Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I do not recognise the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are playing our part. While Mrs Merkel and President Hollande have done a good job of negotiating the Minsk implementation agreement under the Normandy process, which always involved the four countries of Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia, our role has been, is and will remain to stiffen the resolve of all 28 EU members to be united and aligned with the United States in deploying what has proved to be a powerful sanctions weapon.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I certainly echo the sentiment of the Foreign Secretary’s final remarks. At this difficult and dangerous moment, it is vital that Europe and NATO stand united in ensuring that the Minsk agreement is implemented in full. However, may I bring him back to his remarks about tier 3 sanctions? Does he believe that new EU restrictive measures should be on the table at the next European Council meeting, as opposed simply to the roll-over and extension of existing measures that he described in his answer?

[Mr Hammond]

The European Commission has been tasked to look at a menu of possible additional measures that could be taken. As I have indicated, I think that we need two tools. We need an extension of the existing tier 3 measures through to the end of December. Putin has been telling oligarchs around Moscow that the sanctions will be over by the end of July: “Just hold your breath and it’ll all be fine.” We need to show him that that will not be the case. Alongside that, we need a credible set of options that we can implement immediately if there is a failure to comply with milestones in the Minsk implementation agreement or a serious further outbreak of conflict in the region.

[Mr Alexander]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s answer, but let me return to the appalling murder of Boris Nemtsov on Saturday in Moscow, to which he has referred. Clearly, the priority needs to be a thorough and impartial investigation into the murder. President Putin has a personal responsibility to show that the Russian authorities are willing and able to identify Mr Nemtsov’s killers and to bring them to justice. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether he has raised this matter with the Russian authorities, and give his assessment of the steps that have been taken by the Russian authorities to begin investigating the case?

[Mr Hammond]

We have heard a lot of noise from Moscow, but we have not yet seen any serious action. The omens are not promising. I heard just this morning that some countries’ intended high-level delegations to the funeral have not been able to obtain Russian visas. That probably tells us all we need to know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

That is our position, and I confirm that it will remain our position so long as there is a Conservative Government.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Last year, 2014, was dominated by news of horrendous violence against those of different faiths, from Boko Haram abducting Christian girls in Nigeria to the attacks by ISIL against Christians, Yazidis and other religious minorities within Iraq. In the light of those developments, does the Foreign Secretary agree that a global envoy for religious freedom, reporting to the Foreign Secretary should be appointed? If this Government choose to act, we will support them; if they do not, a Labour Government will act.

[Mr Hammond]

Our general approach is to try to get things done using the mechanisms we have. We have an extensive diplomatic network around the world, and we have large amounts of soft power at our disposal, including the leverage that our large aid budget gives us. I do not think simply creating new posts and ticking a box delivers in the way the right hon. Gentleman and the previous Government seem to think it will.

Ukraine

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for advance sight of it.

Although the conflict in Ukraine is clearly a geopolitical crisis, it is also a conflict of profound civilian suffering. As the Foreign Secretary has just reminded us, in a neighbouring European state more than 5,000 lives have already been lost, 5 million civilians are living in conflict-affected areas, and nearly 1 million people are internally displaced as a result of the fighting. The House was united in welcoming the Minsk agreement negotiated last year, but even after it was reached, the fighting, although it briefly subsided, did not stop. The situation has yet again deteriorated, with more than 200 civilians killed in the last week of January alone.

President Putin appears to have miscalculated the west’s commitment to sustained economic diplomacy. So long as the Russian Government refuse to change course, we must continue with a robust and united international response. With the collapse of the oil price in recent months, the sanctions still hold out the prospect of altering the calculus of risk in President Putin’s mind regarding Russian actions in eastern Ukraine.

The Foreign Secretary made it clear that, at the request of the European Foreign Minister, a decision was taken yesterday to delay the implementation of a further set of EU restrictive measures. While credible negotiations are ongoing, all efforts must be focused on ensuring that they are successful. In the absence of an agreed deal this week, however, does the Foreign Secretary believe that new EU restrictive measures, as opposed to simply an extension of existing measures, should be on the table at the upcoming EU Council meeting? In particular, in the absence of meaningful progress tomorrow, will the Prime Minister call for new tier 2 or 3 sanctions when he meets European Union leaders?

In recent days, attention has turned to the question of sending lethal arms to the Ukrainian army. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s reassurance that the UK will continue to work through NATO to offer technical support to the Ukrainian armed forces. This weekend, he said that

“the UK is not planning to supply lethal aid”.

He repeated that statement in the House today.

The Foreign Secretary has said:

“Ukrainians can’t beat the Russian army”,

and that the policy remains “under review” by the UK Government. Given those two statements, will he tell the House in what context he envisages that Britain could decide to export lethal arms to the Ukrainians?

I welcome the recent German and French initiative to help broker an agreement between President Putin and President Poroshenko. Talks in Moscow with Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany were held alongside US Secretary of State Kerry’s visit to Kiev, and followed up by Chancellor Merkel’s visit to Washington yesterday. Further talks are scheduled in Minsk for tomorrow. The ultimate test is whether these talks are successful in ending the conflict, and it is in that sprit that I ask the Foreign Secretary about the extent of British engagement.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that given Britain’s unique assets and alliances, we could make a key contribution to help ensure that the diplomatic effort is successful? If so, why has the UK chosen to take such a back seat in trying to resolve the crisis? The Foreign Secretary does not need to take my word for that judgment. As General Sir Richard Shirreff—the top British commander in NATO until last year—warned last weekend, the Prime Minister is a “foreign policy irrelevance” and a “bit player” on the world stage. When questioned about the former general’s comments, the Foreign Secretary rather flippantly quipped:

“Having a sort of committee of ten traipsing in and out trying to talk to the Russians would simply not be effective”.

I agree with that judgment, but suggestions that Britain’s diplomatic role could only ever be part of a so-called “traipsing committee of 10”, tells us a great deal more about the Foreign Secretary than it does about the United Kingdom.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that under past Governments of all complexions, Britain has played a leading role in diplomatic negotiations of this sort? In his statement the Foreign Secretary tried to defend the British absence from the latest talks by claiming that the Franco-German leadership role was established in Normandy last year. Nevertheless, whether last year, this year or this month, the decision to exclude Britain, or to be excluded, raises real questions and concerns on the Opposition Benches. Can the Foreign Secretary offer any more hope that Britain in the months ahead—unlike in past months—will be an active, engaged and influential part of efforts to resolve the crisis?

The starting point surely must be to remain on guard against Russia’s efforts to find and exploit weaknesses among its European neighbours. Some European states have, of course, been weakened by recession and are vulnerable to subversion, subsidy and corruption, but the challenge is surely to sustain western unity in advancing robust economic diplomacy, while continuing with a more engaged effort to find a resolution to the crisis. If that is the approach of the British Government in the months ahead, they will have our support.

[Mr Hammond]

Despite the slightly churlish remarks towards the end of his remarks, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s generally supportive approach to this issue, and he is right that Vladimir Putin evidently miscalculated the resolve of the international community to stand firm on this issue. That resolve did not appear without prompting, however, and required a lot of consensus building. Candidly, I will say also that the catalyst of the destruction of Malaysia Airways flight MH17 pulled some of, shall we say, the weaker brethren into line, and ensured a clear and robust alliance on this issue. In particular, the UK and the Netherlands can claim credit for having been key elements in stiffening resolve in that crucial European Council meeting last July.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a sensible question about new restrictive measures, and our priority will be to achieve an early roll-over of the tier 3 sanctions. The package of tier 3 sanctions is due to expire at the end of July, and the strongest possible signal that could be sent to the Kremlin would be an early decision to extend that sanctions period, perhaps to the end of 2015. The Kremlin’s knowledge that sanctions will continue, and—most importantly—that it will not have the leverage point of the EU, at 28 member states, having to re-agree a consensus to renew them, removes a lot of its incentives for mischief making, so that will be our priority. I expect that tomorrow, if matters have not progressed or there is bad news from Minsk, the European Council will task the European External Action Service to scope options for further sanctions.

A number of perfectly robust allies are now beginning to be slightly concerned about the scale of damage being inflicted on Russia’s economy. We want to hurt the Russians and we want them to pay a price for their aggression in Ukraine, but we do not want the Russian economy to collapse. There is now concern about the scale of damage being inflicted.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to clarify the position on lethal aid. He is right to say that Ukraine cannot beat the Russian army—it does not have the scale of forces, and the Russian army has enormous reserves that it could potentially throw into the conflict. He asked about the circumstances in which we would supply lethal aid, but we have not defined those circumstances. All I have said is that we will not rule out the possibility of supplying lethal aid, and we want to reserve the right to review that position. In my statement I said clearly that we cannot afford to see the Ukrainian army collapse, so perhaps he will take from that a steer as to where our thinking lies.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the UK contribution to the diplomatic effort, and there are two strands to that. There is a forward strand that includes discussions with the Ukrainians and the Russians. In my judgment—being perfectly objective about this and not waving a little flag for the sake of it—the German Chancellor is in the best position to conduct such discussions with the Kremlin. She has channels open with the Kremlin that we, the Americans, and others do not have.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about opening out the Normandy process, but if we were to open out that grouping—it is currently four: Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France—we would not be able just to insert the UK but would have to widen that group quite significantly. The United States, naturally, would say, “Well, if the UK is going to join, we must have a seat,” and other European Union partners would also expect to be present, most obviously Poland and Italy. We would therefore have a significantly wider group, and our judgment is that for this phase of the process, maintaining that Normandy format is the best way forward.

The second strand of diplomatic activity is behind-the-scenes activity to hold together the European Union consensus and ensure that the EU is aligned with the US, Australia, Japan and other partners. That is a significant diplomatic-legwork task—unglamorous but vital—and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the UK has played a leading role in designing the sanctions packages, identifying the individuals, companies and sectors to be targeted by sanctions, and building and maintaining consensus in Brussels and around the capitals of Europe. General Sir Richard Shirreff says that the Prime Minister is a “diplomatic irrelevance”, but I suggest that perhaps he should consider carefully the meaning of the word “irrelevance” and where it might best be applied.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about Russian coercion and the energy exposure of the European Union to Russian pressure, all of which we are acutely aware of. There is also Russian corruption and the influence of Russian money in the politics of some Balkan countries—even now, one party in the recent Bulgarian general election launched its manifesto in the Kremlin, which may provide a clue, and we are acutely aware of all those things. Europe must make itself more resilient against Russian influence, and that is an important part of the agenda going forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend in this area. He was in Lebanon this summer. I had the chance to visit the Bekaa valley and see the work that the British are doing in training the Lebanese armed forces and in creating the watchtowers, which will help to enable the Lebanese to monitor and provide security themselves. But the situation is very intense indeed, and there is a threat of ISIL punching into Lebanon.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Minister is absolutely right to pay tribute to the neighbouring countries of the Syrian conflict, Jordan and the Lebanon, for the extraordinary work that they have done in receiving a huge population of refugees as a consequence of the conflict. On the point about the UN food vouchers, given the reports last week of the value of those food vouchers having been cut as well as the importance of ensuring the availability of vouchers, what further steps are the British Government taking to encourage international partners to provide a level of resource needed by the United Nations to meet the humanitarian crisis?

[Mr Ellwood]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s previous job, I know that this is a matter that is close to him as well. As I have said, I raised that issue in meetings with the United Nations representatives both in Lebanon and in Jordan. I was assured that, for the moment, the funding streams are in place. It might be helpful if I get a colleague from DFID to write to him with an update.

[Mr Alexander]

In these exchanges, we have already heard of the importance of the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Jordan. Beyond the very welcome humanitarian support that is being provided to refugees in Jordan and the Lebanon, what specific additional support is being provided to Jordan to maintain stability within that country given that a significant number of refugees are not in camps such as Zaatari, but with host populations?

[Mr Ellwood]

We are adopting a number of initiatives to support a country that has already been described as being very, very close to Britain. The Secretary of State has met his counterpart to look at improvements to the security situation, and I have visited Zaatari, the biggest refugee camp. We are not simply pouring money into the area, but funding support for the local towns that feel the burden of having large numbers of Syrians coming into their area. We are providing support to the Jordanian towns in the area as well so that they do no feel so burdened with what is happening in the north part of Jordan.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We will continue to speak up strongly and in public to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. We will work bilaterally and through the European Union and the international financial institutions to provide Ukraine with the financing and technical support that it needs to carry through an ambitious programme of political and economic reform.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I have written to the Foreign Secretary raising the case of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for the content of his blog. I am still awaiting a reply. Earlier, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the importance of effective channels of communication to the Saudis. Does that include him? Would he tell the House whether he has raised this matter directly with the Saudi Government?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

As I said earlier, we deplore this punishment—we deplore the use of corporal punishment in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere—but we have found in the past that the best way of influencing Saudi behaviour is to message them privately through the many channels available to us. The deputy Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia—the Foreign Minister is undergoing medical treatment—will be in London on Thursday, and I shall speak to him directly on this issue. We have already made our views known to the Saudi authorities at the highest level.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. and learned Friend’s advice is very wise. I think the correct approach is probably to show a little ankle, but not too much. We need to be clear to our European Union partners that we are entering negotiations with a constructive agenda. We want to get a reformed European Union and a renegotiated relationship between Britain and the European Union that is acceptable to the British people, but the hurdle is high because it will be the British people, under a Conservative Government, who make the decision in a referendum in 2017.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

In his first answer this morning, the Foreign Secretary was specific about the number of European countries he has visited as Foreign Secretary, so will he now be specific about at least some of the repatriations he is seeking from the European Union? Even a little ankle will do.

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman’s question was slightly unfortunately timed, given the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). Of course we do not want to run around Europe at this stage in the negotiations with a list of specific repatriations. It is far more important to establish the principle and how we will deliver it—that is, the principle of subsidiarity and how it will be effectively overseen within the European Union.

[Mr Alexander]

I think that the whole House, including the Foreign Secretary’s Back Benchers, will have noted the unwillingness to name even a single repatriation, but one will do when he gets back to his feet. What is the Government’s estimate of the economic benefit of the UK’s membership of the European Union?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, we are clear that the UK benefits enormously from access to the single market in Europe. We want to remain part of the European Union and we are entering these negotiations on the basis of a clear intent to negotiate the very best deal we can for Britain, addressing the concerns clearly expressed by the British people. In the end, it will be the British people who decide whether that package is good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

Over the summer I led the Government’s cross-departmental response, involving a huge amount of resource from the Department for International Development, the mobilisation of our diplomatic networks by the Foreign Office, and a massive infusion of manpower and capability by the Ministry of Defence. The people of Britain can be immensely proud of the way that the UK has stepped up to the plate and, using a combination of military and civilian resources, delivered real effect on the ground in Sierra Leone.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has just paid generous tribute to the Department for International Development, and I echo those sentiments. However, he is reported to have recently called the Government’s own commitment to enshrine in law a pledge to spend 0.7% of UK GDP on international aid as “bizarre” when he was thousands of miles away from Westminster—[Interruption.] Some Members seem to agree with that sentiment. Ahead of Friday’s discussions of this issue in the House, is he prepared to repeat that judgment at the Dispatch Box today or has he had his mind changed?

[Mr Hammond]

Unlike the Government in whom the right hon. Gentleman served, we have delivered the 0.7% target. We made a political commitment to do it and we have delivered on that political commitment. Talk about the need to legislate is yesterday’s discussion. We are doing it—something he never did.

Iran (Nuclear Talks)

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. First, on behalf of the Opposition, I wish to acknowledge the work of the EU’s outgoing High Representative for foreign affairs, Baroness Cathy Ashton. Over the past five years, she has played a decisive and constructive role on the world stage, particularly in relation to the Iranian nuclear dossier. Her contribution will be missed, but her legacy—I hope—will prove in time to have been significant.

On yesterday’s events in Vienna, the fact that it was not possible to reach agreement by the already extended deadline of 24 November is, of course, a setback, but it is better than either a bad deal or a rupture in the negotiations that would have freed Iran from its commitment not to accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear energy while negotiations proceed. For many years, Iran has chosen to exploit regional sectarian tensions through supporting terrorist groups in other parts of the region. Today, Iran has the capability to play a much more constructive role. So there should be no doubt that in an already volatile region, at a particularly perilous period, a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat not only to Israel and its neighbours, but to wider global security. Therefore, the interim agreement in November 2013 was a significant step forward. The June 2015 extension could allow for a further opportunity for progress to be made towards a vital comprehensive deal. This afternoon, I seek a number of assurances from the Foreign Secretary about the content, extension and negotiation of this proposed deal.

First, on the content of the final agreement, reports suggest that one of the main obstacles to securing a deal remained the crucial issue of the number of centrifuges Iran could operate. The Foreign Secretary did not mention that issue in his statement, so in his response will he set out the Government’s assessment of the appropriate number of centrifuges that Iran can retain while still offering sufficient protections on the so-called “break-out” time?

Secondly, the extension of negotiations must be agreed only alongside sufficient guarantees that it will not allow Iran to gain by running down the clock. The terms of the now-extended agreement explicitly forbid Iran from adding new enrichment capacity and accumulating more enriched uranium, and ban 20% enrichment altogether. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that those restrictions will remain in place and will continue to be monitored, and that any sign of a breach will warrant an effective response? In particular, is he satisfied by the level of International Atomic Energy Agency access going forward?

Thirdly, could the Foreign Secretary also confirm that Iran will not enjoy any net financial gain through this extension? As he said in his statement, there has been cross-party support for a twin-track approach for a number of years. Yesterday, he confirmed the following:

“The expectation is that there will be a rollover of the current arrangements for Iran to access around $700 million per month of frozen assets”.

In his statement, he said that Iran will continue to repatriate oil revenues on “a similar basis” to before, so can he confirm explicitly that that does not allow for any further extension of sanctions relief without anything in return from Iran?

Of course the focus of today’s statement is on the nuclear negotiations but, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to ask a question about reopening the British embassy in Tehran. I welcomed the announcement in June by the former Foreign Secretary—he is now Leader of the House—that the embassy will be reopened. The Foreign Secretary’s recent written answer to me stated that issues associated with getting the embassy back to a functional level and re-establishing a visa service are still under discussion. Can he offer further details about when he envisages those issues will be resolved? Three years since the attack on the embassy, ensuring its swift but safe reopening must surely remain a priority for those from all parts of this House.

Secretary of State Kerry was right to say that these talks will not get easier just because they go on longer. Unless there is a real breakthrough soon on the key heads of agreement, including on centrifuges and stockpiles, 2015 could see a progressive unravelling of political momentum for a deal on both sides. The onus therefore remains on Iran to be able to give the international community confidence that its nuclear programme is a purely civilian one, and the responsibility of the international community is to negotiate a deal that achieves that goal. As the Foreign Secretary recognised, there has been a bipartisan approach in this House, and he continues to have our support in seeking such an outcome.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his expression of support at the end of his remarks. May I join him in thanking Baroness Ashton and congratulating her on the significant role she has played in these negotiations over the last period? I should also welcome her successor, Federica Mogherini, as new EU High Representative. The E3 parties are discussing—we began a discussion yesterday and will continue it—how we carry forward this process, because, clearly, Baroness Ashton had a large store of accumulated knowledge and had built important relationships. We will discuss with the new High Representative how best we can carry forward these negotiations in a way that gives them the maximum chance of being successful.

I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s expressed view that no deal is better than a bad deal; a nuclear-armed Iran would be a major destabilising force in the region and, conceivably, in a short period of time, far beyond it. That is not an outcome we can allow to happen, and we are all clearly focused on that. He has asked me for some specific assurances, and I will answer his questions in so far as I can. We agreed yesterday in Vienna that it would not be helpful to have on public display all the various heads of discussion and the various specific ideas that are in play and being discussed. We are clear among us that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. If we want the discussions to proceed in a spirit of openness, with people testing new ideas, we have to respect the confidentiality around that process. I did say in my opening remarks that Iran’s enrichment capacity—a proxy for centrifuge numbers or centrifuge capability—remained a key issue to be resolved. We are exploring a number of ways of approaching that issue, and will continue to do so with the Iranians.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm whether the restrictions under the recently expired joint plan of action and the monitoring arrangements would remain in force and also whether access under those monitoring arrangements is considered to be adequate. I can confirm all of those things. He also asked about financial gain. As I said in my opening remarks, Iran will continue to be allowed, for as long as this arrangement is in place and the restrictions on Iran’s activity continue, to access approximately $700 million a month of its oil revenues, as has been the case since the beginning of this year.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Tehran embassy. Yes, we are committed to reopening embassies between our two countries as soon as possible, but as he knows and has acknowledged there have been some technical issues that we have not found easy to resolve. We need to import into Iran a significant amount of equipment for the embassy to replace what was destroyed during the events of November 2011. If we are to operate effectively, we need to be able to take in that equipment in a way that is secure and that maintains necessary confidentiality. We have not yet been able to agree a way of doing that with the Iranians or to establish how we can deliver an effective visa service in Tehran that will meet the level of demand that is expected. At the same time, we also have to comply with various restrictions that the Iranians have in place, which limit our scope to deliver that service. We are continuing to engage with the Iranians on that issue. We are clear that this is a separate discussion; it is not dependent on, or in any way connected to, the nuclear discussion.

Finally, let me pick up on the right hon. Gentleman’s last comment. He said that to make progress, there needs to be a real breakthrough soon. I know that, in these sorts of discussions, it is always tempting to think that there has to be a sudden breakthrough. I say to him that progress thus far would be better characterised as slow but incremental, a painstaking inching towards each other, a testing of new ideas, and an exploring of new possibilities and of new ways of looking at old problems. We have made significant progress, albeit in very small steps, over the past few months. Rather than having a sudden breakthrough over the next couple of months, I expect us to edge towards each other in this incremental way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the fullness of time, pushing ISIL back in Iraq, which is our first priority, will not be sufficient to defeat that organisation; there will have to be political progress in Syria as well. At the moment we are focused on ensuring the consolidation of the Syrian moderate opposition and the organisation of the additional training and equipping that the US Congress has now agreed to finance for Syrian moderate opposition fighters.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Speaking of the campaign against ISIL, the US director of national intelligence recently testified that the Syrian opposition is composed of at least 1,500 separate militias, and a recent US congressional report went further in claiming that the Free Syrian Army does not actually refer to any

“organised command and control structure with national reach”,

so can the Foreign Secretary set out whether the Government’s own scoping exercise that is under way is focused on the Free Syrian Army, or whether support for other opposition groups is being considered as part of this exercise?

[Mr Hammond]

We will be working closely with our American allies, and General John Allen in his newly appointed role will be the overall co-ordinator of this programme, but the Americans have made it very clear that while the Free Syrian Army will be part of this programme of training and equipping, the whole thing will not operate under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army; other organisations who are judged to be moderate and share our objectives will be able to participate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The UK is leading on the Ebola response in Sierra Leone, and the British people should be extremely proud of what we have delivered: we have so far pledged nearly £250 million; we are building 700 beds in the country; we have about 750 service personnel deployed in support of that operation; and we are lobbying furiously for support from both European Union partners and other countries around the world. I am pleased to say that that lobbying effort is beginning to bear fruit, with significant pledges of both money and, more importantly, clinical workers to support the effort we are carrying out in Sierra Leone.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I welcome, on behalf of the Opposition, the UK’s £205 million contribution to helping tackle the spread of Ebola, and of course the additional EU resources secured at last week’s Council meeting? Will the Foreign Secretary set out how quickly those resources from other EU member states will be utilised? The commitments are important but, as he recognises, it is vital that action is taken on the ground in west Africa.

[Mr Hammond]

Many of the financial commitments that have been made are commitments to support the UN fund. The UN recognises that the three framework countries—the United States in Liberia, France in Guinea and the UK in Sierra Leone—are best positioned to deliver an effect on the ground. One thing we are trying to do is get partner countries to plug in to the framework that we have already put on the ground. So we are building these 700 beds, we have a logistics operation in place and where we are told, for example, by Australia, “I can give you 50 clinical staff”, we can plug those in straight away; they do not have to set up an operation on the ground.

[Mr Alexander]

Let me ask a little more about the operation on the ground. It is, of course, right that we acknowledge the extraordinary work being undertaken by British aid workers, officials and troops based in the region, who are putting themselves at considerable personal risk. I also pay tribute to the International Development Secretary, who sent an important signal by travelling there with British troops. Of course it is the responsibility of the Government to support their efforts and to take every possible precaution with the safety of British personnel, so will the Foreign Secretary set out what measures are in place to support the diplomatic and consular staff, as well as the military, who are currently based in west Africa?

[Mr Hammond]

That is a very good question. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have slimmed down our diplomatic staff, removing from Freetown people who are medically vulnerable and dependants who do not need to be there. We are constructing, and will have in operation within the next 10 days, a dedicated 12-bed unit, run by British military medics, for the treatment of international health care workers and British nationals to a western standard of care. We also have a medevac capability, which has been pretty thin over the past few months but which by the end of this month will have surged in capability so that we would be able to deal with any foreseeable level of medevac requirement from Sierra Leone.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on achieving third place in the ballot and on introducing this Bill to the Chamber again.

Labour believes that any judgment about a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union has to be based on what is in the national interest. We do not believe that a Bill calling for an in/out referendum in 2017 on an arbitrary date unrelated to the likely timetable of major treaty change, putting jobs and investment in Britain at risk, is in our national interest. That is why Labour does not support this Bill. Instead, Labour will legislate in government for a lock that guarantees that there cannot be any transfer of powers from Britain to the European Union without an in/out referendum.

The promoter of the Bill answered the question from the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) by saying that the Bill is about trust. Let us deal with that issue directly. This Bill has not been brought before the House because the Prime Minister suddenly woke up with a democratic impulse or because Conservative Back Benchers trust the public; it is being debated because Conservative Back Benchers do not trust the Prime Minister.

[Mrs Main]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not support the Bill, and given that with some Liberal Democrat colleagues Labour Members could defeat it, why are they abstaining and allowing their cronies in the House of Lords to do their dirty work? Why do they not put their vote where their mouth is on this question?

[Mr Alexander]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, she has never been my lodestar of political judgment, and I therefore think that Labour Members shall make the judgments in relation to the legislative passage of any Bill.

This Bill is being presented for a second time.

[Robert Halfon]

Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says are the reasons for bringing this Bill to the House, surely, as a party of principle, Labour should support workers’ rights, given, as I said, the negative impact that the EU has had on workers’ wages and its impact on jobs. Labour should take a position of principle and say, “We trust the people and we support an in/out referendum on the EU.”

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great eloquence about workers’ rights. I am sure that he is familiar with the Beecroft report, commissioned by this Government, which really let the cat out of the bag. The rationale for repatriation being supported by so many of his colleagues is that it would bring powers home in order to take away workers’ rights. We know that, and Conservative Back Benchers know that, yet it is significant that the Prime Minister chose not to—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I would like to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary in the same way as I wanted to hear the Foreign Secretary, but I cannot hear him if people keep shouting.

[Mr Alexander]

It is significant in terms of the credibility of the Prime Minister’s word on these matters that, if I recollect correctly, the word “repatriation” did not appear in the Bloomberg speech of which the Foreign Secretary spoke so eloquently a few moments ago.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to give way again.

As I stand here again, a year on, after yet another Friday morning meeting in Downing street to rally the beleaguered troops—I venture to suggest that never have so many bacon rolls died in vain—looking at Conservative Members, or at least what is left of them, gathered to talk about their favourite subject of Europe, I have to say that I feel a certain sense of déjà vu. The only thing that seems different this morning is the absence of the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister.

Even if the Bill has not changed, some things have changed since we last gathered a year ago. Back in January 2013, when the Prime Minister gave at Bloomberg what his aides rather optimistically, as it turns out, briefed would be

“his last speech on Europe in the parliament”,

I was, on balance, prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if some of his own Back Benchers, even at that time, were undoubtedly not willing to do so. I believe that when he committed to holding a referendum in 2017, he assumed sincerely that, given the push at the time towards closer eurozone integration, there would be a major EU treaty change within the time frame that he set out. Since that speech at Bloomberg last year, however, the prospect of extensive treaty changes by 2017 has receded rather than grown. He knows that, we know that, Conservative Members know that, and, most worryingly for the Prime Minister, the Back Benchers who are concerned about whether he can deliver on his promise know that.

Only this month, the French Prime Minister—perhaps one of the individuals that the Foreign Secretary has had those obscure and rather elliptical conversations with—said that EU treaty change would be “perilous” and ruled out a “shake-up of its treaties” any time soon. In January, the French President said during a visit to London that treaty change was “not urgent” and “not a priority”. After the signing of the German coalition agreement in November last year—without, I point out, a single reference to treaty change—Chancellor Merkel said in February this year that the Conservatives’ hopes would end in “disappointment”. For full measure, her Foreign Minister then said that it would be “an exaggeration” to assert that Germany and the United Kingdom were on the same page when it came to treaty reform in the EU. We have heard a little more exaggeration from the Foreign Secretary this morning.

Nearly two years on from the Prime Minister’s announcement of a 2017 referendum, the ground beneath his feet has shifted. It has left him asserting, ever less convincingly, that he can initiate, negotiate and secure the unanimous support of 27 European Heads of Government for a fundamental redesign of the European Union within 19 months of May 2015.

How likely a prospect is that for our Prime Minister, given his recent track record of negotiations in Europe? This boast is made by a Prime Minister who just this year managed to turn a Europe divided over Jean-Claude Juncker into a Europe virtually united against the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was certainly not the first British Prime Minister to take a tough negotiating stance in Brussels, but he will go down in history as the first British Prime Minister ever to lose a vote in the European Council. He went to Brussels with, incidentally, a cross-party mandate—the Liberals and, indeed, the Labour party were behind him—to secure consensus on the best candidate for Commission President, but he failed to build alliances.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that our Prime Minister lost a vote in Europe, but does he not realise that the rest of the country takes that as a sign that our Prime Minister is standing up for this country?

[Mr Alexander]

I do not want to intrude on private grief, but the Prime Minister lost, and lost badly. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have it on his leaflets that 27-0—actually, to be fair, it was 26-2—in the European Council is a sign of success and effectiveness and of statesmanship by a British Prime Minister, good luck to him.

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

It’s called principle.

[Mr Alexander]

It’s called losing, actually, and I do not think that Britain wants a Prime Minister who keeps losing.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Gentleman has expressed the utter supineness of the socialists, who give in to everything Europe wants when our Prime Minister is willing to put the British case, even when sometimes that does not succeed. It was courageous and it was the right, firm approach for dealing with renegotiation.

[Mr Alexander]

There speaks the authentic voice of the 18th century! Our dispute seems to be about the efficacy of principle and the effectiveness of statesmanship. The hon. Gentleman argues that the Prime Minister was efficacious in upholding a principle, but I maintain that he was hopelessly ineffective at securing statesmanship on the international stage. Let us remember that the Prime Minister failed to use the weeks following the European elections to work to build a coalition that could have been built with countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Hungary and Italy.

Let us treat that as a textbook example of what the Foreign Secretary has just asserted can be achieved in the months after 2015. If the Prime Minister failed to prevent a not universally popular candidate from becoming Commission President, what hope is there that he could secure unanimous support for a fundamental redesign of Europe on an arbitrary timetable that other European Governments simply do not accept?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does the shadow Foreign Secretary agree that it is always possible to win a vote if we give in? For example, on the Thatcher rebate, under Tony Blair £6 billion a year was given away with nothing in return, and guess what? Yeah, he won the vote.

[Mr Alexander]

I am not sure that was worth taking as an intervention. First, it is a matter of record that the A10 accession—the significant enlargement of the European Union—that preceded those discussions was a matter of cross-party consensus. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would not dispute that.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Small change.

[Mr Alexander]

Well, any reasonable judgment of the budgetary settlement recognised that the budget was going to change as a consequence of 10 new members coming into the European Union. I hope there is common ground on that.

Secondly, if I recollect accurately, as a consequence of those budgetary negotiations undertaken by the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, there is now, for the first time, parity between the contributions of France and the United Kingdom. I would have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman supported that.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is one of those who believe that the crisis in the eurozone has passed, or does he recognise that there will need to be fundamental structural reform in Europe in order to ensure the success of the euro currency?

[Mr Alexander]

Of course there needs to be continuing fundamental and serious change in the eurozone, not least given the challenges that the peripheral countries face in relation to productivity and the frankly worrying current levels of growth across the eurozone. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary says it is a fundamental point in relation to treaty change, so I offer him the opportunity to step back up to the Dispatch Box and name one member of the eurozone that is publicly advocating treaty change between now and 2017. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary says, “Not publicly.” If it is accepted that there is a need for fundamental reform of the eurozone, what, at this point in the discussions, would be to the disadvantage of any one member of the eurozone—just one, not even two or three—to say that there is going to have to be fundamental treaty change in order to make the eurozone work effectively by 2017? I would be very happy to give way if the Foreign Secretary would like to intervene and name a country. His silence speaks volumes and that explains why, with every passing month, the credibility of Conservative Front Benchers diminishes with that of its Back Benchers.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I want to make some progress and then I will be happy to give way.

On the eurozone and the economy, the Foreign Secretary complacently dismissed powerful interventions by my hon. Friends on the very real concerns of British business. One aspect of the debate that has not changed since the Bill was last debated is the view of British business. It continues to speak out and speak up, warning against the risks of stumbling or sleepwalking out of Europe, which is a real prospect, given the abject failure both of the Prime Minister to set out a reform agenda and of the Foreign Secretary to offer a credible negotiating strategy to deliver that fundamental redesign with unanimity by 2017.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I want to make some progress.

Earlier this year, Sir Richard Branson said, in no uncertain terms, that

“the last thing the UK should do is leave”

the EU,

“as it would then have no say on how to improve it and make it more productive for all countries involved.”

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It is for the Chair, as you, as a member of the Panel of Chairs well know, to make that decision. That is not a point of order.

[Mr Alexander]

I know that this debate is proving uncomfortable for Conservative Members.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Conservative Members do not seem to want to listen to my right hon. Friend’s arguments, but he is making a powerful speech. Perhaps they will listen to their own Lord Heseltine, who has said:

“To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn’t begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that’s unknown, where Britain’s appeal as an inward investment market would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary gamble”.

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which points to two truths. The first is the importance of economic stability and certainty in relation to investment and the opportunities that British business needs not just to invest and employ, but to export in the future. The second is that it shows just how far the Conservative party has travelled.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

Who better to describe the journey the modern Conservative party is taking than the hon. Gentleman? I am happy to give way.

[Mr Bone]

I congratulate the shadow Foreign Secretary on his excellent and powerful speech, and I look forward to his putting his name forward in the next few weeks to become the next leader of the Labour party. I think we agree on the major point that the Labour party is clearly against an in/out referendum, and I am grateful to him for clarifying that. We also agree that it is very unlikely that the European Union will give the reforms that the Prime Minister wants. The difference is that, finally, at the end of the journey, it will be the British people who decide. That is the right way forward. Why will the Labour party not agree to that?

[Mr Alexander]

Flattering though the hon. Gentleman’s introduction to his question was, I fear that we diverge on at least two substantive points. First, Labour takes a conditions-based approach to an EU referendum. We think that the right point to have a referendum would be that which the Conservative party used to favour—indeed, it was in the Conservative manifesto. The party that has shifted its position is not the Labour party, but the Conservative party. The second point on which we take a different position is that we continue to believe that it is in Britain’s strategic, long-term interest to remain part of a changed and reformed European Union. It is not that the character of Europe is incapable of reform; it is that the competence of this Prime Minister means that he has failed abjectly to deliver reform. He has spent four years burning bridges rather than building alliances. That is why we have ended up with the paltry list of so-called reforms that were suggested by the Foreign Secretary today, against a backdrop in which he is literally incapable of articulating what the reform agenda would be.

The common ground between the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I is that both of us would like more clarity from Conservative Front Benchers on what the reform proposals are, what the red lines are and even how the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary would vote in a referendum. Indeed, if the Foreign Secretary would like to step up to the Dispatch Box and tell us something that he omitted to mention during his speech, he might answer this question: is he prepared, if he does not get the changes that he is hoping for in the reform discussions, to recommend a no vote? Once again, the silence speaks volumes. That might be a judgment based on loyalty to the Prime Minister that costs him many votes in a future leadership contest.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary, who is showing his customary generosity. Does he agree that his comment that there is no support among our partner countries in Europe for treaty change is simply wrong? The German coalition agreement includes that provision. Does he have it there? Has he read it?

[Mr Alexander]

I have read the German coalition agreement. I simply invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to name a member of the German Government who supports treaty change before 2017 and which specific change they recommend.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

It is in the document. The German coalition agreement includes a provision that calls for treaty change, so it is signed up to by all of them.

[Mr Alexander]

With the greatest of respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if I had a choice between the words of the German Chancellor and his view on what the German coalition is likely to do, I would, on balance, put more weight on the views of Chancellor Merkel. When she came to this place during an important state visit last year, I expected her to offer perhaps just a single line in her remarks that would give a ledge on which the Prime Minister could stand and say to his Back Benchers, “See, we have made some progress. The Germans are going to be with us and we will get what we need.” It was hugely significant that she did not feel the obligation to give even a carapace of cover to the Prime Minister. She left having given absolutely no credence to the rather desperate assertion, which we have heard again today, that the Germans will somehow rescue the Prime Minister from his negotiating inadequacies. There is simply no foundation for that.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This is all terribly interesting, but it is slightly irrelevant to what we are talking about today. Even if the Prime Minister fails to get anything substantial, the British people will make their choice. What I cannot understand about the actions of the Labour party—I am scratching my head about this—is that surely it wants to win the general election. Is it not quite a popular thing to do to offer a referendum by a certain date? Would it not be a good idea to shoot the Government’s foxes if it is trying to win the next general election?

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy, if it is what the hon. Gentleman wants, to move on to advice on electoral politics. It is the Conservative party, not this party, that has just lost two Members of Parliament to UKIP. It is the Conservative party that has not won a majority in a UK general election for 20 years. When the Prime Minister gave his speech at the Tory party conference nine years ago, it was back in the days when people believed that the Conservatives could win a majority. That was a long time ago. The Conservative strategy of first insulting UKIP, then ignoring UKIP and then imitating UKIP has proved to be an abject electoral failure. That is why there is rising panic among so many Conservative Back Benchers that, far from being able to secure a minority Government after the general election, they will be faced with an existential threat posed by their colleagues in UKIP.

[Richard Graham]

There is surely some reward for persistence in this House. I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary. He has talked about the effectiveness of statesmanship. Earlier, he said that the referendum would not be in the national interest. Will he therefore confirm two things for the record, for all those who might be thinking of voting Labour: first, that his party does not think that the Bill is in the national interest and that it does not want a referendum, and secondly, that his party will not vote against the Bill?

[Mr Alexander]

That was a valiant effort, but let us be clear that there is a difference between taking a conditions-based approach to a referendum by saying that when there is a transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels, there should be an in/out referendum—

[Richard Graham]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is what it said in the manifesto on which he was elected. Indeed, he walked through the Division Lobby in favour of that exact policy, with the caveat that the referendum would take place at that point. We have said that that should be strengthened, because we recognise that there would be a question over Britain’s relationship with Europe at the point at which the sovereignty lock was initiated. We would therefore strengthen the position by saying that there would be a clear legal lock, so that when there was a transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels, a referendum would take place. It is therefore wholly wrong to suggest that the Opposition are opposed to a referendum on Europe.

If I recollect correctly—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) will confirm this—the only party ever to give a referendum on European membership was Labour. We will go into the coming general election committed to providing an in/out referendum if there is a transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels. That used to be the policy of the Conservative party. The party that has shifted under the weight of both internal political pressure and external electoral pressure is the Conservative party.

[Mrs Main]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I have been generous in giving way, so let me make a little progress.

Since we debated the last version of this Bill, the European context has altered. First, the prospect that the Prime Minister hoped for rather forlornly at the time of his speech to Bloomberg—that major treaty change by 2017 would be inevitable—has receded. That is an uncomfortable truth. Secondly, the economic concerns that have been expressed by John Cridland, Sir Richard Branson and many others across the British business community have endured. Thirdly, we have to have the humility to recognise, as was pointed out in an earlier intervention, that there is politics at work in the Bill, and the politics has moved on since the Bill was last debated as well.

Since we last debated the Bill, the Prime Minister has lost a Foreign Secretary who was apparently deemed by his Back Benchers to have gone native in the Foreign Office, to be replaced by a Foreign Secretary—I welcome him to his position on the Front Bench—who, on hearing the news that the then Secretary of State for Education, the current Chief Whip, had suggested that he would vote to leave the EU today, rushed to the television studios to match that Eurosceptic pledge. One would almost think that they were worrying about an election beyond the general election in May 2015. The truth is that one of the reasons why we are once again debating the Bill is that the centre of gravity of the Conservative party has shifted and continues to shift. The Bill is all about internal leadership challenges and external electoral challenges.

I do not want to intrude too much on private grief, although I could probably be tempted, but what has also changed is that the Conservative party has lost two Members of Parliament to UKIP in just the last two months. Who knows how many more will follow? Who knows how many more are now saying, “Never say never.”? That is the real reason for the Bill.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to give way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that he intends to stand as a Conservative candidate.

[Simon Kirby]

I am still very confused. I thought that we were debating giving people the chance to have their say. I still do not understand what I should say to voters in Brighton, Kemptown about what the Labour party’s policy is. Why should their voices not be heard?

[Mr Alexander]

The confusion of the hon. Gentleman is a much longer topic of conversation, which extends beyond the parameters of this debate. Let us take a step back and recollect how far the Conservative party, of which he is a member, has journeyed. However, I note that he did not confirm that he will take the Conservative Whip, so he might be somebody else the Chief Whip needs to speak to in the coming days, along with so many others.

Back in the days when the Conservative party still believed that it could win a majority, the Prime Minister said that, “for too long”,

“Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most. While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life, we were banging on about Europe.”

Let us take this week as an example. On Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, Conservative Back Benchers asked more questions about Europe than any other subject, and here we are on Friday morning, once again witnessing the Conservative party banging on about Europe. It is talking to itself and not to the country all over again. It did not have to be like this. The tragedy for the country—this brings me back to my substantive point about statesmanship—is that the Prime Minister is trying to use a referendum Bill to cover over the cracks in the Conservative party, when he should be seizing the moment for reform in Europe.

In his speech in January last year the Prime Minister set out principles for EU reform, but 22 months later what more have we heard? There was a valiant attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) to elicit more information from the Foreign Secretary on that issue, but we heard only the sound of silence. Yesterday, what started as a screaming headline about free movement, became the squeak of “speculation” by the mid-morning Downing street briefing. Old spin techniques in place of new policy—exactly the kind of approach that leads to distrust in politics today.

Two years ago—let us be honest—the Prime Minister set out five principles of reform of such staggering blandness and generality that there was not really anything for any of us to oppose. Since then, however, we have heard absolutely nothing specific. That silence on the specifics—which we have heard again this morning—is not coincidental but utterly calculated, because the Prime Minister understands that the gap between what Europe will deliver and what his Back Benchers will demand remains unbridgeable 22 months on. He is hoping to sustain party unity through the device of obscurity. We are now in a position where, with months to go until the general election, the Opposition have a far more detailed agenda for reform on Europe than the Government.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to give way—perhaps we can get some specifics.

[Mr Hammond]

Given that the right hon. Gentleman was the Europe Minister whose brilliant negotiating tactics lost £7 billion of our rebate, if he does not mind we will take no advice from him on how to negotiate the best deal for Britain in Europe.

[Mr Alexander]

It is always revealing when those on the Government Front Benches give up an argument and simply go for abuse. If that is the best the Foreign Secretary can do—[Interruption.] I am happy to give way again to hear a single specific example of powers that he will repatriate. Is he prepared to take to the Dispatch Box and tell the House which social, economic or employment rights he is seeking to repatriate? It is unconvincing for Labour Members, but—this is much more worrying for the Foreign Secretary—it is deeply unconvincing for Conservative Members when he pretends that he is having conversations in Europe that he is not willing to tell any of us about. That will not convince the British public, and I do not believe it will convince the House.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the obscurity that we have just seen displayed is deeply concerning given the time scale set out in the Bill? If within 19 months after May next year the British public are to have an in/out vote on this issue, there are not 19 months to negotiate but a much shorter time, if the matter is to be debated realistically among the British people.

[Mr Alexander]

What honestly worries me about the Government’s approach to Europe is not that it is clever, wily and strategic, but that they are making it up as they go along. Many months after the Bloomberg speech we have absolutely no detail. I see the Europe Minister is in his place, so perhaps he would like to advise the incoming Foreign Secretary about those detailed proposals for reform. Would he like to set out repatriation proposals for us today? I would happily give way.

[Mike Gapes]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that in 2017 there is supposed to be a six-month British presidency of the European Union, which begins on 1 July until 31 December. Does he think it wise for the middle of that British presidency to be disrupted by a referendum, or will the referendum have to be held in the first six months of 2017, before July?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but—let us be honest—this policy has been framed not in reference to European or foreign policy, but in terms of domestic politics. It is not because the Conservative party trusts the British public, but because the Back Benchers do not trust the Prime Minister. That is why they have given up any pretence of a credible reform agenda. We have had five principles and then many months of silence, and the Conservative party has given up any pretence that there is widespread support for the reform agenda it describes. The Foreign Secretary—his Back Benchers will have noted this—today failed to name a single country with which he has had discussions in recent months and which accepts that there will be a fundamental redesign of the European Union, by unanimity, by 2017.

We have a track record—we do not need to look in a crystal ball because we can look in the history books. This is the only British Prime Minister in history who lost in the European Council on a vote that he did not need to lose. Not only did he have support from the Liberal party and the Labour party, but there was significant support among other European countries. However, if someone spends their time driving and looking through the rear view mirror, they tend to crash the car. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing when he spends more time negotiating with his Back Benchers than with other European parties. That is disastrous for the Conservative party but bad for Britain as well, and it is about time we had a reform agenda that spoke to the country’s needs on immigration, institutional reform and UK scrutiny.

[Steve McCabe]

Let me pursue the point about what the Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister will be negotiating on. I think there have been something like 14 reports from the balance of competences review. Is it time that Back Benchers knew exactly what that was leading to?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Let us take the specific example—again, if the Foreign Secretary wishes to come to the Dispatch Box he can add some clarity—of what has happened to the balance of competences review on free movement? Where has it gone? Is it still locked in the Home Office? Why has it been locked there? Why have Conservative Back Benchers not been entitled to see that report? It is because it is judged too politically dangerous to publish. That is the state that the modern Conservative party has fallen into despite the best interests of the country—the Government are frightened to implement even the policies that they advocate because of their own Back Benchers. The balance of competences report on free movement is an example not of leadership but of followership. That is what we are seeing on Europe month after month from the Conservatives. The Opposition are clear that membership of the EU is both a strategic and an economic asset to Britain.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

It appears that not only did the right hon. Gentleman not read the German coalition agreement, but that he has not read Hansard either. Had he done so, he would have seen that the balance of competences report on the free movement of persons was published a couple of months ago.

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful to the Minister. Given that he is in an educative and co-operative mood, would he like to enlighten the House as to what the report recommends in terms of what the Prime Minister anticipated yesterday?

[Mr Lidington]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

Forgive me; let me finish the point. It is not what the Prime Minister promised his Back Benchers, which is a ramp for change, but instead a rather dry, factual series of reports that has left unabated the appetite of Conservative Back Benchers.

[Mr Lidington]

As with all balance of competences reports, it sets out in detail a number of arguments for specific reforms to how the EU currently does business. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to do justice to the report and the many people who contributed to it, he might at least have the grace to read it before he comments on it.

[Mr Alexander]

If the report contains a whole number of substantive and serious reforms, perhaps the Minister will explain why yesterday we had headlines promising change on the free movement of labour, but by the briefing from the No. 10 spokesman in the afternoon that had been dismissed as “speculation”. Will the right hon. Gentleman share some of the specific proposals he is advocating? Will he suggest some of the proposals that his Conservative Back Benchers are keen to hear before the Rochester by-election? I assure him that Labour Members are all ears.

Labour does not support this Bill because its real aim is not to empower the public, as we have heard, but to pacify the party, and it is not focused on the interests of hard-working families, British business, or the needs of our country. That is why when today’s spectacle—once again—of the Conservative party talking to itself about Europe is long forgotten, it will fall to Labour to continue making the case for Britain’s place in Europe, and for reform and change within Europe.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

ISIL: Iraq and Syria

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for advance sight of it, although I regret that, unlike under his predecessor, it was sent only a few moments before we had to head to the Chamber. None the less, let me of course echo him in expressing our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Alan Henning. He went to Syria to help the Syrian people in their most desperate time of need, and his callous murder by ISIL both confirms the brutality of an organisation that glorifies terror and defies decency and humanity.

I join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute not only to our armed forces for their outstanding work, but to the dedicated diplomats and aid workers who are today contributing to the UK’s efforts in the region. Let me of course pay tribute as well to the law enforcement officers and agencies in the United Kingdom, who endeavour each and every day to keep our borders safe.

I welcome the steps that the British Government are taking to address the huge humanitarian needs within the region, but I urge them to make further efforts to ensure that the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs appeal is fully funded by the international community, notwithstanding the significant contribution that I am proud to say the United Kingdom has made.

As well as the Foreign Secretary’s visit to the region this week, President Obama held a video conference with the Prime Minister, President Hollande, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Renzi of Italy to discuss the campaign against ISIL. On Tuesday, the United States hosted a summit with senior military commanders from across the international coalition to discuss the fight against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Curiously, those discussions did not merit a mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. What did feature was the Foreign Secretary’s assessment that the coalition air campaign has “stabilised the strategic picture”. That seems to be a somewhat complacent assessment, given that the air strikes initiated in recent weeks have failed to prevent ISIL from conquering almost all of Anbar province and coming close to overrunning the Syrian town of Kobane. It is reported that ISIL also drew to within 15 miles of Baghdad international airport only last weekend.

The backdrop to the authorisation that Parliament granted for UK airstrikes in Iraq was the expectation that, within Iraq, the Iraqi military and the Kurds would provide resistance to ISIL’s advance on the ground. The United States has also committed significant resources to supporting the Free Syrian Army in Syria. However, only one of those forces—the Kurdish peshmerga—has so far resisted ISIL effectively. Incidentally, that force has historically not been armed or trained by our friends and allies in the United States.

Against that challenging backdrop, I ask the Foreign Secretary the following questions. Reports in recent days have suggested that in Iraq’s Anbar province the Iraqi army abandoned a key base under cover of darkness, leaving 30,000 families defenceless and the way clear for ISIL to advance on Baghdad international airport. Only last month, General Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, stated that nearly half of the Iraqi military—24 out of 50 brigades—were incapable of fighting ISIL. In the light of his discussions in Iraq this week, can the Foreign Secretary offer more clarity on our Government’s assessment of the capability of the Iraqi armed forces? Will he also set out what consideration is being given to further material requests from the Kurdish peshmerga for training, equipment and support?

In Syria today, the sight of hundreds of thousands of refugees, many of them Kurds, fleeing in terror from their homes in Kobane is a stark demonstration of the peril and persecution that so many citizens still face across the region. Reports overnight indicated, however, that the international coalition has made some progress in helping to secure parts of the border town. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm his assessment of those reports?

The Foreign Secretary spoke on his visit to Iraq about a growing role for the UK in training and supporting local forces. Rather delphically, he has just told the House: “The UK Government expect to make a significant contribution to the US-led programme to train the Syrian moderate…opposition”. He went on to say that details of that contribution are currently being “scoped”. Will he therefore set out not the details, but the parameters of the potential UK contribution?

Curiously, the Foreign Secretary chose to mention Turkey in his statement only in relation to humanitarian assistance. Given Turkey’s huge strategic significance, will he confirm whether he, personally, has raised the prospect of its contributing to the military coalition against ISIL with the Turkish Government directly?

The long-term success of any approach will be measured by the role that is played by a broader alliance against ISIL and, in particular, by regional leaders, armies and communities. It is clear that the role of the Sunni communities and leaders across the region remains fundamental. In Iraq, the Sunni tribes who revolted against ISIL’s earlier incarnation in 2007 will undoubtedly be required to play a significant role once again. Across the region, leading Sunni countries must make tangible commitments to defeating ISIL, beyond simply writing cheques. Will the Foreign Secretary give his assessment of what progress is being made not only on halting the flow of fighters from within the region, but on disrupting the flow of finance to ISIL from countries within the region? Will he say whether it is realistic to expect that we will secure a significantly greater regional military contribution to the coalition campaign?

Ultimately, the need for an integrated regional, military, diplomatic, humanitarian and political campaign against ISIL is common ground across the Chamber. Notwithstanding today’s statement, our view is that the severity of the threat that ISIL poses is not yet matched by the effectiveness of the national, regional and international response. I certainly welcome the optimism of the Foreign Secretary’s statement after his visit to Iraq, but the risks remain real and we remain concerned that recent weeks have seen more setbacks than progress on the ground.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the remarks with which he opened the debate. This is our first exchange on the Floor of the House since his appointment, so may I take this opportunity to warmly welcome him and the Secretary of State for Defence to their vital roles for our country? The Foreign Secretary comes to the post to help us navigate a time of very real risks and rising uncertainties for the United Kingdom. In these difficult times, I know that the whole House will wish him well in carrying out his duties in the months ahead.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Members from all parts of the House have been calling on the Government to grant a full day’s debate on foreign affairs. I welcome the opportunity to discuss Ukraine, the middle east, north Africa and security today. This debate undoubtedly takes place at a time of significant global upheaval and significant challenge for the United Kingdom. The conflicts in the middle east and north Africa, the threat of ISIL, the destabilisation of eastern Europe by Russia and the new challenges facing NATO have created a palpable anxiety that the future may be less certain than many in the west had previously anticipated.

Given the scale and the pace of change, any Government must seek to approach the challenges with appropriate humility. However, as I and others across the House have argued, that must not give way to passivity in international affairs. For Britain to retreat from the world would be as foolish as it would be futile. Growing interdependence and the rise of cross-border threats mean that co-operating and collaborating with international partners is more vital in promoting our national interests than ever before. Today, the alliances that have helped to keep half a century of peace in Europe—the transatlantic bond, NATO and our co-operation with EU allies—are essential to Britain’s security and prosperity, perhaps more so than for many years.

Nowhere is that more evident than in the middle east. That region is experiencing some of the darkest days of its tumultuous and violent history. The Arab uprisings that began in December 2010 fleetingly seemed to herald a new beginning, yet they precipitated a period of unprecedented turmoil in Syria, Egypt and Libya, the spill-over effect of which has brought to the fore historical sectarian and religious tensions across the region.

ISIL is the latest and possibly the most brutal manifestation of this period of regional upheaval. Labour is clear that that threat cannot and must not be ignored. It cannot be ignored, because of our sense of conscience towards those who immediately face ISIL’s terror, because ISIL threatens the democratic Iraqi state and seeks to establish a state—a caliphate—of its own, and because of the danger that the export of ISIL’s ideology causes here in the United Kingdom.

The discussions at last week’s NATO summit highlighted the need to build the widest possible consensus in the pursuit of any strategy to combat ISIL. As the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, embarks on his tour of regional capitals today, it is clear that a broad partnership across the region, alongside a genuinely multilateral political, diplomatic and humanitarian alliance, is vital as we chart a way ahead.

Of course, any international strategy for combating ISIL in Iraq must ultimately be led by Baghdad. The formation of the new Iraqi Government this week was a much needed step forward. Prime Minister Abadi has a duty to his citizens and a responsibility in his Government to advance a more inclusive power-sharing form of working within the capital of Iraq—a subject about which there has already been some discussion on the Floor of the House. The progress that has been made so far shows that there is the possibility of further progress. With crucial posts such as Defence Secretary still to be filled, there is more that can and must be done to establish an inclusive Government who can earn the critical trust of Sunnis and Kurds across Iraq.

The threat that ISIL poses stretches across borders, so a strategy for combating ISIL cannot be confined within the borders of Iraq.

[Rory Stewart]

Would the right hon. Gentleman like to define what an inclusive Government in Baghdad would look like? What kind of offer needs to be made to the Sunni people in terms of autonomy, who should be in the Cabinet, and how would he judge whether the Government are or are not inclusive?

[Mr Alexander]

In asking his question, the hon. Gentleman anticipates my answer, which is that, frankly, it is not for the shadow Foreign Secretary to make that judgment. The critical judgment will be that of the Sunni community within Iraq. It is vital that there is a dialogue ahead of appointment, so that we do not have a situation in which those outside Iraq presume that a degree of unity has been achieved but, alas, it proves to be illusive within the country. The point that he makes is fair, but it only reinforces the vitality of there being inclusivity preceding the appointment, rather than assertions of inclusivity after the appointment.

[Rehman Chishti]

The shadow Foreign Secretary says that it is not the role of the international community to intervene in who comes to office and what position they take, but surely he agrees that the international community has a role in ensuring that another Government like Mr Maliki’s do not come to power. If that happens, the international community must dissociate itself at an earlier stage. If it had done so with Mr Maliki’s Government, we might not have the problem that we now have of international terrorism in Iraq.

[Mr Alexander]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about former Prime Minister Maliki. I had the opportunity to speak to President Barzani of the Kurdistan Regional Government a matter of weeks ago by video conference. He could not have been clearer about the destructive effect of the sectarian approach that was taken by the Maliki Government, both in corrupting the chain of command in the Iraqi army and destabilising the politics of the country. Our friends and colleagues in the United States were entirely right in holding out the need for Maliki to go, given the profound damage that he did to the fabric of society and the process of governance in Iraq. The challenge, however, is not to look backwards, but to look forwards to see whether the new Prime Minister is in a position to make the progress that many of us wish Maliki had been able to make.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is making, and with which many of us agree, is that the Government and the Opposition seem to have an unachievable aim. It is slightly ironic that we are offering devo-max after 300 years of union, while at the same time we think there can be a unified Iraq, even though it has a Kurdish state that has its own Prime Minister, President and armed forces; the Saudis are not content to allow Iran to dominate the country; and the Iranians do not want 10 million barrels of oil a day to be pumped from a unified Iraq. That seems to be an unrealistic aim on the basis of which to have UK air strikes.

[Mr Alexander]

It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is any meaningful comparison between what we are witnessing in Scotland and what is taking place in Iraq. When he has had the opportunity to reflect on the wisdom and sense of the remarks that he has made, I hope he will think again. There are unique and specific challenges facing Iraq that are wholly different from those we are facing in the United Kingdom. They reflect the particular circumstances of that country and the challenges that it faces today. If his point is that we need to find a way for a more inclusive approach to be taken to the politics within Iraq, I think we can agree with each other. I am not sure that I can go much further than that.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Perhaps I could try to clarify the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). Is not the issue in Iraq that in large areas of the country, people do not accept the state or the democratic system because they do not think that it speaks to them and they do not think that there is a peaceful means of change? How will we persuade them that there is a peaceful, democratic answer?

[Mr Alexander]

Again, I think that the question is revealing. It is not for us in the House of Commons or in the west to persuade those people; it is for the politics of Iraq to move in the direction that we on both sides of the House wish it to move in. That places a premium on domestic, political leadership. It is deeply regrettable that Prime Minister Maliki succumbed to the forces of division, rather than showing the kind of leadership that we all wanted to see and creating unity. However, that is not a test for the Opposition or even for our Government; it is primarily a test for the Government in Baghdad. I sincerely hope that they will show themselves capable of rising to that test in the months ahead.

On Syria, no one would deny that there were differences of opinion across the House on the proposed military action to target President Assad’s chemical weapons facilities 12 months ago. However, even those who supported military action accept that the decision that was before the House a year ago in August was not a choice between ending or prolonging the conflict. It is the continuation of the conflict, rather than the form it has taken, that has allowed Syrian territory to be used as a training and recruiting base for ISIL. That is why the Opposition have argued that the priority for the international community must be to refocus attention on achieving a transitional agreement in Syria of the type that was anticipated in the Geneva II process. That is the only way to facilitate a more co-ordinated Syrian front that is dedicated to combating the threat of ISIL within the sovereign territory of Syria.

Humanitarian support for the countries affected by the turmoil in Iraq and Syria is vital. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will address the Opposition’s calls for a more comprehensive package of support for Jordan—a country that has one of the longest land borders with Iraqi ISIL-held territory and an even longer border with Syria in the north.

[Mr Baron]

I think all of us in the House agree that when it comes to ISIS and Iraq, the solution has to be political. On the military options, does the shadow Foreign Secretary accept that airstrikes alone will not defeat ISIS? Ground troops are required, but they should not be western troops. They should be local forces, and the elephant in the room is the Iraqi army itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I travelled down for this debate from Scotland, where I have been otherwise occupied, and had the great pleasure of reading the exchange between the hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Secretary on exactly that matter. I found myself in agreement with the point that the Foreign Secretary made before the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. Of course airstrikes have a role to play as part of the unique military capabilities of the United States, and they have been deployed in Iraq in particular, but that alone is not an adequate response to the scale and threat of the ISIL challenge that we are now witnessing. That is why I stand behind the process that Secretary of State Kerry has initiated, coming out of the NATO summit in Newport. I welcome the fact that he is in the region at the moment talking to those in regional capitals, and I hope to develop a little more of my theme on the matter in the coming moments.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

Let me make a little progress, then I will be happy to take some more interventions.

The rise of ISIL has now created a threat so extreme that it is apparently uniting previous adversaries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, neither of which has an interest in allowing it to succeed. Last week’s agreement by Arab League leaders to unite against ISIL is a hopeful sign of progress in the region, which as we have heard is too often divided along sectarian, ethnic and religious lines. That relates to the point that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) made. We support the decision of our friends and colleagues in France to convene an international conference on Iraq on 15 September, but as a permanent member of the Security Council and its current chair, we believe that the United Kingdom can and should do more to co-ordinate the efforts of key regional allies, particularly Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as well as to engage with Iran. So far, the Prime Minister has hinted at Iranian involvement but given no commitment to facilitate that where appropriate. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will give us a little more clarity about what discussions are under way in relation to Iran.

It seems clear from recent statements that the UK Government are still formulating their approach to the threat of ISIL. Obviously they are not alone in that endeavour, given recent and anticipated statements by the US President. Although any strategy for dealing with ISIL will by definition be long-term, that is not an excuse for long-term delay in setting it out. Of course there is a need for operational discretion, but diplomatic and political alliances can be effectively built only on the basis of open and frank discussions about aims and objectives in the days and weeks ahead. I therefore hope that further clarity will be provided.

[Mr Gray]

The shadow Foreign Secretary calls for clarity in the weeks and months that lie ahead. If Her Majesty’s Government were to decide that air strikes against Iraq, or parts of Iraq, became the right thing to do, and if they were—wrongly in my view—to come to the House and ask for a vote on the matter, would the Labour party support the Government?

[Mr Alexander]

First, I do not think it is under contemplation that there would be air strikes against Iraq. If there were air strikes, they would be against ISIL. We have made it clear on many occasions that we would reach a judgment on the basis of any motion brought before the House. That was the position that we took in relation to Libya a couple of years ago and in relation to the vote on chemical weapons in Syria in the House a year ago in August. It is for the Government to set out their thinking and for the Opposition to reach a judgment.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The shadow Foreign Secretary knows that the United States has been engaged in air strikes—there have been about 130—and that the Kurds have warmly welcomed the contribution that those air strikes have made to blunting the advance of ISIL. To return to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) asked, if it were put to the right hon. Gentleman today that the United Kingdom should join the United States in those air strikes, would the Labour party support that?

[Mr Alexander]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, no such request has been made. America has unique military capabilities, and we have supported the Government in their support of those US air strikes, which are at the specific request of the Iraqi Government. I am rightly not privy to all conversations between the British and Iraqi Governments, but my understanding is that no such request has been made to the British Government for air strikes against ISIL. We have supported the understanding that was set out in relation to the humanitarian mission and the use of Tornadoes for reconnaissance capabilities, first at Mount Sinjar and then more broadly. We have also strongly supported the arming of the peshmerga. I am glad to say that we have been able to take a genuinely bipartisan approach, and it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman either to suggest that a request has been made, when none has yet been forthcoming, or to anticipate particular circumstances. It is reasonable that we would be expected to cast our judgment on the basis of the circumstances at the time and the nature of the request issued.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I have been generous in taking a couple of interventions on this point, and I am keen to make a little progress.

The past seven weeks in Gaza and Israel have been the deadliest for years in an area already scarred by the tragic pattern of conflict. Today, the hopes of millions hinge on the willingness of all sides to uphold the latest, and hopefully lasting, Egyptian-brokered ceasefire. The Opposition opposed the Israel incursion into Gaza. When it began, we warned from the Dispatch Box that further escalation of the conflict would be a disaster for the people of both Gaza and Israel and a strategic error for Israel.

We have all seen this deadly pattern of violence too many times before. Five years ago, after an earlier conflict in Gaza, I walked amidst the rubble of what had been a Palestinian family’s home. As a father myself, I will never forget the father showing me tearfully where his children had been killed. The death toll caused by three weeks of intense and bloody fighting shocked and outraged many around the world. Such fighting goes on to define a generation, I fear; it makes enemies out of neighbours. Since the conflict began in July, more than 2,200 Palestinians have lost their lives, the vast majority of them innocent civilians. Of course the conflict must not be reduced simply to a ledger of casualties, but the scale of suffering in Gaza today must be fully and frankly acknowledged, because the life of a Palestinian child is worth no less than the life of an Israeli child.

Today, out of the rubble of Gaza, the death and destruction that followed the Israeli military incursion will be there for the world to see. Many people have been forced from their homes and more than 350,000 are thought to be sheltering in emergency accommodation. Many now have no home to return to, so the priority must be getting vital humanitarian resources into Gaza to help those in desperate need. I welcome the Government’s assurances on the UK’s bilateral support, and it is vital that the planned Palestinian donor conference, now scheduled for 12 October, does not face further delays.

Palestinian poverty cannot continue to be Israel’s de facto strategy for security. An end to the fighting, although of course welcome, must not be an excuse for a return to the status quo of terror, occupation and blockade. The whole House will feel real regret that instead of seizing the initiative to move forward, Israel has given the international community renewed cause for concern. The recent Israeli annexation of land in the west bank must be forthrightly condemned. It is a serious setback at a perilous time, and the Israeli Government must reverse that decision. Israel’s own Finance Minister has said that the decision harms Israel, and he is right.

In Israel, the death of 64 soldiers and three civilians has scarred a society already traumatised by the cost of conflict. No one should question Israel’s right to defend itself, but we all have a duty to raise questions about the wisdom, morality and legality of the force that is used. There can be no military solution to the conflict, either now or in the future. Only a wider political agreement to end the violence will provide the longer-term security that civilians on all sides crave. Of course, we unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks on civilian populations in Israel. There can be no justification for the conduct of Hamas and other organisations operating out of Gaza, but ultimately only a political agreement to end the violence will provide that longer-term security.

Today, the risk is a return to a period of no peace and no process. After the fighting has stopped, we all hope that talks will begin, but peace will come only when all sides accept that talks are not simply the things that happen in between renewed bouts of the conflict. Talks are about bringing a meaningful end to the cycle of violence, which is why I hope the British Government will continue their efforts to support meaningful attempts to secure a negotiated solution.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I wholly support the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks that we need a political settlement of the Gaza-Israeli dispute. Does he agree that the Israelis risk losing international sympathy if they carry on building settlements and seizing land, which is contrary to international law and unacceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

One of the profound challenges facing the state of Israel is to recognise that in responding to its immediate security challenges in the region, it risks losing standing and authority in the international community. A younger generation of citizens in the United Kingdom have no memory of the experience of the Israeli state after 1948, when it was periodically threatened by invasion from powerful neighbours. Instead, they have seen in recent conflicts the overwhelming use of military force by the Israel defence forces, which shapes and affects their view of the conflict.

It is important for the Israeli Government to recognise that statehood for the Palestinians is not a gift to be given, but a right to be recognised. It is not simply that Israeli settlements on occupied territory lands are illegal under international law, it is that it is simply wrong to build on other people’s lands. That is why the most recent initiative is so wholly unacceptable, both because of the reality that Israel is building once more on other people’s land, with that land being occupied for military purposes, and because of the symbol that it sends about the seriousness of the Israeli Government to try to make meaningful progress on a negotiated solution. We must break the pattern of periodic conflict, permanent blockade, and episodic attempts at talks. In that sense, of course there is a heavy burden of responsibility on the Palestinians, but there is also a very heavy burden of responsibility on the Israeli Government. My genuine fear is that this latest step in settlement building will be interpreted as being far from positive as to the sincerity of the Israeli Government’s efforts in that regard.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My right hon. Friend heard the Foreign Secretary say that simply wagging fingers would not contribute to meaningful peace in the middle east. Will he say what UK stance, either bilaterally or with our partners, could make any higher diplomatic or political case than wagging our finger?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. How does one effectively seek to influence the conduct of the Israeli Government? One truth that we in this House must confront is that Prime Minister Netanyahu—many of us have had concerns about specific actions he has taken—is probably more popular 10 years after taking office than when he first assumed it. The test for me is not, “Can we make headlines?”, but “Can we make a difference?”, and the test of that is whether actions taken in the United Kingdom, or at European level, strengthen the forces of progress in Israeli society, or strengthen the forces of reaction.

I fully understand the depth of feeling among many Opposition Members about the urgency of finding meaningful ways to influence Israel, and for it to adopt an approach that many of us believe better suited to its long-term interests. But in reality, if we were to take actions that strengthened a narrative in Israeli society that somehow the whole world is against them, that the only people they can trust to defend them are the IDF, and that they can have no security reliant on international agreements but must instead look only to themselves, I fear that far from that leading to the progress we all sincerely want, we would get a further reinforcement of the pattern of destruction and blockade that we have seen over recent years. I am conscious of the anger, urgency and frustration that so many people on both sides of this House feel about making progress, but our challenge is about what can make a difference given the discourse in Israeli society, the balance of forces in the Knesset, and the views previously taken by the Israeli Government.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

During the crisis of the last six weeks or so, American arms have continued to flow to Israel, the EU-Israel trade agreement continued unabated, and Britain, while not exporting a vast amount of equipment to Israel, has continued a military relationship with it. Does my right hon. Friend think that at the very least we should be supporting an investigation into war crimes and suspending military co-operation with Israel while that is going on?

[Mr Alexander]

We took a different position to the Government on the export of arms—once they managed to sort out what their position was—by saying that no arms should be exported during this conflict, and certainly that no arms should be exported where there were reasonable concerns that the consolidated criteria were not being adhered to by the end user, which in this case was the state of Israel. Of course any allegations of war crimes that are brought to the attention of the United Nations, and others, should be investigated.

On my hon. Friend’s substantive point, the nature of the military relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel is profoundly different to the relationship between the United States and Israel. It is important to nail the misperception that somehow the sustained military aid provided by the United States Government to the state of Israel, based on their long-standing strategic alliance, is comparable in a meaningful way to the export of arms to Israel under tightly drawn consolidated criteria and on a commercial basis by arms manufacturers in the United Kingdom.

When I was Secretary of State for International Development under the previous Administration, I oversaw the largest ever package of aid to the Palestinian Authority. We do not provide any aid to the Israelis as they are a much wealthier nation. The reasons we sent that aid to the Palestinian Authority were twofold. First, of course, we had an obligation on poverty reduction to make sure that we were ensuring a higher standard of living for impoverished people, not just on the west bank but in Gaza. Critically, we also supported those aid payments because we wanted a credible negotiating partner for the state of Israel. If we are serious about matching our words about a two-state solution with deeds, we must continue to make what I recognise are often difficult decisions and choices to continue to support the legitimate voice of the Palestinian peoples, the Palestinian Authority. If we are to be questioned about our aid relationship with the region, the facts are that we do not provide aid to Israel, but we do provide hundreds of millions of pounds to the Palestinians—and rightly so—both in the service of poverty reduction and to ensure a capacity for meaningful negotiations in the future.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the situation will come across as extremely one-sided, and as far too dismissive of the role of Hamas in this situation.

[Mr Alexander]

I am not entirely clear of the basis on which the hon. Gentleman makes his point, but let me reiterate for the record, and so that he can rest assured, that I am unyielding in my condemnation of Hamas, both for the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians and for the destructive role it has played when we have tried to secure the two-solution we want. Please do not be in any doubt as to where I stand on wanting a unification of the Palestinian community so that we can have that meaningful two-state solution, but I am also unequivocal in my condemnation of the use of rockets as a weapon of war by Hamas and other terrorist organisations operating out of Gaza. There should be no uncertainty or ambiguity about my position.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend say a couple of words about a matter on which I had hoped the Foreign Secretary would have accepted a question from me, particularly as I wrote to him about it only last week? It concerns the terms of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza. We all accept that a long-term solution requires a two-state solution, justice for the Palestinians, security for Israel and so on, but the ceasefire agreement is specific in requiring actions now. One of those actions is the cessation of hostilities, the other is at least an easing of the blockade. Last week the new DFID Minister—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the shadow Foreign Secretary has picked up the point. If necessary the hon. Gentleman will have to make another intervention.

[Mr Alexander]

I hope I have got the gist of my hon. Friend’s point about the lifting of the blockade. Of course we want that, but in reality it will happen only with the agreement of the Israelis, who are ensuring that the blockade is in place at the moment. That therefore requires it to be part of a process, leading to the kind of meaningful negotiations of which I have spoken. After a previous conflict, one reason why I travelled to Gaza and Israel was to urge the lifting of the blockade, which at the time was affecting humanitarian supplies—not just access for humanitarian workers, but the most basic essentials of life in Gaza. Similarly, we need a dynamic process whereby we can get the blockade lifted and return to a greater degree of normality in Gaza, while at the same time have the kind of meaning negotiations of which I have been speaking.

I wish to make some progress, because I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak. As I said, the north African region was the birthplace of the Arab uprising, and across the region countries are still struggling to address the consequences. Of course, although some might face similar problems, each north African state is different and distinctive. In Tunisia, the Government and the people continue to work towards a political settlement that can move the country forward. High unemployment and sporadic violent clashes on the streets continue, but the prospect for long-term political reconciliation remains strong, and the international community must unite around supporting elections to take place later this year.

The situation in Libya stands in marked contrast to the story of Tunisian progress. The intensification of fighting near the capital Tripoli has led to calls for an urgent and immediate ceasefire and the Libyan Cabinet submitted its resignation en masse to Parliament, which is today taking refuge in a ferry in the city of Tobruk after being forced out by the Tripoli militias. The UK Government issued a joint statement on 25 August saying that outside interference in Libya would exacerbate divisions and undermine Libya’s democratic transition, but given the deteriorating security situation, I am sure the Foreign Secretary would agree that if the opportunity for real political reconciliation is to be seized, the UK, along with our allies France, Germany, Italy and the United States, have a responsibility and role to play. It is vital that international partners continue to encourage all sides in Libya to engage constructively in the democratic process, while continuing our active backing of the UN support mission there. The UN Libya envoy arriving in Tripoli on Monday said it was a society that was fed up with conflict. We know that the people of Libya want the fighting to stop; now we need to see Libya’s political leaders taking action to resolve this crisis.

I will speak briefly about Iran. In an already volatile region at a particularly perilous period, a nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat not only to its neighbours, but to the stability of the whole region, so the agreement in November 2013 to curb enrichment and grant greater access to inspectors was a significant step forward and one that we welcomed. As many Members across the House have acknowledged, however, the strength of the agreement will be tested through its implementation. In recent weeks, the talks between the P5 plus 1 have clearly stalled over disagreements on the purpose of Iran’s nuclear programme. The deadline to overcome these difficulties is fast approaching, so as meetings take place in New York later this month, the international community must remain focused on securing a comprehensive deal.

Until Russian troops violated the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine in 2014, no country had seized the territory of another European country by force since 1945. The recent ceasefire deal agreed last week was therefore a welcome sign of progress, but given the continuing potential for catastrophic misunderstanding or simply misjudgment on the ground, the priority must remain de-escalation. Russian troops must return to their bases, President Putin must cease his backing for separatist militias and the Kremlin must stop the flow of arms and personnel across the Russian border into Ukraine. Until then, Europe must continue to be explicit about the real costs and consequences for Russia if it fails to de-escalate the crisis.

Only a graduated hierarchy of diplomatic and economic measures can help President Putin to change course. That is why I welcome all the steps agreed last week at the NATO summit in Wales, specifically with regard to the reassurances given to NATO’s vital eastern European members and partners. In the face of renewed Russian aggression and the re-emergence of territorial disputes on the continent, the need for NATO to revisit its stated core purpose—securing a Europe that is whole, free and at peace—has been brought into stark relief.

This debate could not cover several other pressing issues that have rightly been the focus of the Foreign Secretary’s effort since his appointment. No doubt today the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary will cover in more detail some of the domestic aspects of security and counter-terrorism. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear on Monday, the Government must now demonstrate a clear-eyed understanding that wherever our interests lie, we need a strategy that combines military readiness with political, diplomatic and strategic alliances, and in their efforts to develop and advance such an approach, I hope they will continue to enjoy our support.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The use of white phosphorus and indeed of cluster munitions was raised in the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday. We have seen no evidence to date that they have been used during recent events in Gaza. However, the defence section in Tel Aviv will approach the Israeli defence forces to inquire whether they are being used in this current campaign.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

May I welcome the Minister to his post and say that I fully appreciate the reasons for the new Foreign Secretary being in Brussels today. As we have heard, Operation Protective Edge has already cost more than 580 Palestinian lives, most of whom are civilians and many of whom are innocent children. Last week, I warned that an Israeli ground operation in Gaza would bring more suffering for the Palestinians and would be a strategic error for Israel. The Opposition are clear that we oppose this escalation. Do the Government?

[Mr Ellwood]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I hope that I get the same warm welcome at every Foreign Office questions. He is right to remind the House of the heavy death toll that is being endured in the region, with almost 600 dead, 3,600 injured and 83,000 displaced so far. These matters are being raised in Brussels as we speak, and I think the Foreign Secretary intends to put out a statement on his return.

[Mr Alexander]

That was a troubling answer, even from a colleague whom I welcome to his position on the Front Bench. I welcome the fact that the US Secretary of State John Kerry has travelled to Cairo seeking an urgent ceasefire, but the pattern of rocket attacks, periodic invasion and permanent occupation does not bring security for Israel and brings further humiliation and suffering for the Palestinians. As in the past, this incursion will end with an agreement. The question is how many more children and civilians need to die before such an agreement is reached. Does the Minister accept that the absence of such an agreement will recruit more terrorists at exactly the point at which Hamas had been weakened by events in Tehran, Syria and Egypt?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman misses the point. The work that has been going on is trying to achieve a ceasefire, which is why the Foreign Secretary, who is in Brussels at the moment, will be flying to the region very shortly. John Kerry is there and so is Ban Ki-moon. We also must not forget that Hamas is firing an average of 147 rockets every single day. Were that to stop, the situation in Gaza would change significantly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

We are certainly among those countries that have been pressing for some time at European meetings for a tougher and more rigorous sanctions policy to be adopted by the European Union. Sadly, the crisis in Donetsk and Luhansk appears to have been fomented quite deliberately by the Russian authorities, to whom the separatists look for matériel, for arms and for moral encouragement. It is in the interests of all of Europe that Russia desists from that policy and seeks reconciliation.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on flight MH17. I also welcome whatever further steps can be agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council. In the light of recent developments, however, may I urge the Government urgently to seek an emergency meeting of the European Heads of Government? Does the Minister accept that, in reality, only the European Council is capable of taking the scale of diplomatic response that is increasingly obviously required?

[Mr Lidington]

We certainly do not rule out the necessity for that to happen, perhaps within a matter of days. I think it would be wise to assess the outcome of today’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting first, but the Prime Minister is alive to the possibility of such a meeting.