world. There are many reasons to be optimistic. John Kerry has said:

“All countries…profit when there is smart, continuous action in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”

President Obama has said:

“The United States seeks the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”.

On 6 February, at the conference organised in London by the Foreign Office for the P5, the UK, the US, Russia —significantly—France and China, the P5 issued a statement saying:

“At their 2015 Conference the P5 restated their belief that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains the essential cornerstone for the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, and is an essential contribution to international security and stability.”

For goodness’ sake, can we not proceed positively by seeking disarmament and trying to build confidence among the nations, instead of wallowing in the old cold war antagonisms and fantasies about our supreme position among the family of nations? That is not our position. We should pursue what realistic chances there are to reduce the tension and great danger from nuclear weapons.

Yemen

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I pay tribute to the work he did in the region as a Minister in the Foreign Office. He makes a powerful point. The unique position Britain finds itself in, compared with other countries, and the leading role it should play has already been mentioned. Part of that role has been to communicate with the Houthis and, indeed, with the other stakeholders to make them all aware not only of the wider consequences of civil war but of the positives. Once the structures are in place and there is stability, then we can unlock these funds.

However, an indication of the instability in Yemen is that Britain had to evacuate its embassy, along with the Americans and indeed others; the EU has evacuated its base as well. Until those embassy officials are able to return to Yemen, I am afraid the process of releasing and appropriately spending these funds, which are much-needed to help those caught up in the war, will be much slower.

The regional implications of instability in Yemen are serious, as hon. Members have mentioned. The increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict between the Shi’a Houthis and the Sunni tribes in the south will play into the hands of Al-Qaeda. We must work closely with allies such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to ensure that there is a co-ordinated and multinational response to the situation in Yemen.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the important role Iran can play in the situation we face. We are in dialogue with Iran and we need to ensure that it understands that it has a constructive role to play, to make sure that we do not see a further degrading of the situation in Yemen into civil war.

We also continue to work through our embassy staff, the UN special envoy—Jamal Benomar, who has been mentioned—and key allies to encourage all factions to work together to agree a political solution within the framework of the Gulf Co-operation Council initiative, including a clear timetable for constitutional reform and indeed elections. We remain concerned by the continued house arrest of Prime Minister Bahah and other members of the Cabinet, and we are actively calling for their immediate release.

No country can tackle terrorism alone, and Yemen is no exception. The scale of the challenge is huge and in the longer term continued instability in Yemen may mean an increased risk of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula launching external attacks, including here in the UK. AQAP remains a major part of the global, multimillion-pound kidnapping trade, which directly targets the UK, the EU, the US and nationals of other western countries. Through its extremist propaganda, AQAP also seeks to radicalise Muslims around the world and incite extremist violence. That was illustrated, as hon. Members have mentioned, in the horrific attack in Paris on 7 January.

Addressing the underlying instability in Yemen and the country’s political and economic problems is essential to countering the AQAP threat effectively. We have temporarily suspended counter-terrorism capacity-building activity with the Yemeni security forces, but we are exploring ways to re-engage with them in such activity, in a human rights-compliant manner. Members will appreciate that, for operational reasons, I cannot comment in detail on this activity.

We know that the majority of Yemenis want the same things people elsewhere around the world want: a say in how their country is run; an education for themselves and their children; the chance to have a good job; and the chance to live in a peaceful and prosperous state. Therefore, economic stability is as critical as political stability. Sadly, however, the economic situation in Yemen is deteriorating fast, with almost zero growth, debt at 50% of GDP, rapidly declining foreign reserves and growing fuel shortages.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

First, I apologise for not being here earlier. This is a subject dear to my heart, as my dear friends, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), know. I am not sure I can spell it correctly, but all three of us remember Bikerji Cowji—the toy shop we all went to as children.

I know my hon. Friend the Minister cannot say why our counter-terrorism training has been suspended, but it is crucial that we get involved to help the Government in Yemen get a grip of counter-terrorism. It is so important, so we should go back there as fast as we can.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is very experienced in these matters, and he makes an important and powerful point. Yemen has been an enormous incubator of terrorist groups; sadly, the potential for civil war in the country is also enormous. Working with our allies to ensure that we can return and work with the Yemenis themselves is therefore a priority. However, we must remember that we need a Government in Yemen to work with, and at the moment there is not one. There is a President, as such, and the President himself continues in that office. Nevertheless, there is confusion as to the direction we are going in, which is why we are calling upon the Houthis and others to recognise the UN resolution we are working towards implementing and to come back to the table, to provide the political basis from which peaceful dialogue can take place.

Without key reforms, the future Government of Yemen will struggle to manage not only terrorism but the country’s finances in the face of low oil prices and a burgeoning salary bill—issues we discussed earlier. International support remains crucial if Yemen is to avoid economic disaster. As has been reiterated across Westminster Hall today, we must remain engaged in what is going on in Yemen.

It is also important that Yemen avoid humanitarian disaster. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), the Opposition spokesman, while he was at the Department for International Development; he brings a lot of expertise to this debate. With some 16 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian aid, Yemen’s humanitarian crisis is second in scale only to Syria’s. However, there is a real risk that humanitarian needs will increase in the coming weeks and months if the economy deteriorates or the conflict intensifies. The UN appeal is only 60% funded, and it is crucial that the international community maintain or even increase its support to Yemen at this time.

My hon. Friends know that we have provided £185 million in aid to Yemen during the past three years through DFID programmes. We are currently able to continue to deliver the vast majority of those programmes, particularly our humanitarian and nutrition programmes, although we are keeping in close touch with our partners as events develop.

The international response to recent events has been strong and united. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2201, which was led by the UK and Jordan. It deplored the unilateral actions taken by the Houthis and urged them to engage in good faith in the UN-brokered political negotiations, to withdraw their forces from Government institutions and to release safely those who remain under house arrest. Regrettably, the EU, GCC and US missions have also had to suspend their operations due to the deteriorating security situation.

The future of the Yemen state is more uncertain than ever. The current political crisis has re-energised those groups in the south who long to return to the days of an independent South Yemen. The UK and the UNSC remain in support of the unity, sovereignty and independence of Yemen. There are secessionist sentiments in parts of the south, and we support calls for a new state structure that would give greater autonomy to the south of Yemen, as agreed in the National Dialogue Conference. However, the future structure of the state is ultimately a question for the Yemeni people.

Despite the huge challenges Yemen is facing today, I think there is a solution to get Yemen back on the right path. This includes, first, the immediate end to violence and intimidation, particularly in the oil-rich province of Marib, and the release of the remaining Cabinet members under house arrest. I am pleased that President Hadi is now safe and well and free from house arrest.

Secondly, there should be a swift, peaceful political transition. We urge all parties, particularly the Houthis, to implement the GCCI, the NDC outcomes and the peace and national partnership agreement that they signed originally in 2014. All parties should engage in good faith in the UN-brokered negotiations.

Thirdly and finally, there should be a new Executive to take urgent steps to improve the economic and humanitarian situation. The political road map must now become a reality. I assure hon. Members that despite the temporary suspension of our embassy operations in the capital, Britain will continue do what it can to help Yemen achieve a better future for all.

Nigeria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The best thing we can do is what we have done, which is provide satellite imagery, training, and surveillance and intelligence assistance to the Nigerian authorities. In an earlier search, we deployed Sentinel and Tornado GR4 aircraft with surveillance capabilities. I have not had a discussion with the Home Secretary; these things have been handled to date by the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The problem with trying to gain intelligence is that the only way to get really good intelligence is to put troops into the area where it can be gathered. The Nigerian Government already spend 20% of their gross national income on security. Will the Minister consider the possibility of putting on the ground some kind of coalition—under the United Nations and paid for, at least in part, by the Nigerian Government—so that effective troops could go into this area the size of Belgium to get decent intelligence and give some reassurance to the people there?

Gibraltar

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I rise to speak as a member of the all-party group on Gibraltar, as someone who spent many days and weeks in Gibraltar wearing uniform and as someone who loves Gibraltar and feels totally at home in the place. I therefore want to talk about the defence of Gibraltar.

As has been mentioned, the biggest military unit in Gibraltar is the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, which has both reservist and regular soldiers. The regiment’s primary duty is the defence of the Rock. Within the Rock are 34 miles of tunnels—twice the length of the entire road system around the Rock—which were dug with picks by British sappers. I say that because the Royal Gibraltar Regiment contains the British Army’s primary expertise on fighting in tunnels. In addition, it now sends its officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers abroad with British military advisory training teams to train other nations. It is an integral part of our Army.

Morocco has already been mentioned, and since 2000 the Royal Gibraltar Regiment has been training the Moroccan army—there are quite close links—and it goes to Morocco every year as part of its overseas exercise. The chair of the all-party Gibraltar group, my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who has briefly absented himself from the Chamber, mentioned the gallantry of soldiers from the Rock. Indeed, the last commanding officer of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment was awarded the military cross, the third highest decoration for gallantry in this country. Those people are very much part of our country.

The Royal Navy has a regular presence in Gibraltar with 22 officers and ratings. It has two 16-metre patrol launches: HMS Scimitar and its sister ship HMS Sabre. It also has three rigid inflatables—a very small manning level for somewhere as important as Gibraltar. The squadron spends almost all its time maintaining the security and integrity of British Gibraltan territorial waters, which is not easy. In December 2014, the Royal Gibraltar Police recorded 108 incursions into British Gibraltan territorial waters, and that small force is terribly overworked. In addition, its tiny vessels are far too often dwarfed by Spanish navy ships, and in my view our naval presence in Gibraltar is too small to deal with the continuing Spanish provocation. The RAF also maintains a small presence on Gibraltar with fewer than 10 personnel. No operational RAF aircraft are permanently based there, but the airfield, as has been noted, is always maintained as a forward operating base for British military aircraft, and it has a unique position at the western end of the Mediterranean.

I believe it is time that our Minister increased the military presence in Gibraltar—[Interruption.] He turned back when I said that. There are three reasons for that. First, as Members seem to have demonstrated today, despite our repeated diplomatic protests about the bullying on the frontier and naval incursions into British Gibraltan territorial waters, our NATO and European Union ally, Spain, does absolutely nothing to stop them. Of course no one wants confrontation with Spain—far from it—but that is effectively what the Spanish continue to do to Gibraltar. Fouling up the frontier and repeatedly sending Guardia Civil and Spanish naval vessels into British Gibraltan territorial waters is hardly the act of a close ally, and it is time that we gave a concrete demonstration about our irritation with the situation. Quiet diplomacy and reason have had no impact whatsoever over the years.

Secondly, vacant military facilities in Gibraltar could easily be revitalised with minor modifications, and there are good training facilities on and around the Rock—I used them myself when I was in the Army. For instance, it has a small military training area and ranges, as well as those miles of unused tunnels, which are great fun on exercise. I am sure that such a move would be very popular on the Rock. With its budget surplus, some of the additional costs might be paid by the Government of Gibraltar.

Regular troops from the UK already replace the Royal Gibraltar Regiment when it deploys on annual exercise to Morocco. Why not put a UK-based company there, maybe on rotation from a UK-based battalion? There is space and it could easily fit under command of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, whose commander is just as qualified to command an infantry battalion as I was in my day.

I have been on HMS Scimitar, one of the two little and very old patrol vessels and, even to a landlubber like me, both Scimitar and Sabre are well past their sell-by dates. In face-offs with much larger Spanish vessels, those small Royal Navy vessels look plain daft and—as I know from my military experience—in a deterrent situation, looks matter. Although the Royal Navy does not have many ships left, one of them could quite easily be sent to Gibraltar and based there. I do not suggest that the Royal Air Force needs to, or indeed should, permanently position aircraft on the Rock, but the frequency of training visits could be increased.

In my view, deliberate breaching of sovereign waters by military vessels can be viewed as an act of war. Spain will not like us reinforcing our military presence on the Rock, but so what? They have tried to coerce Gibraltarians for far too long. In response, our laid-back, solely diplomatic responses have always been weak and remain so. I am sorry to say that the Foreign Office is far too wet on this matter. It is clear to everyone that periodic frontier problems and sea incursions are repeatedly organised by the Spanish Government on a systematic basis. That situation is iniquitous and I call upon our Government’s Foreign Office Ministers to get serious.

We should show that we will not budge in our views on Gibraltar and that we mean business. One way to do that is by putting more military power on Gibraltar. All this aggravation from Spain is totally unnecessary and undemocratic, and we do not like it. In short, Spain should get its hands off the Rock.

Ukraine (UK Relations with Russia)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What we are witnessing over Ukraine is a clash between two systems of international relations: the western liberal system held up by the US, the UK and Europe versus the more traditional power politics epitomised by Russia. That was highlighted by a comment by the US Secretary of State, who said:

“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in a 19th-century fashion”.

With all due respect to Mr Kerry, Russia has, quite simply, proved him wrong. We in the west like to imagine that our liberal system is the universal way, but the reality is that traditional power politics is much more dominant in the rest of the world. I make no defence of that; I just make the comment. Although our own actions are coated in thick veneers of liberalism and democracy, to which we no doubt generally adhere, this idealistic terminology masks the reality that we ourselves deal with the world through old-fashioned power politics.

For years, the EU, the US and the west generally have interfered in the internal politics of Ukraine in an effort to draw that country away from Russia and towards us—Ukraine has for three centuries been part of Russia. Russia has tried to counter those moves, and even though we might demonise Mr Putin, there is no conceivable leader of the Russian Federation who would not have done the same. The fact is that we are the liberal democrats and they are the strong men, but that is incidental to what is being done. We should also recall that Russia, Ukraine and other nations of the former Soviet Union do not enjoy the same advantages that we have enjoyed, so it is inherently unfair to judge them by the same yardstick.

We know that the Whig narrative of history is a myth. Anyone who believes the myth of progress after Auschwitz and Hiroshima must be wearing blinkers. Look at those photographs of modern free women studying in the universities of Tehran and Kabul in the 1960s and 1970s and then witness their condition, rights and appalling position today. Our rights and freedoms do not just arise out of the primordial fundamental; they are contingent on certain circumstances. We in Britain are not destined to be a parliamentary democracy with a prosperous economy; it has taken centuries of slow and gradual development with often quite arbitrary situations that has allowed our tradition of parliamentary democracy to emerge.

Seventy years of communism perverted the spirit of the people of the former Soviet Union and prevented them from developing the institutions, the habits and the traditions that we all too easily take for granted, whether here in the House or in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is precisely why we traditionalists and Conservatives have been so defensive and circumspect when it comes to altering the traditions of this House or the British constitution. To alter, change or abolish one portion thereof, no matter how small, may have numerous unintended and unforeseen consequences, with the potential to wreak havoc on the rights and freedoms that we have inherited from those who came before us.

Taking this into account, we must recognise how important it is to understand the Russian mentality. Russia suffered for decades under communist rule. Russia has experienced at first hand the future that we are marching towards and rejected it. We here all believe we are wonderful, enlightened, modern liberals, and of course we have totally and wholeheartedly rejected nationalism and all those other nasty things, but the Russians feel very keenly that they have been wronged. They were allowed to sit at the western table only when they were weak and ineffective under Yeltsin as their economy was plundered by criminal oligarchs.

Moscow has definite security concerns regarding NATO expansion in Ukraine. Likewise, I am sure we would have had definite security concerns had Ireland or Belgium considered joining the Warsaw pact. The US would have similar concerns if, for instance, Mexico had tried to join some Russian sphere of influence.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to back up my hon. Friend’s point. Twenty years ago, as the chief of policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, I repeatedly sent in papers saying that the expansion of NATO eastwards was poking the Russians in the eye, when we consider their history. That is exactly what we have done.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree.

Might it not be worth at least attempting to see things from the perspective of others and the perspective of most Russian people? Is it not wise to try to understand how we and our actions are perceived by them? How can we possibly make correct decisions about what to do if we have zero understanding of what makes other people tick? That is especially true if those people have extraordinarily different histories, not least the fact, as I said before, that Russian people suffered the most appalling tribulations as a result of invasion by the west within the lifetime of many Russian people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and it all militates in one simple direction: Mr Putin does not seem to care for international norms or that his country has in the past signed solemn and binding agreements. That is why we need to be on our guard.

We have the examples of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as Crimea. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, I worry that Putin’s objective is to create a land link with Crimea—at the moment I believe there is a 5-mile gap across the Black sea. He has no intention of giving it up, so will he leave it as it is and reinforce it with air supplies or by sea? I believe there is a risk that he will go for Odessa, thereby denying the rest of Ukraine access to a port. If he moves further west he links up with Transnistria, leaving only a slight border between western Ukraine and Lviv, and around there with Poland, and the rest would be surrounded by Russia. He will then say to the EU, “There you are. You can have the rump of Ukraine,” and that will become isolated and perhaps not economically viable—I do not know. I do know, however, that we must be on our guard because Putin has acted with complete impunity—my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East made that point. But if you make threats and do not follow them up, what is your counterparty to suppose?

The question that I go on to ask myself is this. There is Kaliningrad, that small Russian enclave on the Baltic coast, which is separated from the Russian motherland by a narrow strip of land between Latvia and Lithuania. If Mr Putin can with impunity do what he has done so far, what is to stop him saying, “I need a land link with Kaliningrad”? Article 5 of course stands in his way, but when I ask my friends, “Would you be prepared for your son or daughter to be sent off to go and fight for the Lithuanians or Latvians in the event that Mr Putin decides to annexe their territory and create that land link with Kaliningrad?” I sense no appetite for that. The question is, “Where is the British national interest in that?” People do not understand the significance of article 5—even in this House, hon. Members have been far too flippant about considering offering NATO membership to other countries without considering the consequences.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South was absolutely right: the red line has to be the Baltic states. We must make that red line clear to Mr Putin. We must say, “Thus far and no further,” and it must be followed up. We saw what happened to President Obama when he drew a line in the sand that was promptly blown away by the wind.

[Bob Stewart]

I wanted to back up my hon. Friend on that point. The Baltic states are a red line, and I would support moves to permanently position some of our troops in those Baltic republics, because that is a clear indication of our intention—just as Berlin was, where I served for two years.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, who brings immensely valuable personal experience to such discussions.

I have referred to the Baltic states, but I should like to emphasise the point that was made by, I believe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South about the penetration of UK airspace by Russia. The Russians are doing that with increasing regularity, but for what purpose? Are they coming to look at our beautiful countryside? Are they inspecting our beaches with a view to, perhaps, acquiring some land in the lovely parts of Norfolk or Lincolnshire, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough? What are they doing? What about the periscopes in the Irish sea? If anything demonstrates the folly of giving up our maritime patrol capability, it is the recent discussion about our dependence on a number of other countries to track Russian submarines.

By their deeds shall ye know them. Mr Putin’s deeds are clear for us all to see. We therefore ignore them at our peril. That is the danger. What do we do? My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) is right: there are areas in which we have a common interest with Russia. We share the threat from Islamic fundamentalism—Russia is a Christian country. In the early part of the 20th century, there were great links between the Lancashire textile industry and Russia, and those links were developing, but that all came to an end with the arrival of the communist state.

I am pessimistic. I do not see how we can engage with Russia with all that Mr Putin’s history and his clear pattern of behaviour implies. We are in a difficult situation. It is perfectly clear that his economy is collapsing. He is doing like many in his condition do. We all remember President Galtieri of Argentina. He had troubles at home. What did he do? He went on a foreign excursion—he went for the Falkland Islands. We must bear in mind that, with the falling economy in Russia, there is a real risk that a policy of puffing up Russia’s status in the world through military action is enhancing Mr Putin’s standing with the Russian people.

Are sanctions a substitute for more robust action? Are we, by imposing these sanctions, helping to suppress the Russian economy? Perhaps we should be engaging in a little bit more gunboat diplomacy of the kind I have advocated a number of times in this House. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, but I say to him that we cannot deal with a man with such an attitude and such behaviour, whose personal advertisements consist of him in martial positions, bare from the waste up with a bandolier around his shoulder and carrying a gun, or standing over some vanquished animal—you couldn’t make it up! That is what this guy is doing, and somehow we have to appeal to the Russian people and some of the younger politicians in Russia to get them to understand that this is not the way to behave. If we want security in Europe, we have to find a way forward, and invading other people’s sovereign territory is not the way to do it.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I was listening to it from afar and was stirred to come, hot foot, to the Chamber by the opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I therefore apologise if my speech, which will be short, is a bit disjointed.

I am clear on Russia’s strategic military aim. My good and hon. Friends have alluded to it already and we are all talking along the same lines. In military terms, it is at the very least to secure a land corridor to Crimea. Some Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), have suggested that the aim is to go as far as Odessa, but I think that the immediate strategic aim is to get to Crimea. The Black sea is crucial as it is a warm water entry and exit point. In the 1950s, as everyone in the Chamber knows, Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders never believed for a moment that Ukraine would not be a part of the Soviet Union or Russia. Khrushchev gave it away because of that assumption.

As I mentioned in an intervention, 20 years ago, when I was chief of policy at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, I argued that we have to be very careful as we move eastwards. I was concerned at that time about the idea that the Baltic republics would become part of NATO, because militarily I find it very difficult to think of how to defend that situation, particularly when there is a Russian enclave to the west. That is a scenario we have already rehearsed in this debate.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I know time is limited, but I wanted to point out that the only way we can defend NATO countries that are out on a limb is by having tripwire forces. That would show a potential aggressor that, while they might occupy those countries, they would let themselves in for a very long war with other countries that would be able, eventually, to liberate them.

[Bob Stewart]

I totally agree with my hon. and very good Friend. That was exactly my role as a young officer in West Berlin—a British tripwire—in case the then Soviet Union decided to take over.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Some tripwire!

[Bob Stewart]

I am afraid I totally agree—some tripwire indeed. A big stumbling block, although I was not quite as big then.

[Dr Lewis]

You were in spirit.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend.

I slightly disagree with those who say that Putin alone is the problem. Putin is Russian, and he represents a Russian point of view, and the Russian attitude towards Ukraine comes from history. I totally take the point about how Stalin dealt with Ukraine, but fundamentally Ukraine is a sort of glacis plate—to use the old term—to protect mother Russia. I also understand that a lot of Russians feel antagonism towards NATO, because sometimes, looking at it from their point of view, it appears to have been quite aggressive.

Over the past few years, Russian anxieties have been well stoked by western actions. As we have discussed, there has been talk of Ukraine joining NATO. I remember reading carefully through the EU negotiations with Ukraine, and there, in one of the sub-paragraphs, I saw a couple of lines about the EU sending troops to start exercises in that country. Nothing could have been a bigger red rag to the Russians. I got it from the House of Commons Library, and I am sure it was publicly obtainable.

I totally support our policy of trying to stop Russian expansion, but despite the sanctions, which, as we have demonstrated, are biting, I suspect that de facto Russia will gain its land corridor, either by negotiation or by agreement, to Sevastopol. That link from Russia to Sevastopol and the Black sea fleet will be on dry land at some point. We will have to recognise that as a fact of life.