Israel and the Peace Process

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

This is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship in one of these debates, Mr Walker. I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for securing the debate. I must apologise; I cannot stay for the full debate because of other appointments.

This debate is an important step in rebalancing some of the discussions that Members have had in the House. The debate outside the House is fraught with difficulty and nuances, and it is important that both sides here get a fair hearing. Peace and the two-state solution can be achieved only by direct peace talks. I doubt whether any hon. Member would argue for a single-state solution—Palestinian or Jewish. One of the fundamental barriers to such talks is that Hamas, as part of the coalition that forms the Palestinian Authority, refuses to accept the Quartet principles, which are that the state of Israel be recognised, previous diplomatic agreements be abided by and parties renounce violence. Until Hamas accepts those principles, there can be no lasting peace in the region. There cannot be negotiation when one side at the table seeks to wipe the other off the map.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

A Member from Northern Ireland is here. The peace process there went ahead with the Provisional IRA still on active operations, so perhaps one of those principles is not sacrosanct.

[Mike Freer]

That, of course, is an interesting point of view, but the Governments were able to negotiate with parties that were willing to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Lady. I say quite openly that I have not visited Gaza. That is why I am speaking instead about the west bank and why I made the point I did.

The problem that has emerged with the peace process is that we have, for far too long, had talks about talks about negotiations. We need to get both sides round the table to ensure that there are proper, face-to-face negotiations. In that regard, there is a duty on the Government of this country, which is widely respected in the region, where it has deep historical ties, and which is, in many ways, trusted by both sides.

[Bob Stewart]

The fact of the matter is that good people have been trying since 1967 to bring the two parties together, but all attempts have failed. We can all sit here piously saying that people should get round the table and negotiate, but some Methuselah, perhaps, has to come along and devise a way to bring that about. Until that happens, we will not have progress. That is what we must achieve somehow.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is clear that we need to break the logjam. Mention was made of the peace process in Ireland, and I certainly never thought we would see a peace process there in my lifetime. I welcome what has been done there so that we can have a proper democracy and a proper arrangement between people on that island.

Similarly, we have to break the logjam between Israel and Palestine, but there has to be good faith on both sides. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) rightly reminded us, Israel has, over the years, agreed to put the issue of settlements on the table. To get peace with Egypt, there was an agreement to remove settlements, and they were removed; to get peace with Gaza, settlements were removed; and to get peace with the west bank, settlements were removed. The Egyptian peace treaty was highly successful, but such success has not, sadly, been the case in Gaza, and that is a problem for the Israeli Government.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

That suggests that the Prime Minister’s influence is greater than it is. It is up to the Irish people to decide whether to accept the treaty, whether within the European treaties or outside.

Despite the penny dropping with everyone else, the Prime Minister resolutely clings to his phantom veto. At the press conference after the January European Council, he said:

“There isn’t an EU treaty because I vetoed it; it doesn’t exist.”

That flies in the face of the evidence. The European treaty involves 25 out of 27 of the member states. It involves the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. It sounds like a European treaty; it walks like a European treaty; it clearly is a European treaty. The Deputy Prime Minister is at pains to describe this situation as temporary, but in truth he was powerless to prevent the Prime Minister from putting the Conservative party interest above the national interest, as it was reported he was advised to do by the Foreign Secretary.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does that mean that the official Opposition would be happy with the treaty, leave it as it is and do nothing?

[Emma Reynolds]

We have made it clear that we are not happy with the treaty. We would not have walked out of the negotiations in December when a text was not even on the table. We would have negotiated a different treaty. We believe that this is a fiscal straitjacket like the one that the Government are putting on our country, and it is not in the interests of the eurozone or the UK.

As a result of the Government’s actions, Britain has never been so excluded from decisions affecting its vital national interests. That is bad for British business, bad for jobs and bad for families across the country. No British Government, regardless of political colour, have been as complacent as this Government about the emergence of a two-speed Europe. By putting party interest above the national interest, the Prime Minister has rendered the Government dependent on what could be described, euphemistically, as the Conservatives’ least-favourite institution—the European Commission—to protect the UK from decisions being taken without us even being in the room. Even Baroness Thatcher, a staunch critic of the EU, understood that being in the room was of paramount importance. She would never have relied on the European Commission to defend the British national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am glad that the hon. Lady made that intervention, because I can assure her that the all-party group on European reform, with which her hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife other Labour Members, Government Members and Members across the House are closely involved, is investigating the options for change. It is not a campaign group but an investigative group. It is a disappointment to me and to others that the hon. Lady has not engaged in that debate, because we have turned up some extremely interesting facts.

As the devil in the EU is in the detail, I would like briefly to mention three areas. The first is financial services. Before the financial crisis, the single market for financial services was a very good thing. It significantly added to British GDP, as well as the GDP of Germany, France and Italy. All the change at EU level was about creating a better single market, including in UCITS—undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities, the most successful financial services export from the UK ever.

Financial services had great legislation; however, since the financial crisis the EU has turned to stopping, slowing down, preventing and shutting down financial services, almost in a sort of act of revenge against the bankers. Indeed, I have heard many EU politicians talking about how City-style financial services are to blame for the problems they have found themselves facing. However, that is simply not true, and our Prime Minister did absolutely the right thing for British businesses and the British economy by standing up for financial services and seeking the safeguards that would enable us to protect the industry, which employs a total of nearly 2 million people in this country and contributes 11% of our GDP on an ongoing basis. He therefore did absolutely the right thing, entirely contrary to what the shadow Minister suggested.

Secondly, the shadow Minister mentioned social policy and the working time directive, and said that the all-party Fresh Start group would repatriate those powers. Not true: we are looking at what the options for change are. She will know, as do many people, that trainee doctors in the NHS are severely hampered. In fact, a coroner in the west country recently attributed the death of one elderly gentleman to the working time directive, which had meant that not enough doctors were on call and that the two doctors on duty were seeing 300 to 400 patients between them. Change is therefore vital.

My third and final point is about structural funds, where we now have a genuine opportunity. Back in 2003, the hon. Lady’s Government’s policy was to repatriate the local element of structural funds. In Britain we have been contributing €33 billion to structural funds over the past seven years. Some €9 billion comes back to the UK, but that is decided by the EU. What on earth is the point of that? We can decide best where to allocate that €9 billion. Interestingly, some of our poorest regions are net contributors to structural funds, not net beneficiaries, so the potential for reform is massive.

[Bob Stewart]

Does that mean that we can change quite easily without any further ado, simply by adopting my hon. Friend’s suggestions?

[Andrea Leadsom]

All the changes that the all-party group is investigating would require negotiation. Some things are more complicated than others, although we are setting everything out in the research that we are undertaking. [Interruption.] I have been asked to finish, so I will.

My two final points are these. For far too long we have tried to avoid the EU and not engage with it, so the other thing that the Government are doing that I welcome is engaging far more and far better with EU policy making at all levels. My second point is about better EU scrutiny in Parliament. We have been rather bad at that in the past, so I am glad that the Minister for Europe will be doing far more of it in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

And it is not as if this place is crammed full of legislation, is it, Mr Deputy Speaker? I really wish that the Government would stop continually hiding behind the Backbench Business Committee’s existence to deny their allocation of time for what are important debates.

The hon. Member for Stone made the interesting observation that the EU institutions could not be used for just a group of EU member states, but of course that is nonsense. They are used if there are rows over Schengen, which does not include us, or if there are rows over fisheries policy, which on the whole does not involve Austria, Hungary or other land-locked nations. Also, there have always been groups or clusters of EU member states with particular concerns which the European institutions have to have some regard for.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to give time to other colleagues and do not want to take up my full time.

I should inform the House that I might not be here for the wind-ups, because I have to go and hear Monsieur François Hollande speak at King’s college London. I am excited about meeting Monsieur Hollande, this socialist who is proposing to increase the income tax on people earning €150,000 to 45%—in other words, lower than the business-crushing tax rate that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer imposes on higher earnings. Of course, Monsieur Hollande is not proposing to rip off the epaulettes or the légion d’honneur from bankers he does not like—as our Prime Minister did with Sir Fred Goodwin—nor is he proposing retrospectively to deny bankers their bonuses or to introduce retrospective tax legislation on what bankers earn. We have the most anti-banking Prime Minister in the history of Great Britain. As a low-tax socialist, I will be glad to be at the college listening to Monsieur Hollande, who seems to have a much more moderate and pragmatic policy.

I would be interested to hear from the hon. Member for Stone, who has left his place, why exactly the Royal Bank of Scotland—partly owned by us—and HSBC are running to the European taxpayer, in the form of the European Central Bank, to ask for cheap loans. Why on earth should the European taxpayer bail out appallingly badly run, inefficient British banks that do not lend their money, but continue to try to pad out their bonuses and salaries? I certainly do not object to their doing so; indeed, I hope that the European taxpayer will show some generosity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

With the Single European Act, we had a single market established before the Maastricht treaty. I do not have time, in the seven minutes available, to go over the whole Maastricht treaty, but a very wide body of opinion now suggests that it should never have been signed—I have heard that said from the Government Front Bench. All the safeguards that were put in place have turned to dust. Let us bring things a little more up to date. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his party was so upset about the signing of the Lisbon treaty that it wanted a referendum on getting out of the EU altogether, and Liberal Democrat Members walked out of the House.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in his place, made some apposite points, as did the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), although he was completely wrong. He asked what was wrong with groups of states coming together within the European Union to do something where not all member states are participating, as in the case of the Schengen agreement and many other things. That comes back to my main point, because that was all being done within the framework of a treaty. A completely different treaty is being set up now, but it is one within which member states are still co-operating and operating within the framework of the European Union, using the EU institutions, as we know. It was apparently drawn up by the European legal service, the European Commission has a central role in it, the European Commission is mentioned in the whole of the preamble and throughout every article, and the final decision-making body with arbitration powers over this is the European Court of Justice.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

I will give way to my hon. Friend at the end, if I may, because I need to make one or two other points before then.

I would respectfully draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that although we are rightly not a part of this treaty, it brings about some fundamental innovations in decision making among EU member states. In particular, I refer to articles 7 and 8. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone rightly referred to the coercive powers being taken by the European Union, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider just how coercive those powers are and to try to ensure that they are never brought to bear against this country. No pressure should be put on us to submit.

There is a body of opinion in the EU that wants to make this country submit to the EU deficit procedure and we have, unfortunately, entered into some commitments on that. We must keep out of those commitments because they run completely counter to the principles of democracy both in the individual member states and in the EU. Under article 7—let us remember that this is not an EU treaty and is outside the EU—when the Commission is of the opinion that a country is in breach of the deficit procedure, it brings the matter before the other member states and unless there is a qualified majority vote against taking the decision that the commission wants to take, the matter must be treated as a breach and the offending country will be hauled before the European Court of Justice. This is a very significant procedural development.

We are familiar with how we used to have a veto in European Union matters. It goes back to 1975 and we were promised when we joined the European Union that we would always have a veto. That was eroded and we agreed to abide by the qualified majority vote for more and more things, particularly in the single market, but at least it was a qualified majority vote and a qualified majority of states had to be in favour of a measure before it could take effect and legally bind this country. Under the new EU method of decision making, the Commission gets its way unless there is a qualified majority vote against what it wants to do. There could be a clear but simple majority of EU member states against the Commission’s finding a member state in breach, but it will still legally be necessary for the country to be considered to be in breach and hauled before the European Court of Justice even though a majority of EU states were against that course of action, and despite what individual electors in the countries concerned might want. There could scarcely be anything more coercive than that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone is right to ring the alarm bells. This is a new procedure—it is very new—and it is taking EU integration to a completely different level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I do not honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman, who has sat all through this debate, could possibly not understand what the veto is about. The Prime Minister quite clearly vetoed the treaty so it could not be an EU treaty. That is what happened. That is why the British people were 100% behind the Prime Minister and why coalition Members—or at least the Conservative coalition Members—were wholly supportive of him. He had a better reception for that veto than for any other of the very good things he has done as Prime Minister.

The next issue is whether the treaty will work. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not in his place, but he made a very good point when he said that there were two ways of looking at this matter. One was that we could create this European political and economic union dominated by Germany and that the euro would work. I do not think there is any chance of that system working and it would actually result in the greatest political unrest in Europe since the second world war.

[Bob Stewart]

It looks to me very much as if we would have a centralised economy commanded by Germany. If there were any chance of it working, it would be brought down by the fact that the people of Europe—the people most affected by it—would reject it. There would be a total rebellion by the people of those countries.

[Mr Bone]

It is very appropriate that my hon. Friend in particular made that point. What we would see is extreme nationalism. We would have extreme nationalists saying, “This is the fourth reich,” and all that that would mean. I am talking not just about little political demonstrations on squares outside Parliaments; it would overturn democratically elected Governments. That is why the solution that the hon. Member for Rhondda suggested would not work.

The solution to this problem is to allow countries to leave the euro in an orderly way. Greece, Spain and Portugal at least would come out of it and would then be able to do what every other country has done in the past when it has had an economic problem—devalue its currency and set its own interest rates. There would then be some hope for growth in the future. The idea that we will permanently have regions of Europe that will always be depressed and have the most horrible austerity funded by German taxpayers is beyond belief. I have a feeling that the good and the great of Europe have a policy at the moment of hoping that something will turn up. It is like borrowing more and more on one’s credit card hoping that one’s Euro lottery ticket will come up. It will never come up. What they have to do is deal with the problem now. That will not be pain-free but it will result in a Europe that will begin to grow again. That would be not only in our interests but in the interests of other individual countries.

Probably the main point I want to address is whether we as a nation are being a good Samaritan. It seems to me that we are not, although we see the problem. We did not go into the euro because we always thought that we could not put different countries with different political structures into one economic area with one interest rate and one currency and expect it to work. We said that was wrong, and that has proved to be the case. What we are doing at the moment—this is where the good Samaritan point comes in—is walking by on the other side of the road. We can see what has happened and that something is seriously wrong—that someone is seriously sick—but are we prepared to risk being unpopular and say something about it? If we were a real friend and a real good Samaritan we would say, “You’ve got this wrong and the way to fix it is not to carry on but to stop, think of the problem and solve it by having an orderly reduction in euroland.” That is where we are letting down not only ourselves but other countries in Europe. I urge the Minister not to walk by on the other side of the road but to be a good Samaritan.

Iran

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

At the outset, may I declare that I co-chair the all-party group on Iran with the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and that I have held that position for the past six years?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this timely debate, because it is important that the House move to more discussion of Iran. From what I have heard so far, the debate has been very good, and I have certainly enjoyed the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), whose speech was extremely good and clear about where we are trying to go and the problems we face, and the right hon. Member for Blackburn. I also congratulate the Foreign Secretary on making it clear that the Government are not advocating force or even calling for force to deal with this problem. One of the problems I have with the motion is that although I do not think military action is the correct way forward, given the current position in Iran, I also do not believe that we should ever tie a Government—I do not believe in the principle of ruling something out of such a policy. We have to examine events as they come and see what develops.

I am not going to argue the point about the International Atomic Energy Agency and whether Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. It might be more suitable to have this debate after the inspection is completed and we see the reports from the recent access in Iran. What worries me is what happens after this stage. In the six years that I have done this job in the all-party group, I have never met an official in the United States Government, in the Foreign Office or in the Israeli Government who privately has not said to me, “If Iran thinks it wants a bomb and is really determined to have one, it will get it.”

I have also yet to find many officials who say that they think sanctions will work in the long term to prevent Iran from getting what it has desired not for five or 10 years, but since 1968. In fact, the Americans helped the Shah to build the reactor in Iran; General Electric was involved in that. It has been a long-standing ambition of Iran to possess nuclear power for energy and, I suspect, for nuclear weapons to add to its view that it is a superpower not only in the region, but in the world. It did not launch a tortoise and an insect up into space a few years ago just for fun; it did so to show that it, too, could enter the space race. Unfortunately, Iran was entering that race about 40 years too late, but that was very much about the psyche of Iran and Iran saying, “We, too, can do it. We, too, can be a superpower.”

We have to ask ourselves the question: what happens if Iran produces a bomb? Both Pakistan and India produced a bomb, as did North Korea, in isolation. If Iran does produce a bomb or gets close to doing so, we must ask ourselves what the plan B is and what we are to do. That is where the question for the United Kingdom becomes separate from the question for Israel and the United States. The question for Britain and Her Majesty’s Government is: is it in Britain’s interest to take military action? I know what is in Israel’s national interest, and I defend Israel’s taking that action to defend itself, but that is not the same as what is in Britain’s national interest. The challenge for the policy makers and for the Government will be to prove to this House and to my constituents why taking some form of military action, most likely outside the United Nations and perhaps in support of only one or two other countries—Israel and the United States—is in the interests of my constituents and in the interest of the national security of Britain. That is a much further jump to make.

We need to point out differences between Iraq and Iran. Until recently, Iran certainly ruled by consent—we did not like it and we did not choose the policies, but it ruled by consent. Saddam Hussein never ruled by consent and was a military dictator in the region, and although we should rightly be concerned about Iran’s moving—it is more than drifting—towards being a totalitarian state, we must remember that there are differences.

We must also remember how things appear from an Iranian point of view. If you are an Iranian, your neighbourhood is not very nice; Saudi Arabia is ideologically opposed to the Shi’a sect and thinks that you are heretics. I come from and live in Lancashire, where in the 17th century puritans and Catholics were hammering each other, and the view is the same in this region. Pakistan developed a nuclear weapon and was rewarded with a seat at the top table. That part of the world is unstable, and the arms race has already started; Israel possesses a nuclear weapon and it refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iranians will feel that there is an inconsistency in the west’s position. A number of resolutions, both at the IAEA and the UN, have asked Israel to sign up to that treaty, but it is has consistently refused to do so. That consistency is where we have to start.

We could also try to redouble our efforts on other measures. I congratulate the Foreign Office on the investment that has been made in the past few years to try to double our presence around the world, or to increase it in many embassies. However, we have to know our opponent when we are dealing with Iran. It is full of a separation of powers and full of personalities, because that is how the politics is decided there. The right hon. Member for Blackburn knew that when he tried that communication.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions differences within Iran, and there are huge differences of opinion with Ahmadinejad; hundreds were killed after he was elected, five people were hanged last night in Tehran and the middle classes are against him. We may well find in the next few months or years that he cannot stay in power and is replaced. Let us just hope that that happens and sense comes from the people of Iran, because I am not sure that we can do very much from the outside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for any mix-up that may have occurred.

There are two people to whom the House ought to be grateful including, first, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I attended the Backbench Business Committee with him to push for this debate. I made it clear that I did not agree with the motion he had drafted, but that it was important that it should be tabled. He has come to the Chamber to express an unpopular point of view. Long may people do so, because challenging the consensus in the House, as elsewhere, is enormously important. He has done so tonight to good effect, although I disagree with the motion and will not vote for it. I will vote for the amendment tabled by the other Member who has made a particularly important contribution tonight: the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).

We ought to be grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I have the greatest respect for his knowledge and experience, and for a Member with such knowledge and experience to reveal that he believes that an American military intervention in Iran would have temporary, limited consequences is of great value. It reveals—and he is not alone in this—that there is, both in America and in this country, what can only be described as a war party. That justifies the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay in the first place: the notion that America could intervene militarily in yet another Muslim country with only limited, temporary consequences is believed, but it is complete and utter nonsense.

The consequences of an American military intervention, let alone an Israeli intervention, in Iran would be profound and long-lasting, as has been said by many other Members, and it should be avoided. That is not to say that we should take the option of military intervention off the table. We are dealing with a police state. Iran is a proud country with a rich culture, a strong middle class and a young population, but they have been repressed by a bunch of paranoids. Yes, those people put a religious connotation on that, but we are dealing with a police state. History surely teaches us that we do not deal effectively with a police state by telling it before we even talk to it that, in the final analysis, if all else has failed, we will do nothing about it.

Let us be equally wary of the people we are dealing with who are repressing the people of Iran, and of the war party, which is happy, whether it does it in the tones of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington or in the more belligerent tones of some American politicians who are pushing us towards an end that we are all—one would hope that people in Iran wish this too—desperate to avoid. Let us voice our desperation at the same time as our determination to find a reasonable solution that suits the Iranian people as well as peace in the region and peace in the world. That is enormously important.

[Bob Stewart]

We are already doing as much diplomatically as we can, but we have to put as much effort as we can into encouraging the growth of democracy and encouraging those people who are against the Iranian Government so that somehow they have the courage and support from outside to break out and get rid of the hoodlums who are running the country and causing so much chaos throughout the world.

[Mr Ainsworth]

That is exactly the point that I want to come on to: the limitations of soft power on its own when dealing with a regime such as Iran.

There are two issues that I want to raise: first, satellite communications to the people of Iran have been jammed locally, with possible health consequences because of the powerful jamming equipment that is used, and they have been jammed at source as well. We are effectively doing nothing about that. The victims have been punished, but not the perpetrators. The Iranian regime has jammed those signals, but when Eutelsat and other providers raised that with the Iranians, they were told, “Oh, dreadfully sorry, there’s not a lot we can do about it.” Then we wind up the BBC Persian service, with Farsi1, Asia News Network and Voice of America being taken off those satellite platforms, which would effectively be shut down if that did not happen. We are depriving the Iranian population of access to international opinion. We are allowing those stations to be closed, rather than taking effective legal, international action against the regime, which prevents its own people from listening to world opinion. We have to do something about that. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is on the Treasury Bench, to take effective action within the European Union and within the international forum of the United Nations to prevent such activity to the maximum extent possible.

There is one other area in which we can help. Increasing numbers of diplomats and others are defecting from Iran. “Defecting” is a cold war word that has almost slipped out of our vocabulary, but there are people who are so contemptuous of what they are being asked to do by the Iranian regime that they are walking away from their jobs and defecting. We are not making them as welcome as we should and thereby encouraging others to do the same. We are not allowing them access. We are not giving them visas or platforms to tell us what is going on within the system to the extent that we should do in order to expose the iniquities of the regime.

I appeal to the Government to consider how those defectors can be encouraged. Yes, I know there is a political imperative to deal with the immigration regime, but let us look at visas for that category of people so that we can be educated about what they are being asked to do that is against the interests of their own people. Those are two areas of soft power that we ought to make work.

Although I do not support everything he said tonight, I totally support the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and the tone and content of the speech from the Foreign Secretary. That is absolutely the right policy, which we must stick to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I will give way in a moment.

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

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

[Bob Stewart]

Military action would be extremely difficult. There are at least 10 different nuclear sites in Iran, and trying to obliterate them would be almost impossible for Israel alone, so military action by Israel alone is probably very unlikely or, at the very least, unwise.

[Mike Gapes]

I agree, and that allows me to move on to what I think is actually happening.

Somebody once said that war was diplomacy by other means, but we have a third way, which is Stuxnet, targeted assassinations and unexplained events. I am not sure whether we can attribute blame or responsibility in any particular direction, but it is quite clear that over recent months and years various things have happened to aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, and events have occurred which might indicate that, without having a war, attempts are being made to delay the nuclear programme, the development of centrifuges and other things.

If the Iranian regime is really determined to get nuclear weapons, and I fear that elements of it are, it will do so at whatever cost, but others in Iran, including some in the regime, recognise that there are benefits to be gained not by acquiring nuclear weapons but by saying, “We are a proud country and we want to be noticed, so we will give the impression that we are moving in that direction so that people notice us, states in the Gulf region become fearful of us and the rest of the world says, ‘Iran is a country that matters.’”

The Foreign Affairs Committee went to Iran in 2007. Mention has been made of its chief nuclear negotiator, Mr Jalili. I was involved in an hour-long exchange with him in a meeting. It was a fascinating exchange, because he started off by explaining that having a nuclear weapon was un-Islamic and forbidden. We went on to have a long discussion about the additional protocol, the non-proliferation treaty and various issues to do with the IAEA. I came away realising that he was very intelligent and calculating. He must be a tough person to negotiate with. I was not involved in real negotiations. Speaking with me was like practice for him before he dealt with the Ministers. It was apparent that Iran is clear in the way that it uses the arguments.

I suspect, as the Foreign Affairs Committee said in 2007, that Iran will at some point get to breakout capability. However, as was said earlier, that does not necessarily mean that it will have a nuclear weapon. It will have the capability to get a nuclear weapon quickly when it gets to that technological position. However, it might choose not to go that far, but to have just the potential, because that will make people notice it. Iran is a country that wants to be noticed.

The tragedy is that Iran has a young, dynamic population that wants to engage with the rest of the world. Anybody who has been to Iran knows that. People come up to visitors in the street and talk to them openly. They criticise their Government openly in a way that does not happen in all other countries in the region; and yet, at the same time, Iran has a theocratic regime at its cap. I do not think that it matters who succeeds Ahmadinejad, because he is not the power in Iran. The power is Ayatollah Khamenei, who is the supreme leader. It is he who rejected the approach from President Obama. It is he who determines where the political process goes, including who can run as a candidate and who can stand for election. Iran has a quasi-pluralistic and quasi-democratic system, but with a theocratic cap. Somehow or other, that system will have to change. Revolutions run out of steam. At some point, the voice of the Iranian people will come through. We have to be clever and not undermine that in the way that we handle this crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Mercer]

I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. However, the words still sit uneasily with me. I do not believe that we are in the business of tinkering with world peace.

I found Defence questions earlier today very depressing. The right hon. Member for Belfast North said in this debate that this situation is the biggest threat to world peace. We are already involved in a regional war in this area. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made so very clear, the country that we are talking about borders Afghanistan, and the regional war stretches through Afghanistan, into Pakistan and touches nuclear-tipped Russia at one end and the potentially nuclear-tipped Iran at the other. We cannot afford any ill-judged military action.

I do not want to sound like a stuck record and to go through all the points that have been made about Iran’s hideous rhetoric; the fact that she may be working on a weapons programme: the fact that, as we speak, she has troops involved in an exercise in southern Iran, called in support of the military leadership; the fact that she is threatening to close the strait of Hormuz; and so on. However, I will say this. When I visited Tehran, some interesting things came to mind. For instance, until I was taken down the boulevard of Bobby Sands—there is a boulevard of that name in the centre of Tehran—I had not realised that Great Britain, and Iran’s relationship with Great Britain, had such high relevance in Iranian and Persian thinking. I had not realised that Great Britain punched above its weight in Iranian thinking. I had not realised that Iran saw Britain as perfidious Albion—I am generalising hugely, of course.

Much of the west’s foreign policy is seen, obviously wrongly, as being dictated by ourselves as a tiny but important nation. I had not realised that a Tehranian might say, “Heavens above, it’s raining again. It’s typical British weather.” All the ills of the world seem to be laid at this country’s door. That puts us in an extremely important position in negotiating with Iran. Many of the Foreign Secretary’s comments therefore give me heart.

When I was in Iran, the Iranians said to us, “Are you honestly suggesting that we support al-Qaeda? Please demonstrate.” Of course, we said, “Well, we have the evidence.” “Do you?” “No, we only have circumstantial evidence.” Of course, we are used to hearing misinformation and black propaganda—we need look no further than our intervention in Iraq under the last Government, in the second Gulf war. In Iran, we said, for instance, “We have heard that the central shura of al-Qaeda is resident here in Tehran”. The reply was, “Please point it out, because it is not. There is no evidence to suggest that that is the case.”

Similarly, we asked British troops in Afghanistan whether they could demonstrate whether any of the weapons being used against them had come from Iran. The answer was yes, but there were also weapons that had come from France, the USA, Germany and Britain herself. There was nothing to indicate a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iran, despite everything that we were hearing from the western press.

Here is the rub: the single most important thing I heard in Iran was that the current generation of leaders there fully understand what it is like to be involved in a war of national survival. Many of the individuals who are now of political maturity were young men of military age during the Iran-Iraq war. One Member—forgive me, I cannot remember which—said earlier that nuclear weapons had only ever been used once. That is true, but let us not forget that in the Iran-Iraq war, when hundreds of thousands of men were killed in action and millions of people died, weapons of mass destruction were used willingly.

[Bob Stewart]

I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that that war was started by Iraq and, to the best of my knowledge, Iran has not started a war.

[Patrick Mercer]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend and entirely agree. My point is that many of the current generation of decision makers, if that is the right phrase in Iran—we cannot look at them as one cohesive political body—have experienced war at first hand. They understand what weapons of mass destruction are like, and my opinion is that if they are allowed to get hold of such weaponry, they will probably use it.

That puts us in an exceedingly difficult position on the one hand and an exceedingly powerful position on the other hand. I say to the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary that if we want our military position to be credible, let us make it so. Let us not have instances, such as we had in the past, of the Royal Navy being embarrassed in the Gulf. Let us ensure that our operations are above reproach. We cannot be anything less than credible.

In the current white-hot and dangerous situation, we have the opportunity to negotiate. When it comes down to it, no side really wants to fight. Let us therefore take the opportunity for Great Britain to prove that she is not perfidious, and to speak to her friends in Israel and America and lead the way. We can use our influence, to use an awful aphorism, to punch above our weight. Although we have the military option, let us pray that we never, ever have to use it.

Afghanistan

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is assiduous in pointing out the malign influence of Iran on its neighbours in several directions. We are concerned about that in Syria at the moment, but it also applies to Afghanistan. There have been clear incidents of practical Iranian support for insurgent activity. We absolutely deplore that. Afghanistan will succeed most effectively if it is free of such influence. We have made that point to the Government of Afghanistan.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Withdrawal in contact with an enemy is most difficult and delicate, and must be extremely well planned. I am mindful that when we went into Helmand in 2006, we had difficulties and stirred up a hornets’ nest. It is possible that the same will happen as we withdraw. I ask the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary to ensure that the generals who are planning our withdrawal are meticulous about the withdrawal plan, so that we minimise the casualties. I hope that there will be none.

[Mr Hague]

Of course my hon. Friend is quite right, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, myself and the whole National Security Council will certainly be very conscious of that. Of course, in this case it is not the withdrawal of all forces that is ensuring that there is space for political and economic development in Afghanistan, since the Afghan national security forces are being built up all the time. That is different from a complete withdrawal, but of course we will be very conscious of his point.

The upside of saying that we will have come to a certain point by 2014 is that it concentrates the minds of all others concerned. Our experience is that when we say to the Afghans that they will take security responsibility in a particular town or province on such a date, it is a forcing mechanism to encourage them to organise themselves to take that responsibility. We have to ensure that it has the same beneficial effect across the country.

Somalia

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The United Kingdom is very active on the provision of increased prison places in the country and the region. The Department for International Development is helping to fund the construction of three prisons; in fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has been to see the construction of one of them, so we are involved in that.

My hon. Friend is right about the fishing issue. The Minister for Africa—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham)—and I have been engaged in encouraging the transitional federal Government in Mogadishu to claim their exclusive economic zone, and we will encourage their successors do the same, because that will give them the necessary rights to the waters off Somalia. They will, of course, then need a coastguard, naval and maritime capability of some kind to enforce those rights, but, as I mentioned earlier, that is one of the issues we also want to address. These things are therefore part of the longer-term solution to piracy, and my hon. Friend is quite right to ask about them.

I was just listing some of the aims of our conference. We intend to make it harder for terrorists to operate in and out of Somalia. We hope the conference will agree the areas we need to develop to disrupt terrorism across the region, including stopping the movement of terrorists to and from Somalia, disrupting the flow of their finances and supporting the Somali criminal justice sector so that it can detain and prosecute terrorists in a human rights-compliant manner.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

There are disturbing reports that about 50 British nationals are involved with al-Shabaab. Has my right hon. Friend heard such reports, and are they justified?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, they are justified. It would, of course, be difficult to put a precise number on these things, but we are concerned about foreign fighters, in general, going to Somalia, and there is certainly evidence that they include British fighters. Wherever that occurs, and wherever we are aware of it, we work in various ways with the authorities in the region, including in neighbouring countries, and with the emerging authorities in Somalia to try to contain that threat. That is why the defeat of terrorism in the area is an important national objective for the United Kingdom.

On the humanitarian front, the conference provides an opportunity to highlight the need for donors to continue to respond generously and on the basis of needs, to invest more in livelihoods and basic social services, to increase the resilience of households in Somalia to future economic shocks and to help reduce the likelihood of future famines.

We want London to be the start, not the end, of a new process—the process I have described. We want the conference to agree on how we handle Somali issues in future, on a revitalised international contact group, on UN and African leadership and on more countries deploying diplomats and staff into Somalia, not just basing themselves in Kenya, as many, including ourselves, have had to do in recent years. Those are all practical but meaningful steps that will have an impact on the ground.

We hope to emerge from the London conference with a stronger common understanding of the way forward and a renewed political commitment for the long haul. Beyond the conference itself, we will continue to be an active member of international groups on Somalia, including the international contact group on Somalia and the contact group on piracy off the coast of Somalia, and we will maintain our strong bilateral engagement.

Through the Department for International Development, Britain is providing substantial development support over the next four years, working on longer-term programmes to address the underlying causes of poverty and conflict and helping Somalis to take control of their lives and rebuild their communities and livelihoods. That involves working with local and regional governments in areas such as Puntland, which the Development Secretary visited last month, where we will help build democratic institutions that can respond to the needs of their citizens, help the police and justice systems work so that people can feel more secure, and increase access to health care, education and jobs, which are absolutely critical to Somalis and to breaking the cycle of piracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I am glad to say that those characteristics are reflected in the Somali community in Cardiff. One of the problems of that community, however, is that it is invisible. In recent years, we have organised an event to celebrate Somalis who have achieved some success, such as gaining a PhD in chemistry or developing a proficiency in art or sport, in order to encourage and motivate young people. I am certain that such skills exist even in the most disastrous parts of Somalia, and will be evident if they can only be nurtured and developed through proper institutions and a degree of stability that is absent at the moment, particularly in the south-central part of the country.

[Bob Stewart]

My wife started a camp in South Sudan, which by 1991-92 contained 100,000 people. While I was preparing for this debate, she warned, “Remember when you start these big camps that they become a focus for people to come to, and they cannot really sustain that number of people.” We should bear her words in mind when we are considering humanitarian problems. When she was setting up that huge camp she suddenly realised, once she was on the ground, that trying to ensure that the surrounding area could sustain so many people in the long term would involve huge problems—and we have to look at the long term. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking along those lines as well.

[Alun Michael]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and again it is interesting to observe the contrast between the north and the south. After the end of what was known as the hidden war in the north, there were very large refugee camps. Some were over the border in Ethiopia, some were in parts of Somalia, and some were further south in Kenya. In the north that situation is history, because of the development of democratic institutions and stability. Those things are closely interrelated.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that giving humanitarian aid cannot in itself create a sustainable situation for the long term. One of the main issues raised with me by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross was the problem of providing humanitarian aid at a time when al-Shabaab is preventing it from being delivered, as well as preventing free communications and preventing people from living where they want to live. That must be tackled.

A problem highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) was the failure of the transitional federal Government. It is very transitional, it is not very federal, and it is not really a Government; otherwise it is fine. I do not say that in a spirit of negativity, because I think we all want it to succeed. We want the individuals there to make something of their Government. However, it would be foolish not to recognise that the necessary change has not happened. Somalia does not have a Parliament, although some people have been nominated as parliamentarians. For that reason we, as parliamentarians here, have very little capacity to help directly.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the United Kingdom did give assistance to a group of Members who visited Somaliland a few years ago, and has welcomed parliamentarians and clerks to the UK to learn more so that they can develop the institutions that they have in Somaliland. It is, of course, as much in the interests of Somalilanders as in anyone else’s interests that there should be an effective Government in the south. It is not a good thing to have instability in the general neighbourhood. I hope that the Foreign Secretary’s initiative will succeed, and that the CPA and the Inter-Parliamentary Union will be able to work with elected representatives in the future. I applaud the fact that the IPU, of whose UK branch executive I am a member, plans to visit Somaliland in the coming year, and indeed hopes to visit both parts of Somalia.

Piracy has changed in that, at one stage, it was a substitute for fishing and other ways of earning an income; it is clear that it has become far more organised. Interestingly, many of those arrested came from the south-west of Somalia, rather than from the coastal regions, which rather encourages that view. That issue certainly needs to be tackled in breaking down and undermining the infrastructure of illegal activity within Somalia.

I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Mogadishu a few days ago and his appointing an ambassador to that country. That signals confidence that progress can be made, and confidence is enormously important, given that for 21 years there has been none in that regard. The appointment did raise a frisson of concern in Somaliland, which thought that in some ways this might symbolise a belief on the British Government’s part that diplomatic channels should be concentrated through that avenue. I was grateful to the Minister for his Department’s confirming that the arrangements for Somaliland will continue to be made through the deputy ambassador to Ethiopia, who has specific responsibility for relations with Somaliland.

I also welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s acknowledging, following my earlier intervention, that the situation in Somaliland is different. I understand the reasons for his policy of not formally recognising Somaliland as a separate country. The last Labour Government looked at this issue on a number of occasions, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, as Foreign Secretary, took the same view not because he lacked sympathy for Somaliland or did not respect the wishes of its population, but because, if recognition is to come, it must start in Africa and come from Somaliland’s neighbours, rather than from a former colonial power.

The Foreign Secretary was of course right to put the main emphasis on tackling the disastrous state of affairs in the south-central regions of the former Somalia, because that is where the threats lie to the local people—for whom the situation is truly disastrous—and to the international community. Again, that situation has been underlined by the International Committee of the Red Cross. However, it is understandable that people in Somaliland feel they are being ignored. The newspapers and the media in general cover the problems; it is not a headline to say that a country is living at peace and nothing excessively exciting is happening.

However, I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary underlined that distinction. Such a distinction could be made on the Foreign Office’s website without compromising the Government’s position—for instance, by indicating that security is greater, or that the dangers are less, in Somaliland than in the south. It would be like making the distinction that London was not subjected to regular violent incidents when such things were taking place in Belfast. We got pretty annoyed when, on occasion, some Americans did not make that distinction. The Indian Government certainly got irritated when, after the bombings in Mumbai, the problems were treated as if they were the same right across that very large country.

The Foreign Secretary’s emphasis is right, but I make no apology for wanting to say a few things about the situation in Somaliland in particular. I summed it up a few years ago by saying that

“Somaliland has not been recognised—but it has become respected—as a beacon of democracy.”

That remains true, and in fact those words have been used by the Prime Minister. Following the elections in Somaliland, I asked the Prime Minister his views on 7 July 2010. In effect, he said that Somaliland has earned respect through elections. A transfer of power had taken place from the outgoing President to President Silanyo, after a fairly narrow election victory. The new Government took a mature view, saying that they wanted to be recognised but their top priority was meeting the needs of their people. Engaging with the international community, trying to work with neighbours on things such as economic development, and seeking the development of parliamentary institutions, education and health were even more of a priority than recognition, which they prize greatly.

It is worth while highlighting the history. In 1960, the former British Somaliland gained its independence and shortly after joined the former Italian Somaliland to form Somalia. The early hopes had been that Djibouti, the former French Somaliland, would join to create a single Somali nation, but that did not happen. Sadly, the rule of President Siad Barre became increasingly oppressive towards the north, leading to the emergence of the opposition Somali National Movement, which became increasingly successful in the late 1980s. The fighting mainly took place in the north and there was little international coverage of it, but the coverage increased as the civil war progressed and affected Mogadishu, where most of the diplomats and foreign correspondents were based. Thus, as has happened so often in the past, the concentration in the international diplomatic and media spotlight was on events in the south. As the civil war progressed, the south descended into instability, with increasingly vicious conflict between various war lords. We all know how unsuccessful the international attempts were to intervene and support the development of proper government in the south.

In the north, without any great help from the international community, Somaliland has developed over the past 21 years to have local government elections, parliamentary elections and presidential elections. They are not perfect but, given that it is a country without international recognition, they are certainly remarkable. The creation of an independent electoral commission, which played a considerable part in leading to the presidential elections, was very important, as was the support that we have given in trying to work with the Somalilanders, Parliament to Parliament.

It is also worth remembering the history because there have been Somali communities in the UK for more than 150 years, and Somalis have made a particular contribution to the merchant navy, the Army and the Royal Navy, and to our traditional industries. The roots of my constituency’s Somali community are in the north and sentiment is strongly in support of Somaliland; there is increasing strength in the plea to Britain and to the international community to recognise Somaliland. That requires a process, as I think it is in the “too difficult” box for the African Union and for individual African countries, many of which fear precedent. The precedent of having a democracy for 21 years without recognition would be a pretty high hurdle for anyone else to imitate, but those fears nevertheless exist.

Recognition requires a process that will allow the people of Somaliland to say whether they wish to continue to assert, as they do now, their right to independence or whether they wish to enter into a loose confederation or some other arrangement. This should be for Somalis to decide and I simply plead that we continue to recognise—perhaps I should say “acknowledge”, given that “recognition” is so difficult—the success of Somaliland in maintaining a democracy over a period of time. I wish to make one point about this, which is that they have the legal right to independence. There is nowhere they can assert it, because that is not the way things work in international diplomacy, but as this country was once independent, however brief the period before it entered into coalition with the former Italian Somaliland in the south to create Somalia, international law and precedent gives them the right to assert it.

We need to create the environment in which Somalis can talk to Somalis in an atmosphere of mutual respect, but part of the responsibility of the international community, and of Britain in particular, is to insist that there must be no assumption that the development of a successful Government in the south would give that Government automatic rights over the north. That should not be the case. It should be a question of a process—a proper discussion—and of the right of Somalilanders to determine their own future.

In the meantime, the Government of Somaliland chose not to spend all their time arguing about constitutional issues, but to look to development. I want to make two points. The first is about the encouraging fact that President Silanyo has taken the unprecedented step, which I welcome, of deciding to attend the conference in London. I believe that the Minister for Africa’s willingness to engage directly in understanding the sensitivities has played a great part in making that happen. It would have been unthinkable to have had this conference and for it to have been successful without having Somaliland at the table, but the process has been difficult and risky. Somaliland was left out of the Djibouti process and felt unable to join international processes that would have given it a seat only on the assumption that it came under the aegis of the Government in Mogadishu, so agreeing to be at the table involves considerable risks for the President. It is a tribute to his leadership that he has agreed to do so and that he has involved the two opposition parties, as well as his own, in saying that it is the right thing to do. That in itself demonstrates a strong willingness to co-operate in seeking a solution to the instability in the horn of Africa. It is also to the credit of the Somaliland Government that they have provided humanitarian aid to the south. Again, that gives one hope for a period of proper engagement. That is important because the Somaliland model of peace building, based on people sitting down and working out what they want in a constitution, contains useful lessons, which I hope will be shared at the conference. Will the Minister assure us that Somaliland will gain respect as a result of that?

Will the Minister give comfort to President Silanyo and those who have supported him in his difficult decision by agreeing that the conference communiqué should contain explicit references to Somaliland that welcome his participation; note Somaliland’s achievements in building peace and democracy; draw attention to the relevance of the Somaliland experience to the problem of securing peace in Somalia; note the assistance through humanitarian aid that I have mentioned; thank it for its co-operation in the fight against terrorism and piracy; and encourage Somaliland’s wider economic interaction?

My second point is that I know that the Minister has already welcomed one initiative, namely the establishment of the Somaliland Development Corporation. It is being established because of the lack of recognition that makes involvement in international trade and business difficult. It will be launched on 22 February, the day before the conference, which Ministers will host. The point of the corporation is to facilitate international investment in Somaliland and economic interaction for the benefit of the Somaliland people. As an unrecognised state, it is isolated. Despite its extraordinary achievements in stability and democracy, international donors cannot deal directly with its Government, and foreign investors face uncertainty about whether contracts—the basis of secure business—can be enforced. The point of the corporation is to establish an entity to circumvent that problem. Indeed, I hope that it might lead the Foreign Office, through our trade arrangements, to be able to underpin some of the potential for business development and trade with Somaliland, which is difficult at present.

The development corporation will deal with donors such as Governments, aid agencies and international financial institutions; individuals, including enhancing the contribution that is made by many members of the Somaliland diaspora, as the Foreign Secretary rightly said; philanthropists and foundations; and foreign companies that wish to invest for profit. The founding directors are co-operating with the Crown Agents on the provision of banking services, and the intention is to develop a business plan with aims and objectives in the short, medium and longer term that will be available on the corporation’s website. The plan would be influenced by the development priorities of the Somaliland Government, the decisions of the two boards and the Somaliland development corporation trust. The launch on 22 February will show the confidence of the Somaliland Government in engaging with business and economic development as well as being a participant at the table at the conference.

I greatly applaud the Foreign Secretary for initiating the conference. By acknowledging that Somaliland’s participation is a positive way of coming into the international community, I hope that the UK Government’s lead in these matters will be acknowledged in return.

I hope that the Minister will cover some of these points in his response. I return to my initial point and congratulate the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister not just on this initiative but on their personal commitment to making it work. I hope they achieve success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

May I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s initial remarks and say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and so many other well-informed and constructive contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House? This has been the House of Commons at its best, because there is a great deal of cross-party agreement and expertise. I join the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is no longer in his place, in playing tribute to Myles Wickstead, our former ambassador in Addis Ababa, who, as well as taking the hon. Gentleman to Somaliland, has been a great source of advice to me. I am happy to put on the record my gratitude for his expertise.

For decades, it seemed almost as though the international community had given up on Somalia and, by neglect, been prepared to sacrifice its people to an almost endless cycle of war, deprivation and violence. War is often described as development in reverse, and I am afraid that Somalia is possibly the best example of that in the world. It is identified by the UN as having the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. As hon. Members have mentioned, there are nearly 1 million Somali refugees in other countries, 1.5 million internally displaced people there and millions more in crisis and, in many cases, at immediate risk of their lives. We see the whole population’s resilience to natural crises, such as the recent, repeated failed rains, reduced to the point where natural disasters immediately mean an humanitarian disaster, in a way that does not now happen in neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia, where there are grain supplies, reserves and so on, and where the Government are managing the natural crisis. We see humanitarian assistance being blocked by the conflict, and we see the conflict itself causing death, destruction and dislocation—the terrible euphemism of so-called collateral damage—with thousands and thousands having lost their lives as a direct result.

It is absolutely fantastic, therefore, that the British Government have taken such an exceptional lead on Somalia. The Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence should be congratulated on taking the lead and hosting the forthcoming London conference. However, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary should also be congratulated on visiting Mogadishu, which not many international politicians may have done yet, and seizing the opportunity to open an embassy there again, which is a positive step and a sign of confidence in Somalia’s progress; on reflecting in our policy towards Somalia the emerging Government policy on building stability overseas, which is an important reflection of the overarching strategy in our international policy; and on the commitment significantly to increase aid to Somalia over the next four years, which is now set to average £63 million a year.

Labour Members were quite right to point to their record in government on supporting Somalia. It is terrific to see the coalition Government increasing that aid, and trying to increase its impact and effectiveness wherever possible. In particular, it is important that the London conference is going ahead and that we are hosting it. It is a tribute to the diplomatic skills of the FCO that such a broad-based conference has emerged, with 40 Governments, the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, the World Bank, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League attending, as well as representatives from the various territories and Governments in the wider area of Somalia. That is an important step forward in trying to secure co-ordinated international action.

The conference has seven headings. I think it was originally suggested that the conference might focus overwhelmingly on piracy, so I very much welcome the much broader approach that it is now taking to Somalia as a whole, reflecting the fact that piracy is in many respects a symptom of Somalia’s problems, not a cause. Security is there as a heading right at the start. We should pay tribute to the African Union forces, in particular those from Uganda and Burundi who over many years have made extraordinary sacrifices to help to bring security to Mogadishu and the surrounding areas, and to Somalia as a whole, and also now to the Kenyan and Ethiopian troops present in the country. The fact that different foreign military forces are present emphasises the need for a co-ordinated international approach to security and, indeed, the need to support the Somali security and justice sectors.

However, as in many other places in the world, the military solution will never be the ultimate solution to Somalia’s problems. It is therefore absolutely right that the conference will focus on the political process.

[Bob Stewart]

Military solutions are of course not acceptable in isolation, but what we require in this situation is first-class military command and control on the ground in Somalia. That is crucial—perhaps we will even have to give some guidance to African nations that might be involved—but I am quite sure that this is what the Foreign Office has in mind as well.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. AMISOM—the African Union Mission in Somalia—has made genuine efforts to limit civilian damage and the use of certain armaments in built-up areas, for instance, yet there have been criticisms of some of the impacts on civilians and, perhaps, of the application of international humanitarian law. As part of the international co-ordination of the security effort, it is important that AMISOM operates to the very best international standards of peacekeeping and military intervention.

The political process is absolutely critical. The mandate for the current transitional Government expires in August this year, and it is important that we take the opportunity to build on their achievements. I think that my briefing states that this is the 15th attempt to form a Government in Somalia over the past 20 years, but it is one of the most successful such attempts. The Government have established a reasonable degree of control, at least over the capital city and some surrounding areas. It is important not only to build on that success but to take the opportunity to make the next incarnation of Somali government even more inclusive and broad based, and to build a political process.

The conference is also going to discuss local stability, counter-terrorism and, of course, piracy. The Select Committee’s contribution to that debate will be important. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) referred in passing to ransoms. The British Government have taken a clear position on that matter: we are opposed to ransoms, as they feed the pirate economy. It would be good if that was an internationally agreed position that could be properly enforced. We need to take real action to address that source of funds for Somali pirates.

The humanitarian effort is also extremely important. It is most welcome that the Department for International Development is already co-ordinating its efforts with the European Union to reduce duplication and maximise impact. There will be an opportunity to do that more widely, with the United Nations and other representatives who will be present at the conference.

Non-governmental organisations are concerned about the way humanitarian aid is being affected by the conflict in Somalia and, to some extent, by international policies. It is important that the international community draw a distinction between non-political humanitarian assistance and the military and political strategy. NGO staff are endangered when they become associated with the political and military approach, and that can also lead to the delivery of aid becoming a controversial part of the conflict. That inevitably leads to the aid not getting through. The international community needs to draw that distinction and protect that non-political humanitarian space for the delivery of aid. In planning the international approach, and the military approach, it is also important to factor in a respect for human rights and for international humanitarian law.

One topic is not on the conference agenda although I think it should be. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talked about economic development. Aid will always be valuable for a country in humanitarian crisis, but in the end it is economic development that will lift people out of poverty. I will illustrate the problem to the Minister by citing a report that appeared recently in New Scientist. It concerned work by Anja Shortland of Brunel university, who has tracked the economic development of various villages in Somalia using satellite images. She discovered that two villages in particular had made spectacular progress. Tracking such features as electric light, she found that, over the past 10 years or so, those villages had prospered and that the wealth had spread among the community.

Sadly, the reason was that those two villages were closely associated with one of the clans most implicated in piracy. Anja Shortland concluded that piracy had proved quite effective in stimulating economic development in those places, although that is obviously not a statement that any politician could comfortably make. Piracy is clearly illegal, as well as divisive. It helps only one clan, rather than the whole of Somalia, and it undermines the entire peace and political process. Nevertheless, this does set a challenge for our approach to development. We must tackle what makes piracy attractive to clans and warlords. The economic development we deliver must be at least as effective as piracy at spreading prosperity to poor communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to participate in the debate.

I am not going to pretend for one moment that I know an enormous amount about Somalia; the nearest I have been to it was probably when, as a member of the Addis Ababa division of the barmy army, I flew down to South Africa to watch some cricket. Waking up at six o’clock in the morning to the sound of the imam certainly gave the whole place an enormous cultural feeling.

A lot of the issues we are dealing with at the moment, especially in Somalia, are very much a legacy of the cold war. When the cold war came to an end, it was clear that there were no longer two superpowers that could argue the case, so places such as Somalia ended up falling through the cracks a bit.

If the walls of this Chamber were able to talk, they would no doubt tell us that similar debates took place 175 years ago. After the Napoleonic wars, there was a sense that a great deal of piracy was taking place in north Africa, as well as in the Mediterranean.

In 2008, nearly $1 million of trade travelled to the EU through the Gulf of Aden. The UK therefore has a keen interest in making sure that we support and look after our maritime position in the world, and it is important that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government are playing the part they are in leading the great debate on this issue.

Our shipping industry is worth about £10.7 billion to the UK’s GDP. I am told, however, that piracy could cost as much as £12 billion a year. Surprise, surprise, I will be speaking for the Navy in a moment or two, as hon. Members would expect, given that I am the Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which I would claim is one of the Royal Navy’s major homes, although others might disagree.

Some 23,000 ships go through the gulf of Aden each year, and that is a good example of how important it is that we, as a nation, do not become sea blind. I am reminded of the story of a frigate that went into port in Sierra Leone and out again. For six or nine months after it left, the terrorists and people in Sierra Leone who wanted to create lots of trouble were convinced that if they started misbehaving, it would come straight back into the port to make sure they did not have another opportunity to create trouble.

Can hon. Members imagine what it would be like in this country if we no longer had any petrol or any groceries in our food stores? That is why the Royal Navy has a significant part to play and why I want to make sure that Somalia is seen as an international issue, and one that we are looking after.

Last summer, I travelled on one of the Type 23s travelling from Malta to Majorca. I had an opportunity to talk to the crew and to see how they operated. They had just come back from dealing with piracy issues off the coast of Somalia. It was very interesting. The first thing I learned was that all naval ships now have a legal officer on board to make sure that any decisions that are taken are compliant with international law. That is a very different story from the days of Captain Bligh sailing around the south Pacific. He would not have worried about such things. Nevertheless, it shows how much things have moved on.

The crew were concerned that their Royal Marines could not go on land to take out terrorist and piracy camps. I hope that Ministers will consider that point at the welcome Somali conference, although it must be taken forward on a firm United Nations basis when a lot of people are around.

[Bob Stewart]

I was spurred into action by my hon. Friend’s comments about Royal Marines going ashore. As part of our initiative, I think we should plan to put anti-piracy headquarters, protected by Royal Marines, in Somalia, perhaps Mogadishu, so that we can get a grip on piracy along the coast. That is the only way to do it. At the moment, we are fiddling around in the large ocean. We want to get a base onshore and sort it out. If possible, that should be considered at the London conference.

[Oliver Colvile]

In the main, I agree with my hon. Friend, although it is important, if we are to do that kind of thing, that we take with us the people who are in a position to make those decisions. There would be nothing worse than putting troops on the ground, only to find ourselves in a similar position to that in Iraq and other places where we have not been welcomed.

I pay tribute to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines based in my constituency, especially HMS Cornwall and HMS Chatham, both of which were port-based Type 22s that unfortunately have had to go. They did an excellent job and I was incredibly impressed when I had the great opportunity to go to the Mediterranean last year. The other big issue was people’s concern at not having the opportunity to earn a medal like those in Afghanistan and Iraq. I urge the Minister to take that point onboard because they make a significant contribution to protecting this country’s trade routes.

If we are to be in the business of nation building, which potentially we should be, we must give advice to potential new leaders. Our universities could provide opportunities to would-be leaders to learn about international relations and, more important, about creating structures of government, such as the judiciary, policing and governance. That would be an effective way of exporting our knowledge.

This country has a proud—in my opinion—reputation for empire, and we still have structures in many countries. As we all know, Somaliland used to be a British dependency, and in seeking to work with it would it not be wonderful if, in the year of the Queen’s jubilee, Somaliland could be encouraged to rejoin the Commonwealth and thereby continue this great relationship?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my lifetime, Somalia has probably been the biggest and most tragic basket case in the world. It has had severe problems since well before 1991—indeed, I can recall them from when I was a boy living in Aden. However, the 2011 drought, which, as the Foreign Secretary has explained, caused the deaths of between 50,000 and 100,000 people, did, to use a pun, “take the basket”. Half of those who died may have been children, and it is time that we did something about this. Somalia’s government simply is not working and it has not worked at all since 1991. Given those sorts of conditions, it is hardly surprising that piracy flourishes; it flourishes in anarchy. Somalia’s long coast offers the perfect opportunity for attacks on shipping. Of course, shipping is vital to our nation and to many others.

On top of all that, al-Shabaab started to take over Somalia in 2006. Someone born a Somali in Mogadishu must curse. Thankfully, last August, al-Shabaab was ousted from Mogadishu but it is still a huge force in the south. That terrorist organisation imposes very violent rule. As we know and as has been mentioned, it is blocking aid to many starving Somalis. It has unrelenting belligerence, it rejects any possible peaceful political settlement and it is imposing a brutal sharia regime on the people of Somalia. It seems that Somalis are getting very tired of all this and are beginning to turn away from these people, so perhaps opportunity knocks.

With the London conference on 23 February, we must push as hard as we can to try to make a start on sorting this basket case out. The main aim of the conference must, of course, be to try to start on the road to peace and security, and getting some form of decent living standards for Somalis. The situation in Somalia is very difficult, but we must do all we can to help our fellow human beings who are unlucky enough to have been born into it. We are so lucky and they are so unlucky, so let us try to do what we can to help them.

What is really needed in order to help Somalia? What steps shall we try to aim for at the London conference? I see the Minister looking at me and wondering where this is going, so I will do my best to be on message. First, the Security Council resolution we already have does require reinforcing. The international community must show its determination. We already have a chapter VII enforcement action Security Council resolution, but we need the international community to have the courage—I was going to use a different word—to do something about it. We need enforcement action to be taken, in some form or other, to sort out Somalia and we need effective funding for all aspects of that action. I have seen what happens when we have unpaid UN battalions in the field—they flog their petrol and sell their food. There has to be proper funding and the humanitarian operations have to be supported by international action.

A timeline for action is already in place, as the end of the interim Government arrangements are scheduled for August. That gives us five months and, as I know from my own experience, quite a lot can be done in that time. However, quite a lot of that time is needed to sort out a plan. First-class leadership by international organisations and military forces on the ground is of course required. The military forces that go into Somalia must have effective, well-thought-through, practical rules of engagement. The one thing they must not do is back away from a confrontation; they must deal with any confrontation. If they back away once, they will destroy their mandate. We have to be robust about imposing a solution. First-class leadership is required, particularly on the ground, and it must be supported internationally by all Governments.

The initiative also has the continuing problem of piracy. One solution—I am not suggesting it is ideal—might be for the international anti-piracy efforts to be put on the ground in headquarters located in a port in Somalia. That might be considered during the conference, as I said when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile).

What we require most of all at the London conference is what the Germans call a schwerpunkt, which is a Clausewitzian term that I learned in the military. It means a point of concentrated effort, and the point of concentrated effort of the London conference is to make sure that, internationally, we establish determination to sort out the problem of Somalia. That requires everyone to attend with the determination to apply the Security Council resolution to which they have already signed up and to provide the assets, resources and money to help the poor, wretched people in what is, as it stands, a dreadful country. Somalia is not blessed by God, but, my goodness, we must do our very best to try to sort things out for the people who live there and help them.

I wish the Foreign Secretary the very best of luck at the London conference. He will need it. Right now, with al-Shabaab on the back foot, this is probably the best opportunity that the international community has had for a generation to get in and help the people of Somalia. I wish the best of luck to our team at the London conference.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call Laura Sandys and ask that she sit down no later than 5.36 pm.

Syria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

For a long time—for many months—we have said that British nationals should not travel to Syria and that those who are there should leave. Also, some weeks ago, when we reduced the staff of our embassy to the minimum level possible to maintain it, we made it clear that we were below the level at which we could conduct an evacuation of any remaining British nationals. We have made the position abundantly clear, and there should not now be British nationals in Syria. Some people who are dual nationals or are married to people in Syria will of course have remained, and whenever they are in difficult circumstances we will do our best to assist them, but we have made the position starkly clear.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Having sat in the middle of a so-called protected area that was totally unprotected, may I re-emphasise to the House something the Foreign Secretary has said? Any protected area requires the presence of people on the ground with the ability to keep it protected, and if this talk of a protected area continues, we will have to think about how that can be done. At the moment, it certainly cannot be done by the British.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend speaks with deep experience of these matters. Certainly, any future discussion about safe havens or humanitarian corridors must be accompanied by the will, authority and full means to make sure that they truly would be safe and humanitarian, rather than leaving people in a very difficult situation.

Falkland Islands

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank colleagues for attending the debate, given Select Committees and various other activities; I will take interventions.

In 1982, the Falkland Islands war saw the loss of 255 British troops; also lost were 650 Argentine troops and three female islanders. Today is a good day to begin with remembering each and every one whose lives were lost. We remember the families who lost their husbands, the children who lost their fathers and those who were left with severe disabilities because of their wounds. There is no such thing as a good war, and people died in 1982 because politics, Governments and individual people failed them. Our job in this House is to ensure that that does not happen again. I also welcome the efforts made on behalf of the islanders by the various Foreign Office departments to improve the lot of the islanders.

The purpose of the debate is fundamentally fourfold. First, we need to reiterate the House’s united position that the Falkland Islands has our full support in every way. Secondly, I wish to see a self-determination law, confirming that all overseas territories with a settled population have an unambiguous right to remain British. Thirdly, I wish the Minister to update the House on the efforts of our diplomats who are fighting the trade blockade that has been ongoing for some time. Finally, I will attempt a brief analysis of the legitimacy of the Argentine arguments under the various United Nations conventions and the agreements between the countries.

Many would argue that the 1982 conflict happened because a weak Argentine junta decided to try and regain popularity at home. The junta lost the war and power. The underequipped and poorly trained Argentines were clearly men governed by lambs.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Actually, some of the Argentines were not that poorly trained. The Mirage pilots who flew in across San Carlos water and took out our ships were, in everyone’s estimation, not only brave but well trained. The Argentines, therefore, were not entirely poorly trained—some of the marines were not bad either.

[Guy Opperman]

It is a brave man who tells the colonel whether troops were good or indifferent at a particular time, and I bow to my hon. Friend’s greater knowledge.

Thomas Mann, however, was right when he said:

“War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.”

Among the almost 3,000 inhabitants of the Falklands, there is an overwhelming desire to remain a British overseas territory. It is not up to Great Britain to decide on the fate of the Falkland Islanders; it is their own right to decide where their sovereignty lies, and that will not change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in a debate under your stewardship, Mr Crausby. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) for securing this important debate at this critical juncture for the Falkland Islands. I could not reasonably expect to be allowed to set foot back in my Gosport constituency if I did not take part in the debate, because the history of my town is indelibly linked in many ways with that of the Falkland Islands. We have many veterans of the Falklands war. Indeed, I share my constituency office with the indomitable Derek “Smokey” Cole, who runs the Falklands Veterans Foundation and who was responsible in part for raising the money to build Liberty lodge in the Falkland Islands. Even the iconic Gosport ferry is operated by Falkland Islands Holdings. We therefore have a very strong link to the Falklands.

As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war, there should be cause for joy in many ways. The Islanders should be able to celebrate their freedom, safe in the knowledge that their right to self-determination was protected by this country and always will be. The servicemen, many of whom lost so much, should remember the conflict secure in the belief that their sacrifices were not in vain.

This commemoration is marred by disappointment, given that it is taking place in the face of Argentine aggression. The islanders are suffering increased hostility and blocks on trade from neighbouring countries, while Argentina continues to misrepresent the situation on the world stage. I do not intend to recount again the challenges that Britain and the islanders face and that my hon. Friend so eloquently and fully outlined. Instead, I want to underline what I see as the most vital point in today’s debate—the islanders’ right to determine their own future should be absolutely respected by Britain, Argentina and the rest of the international community.

[Bob Stewart]

I intervene at this stage just to make one point. The Falkland Islands are defended by hugely capable royal naval assets at the moment. It is no secret that the Typhoon, one of the best multi-role aircraft in the world, operates from the all-weather airstrip. I will not go into the Army assets deployed. Let us be clear and send a message from this Chamber today—keep your hands off the Falklands; they are British and they will remain British.

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very strong and valid point. A number of us in the Chamber were in the Falklands last year and got to meet many of our brave service personnel who work daily to keep the Falklands safe and independent.

The sacrifices and memories of the war are indelibly marked on the fabric of my constituency. Gosport’s role in the conflict was significant, with a great number of sailors and submariners coming from the town. Indeed, the Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Fieldhouse, is a local boy. The town proudly commemorates that in the Falklands memorial garden.

This year, we will again pay tribute in Gosport to those who served and, in 2005, were honoured with the freedom of the borough. As their Member of Parliament, I feel immense pride for what my constituents sacrificed for people living thousands of miles away from them. They were brought together by their desire to be British. Ultimately, both then and now, the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands want to be British. With not a single islander fighting to renounce its status as a British dependent territory, neither the British nor the Argentines have any right to dictate their fate.

As I have mentioned, I was fortunate enough to witness for myself the powerful connection that the islanders feel with Britain last year, when I visited the Falklands with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a remarkably beautiful place, yet one in which the scars of war are still very apparent. Minefields are still cordoned off. On Mount Tumbledown, where some of the battle took place, there is an Argentine bunker with personal belongings still in it.

Unquestionably, however, the most striking aspect of the trip was the regard in which the Islanders held those British who fought for them. At the memorial site at Bluff cove for the 48 people killed when Royal Fleet Auxiliary Sir Galahad was attacked, I bumped into veterans from HMS Fearless, two of whom were from my constituency. When I got over the shock of meeting so far away from home people who were my neighbours, they told me of the experiences that they had had during their visit to the Falklands. When they had gone to pay in restaurants, their bills were waived. When they had gone to hand over their fare in a taxi, the taxi driver had said, “No charge.” Everywhere they went, the ongoing gratitude of the Islanders 30 years later for their role in securing freedom was indelibly marked in every aspect of what they did.

It is that freedom that we are again called upon to safeguard today. I reiterate the desire expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to see the House united in full support of the islanders and I urge the Minister to commit to a self-determination law confirming the right of all our overseas territories to remain British for as long as they want to.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I want to thank my room mate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for this important debate. As I take every opportunity to say, I like to think I taught him everything he knows.

Many of today’s speeches have been poignant to me. I want to convey a feeling of what it was like in 1982, when I was 15—nearly 16—years old. My father, Captain Alan Lewis Morris, who retired many years ago, was then the age I am now. He was in the reserves and was due to command a minesweeper that was stationed in Liverpool, out to the Falkland Islands. As it happened, it was his 25th wedding anniversary year, and he had already booked a cruise on the Queen Elizabeth 2; we all know what happened there. As a young man at that time, watching what was happening on television, with both excitement and apprehension at what was unfolding before my eyes, I had a bit of a moral and patriotic insight, which was part of my wanting to be here in the House of Commons today. My father never went in the end, because the day he was called up was the day the conflict ended. However, I remember wondering whether, if he went away, he would come back. The conflict was very hard on both sides. The fact that we travelled to the other side of the world and fought off an aggressor on a small outpost speaks volumes about the spirit of the British people.

[Bob Stewart]

Such action also speaks volumes for the spirit and the quality of our armed forces who always multiply up their small numbers when they go into combat. In Afghanistan, their morale is outstanding despite what is happening out there. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) outlined the situation in his admirable plea for more money for defence. If necessary, our forces will fight a superior force and retake the Falklands, because of the quality of the people that we have in our armed forces.

[David Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for that eloquent and powerful statement. I agree with everything that he says.

Thirty years on, the Falklands Islands is still, quite rightly, being protected by British troops. It is regrettable that the US State Department referred to the Falklands as the Malvinas. Coming from a shipping family, I was enlightened to learn that racketeering in world trade is still going on against Britain in that sphere of the globe. We have even had to drop the red ensign, which I find insulting as an English man, never mind as a Member of Parliament.

We must look to the future. There is oil in the region, although I have no idea whether that has anything to do with the fact that Argentina has started rattling sabres again. The oil, which might explain this reawakening of interest in the Falklands Islands, is hard to get at and extremely difficult to drill and mine for. The nitty gritty of this debate is people. Nine generations of people who have settled and lived in the Falklands want to be part of the British people; they are the British people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) so powerfully stated, the Falkland Islands is British. We shall defend the Falkland Islands just as we shall defend any other area of the globe that we represent. The islanders want to stay with us. We protect them and we are trading prosperously from their islands. Such facts speak more about our people, our sovereignty, their sovereignty and this Parliament.

I would like to have powerfully summed up this speech by saying how we would defend the Falkland Islands, but my hon. Friend, the colonel, has already said it for me and in a better way than I ever could. It is absolutely imperative that we protect our interests in the Falklands. We must protect the Falkland Islanders because the Falklands will always, and should always, remain British.

European Council

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

I think that is right, although the point I am making is that the jobs and prosperity agenda should be the focus of such debates. If possible, we should get away from the obsession with structures and treaties. The British Government should be pushing the jobs and prosperity agenda at the summit. I have suggested some areas for deregulation and the European Liberal leaders forum drew up a long list of legislation that should be reviewed for possible reform. It included the working time regulations, the temporary agency workers directive, the control of vibration at work regulations, fixed-term employees regulations, part-time workers regulations, control of noise at work regulations, road transport working time regulations and the transnational information and consultation of employees regulations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Scrap them.

[Martin Horwood]

I am not at all in favour of scrapping health and safety regulations or those designed to protect workers. They are extremely important. The point is not even necessarily to weaken health and safety and workers regulations in Europe, but to see whether they can be made more flexible and be applied more flexibly domestically. That is another area where the British agenda should be pushed.

There are signs that European Governments are increasingly seeing things our way; it is not just the 15 members of the like-minded growth group. Italy has traditionally been more renowned for a protectionist stance in Europe and has at times had a less than impressive record on implementing single market legislation, but it is now actively implementing measures to liberalise great swathes of its economy and is actively pushing a single market agenda in Brussels that is directly comparable to ours. Spain, under the new Government led by Señor Rajoy, is also moving to undertake major structural reforms domestically and is shifting its position in Europe accordingly. Ministers must build on such possible alliances, which seem to be growing stronger all the time.

There are other things that I probably do not have time to cover in great detail. In terms of promoting jobs and prosperity, it is important to push for the completion of the single market, particularly in the digital and services sectors. External trade is equally important. This morning, I was in a Committee that voted on a new framework agreement that included free trade with South Korea. It could soon be extended to Ukraine and possibly a range of other countries. That is the kind of thing that will drive jobs and prosperity in Europe, not an overly obsessive attitude to EU treaties and institutions.

European Union

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

Yes. For precisely that reason, I believe that when the peoples of each country—and even some of the politicians, who are currently going around saying that the UK has done a terrible thing—begin to study the detail and realise the restrictions that will now be imposed on their freedom to set their budgets and taxes, to borrow and so on, they will seriously reconsider the proposal. Having caused the greatest economic catastrophe for many decades, by creating the euro and the one-size-fits-all approach, EU leaders have come up with a bizarre answer: no comprehensive solution to deal with the immediate and pressing crisis, and no overarching deal that will properly address the problems that Greece, Italy and Spain face, but a plan to deepen and extend European integration—a plan for more treaty change and more institutional tinkering.

After all the arguments about the Lisbon treaty, we were told that Europe had learnt its lesson and that there would no more institutional debates and treaty changes. Instead, Europe was to get on with the business of trying to create jobs, growth and economic prosperity, yet here they are, at it again. There is a one-track mind among many European federalists about deepening European integration, and political and fiscal union.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When the euro was set up, were there not strict rules on compliance for those joining, which even some of the biggest countries largely ignored? Now there is again talk about strict rules on compliance. Perhaps the boy is crying wolf; I do not believe that those rules can be enforced on countries that have shown in the past that they will not comply. They will not comply in future, either.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is right: in the rush to set up the euro, which was a political project from the beginning—it was believed that it would ultimately lead to political and fiscal union—those behind it permitted countries that they knew were not capable of meeting the requirements to join. What they are trying to do now will not succeed in patching the whole thing together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I support the motion. In the past year or 18 months, many people in Northern Ireland and some across the rest of the UK have attempted to sideline my party and say that the issues we would be raising in Parliament would be negligible, isolated and of interest to very few people. Only a few weeks ago we tabled a motion on the important topic of fuel poverty, and more than 200 Members joined us in the Lobby. I hope that more will join us tonight on this very important matter, which affects every man, woman and child across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Almost 40 years ago a Euro-dream began, and we have seen the emergence, change and evolution of that dream, which many would argue is fast turning into a nightmare. Over the past weekend we saw its culmination, when the Prime Minister of this nation went into negotiations and, thankfully, when faced with a fait accompli, decided that it was time to say no. He was right to say no. What the Prime Minister has given to the Parliament and the people of this United Kingdom is a door-opening opportunity that we must not waste or cast to one side, but must seize with both hands.

In recent months we have seen the huge gulf—the chasm of Grand Canyon proportions—that exists between the economic development of countries such as Greece and Germany. But there is still insistence among the Europhiles that one size does fit all, when it is apparent to us all that that cannot and will not be the case. What we need, by way of opportunity, is for the competitiveness of the UK to emerge from the opportunity with which we have now been provided.

[Bob Stewart]

Is it not competitiveness within the European Union that is at fault—the competitiveness of the north against the lack of competitiveness in the south? That is what will kill the euro project, in money terms.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments, and there is a significant amount of truth in what he says.

Here is a microcosm of some of the issues that might emerge. Some of my colleagues have mentioned the difference between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. Over the next few days millions of pounds will be spent in retail outlets in Northern Ireland by shoppers from the Irish Republic. That is good for the businesses of Northern Ireland, but why are they doing that? It is because only last week the Government of the Irish Republic had to announce an increase in VAT to 23%, so of course there is a 3% differential. We do not know where that 23% rate will go next year or the year after. The fact that this nation state retains the right not only to keep VAT at 20%, but possibly, I hope, over the next year, to reduce it back to 17.5%, will increase yet again the differential between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

Colleagues have mentioned corporation tax. Again, that could add to the competitive advantage that we in the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland but in other regions as well, will have over other parts of the euro region, where corporation tax will be levelled at a rate that will not be similar to the current rate in the Irish Republic, but will have to be raised because of Franco-German demands.

In short, the issues are very clear. The Prime Minister has taken a stand. We commend him for that, but it must be only the beginning, not the end. We must now push the door open, ensure that we rebalance our position in relation to other nation states within the European region, and try to renegotiate a much better deal so that the £10 billion or £11 billion net that we put each year into the EU is deployed more cost-effectively to ensure that as we go forward, the competitiveness of this nation state benefits the people of this nation state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Of course not, and the law will be followed, but we may find that European Governments have to gather yet again for more crisis summits in the not-too-distant future. That offers Britain a bit of an opportunity. We now need a process of positive and active diplomacy to persuade some of our more traditional allies in Europe—Ireland, Sweden, even Germany, and many others—of the benefits of having Britain fully involved not in the eurozone, but in the overall process of European economic decision making. Why? Because one of the medium to long-term solutions to Europe’s problems is to have a real focus on jobs and sustainable prosperity—jobs and prosperity in the UK, as well as in the rest of Europe because, as has been pointed out, half our trade and foreign direct investment comes from other EU members.

The argument about repatriating powers, let alone leaving the EU, completely misses the point. It is in our interest not just to have a competitive and vibrant British economy, but for there to be a competitive and vibrant European economy as well, and Britain can help to bring that about. It is not just in Britain’s interest to be at the heart of the European economy and European economic decision making; it is in Europe’s interests too, and that in turn will help British jobs, British business and British prosperity.

[Bob Stewart]

In those circumstances, would it not be wise for those people who want us to stay in to come to us and say, “Look, talk again. We want to give you what you want. We really require you”? I think Europe requires us rather more than we require Europe.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The Liberal Democrats supported the initial negotiating position. The mystery of last week’s summit is why we seemed to have so few friends in the negotiating chamber who would support those reasonable initial demands. That is why I am suggesting that we have a process of much more active and positive diplomacy in the run-up to what might be future summits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr McCrea]

No. The hon. Lady has not been present for the whole debate, so I am going to take this time to respond to the issues that have already been raised.

The Prime Minister went in to the negotiations. Naturally, there were pressures on him from other European leaders. Their demand was to go with the flow, but he stood firm and resolute for the interests of the United Kingdom. He did not come back to the House waving a “Neville Chamberlain” piece of paper, but became the first Prime Minister to have the courage to veto a new European Union treaty.

There are those in the House who condemn the Prime Minister for doing that. I ask them what authority he had to do other than stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom—that is why he is Prime Minister. In the past, other Prime Ministers have gone into important negotiations and when it came to the point of decision, they did not do what was in the interests of the country—although their consciences were saying that they should do something, they were not willing to do it because it was not popular.

Politicians are vain enough to desire popularity; they love compliments, especially from others on the world stage. However, it is better to do right than be forced to do wrong. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box in the House before going to the European summit. He told the House that he would act in the best interests of the United Kingdom and that he would make certain demands to protect British interests, and if he could not get them, he would use his veto.

There is no use in someone’s talking tough and taking a weapon to defend themselves if they are not prepared to use it. The Prime Minister took the veto weapon with him into the negotiations. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy flatly refused him even the most modest concessions simply because they believed that he would do what other Prime Ministers had done before and that he would not use the nuclear option of the veto. History had told them that Prime Ministers did not have the bottle to use the veto, and, after the huffing and puffing, would concede rather than hold firm.

[Bob Stewart]

The President of France and the Chancellor of Germany were acting in their best interests. They wanted to do a raid on the City of London—something that provides 11% of the income of this country—and take it away from us so that we could not use it. That is what the Prime Minister was defending and that was why he was in the right.

[Dr McCrea]

I agree. The European Union has been used to raiding our coffers over the years; we have been paying for many of its wonderful, unique programmes, which have in fact been an abuse of some of the finances hard earned by the people of this country.

British Embassy (Tehran)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and support for the action that we have taken. At the European Foreign Affairs Council over the next 24 hours, we will be discussing further actions that can be taken—peaceful, legitimate pressure, as he says. I believe that we will agree on additional sanctions. I do not want to say now what those are going to be. I do not want to prejudge the deliberations with my European colleagues in Brussels, but the right hon. Gentleman can be confident that further measures are on their way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is always sad when the Union Jack has to be pulled down in any country, because it is such a potent symbol for those of us who have been in hostile countries and for nationals in those countries. However, I rather wonder whether our interests may be served if the European Union has set up its embassy in Iran; it might have something useful to do if it has. It could look after our interests.

[Mr Hague]

The European Union has been very helpful. Baroness Ashton, the High Representative, issued a very strong and prompt statement about the issue and of course we will work with EU representatives on this matter. We have been fortunate in having such robust support from France, Germany and many other of the member states of the European Union.