Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we do raise that with Russia, and we particularly raise the issue of humanitarian access. We and other countries are providing generously for humanitarian relief in and around Syria, but the regime continues to deny access to more than 200,000 people in besieged areas. We continue to look to Russia to help to lift the regime’s sieges of those areas.

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

This morning’s reports in The Guardian of the systematic killing and torture by Syrian Government forces of 11,000 detainees are deeply disturbing. The important work done to collect and publish that material was essentially a privately funded initiative run by a London-based law firm. In the light of that, will the Foreign Secretary set out what steps the international community, and the UK Government in particular, are taking to help catalogue and document evidence about alleged gross violations of human rights?

[Mr Hague]

We have a done a great deal, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the evidence that was published last night. That was done with the assistance of the Qatari Government, so it was not entirely a private initiative. I have seen a lot of the evidence. It is compelling and horrific, and it is important that those who have perpetrated those crimes are one day held to account. The United Kingdom has done a great deal in the documentation of human rights abuses, and part of the support we have given to moderate political forces in Syria is to train human rights activists in the recording and documentation of crimes, many of which have therefore come to the world’s attention. We will do more of that.

[Mr Alexander]

We all welcome the fact that the Geneva II conference is due to commence in Switzerland tomorrow. Will the Foreign Secretary today set out what he would regard to be realistic ambitions for the discussions this week? Does he agree that confidence-building measures could be an important step towards securing further progress, and if so, does he believe in the relative likelihood of local ceasefires, humanitarian access, or prisoner exchanges being agreed in the coming days?

[Mr Hague]

Confidence-building measures would assist enormously, including prisoner releases and local ceasefires. Although there have been discussions about those issues over the past 10 days, they have not yet borne fruit, and it is important that real effort is made on that in the opening stages of the Geneva II talks. I will attend the opening of those talks tomorrow and speak on behalf of our country, and I will encourage progress from all sides on the creation of a transitional governing body. Realistically, we are starting a process; it is important that a political process is started and then pursued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely—my hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital role of British forces. Later this year, we will have the 70th anniversary of D-day, when it will be important to remember that it made possible the liberation of Europe and the role of British forces in doing exactly what he has described.

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

Given the publication by the Foreign Office of its Scotland analysis paper last week, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the impact on Scotland’s exports and influence of reducing a diplomatic network of 14,000 people spread across 267 locations and 152 countries to just 70 to 90 diplomatic offices?

[Mr Hague]

It is clear that Scottish independence would involve a huge reduction in its diplomatic presence and influence around the world. We make a great impact as the United Kingdom on so many issues all over the globe. It would not be possible to do that with between 70 and 90 offices in place of our current 267 embassies and consulates. It would also not be possible to replicate the huge effort that the UK Government and UK Trade & Investment put in to promoting Scottish exports and trade around the world. For instance, I am very proud of everything I have done to promote the interests of scotch whisky all over the world.

Syria

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

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

On Iran, agreeing the terms of the deal in Geneva back in November was indeed an important first step, but the real test remains how it is implemented on the ground. Given the past conduct of the Iranian regime, it is now vital that the international community remains vigilant and stringently monitors the implementation of the first stage nuclear agreement in the months ahead.

Turning to Syria, a conflict that began nearly three years ago as an uprising against the Assad regime has since inflamed sectarian fault lines within the country and mutated into a proxy regional conflict, so delivering support to those most affected by the ongoing violence remains urgent and vital. Ahead of this week’s long-awaited second pledging conference in Kuwait, Baroness Amos has already stressed that the conference will need to raise much more than the $1.5 billion raised last year if it is to meet the scale of the humanitarian need.

The Opposition of course welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the UK Government have now allocated or delivered all our funding promises, but earlier today the Secretary of State for International Development confirmed that contributions from others have so far fallen well short. Will he therefore tell the House what action the Government are taking to encourage other nations to meet their obligations on past pledges, before further pledges are made in the coming days? We also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts, along with the Friends of Syria group, to encourage the Syrian National Coalition to commit to attending the Geneva talks.

In the light of experience of such conflicts, such as the 15-year Lebanese civil war, and the apparent intractability of the factions fighting within Syria today, we all recognise the scale of the challenge, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, involved in securing a full transitional deal in Geneva in the coming days. Yet surely the first goal at Geneva II, between the main international and regional players, could and should be to aim to secure a stop to the escalation and fuelling of the conflict.

That is why the role of Iran in particular may yet be crucial. Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said that Iran would take part in the Geneva II peace conference if invited without preconditions. He added:

“We support any initiative aimed at finding a political solution to the Syrian crisis.”

It is of course right to acknowledge the role that Iran has so far played in deepening and inflaming this conflict. Yet with the need for resolution now so urgent, does the Foreign Secretary agree that Iran’s claimed resolve to be part of the solution should now be tested, and if so, does he agree that one way of doing so is to bring Iran to the table at Geneva to participate in the conference?

A key priority for the international community at that conference must surely be to minimise the problems of overspill across the region by working with allies in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what other steps, beyond humanitarian support, the UK Government are taking to help the Governments of Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon to respond to the growing internal political and economic pressure that the Syrian conflict is placing on them?

The rise of al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria, such as those the Foreign Secretary mentioned, is not of course simply a concern for Syria; they form but part of a crescent of crisis that stretches from Iraq to Lebanon. Will the Foreign Secretary set out his assessment of the extent to which British citizens are playing a role in these conflicts, and will he assure the House today that our agencies are sufficiently focused on these deeply troubling developments?

The challenges to be addressed by the Geneva II conference are of course considerable, but the process under way to secure the peaceful destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile offers us a point of hope amid the death and destruction still being witnessed in the country. The Government will therefore have our support in the coming days in their effort to secure real and substantial progress in Geneva next week towards a political settlement that ends the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, including for the strong support across the House for our trying to do everything we can to make a success of the start of the Geneva II process. He is of course absolutely right to say that a beneficial early product of that could be measures that stop the fuelling and escalation of the conflict. That is why I have talked, as have Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov at their press conference today, about the great desirability of local ceasefires and improved access for humanitarian aid even before we all get to Geneva next week. These are of course things that could also be beneficial products of the process.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the role of Iran. He said correctly that Iran has done quite a bit to deepen and inflame the crisis, including through much direct support for the Assad regime and its brutal treatment of its people. Our position on Iran depends very much on its readiness to work with the outcome of Geneva I. The invitation letter of the UN Secretary-General is clear about the purpose of our invitation to Montreux and then to Geneva, where we will carry on next week, which is to implement the original Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012. Iran was not present at that conference, but all the other nations are united behind that communiqué. That includes Russia, which was represented there.

That is the basis of Geneva II. It is about bringing about a transitional governing body with full executive authority that is formed by mutual consent. A signal of support for that being our united purpose would be very helpful in getting Iran to Geneva II. There is no problem in principle in any quarter, and certainly not among western nations, with Iran coming, but there is the practical problem of whether it is prepared to play a constructive role if it gets there. We would welcome stronger signals of that from the Iranians.

On the questions about Jordan and Lebanon, a great deal of the help that I have described is humanitarian assistance. In the case of Lebanon, where there has been violence, we use our diplomatic presence in every possible way to help the authorities to calm the situation. We also give direct support to the Lebanese armed forces. We help to finance some of their border posts. I welcome the recently announced support from Saudi Arabia for the Lebanese armed forces. It is providing $3 billion of assistance to build up the Lebanese armed forces. We have assisted Jordan with a good deal of equipment, as well as with the support that I have mentioned.

It is clear that the number of British nationals who have travelled to the region to fight is into the hundreds. We are vigilant about that and all our security agencies are focused on it. It is important to make it clear that we are prepared to act to obstruct people from doing that. The Government have the right and the power to confiscate passports. When people are resident in the UK but are not British nationals, we can cancel their leave to remain in the UK on the basis of such activity. I stress, as I have stressed since April 2011, that we advise against all travel to Syria. We of course advise people against going to fight in Syria, but we advise against all travel to Syria even for those who go there for more laudable motives. We are very limited in what we can do to assist people once they have gone there.

Our work on the destruction of chemical weapons will, of course, continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Clearly, it is open to Ukraine to change its policy. As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a great deal of discussion about that in Ukraine at the moment. Again, I urge the Ukrainian authorities to respect the right of peaceful protest and to investigate thoroughly why police violence was used several days ago. I believe it would also be in the long-term interests of Russia for Ukraine to have more open trade with the European Union. The sorts of economic benefits that I have said would flow to Ukraine would go on to benefit the Russian economy as well.

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

The Foreign Secretary said a moment ago that the benefits of this potential agreement are self-evident. The EU High Representative has described it as the

“most ambitious agreement ever offered to a partner country”,

yet, as we have heard, the Ukrainian President has refused to sign it. Will the Foreign Secretary set out a little more of what he believes were the main barriers to the deal being agreed and whether he still believes they can be overcome, given the external pressure on Ukraine?

[Mr Hague]

One principal barrier was the pressure from Russia not to sign or make such an agreement with the European Union. As I have said, we disagree with that assessment even from Russia’s point of view. It would be in the interests of Russia and the whole of eastern Europe to have more open trade and co-operation with each other. We will go on setting out the advantages, but we will also look to Ukraine to clearly meet the criteria set out in the association agreement. Reliable studies have suggested that average wages in Ukraine would rise and that exports to the EU would rise by an estimated 6%. The arguments are very clear, but in the end it is for Ukrainians to make their judgment on them.

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the candour of his last answer, which confirms the role that Russia clearly played in the events that unfolded at the summit. Reports suggest that the International Monetary Fund has a stand-by facility of between $10 billion and $15 billion to provide emergency financial support for Ukraine should Russia take steps to increase economic pressure on the country. Will he set out the British Government’s position on that stand-by facility, and say whether he thinks there might be circumstances in which it is appropriate to make it available to Ukraine?

[Mr Hague]

If Ukraine is to make use of that facility, it is necessary for it to engage in important structural reforms. The reforms on which the IMF has made a new arrangement conditional would help to build a more stable and prosperous Ukraine, which again is important.

It is also important to note in passing that although this agreement has not been signed, deep and comprehensive free trade areas have been agreed between the EU and Georgia and Moldova, so parts of the EU’s Eastern Partnership have continued to progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

We will take a look at that. The Prime Minister’s visit to India was certainly very successful. We have greatly strengthened our relations with India with the Prime Minister’s three visits and all the other work we have done. My hon. Friend draws attention to an important issue, and I undertake to him that we will look at it in more detail.

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

Can the Foreign Secretary offer the House an explanation as to why it has taken the Prime Minister three years to make his second visit to China this week?

[Mr Hague]

I think the right hon. Gentleman could have phrased the question in a slightly more positive way, for instance by asking why it is that this Prime Minister has taken the biggest ever trade delegation to China or why we now have more dialogue between the UK and China than ever before, more people-to-people exchanges, more students studying in each other’s countries than ever before, and more trade and investment than ever before. Clearly the Prime Minister gets extremely good value out of the visits he makes.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Friday 29th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the former shadow Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), and the current shadow Europe Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), for providing the Bill with what we judge to be an appropriate and necessary level of scrutiny both in Committee stage and on Report. I thank the other Committee members and the contributors to those debates. Indeed, the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), who spoke today—that was a particular pleasure—has at least been present when the Bill has been debated and discussed over recent weeks.

Let me briefly address the points raised in Committee and on Report. Alas, the Bill comes to Third Reading with all the fundamental issues and concerns that were raised still unresolved, with the exception of the issue of Gibraltar, where, I am glad to say, we were able to make some progress from the Labour side.

In truth this is a Bill not about the Conservatives trusting the public but about Conservative Back Benchers not trusting a Conservative Prime Minister.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Alexander]

I will make a little progress, and then I will be happy to take some interventions. Let us be clear about what has happened over the course of recent weeks. The Bill started with a breakfast at Downing street for Conservative Back Benchers. Last week the Prime Minister again offered Conservative Back Benchers breakfast at Downing street. It is not clear whether it was a continental breakfast, but it was certainly breakfast at Downing street. The Prime Minister seems to be seeking unity through a strategy of obesity. He is clearly worried that if he is not doing the cooking, then all too shortly he will be on the menu. Any judgment about an in/out referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union has to be based on what is in the UK’s national interest. We do not believe that the Bill’s proposal for an in/out referendum in 2017 is in the national interest, which is why we are not supporting it.

The Bill anticipates an arbitrary timetable for an in/out referendum in 2017 in the United Kingdom divorced from any serious assessment of the likely timetable for treaty change across Europe. When the Prime Minister first announced his new policy back in January, he argued that treaty change was inevitable, necessary and indeed desirable. He said in April:

“I am sure there will be treaty change.”

He went on to say:

“I’m absolutely convinced that there will be the need to reopen at some stage these treaties”.

Yet the prospect of treaty change seems less likely today than it was when the Prime Minister made those remarks about which the Foreign Secretary spoke only a moment ago. Indeed it is significant that the German Government now seem less inclined to push for immediate treaty change, instead favouring intergovernmental agreements under article 114 of the EU treaty. Indeed in May this year, the German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, said explicitly:

“Banking union is a central project, we need institutional changes but we cannot wait for a treaty change.”

Only this week, the grand coalition document, which will form the basis of the German Adminstration’s governing agenda, was agreed, and it made not a single reference to the prospect of treaty change. The truth is that the date of 2017 had more to do with Tory party management than EU-wide treaty change.

[Mr Cash]

Given the fact that the former Prime Minister Tony Blair promised a referendum on the constitution, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, in the context of this incredibly important Bill, whether or not the Labour party has ruled out having a referendum on the European Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I could not have asked for a kinder intervention given that I am keen to talk about the views of former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Why do we not start with the former Member for Huntingdon? The truth is that this Bill, although presented as a Bill about Britain’s relationship with Europe, is more to do with the Prime Minister’s relationship with his party. Only last night, the former Member for Huntingdon—a man who knows a bit about dealing with querulous Back Benchers—talked about Britain voting to leave the EU. He said:

“In a world of seven billion people, our island would be moving further apart from our closest and largest trading partners, at the very time when they, themselves, are drawing closer together. This makes no sense at all.”

Those are not my words but the words of the last Conservative Prime Minister who actually secured a majority.

The former Prime Minister is not simply opposed to exit; he is also opposed to the Bill. He said:

“I’m not in favour of Mr Wharton’s Bill.”

He went on to say that

“I think the Wharton Bill is a negative, not a positive”.

Why does he believe that it is a bad Bill? He thinks that the Conservatives should be spending their time focusing—again, let me quote him directly—on issues such as

“taxes, jobs, education, health and”—

wait for it—

“living standards.”

He is not wrong, of course, but when we hear those words coming from a Conservative we have a sense that irony has left the building.

Although the private rationale for the Bill is to bind the Prime Minister’s hands by committing him to a referendum, the public rationale is to strengthen his hand in negotiations. The only problem is that as of today, even after the Foreign Secretary’s speech, we are no clearer about what exactly that negotiating position is. The Prime Minister has chosen to try to achieve the veneer of unity through the device of obscurity. That is why when he delivered his speech last January, in which the Foreign Secretary sought to seek refuge only a few moments ago—I am sure that Conservative Members do not need to be reminded of this fact—the word “repatriation” did not appear five times, or 10 times. It did not appear once. The Prime Minister did not utter the term “opt-out” and the words “employment law” were never even mentioned.

Indeed, on Second Reading the Minister for Europe, whom I am glad to see back in his place, was asked by the shadow Minister for Europe whether he would enlighten the House about which powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to repatriate to the UK. Alas, he missed that opportunity and if he would like to intervene and explain now which powers he is seeking to repatriate, I will more than happily give way. Suddenly, he seems to have found his briefing papers incredibly interesting.

The shadow Minister for Europe and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) asked the same question last week—these are not questions that are just being asked by Labour Members—but alas, no answer was forthcoming. All we were greeted with was the sound of silence. The reason for this is that despite the Prime Minister’s speech, despite agreeing a date, and despite the Bill, this truth still endures: the gap between what the Conservative Back Benchers demand and what the Conservative Prime Minister can deliver remains achingly unbridgeable.

On the day the Bill reached its Report stage, the chief executive of Nissan issued a stark warning to the Government about the prospects of the UK leaving the EU, highlighting that jobs, investment and growth would be put at risk. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), there are real and deep concerns in a number of regions of this country about the consequences of exit. The chief executive of Nissan said:

“Obviously it’s going to be a major factor happening and we are going to need to consider what does it mean for us for the future. I’m not worried about Sunderland. Sunderland is a very competitive plant, it’s a very productive plant and it’s a European plant based in the UK. If anything has to change, we need to reconsider our strategy and our investments for the future.”

Those remarks echoed those made by the Government of Japan. The Japanese embassy has even contributed to the Foreign Secretary’s balance of competences review. Let me share with the House the paragraph the embassy contributed on inward investment:

“More than 1,300 Japanese companies have invested in the UK, as part of the Single Market of the EU, and have created 130,000 jobs, more than anywhere else in Europe. This fact demonstrates that the advantage of the UK as a gateway to the European market has attracted Japanese investment. The Government of Japan expects the UK to maintain this favourable role.”

The EU gives us influence collectively that when we act alone we lack, and it does so at a time in our history when that has arguably never been more important, not least because today we are living in the early years of what many regard as an Asian century. As Asia rises, Europe must find new ways to amplify its voice and extend its influence.

Defending the UK’s place in the EU is not a matter of outdated sentiment but a matter of simple arithmetic. In an age of countries the size of continents, our membership of the EU gives us access to and influence in the world’s biggest global trading bloc and the prize of opening up new markets.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will know that the CBI estimates that up to 5% of the UK’s total economic output could be lost if Britain withdraws from the EU. Will he share his thoughts on why he believes the Conservative party and the Government are so willing to put those jobs and that investment at risk?

[Mr Alexander]

The answer, I fear, is that the dynamic and driver of the Bill, as evidenced by the conduct of the debates, is the management of the Conservative party, not the interests of the country. Sir Roger Carr’s remarks and the CBI’s report are a devastating critique. Hon. Members need not take my word for it; they can look at the remarks I have quoted from the former Member for Huntingdon, the former Conservative Prime Minister, who recognises that this time of economic challenge is far too serious for the risks that the Conservative party seems willing to run to protect Conservative Members’ jobs—at the same time, they are putting the jobs of tens or hundreds of thousands of British workers at risk.

The tragedy is that, because the Prime Minister is unable to address properly the need for reform in Europe in a sensible and effective way, he has been driven to the position he is in. The Bill is being taken forward by a party divided in all reality between those who are seeking consent and those who are seeking exit. They are united only in their mistrust of the Prime Minister. The Bill is not about trusting the people; it is about Tory Back Benchers not trusting a Tory Prime Minister.

In these tough economic times, Britain deserves better. Reform in Europe, not exit from Europe, is the right course for our country.

Sexual Violence in Conflict

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

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

The Foreign Secretary is right to say that condemnation is simply not enough and that action is required against these abhorrent and heinous crimes. When this matter was last debated in this House, I put on record the Opposition’s support for the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative, and I paid tribute to the Foreign Secretary’s considerable and personal efforts in this area. I am happy to do so again today. Indeed, I welcome the steps that have been taken since that debate in March, including by the Foreign Secretary himself, to help maintain and to raise the profile of this issue on the international stage. In particular, I welcome the decision to host a global summit in London next year, co-chaired by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Special Envoy Jolie.

The Foreign Secretary did not make reference to the work of campaigning organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Saferworld and others. I hope and trust that that was an inadvertent oversight, but I am sure he will join me in welcoming their vital contribution to help advance this cause in recent months and over many years. Their work has been indispensible in placing this issue firmly on the international agenda, so will he assure the House of their active and engaged participation in the summit to be held in London next year?

Sexual violence in conflict is today all too prevalent across the world. The perpetrators are rarely held to account for their crimes, as we have just heard. Indeed, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the issue as

“the most pervasive violation of human rights across the globe”.

The Foreign Secretary is therefore right when he says that this is the time for the international community to step up its efforts to respond to these continuing and pervasive crimes.

When the Foreign Secretary last addressed this House on the matter back in March, he set out a number of measures that the Government were introducing to try to tackle this issue globally. I would like to ask a series of questions about their subsequent implementation. First, sexual violence as a tool of war remains one of the least prosecuted crimes, and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s focus on that work today. Will he set out for the House how many UK personnel have been deployed in post-conflict areas, as part of the UK team of experts, to help improve local accountability structures since the initiative was first launched? Will he set out what discussions he has had with international partners on contributing their skilled and experienced staff to an international team of experts that can be deployed more widely? I welcomed the UK’s commitment to increase funding to the UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on whether other countries have followed the UK’s lead in increasing funding for this office?

The Foreign Secretary covered some specific countries of concern. Despite our well rehearsed disagreement with the Government on the Prime Minister’s attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit last month, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts to raise the issue of preventing sexual violence on the agenda while he was there. During his visit, he emphasised that the UK was ready to offer more assistance and co-operation to the Sri Lankan Government to tackle this issue. What response has he received from the Sri Lankan Government since the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to those offers and how he plans to take this work forward?

In response to a written question in October, the Government confirmed that Burma has now been added to the list of countries, despite being omitted from the original list. Will the Foreign Secretary explain the reason for not including Burma as part of the initiative when it was first launched?

The Foreign Secretary spoke about the work that is being done today by the UK’s team of experts on the Syrian borders. Can he provide any more details about the nature of the work, and whether there are plans for support to be given to those in need in Syria itself? Will he also say whether he raised this issue with the Syrian National Coalition when it was in London last month?

The Government have taken important steps to help to raise this issue on the international stage and we pay generous tribute to their efforts to do so. Where they continue to pursue steps to help tackle this pervasive and deplorable abuse of human rights, they can rest assured that they will have the Opposition’s support in their endeavours.

[Mr Hague]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for this initiative and our work on it in recent months. It is one of those subjects on which cross-party support, pursued consistently by all of us, is very important and helps to make a big impact on the rest of the world. I know that feelings on this will be appropriately strong among all political parties in the House.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the campaigning organisations. I mentioned that I envisaged the summit giving a big role to civil society, and that certainly includes all the organisations he mentioned. I have often stressed how our efforts build on the good work done at the UN and by non-governmental organisations around the world. I am pleased to say that many of those NGOs sit on the PSVI steering board that I have established, so they advise me directly on the development of this initiative. This afternoon, I will also be meeting organisations like Amnesty—it sits on our human rights advisory group, which also discusses these subjects. NGOs and other campaigning groups are thus fully involved in this initiative, and I value their support enormously.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that this is the least-prosecuted crime. That, of course, is what we are trying to change: shattering the culture of impunity is our central objective. We want to break into that and show that prosecutions can take place. We have more than 70 people—doctors, lawyers, forensic experts, experts in gender-based violence—in our very impressive team of experts. They have deployed in much smaller numbers—they have other jobs in their areas of expertise—to various countries, some of which I listed in my statement. For example, we have deployed a team to Libya to assess how best to engage with civil society and women’s organisations there, while the basic infantry training we provide to Libyan troops will incorporate a sexual violence element. As I mentioned, we are doing the same in Mali.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Burma. We are providing support to legal assistance centres in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand and to trauma care camps in Kachin state, both of which deal with rape cases. Our embassy in Rangoon is currently considering how we can do more in Burma, and we are also promoting legal reforms that address and deter sexual violence.

We have done a lot of work on the Syrian borders, supporting the collection of evidence of human rights violations and abuses, including of sexual violence. We have trained more than 300 Syrian journalists and activists in documenting and exposing human rights abuses, including crimes of sexual violence. These are examples of the support our team of experts are providing.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about funds for the special representative. We have been the most generous of countries in recent years, but other countries have given additional funding—not many of them on the same scale as us, but I continue to encourage them to do more.

On Sri Lanka, yes we secured the commitment in the Commonwealth communiqué, which I have to point out we could not have done had we not been there. While I was in Sri Lanka, I also gave a public speech on preventing sexual violence in conflict that was widely reported in the Sri Lankan media—on the television and across the newspapers—so I think we drew the attention of a far wider audience in Sri Lanka to this subject. I discussed with the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka specific support for our initiative, and we await their reply on whether they will support it. Of course, there are aspects that the Sri Lankan Government will find difficult to sign up to, which is why it is important to put it to them and to continue putting it to them. We can only do that, however, if we meet them, which we would not have done had we followed the right hon. Gentleman’s advice.

That, however, is our one disagreement. Otherwise, of course, there is strong cross-party unity on this issue, and I look forward to Opposition Members as well as Government Members playing a big role at next June’s global summit.

Iran

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it? He was generous to end his remarks by recognising the reality of the bipartisan approach that has been characteristic of this House and, indeed, this country to these issues over recent years, including the approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) when he was Foreign Secretary. Let me echo that and add that all those involved in the Geneva negotiations, including the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office officials, deserve real credit for their role in helping secure this deal.

In particular, the work of the European Union High Representative, Baroness Cathy Ashton, has been fundamental. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement—a little late, I would argue—she was “indispensable” to ensuring that agreement was finally reached. We on this side of the House feel a particular pride in the role that Baroness Ashton has played and the determination, skill and diplomatic perseverance she has shown, and we offer her our sincere congratulations.

The international community stands united in believing that if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, that would make the world less safe, so the deal agreed in Geneva was a necessary and important first step. Iran has, of course, over recent years proceeded apace with its enrichment programme despite repeated calls by the international community for it to stop.

This is not a perfect deal, nor is it guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive resolution, but, based on the Foreign Secretary’s statement, it appears to address a number of central concerns. First, it caps every aspect of Iran’s nuclear programme. Secondly, it includes strong verification mechanisms and measures. Thirdly, its text does not concede that Iran has an inalienable right to enrich. I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary about each of those three points.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the agreement does not call for the dismantlement of the Fordow plant, so will he set out what steps are envisaged to help ensure that that deeply buried facility will ultimately be decommissioned?

The Foreign Secretary referred to the heavy water research reactor at Arak. Although the deal specifies daily access for the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to Natanz and Fordow, it does not set out the frequency with which inspectors will have access to Arak, so will the Foreign Secretary give us further details of how they will gain access?

The Foreign Secretary did not mention Parchin in his statement, and neither did the final text of the agreement agreed yesterday, so will he now clarify whether the deal requires Iran to grant IAEA inspectors access to the Parchin military base, where Iran is suspected of carrying out tests related to the detonating of a nuclear weapon?

There has been much speculation over the past 24 hours about the absence from the final agreement of the phrase “right to enrich”. Will the Foreign Secretary set out the British Government’s understanding of whether that absence reflects a continuing point of difference between the P5 plus 1 and Iran, or whether the omission reflects a shared understanding on the issue?

Although an interim deal seeks to prevent Iran from developing its enrichment programme while talks are ongoing, it could also ease the pressure on Iran and, in fact, undermine the urgency with which a comprehensive resolution may be sought. Given that risk, will the Foreign Secretary set out how he intends to prevent that outcome and what steps he will take with others to continue negotiations on a comprehensive deal within the time frame that has been set out?

The announcement of $7 billion of sanctions relief, effective immediately, will be seen as a necessary step to secure the concessions agreed by Iran as part of the interim deal, but pressure must still be maintained. Will the Foreign Secretary offer the House assurances that the net effect of that sanctions relief will not exceed the projected amount?

As of yesterday, Iran’s so-called critical capability will be extended. That, of course, is welcomed by everyone in this House, but while the interim agreement sets Iran back, it does not prevent future progress. It would, of course, be far better to secure the end of all enrichment and to see the dismantling of all relevant facilities.

One key test of the interim agreement will be whether what has now been agreed in principle can be implemented in practice. That means keeping sanctions tight, verification intrusive and all options on the table. A second key test will be whether the interim agreement can, in the months ahead, be translated into a comprehensive agreement. That means building on this weekend’s agreement through urgent and sustained negotiations on a final resolution.

The interim agreement reached over the weekend will give us the time and flexibility to negotiate the much more difficult and complex final agreement to dismantle much of Iran’s nuclear programme. The Government can be assured that they will have our support in pursuit of that objective in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the shadow Foreign Secretary for his clear support. There has indeed been a bipartisan approach for a long time, and it is clearly continuing in relation to this agreement.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say, as he did at the end of his remarks, that it is very important to keep sanctions tight and verification intrusive to maintain the confidence and the pressure needed to reach a comprehensive agreement. He is also right that no such agreement can be perfect—it is the product of negotiations and compromise—or guaranteed to lead to a comprehensive agreement, but in my judgment it is the only route to a comprehensive agreement.

Some have made the criticism that we should have concentrated on moving straight to a final and comprehensive agreement, but from everything that I have seen, I know that that would not have been possible, and while we negotiated such a comprehensive agreement, the progress of the Iranian programme, which has now been brought to a stop in many ways, would have continued. This is therefore a crucial step on the way to a comprehensive agreement and makes it possible to set about negotiating one.

The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. He asked about how the agreement relates to the plant at Fordow. The agreement specifically refers to that:

“Iran announces that it will not make any further advances of its activities at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant…, Fordow…or the Arak reactor”.

Footnote 2 on the second page of the agreement states in relation to Fordow that there should be

“no further enrichment over 5% at 4 cascades now enriching uranium”,

and no feeding of uranium hexafluoride into the other 12 cascades and so on. There are therefore specific requirements on that plant. As for each of the plants, its longer-term future, including whether it operates at all, will be up to the final and comprehensive agreement and must be addressed at that stage.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about inspections at Parchin. That remains a point of difference between the IAEA and Iran, including in their latest talks, and it is another aspect of the Iranian programme that must be addressed as part of a comprehensive and final settlement.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the urgency. On that, it is important to put the $7 billion of sanctions relief into perspective, because he referred to it as being effective immediately. The $7 billion of sanctions relief is actually available to Iran over the six-month period once that period has begun, which we hope will be by the end of January. A good deal of the $7 billion involves the unfreezing of assets, so those assets will be unfrozen in stages. Iran will not therefore receive $7 billion on the first day, and then decide whether to implement its side of the agreement.

It is also important to see that $7 billion in perspective. In January, Iran’s Oil Minister acknowledged that the fall in oil exports as a result of sanctions was costing Iran between $4 billion and $8 billion every month. Reports suggest that Iran currently has between $60 billion and $100 billion of assets frozen overseas that it cannot access. The $7 billion of relief is therefore a very small proportion of the total frozen assets and of the total effect of sanctions applied to Iran.

That is why I have said that how we apply sanctions relief leaves Iran with a huge incentive, since it wants wider relief from sanctions, to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement. That will help to maintain the urgency, but of course all our diplomatic activity—seeking to maintain the momentum behind the agreement, and to ensure that it is implemented and that we can go on to negotiate a comprehensive settlement—will also convey that urgency. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we will leave no stone unturned to try to bring that about.

Iran and Syria

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this afternoon? On Iran, may I echo the tribute he paid generously to the efforts of Baroness Ashton, who played a crucial role in driving forward these latest talks, and pay tribute to the clear commitment shown by all the P5 plus 1 Ministers in attendance at Geneva? I admit that I was somewhat perplexed to see the Foreign Secretary here at 9.30 am on Friday, but he was right then to make the journey to Geneva.

Labour remains of the view that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a real threat, not just to Israel, but to regional and international security. Therefore, we believe that the United Kingdom Government should continue to pursue the twin-track approach of sanctions and diplomacy. President Rouhani campaigned, and was subsequently elected in June, on a platform of taking the necessary steps to ease the pressure of the sanctions that are currently putting the Iranian economy under strain, so I do believe that sanctions have been effective and continue to be important. However, alongside continued sanctions sustained diplomatic engagement remains key, so I welcome the news of the Government’s announcement that a chargé d’affaires has now been appointed and hope that the British embassy in Tehran will be reopened as soon as it is safe and practical to do so.

The Foreign Secretary said that he cannot go into the details of the negotiations while talks are ongoing, so today I will focus my questions on the outcome of the talks rather than the substance of the deal under discussion. Reports emerging over the weekend described a French veto that prevented any deal from being signed, yet Secretary Kerry was quoted this morning as saying:

“The French signed off on it, we signed off on it, and everybody agreed it was a fair proposal…Iran couldn’t take it at that particular moment; they weren’t able to accept.”

In the light of the somewhat conflicting reports, will the Foreign Secretary set out whether there was unity among the P5 plus 1 and say a little more about the basis on which he has just told the House that such a deal is on the table and that there is no doubt that it can be reached?

It is inevitable and, indeed, understandable that as the outline of such a deal begins to emerge it will increasingly be called into question by those parties that have so much at stake. In the light of that reaction, will the Foreign Secretary set out what assurances have been offered to regional partners, particularly Israel, who are concerned that the principle of an interim deal will, by definition, not provide sufficient guarantees that Iran will cease all activity that could contribute to it developing a nuclear weapons capacity?

Let me turn to the issue of Syria. The humanitarian situation in Syria remains desperate and continues to deteriorate. Clearly, the most effective way to ease the suffering in Syria is to end the war, but while efforts to broker a peace deal continue it is vital that the international community lives up to its responsibility to protect those most in need. I welcome the important work that the UK Government have been doing, but despite the UK’s contribution, the UN appeal is still less than half-funded. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore set out what steps the Government will be taking to try to help ensure that other donors deliver on their unfulfilled pledges?

Since the last time the Foreign Secretary addressed the House on the issue, the OPCW has confirmed that Syria’s declared equipment for producing, mixing and filling chemical weapons has now been destroyed. Syria now has until mid-2014 to destroy the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons. Given that the OPCW team confirmed that it was not able to visit two of the 23 chemical weapons sites in Syria, as they were simply too dangerous, will the Foreign Secretary say what assurances are being sought for the protection of OPCW personnel who are due to carry out further work in conflict zones across the country?

The biggest breakthrough that is needed to most improve the situation on the ground is a diplomatic initiative. As the Foreign Secretary stated, women will have a key role to play in peace talks and in rebuilding and reconciling Syrian society as the conflict concludes. It is welcome that the SNC has today voted to accept the invitation to attend Geneva II as the representative of the Syrian opposition, but that acceptance is, as the Foreign Secretary has just told us, conditional on Assad and those with blood on their hands having no role in a transition and on the provision of humanitarian access and the release of detainees ahead of the conference being convened. In the light of those specific conditions, will the Foreign Secretary set out his assessment of the likelihood of those conditions being met according to the timetable of the year’s end set out by Lakhdar Brahimi?

In the light of his most recent discussions with representatives of the Iranian regime, will the Foreign Secretary also tell us the British Government’s policy on Iran’s participation in any Geneva II conference before the end of the year? Geneva II still offers the best prospect for securing a more stable future for the people of Syria, so the Government will have the Opposition’s support in their efforts to try to bring about this long-delayed but much-needed conference.

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s overall support for our twin-track approach on Iran and our efforts to ensure diplomatic success in bringing together a peace conference on Syria.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Iranian nuclear negotiations. It is not right to speak of any veto on the negotiations by any of the E3 plus 3, or P5 plus 1, countries. The position put to Iran by all of us together in the final hours of the discussions on Friday and Saturday had been amended in the light of comments from various of the parties concerned, but it is entirely permissible for members of the E3 plus 3 to put forward their own comments, amendments and positions. There are six sovereign nations involved—as well as the Iranians, who will put forward their positions, of course. A completely united position was put to the Iranians at the close of our discussions, so reports of vetoes by one country, or of obstruction by any country, should be seen in that light. We were all arguing for the same position and the same deal.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what assurances we had given to other countries, and referred to Israel’s concerns about the concept of making an interim deal, rather than going straight to a comprehensive final settlement. We have discussed that. During the talks, I spoke to the Israeli Minister responsible for international relations and security, Mr Yuval Steinitz, and this weekend, the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, to give them our assurances and state our confidence in this kind of agreement.

It has to be faced that attempts to go straight to a comprehensive final settlement would be dramatically more difficult than even this process, and it is quite evident from events over the weekend that this process is difficult enough. An interim agreement would be designed to give us the time and space to negotiate a comprehensive final agreement—time during which Iran would take concrete actions in relation to its nuclear programme, in order to give greater assurance and confidence to the international community, and we would offer proportionate and limited sanctions relief in return, but the pressure would still be there to conclude a comprehensive final settlement. There are concerns about this, but all of us in the E3 plus 3 countries believe that this is the most effective and practical way to reach a settlement with Iran.

On the question about humanitarian relief, the UK has been very active, as the House knows, including through the meeting that the Prime Minister convened at the G20 and all our diplomatic efforts around that, in getting other nations to step up their humanitarian assistance. About $1 billion of additional assistance has, one way or another, been associated with the efforts that we have made. We will continue to make those efforts, but that appeal is $2 billion underfunded for this year, and of course we are in the middle of November and approaching the time for another UN appeal. We will strongly support the donor conference that has been called in Kuwait for the middle of January. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who was in the Chamber a moment ago, is working very hard to help bring that together.

The chemical weapons inspectors have now, one way or another, inspected all 23 sites, but of course their security during the continuing work is important. That has to be taken into account in the decision that the OPCW executive council needs to adopt by 15 November —this Friday. The decision is still under negotiation, but it is expected to set out the detailed requirements, including intermediate milestones, for the complete elimination of chemical weapons in Syria in the first half of 2014.

On the stipulations made by the National Coalition regarding their support for the Geneva II process, I do not believe that they need to be obstacles to assembling a Geneva II peace conference. The statement—it is a view that we share—that Assad cannot be part of a transitional authority formed by mutual consent is not surprising. Any authority formed by mutual consent in Syria is unlikely to include those whom the other side regard as having very extensive blood on their hands. The calls for humanitarian assistance and humanitarian access, and for prisoners to be released, are calls that we should all be able to support in any case, so I do not think that those things should be seen as making a Geneva II conference more difficult. We now need the regime to respond in the same spirit.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the inclusion of Iran in the talks. We believe that the starting point for a Geneva II conference is the outcome of Geneva I last year, and that all parties to the talks should be able to accept that. I continue to urge Iran to adopt that position; it would make it much easier for the rest of the world to embrace it in the talks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend played a distinguished role in the eminent persons group report. It is a pity that not every aspect of that report was adopted by the Commonwealth as we debated it over the last couple of years, although the charter for the Commonwealth was agreed, as was a more active role for the Commonwealth ministerial action group. We will continue to raise these issues in the Commonwealth.

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

Just a moment or two ago, the Foreign Secretary said, in relation to human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, that he will be taking up these issues when he travels there. However, in answer to a written question in July, the Foreign Office stated that they “expect progress” in human rights and post-conflict reconciliation in the run-up to the summit in November. Despite writing to the Minister responsible to follow up on that answer, we have not yet received a reply. Will the Foreign Secretary set out now what specific progress on the two key benchmarks identified by the Government has been made since July?

[Mr Hague]

First, I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being appointed Labour’s campaign co-ordinator for the next general election. As he ran its last general election campaign and David Miliband’s leadership election campaign, we on the Government Benches are delighted with the appointment, even if it makes him a slightly part-time shadow Foreign Secretary.

There have been some steps forward in Sri Lanka, which we have to recognise, including the northern provincial council elections that took place in September. They were generally peaceful and well-regarded, but all the issues I listed remain. While there have been some steps forward, many more are needed.

[Mr Alexander]

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is mounting evidence that Sri Lanka is heading in the wrong direction? It is not simply that these issues “remain”. This month, the Foreign Affairs Committee criticised the

“scant evidence of progress in political and human rights”.

In August, the UN human rights commissioner said that Sri Lanka was

“heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction”,

and even the Government’s own 2012 human rights report warned of “negative developments”. The Prime Minister’s announcement six months ahead of the summit has proved both a misjudgment and a missed opportunity. Will the Foreign Secretary, even at this late stage, urge the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision to confirm his attendance at the summit?

[Mr Hague]

No. There are many serious criticisms, including in our own reports, of the human rights record in Sri Lanka. Of course these are issues that we want to take up in Sri Lanka, but the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting will consider matters such as the future of the millennium development goals, expanding international trade and upholding human rights in other parts of the world. We need to be present at those discussions with a quarter of the globe. We also need to recognise that the consequences for the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom not attending a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting would be very serious and could be long term. That is why it is important, and that is why we decided to be there at the table, as well as raising the concerns so well expressed in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

We regret that Mr Eknaligoda’s whereabouts are still not known more than three years after his disappearance. We have made clear to the Government of Sri Lanka the need to take decisive action to guarantee press freedom, including by investigating attacks on the media and disappearances and ensuring those responsible are brought to justice. The forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo will be our opportunity to shine a spotlight on this and other matters.

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

Last week, I had the great privilege of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi, following her discussions with Government Ministers. She impressed upon me the urgency of the international community seeking to put pressure on the Burmese Government to reform the constitution in Burma. I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary would set out what steps the Government anticipate taking to achieve that goal.

[Mr Hague]

Aung San Suu Kyi was very clear about these things in all the meetings she had, including the one with EU Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg last Monday. These are issues that we have taken up for some time with the Government in Burma, including directly with President Thein Sein on his visit to the UK earlier this year. Of course, we are continuing to raise them, as there is an urgency about constitutional change ahead of elections in Burma in 2015. So we will continue to raise them over the coming weeks directly with Burmese Ministers.

Middle East Peace Process/Syria and Iran

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it? I would like to start by welcoming the newly appointed Minister for the middle east, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson). I know that Members on both sides will wish to join me in recognising his significant achievement in helping deliver the London Olympics and I am sure that he will continue to bring the same level of commitment and, indeed, skill to his new role in the Foreign Office.

May I also take a moment to pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? He is a man whose obvious talent, commitment and decency—qualities that are recognised and appreciated by many in this House—have not gone unnoticed by Members over recent years. He is a very significant loss to the Government and in all my dealings with him on the middle east I admired his skill, intellect and consistently courteous approach.

This month’s United Nations General Assembly was a moment where real progress needed to be made most urgently on the issue of Syria. Of course I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s call for further action on securing free and unfettered humanitarian access in the country and I welcome the Government’s announcement of an additional £100 million in humanitarian aid for Syria. But sadly, despite this significant additional UK contribution, the UN appeal after the UN General Assembly is still only 44 per cent. funded. Can the Foreign Secretary set out what steps the Government will take now to try to help to ensure that other donors turn unfulfilled pledges into cash commitments?

Since that General Assembly meeting last month, the destruction and disabling of missile warheads, aerial bombs and mixing and filling units within Syria has thankfully now begun. In particular, I want to commend the work of the British personnel working as part of the team carrying out this difficult and dangerous work on the ground in Syria.

Given that this is the first time that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has been tasked with overseeing the destruction of chemical weapons armoury during a live conflict, can the Foreign Secretary provide any further details about how the mission is likely to proceed in the coming months? In particular can he offer the House any guidance with respect to negotiating access to sites currently within rebel-held areas of Syria?

On the middle east peace process, Secretary Kerry’s efforts to restart the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians deserve both our praise and our support. Delivering the necessary compromises from all sides will surely be a task aided by the active involvement of the United States. Can the Foreign Secretary clarify what role US special envoy Martin Indyk is playing in the substantive negotiations? When I recently met President Abbas, he emphasised the nine-month timeframe for these talks. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what progress would have to be made before March 2014 in order to justify a decision to continue negotiations beyond that allotted timetable?

Let me now turn to the issue of Iran. Back in August, I described the Government’s decision not to send ministerial representation to the inauguration of the new Iranian President as a misjudgment and a missed opportunity. At the start of September, I pressed the Foreign Secretary on the possibility of establishing a Syrian contact group, with Iran as a key member. Later last month, I pressed the Government on whether the Foreign Secretary would look to reopen the British embassy in Tehran as soon as it was practical and safe to do so. The Government appeared to give little consideration to these proposals when I first suggested them.

Today the Foreign Secretary cited his meeting with Foreign Minister Zarif and the letter dispatched by the Prime Minister to President Rouhani. While I welcome these recent decisions, I regret that it took so long for these important steps eventually to be taken. In recent months the Government appear to have misjudged their response to the signals emerging from Tehran, and as a result the UK risks being left behind by the absence of a clear strategy towards Iran. Disagreements not just over Iran’s nuclear ambitions but over domestic and international actions by the Iranian regime are profound, and cannot and should not be overlooked. However, it is vital that Iran continues to be encouraged to play a more constructive role, and the UK Government should be doing more to help to facilitate this change. In the light of this, I welcome today’s announcement of a chargé d’affaires having been appointed, but can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that this is an interim step on the way to establishing full diplomatic relations?

Labour remains of the view that the UK Government should maintain pressure on the Iranian regime to change its approach to nuclear enrichment. However, notwithstanding the decades-long difficulties in the bilateral relationship between Iran and the United States, it has, alas, been the American Administration, and not the British Government, who have better understood the signals and made the decisive advances towards improved relations with Iran. On Iran, it is time for the Government to catch up with our American allies.

[Mr Hague]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s initial questions relating to Syria, I think it will be the view across the House that free and unfettered access is of huge importance. He is right to say that the UN appeal for funds is currently 44% funded. As the House heard from my statement, we have done a great deal to make sure that some of that 44% is in place, and we are making a huge contribution ourselves. Our embassies and the Department for International Development’s ministerial team are engaged in a non-stop effort to build up the contributions from other countries. There is now the commitment to a pledging conference, which we hope will take place in Kuwait in January and which is the major international event to work towards in gathering greater contributions for the future.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the OPCW and how it will proceed, all the known sites for the holding of chemical weapons in Syria are within regime-held territory. We are not aware of the opposition being in possession of chemical weapons, so of course this work is focused, revealingly, entirely on the regime-held areas. What is meant to happen now, according to the timetable that has been established, is that all sites should have been inspected by the 27th of this month; that the regime’s production and mixing and filling equipment in relation to chemical weapons should be destroyed in the next few weeks, by 1 November; and that the details of how to proceed with eliminating all the material and other equipment will be decided by 15 November, with a view to the whole programme being completed in the first half of next year. It is an immense task, but it is good that the OPCW has arrived in Syria and that at the weekend the destruction began of some of the munitions involved. Of course, we will continue to watch this closely, and that includes, as I say, standing ready to provide further expertise as necessary.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the peace process, obviously the United States has a central role in this, including the United States special envoy. Many of the meetings—the seven rounds of negotiations so far—have been taking place on a bilateral basis, but it is envisaged that there will be closer American participation in those meetings over the coming weeks.

The ambition is to resolve the issues, including the final status issues, within six to nine months. That is the timetable to which the parties are working. It is too early to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s question about what happens after March 2014.

On Iran, I hope there are no differences across the House about the direction of policy. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to catch up with other countries, but perhaps it is time for him to catch up with what the Government have actually been doing. I assure him and the House that there is no difference of view or approach between the United States, the United Kingdom and, indeed, other western allies. We are in different positions on diplomatic relations because some European countries still have embassies in Tehran. Their embassies were not overrun as ours was in 2011. By contrast, as is well known, the United States has not been in that situation for a very long time—since 1979. Of course there are differences between different countries, but all of us are trying to encourage the opening up by Iran, which the Iranian Ministers are presenting. There is no lack of attention to that.

It has been a long time since any British Foreign Secretary—we would have to go back to the days of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), as we frequently do on these subjects—had as many discussions in the space of a few days with the Foreign Minister of Iran. It is vital that our work to improve the functioning of our bilateral relations takes place on a step-by-step and reciprocal basis. Recently, even getting unhindered access for locally engaged staff to inspect and check up on our embassy premises has remained a very difficult matter, so the House will understand that building up trust and co-operation will be necessary before it will be possible to open an embassy again. We are, therefore, doing that on a step-by-step, reciprocal basis. I do not believe it would be responsible to approach it in a different way. It has been welcomed so far by the Iranian Foreign Ministry, as evidenced by today’s agreement on appointing a non-resident chargé for both countries. That opens the way to further improvements, as I said in my statement, including a view in the future to the full reopening of both embassies, but that will depend on the mutual building of confidence, good co-operation and trust, which has, of course, been missing in the past.

Syria

Douglas Alexander Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and indeed for advance sight of it this morning. Coming to the House ahead of the parliamentary recess acknowledges that there are strongly held opinions and deeply felt concerns on both sides of the House about events still unfolding in Syria.

I welcome the Government’s steps to provide vital humanitarian support to those affected by the conflict and the continuing efforts to secure additional funds from the international community. Those humanitarian efforts are necessary but insufficient to alleviate the suffering. The level of ongoing violence in Syria today represents the greatest diplomatic failure of the international community in the 21st century. We support the Government’s continuing efforts to convene a second Geneva conference, but we remain of the view that a contact group could assist in that endeavour, given the present difficulties in securing the attendance of the warring parties.

Members on both sides of the House stand united in their revulsion at and abhorrence and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in this ongoing and bloody conflict. It is a conflict that means that Syria is disintegrating as a nation state. That disintegration risks destabilising not only Syria’s immediate neighbours but the region as a whole.

Two weeks ago, the votes of this House on Syria reflected real concerns that the country was being pushed too quickly towards military action, on a timetable set elsewhere, without due process being followed and the necessary steps being taken. Moments after the Government motion was lost—a rejection of the Government’s rushed judgment in relation to the use of British military force without precedent since perhaps the case of Lord North in 1782—the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and read from a sheet of paper the following words:

“It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the Government will act accordingly.”—[Official Report, 29 August 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1555.]

The suggestion has since been made that the decisive voice influencing the Prime Minister’s apparently predetermined decision to rule out the use of British military force in Syria if the Government motion was lost was not that of the Foreign Secretary but that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, in his capacity as Foreign Secretary, can the right hon. Gentleman offer the House any examples of circumstances in which the Government will seek to come back to the House on the issue of the use of British military force in Syria? The Foreign Secretary has just told the House: “The United Kingdom will make every effort to negotiate an enforceable agreement”, so he clearly agrees with me that it is preferable, if it is possible, to remove the threat of chemical weapons from Syria without having to resort to the use of force.

Two days after those votes were cast in the House of Commons, President Obama specifically referenced the British Government’s failure to secure the support of Parliament when explaining his decision to delay the use of force in Syria and indeed to take the matter to Congress, so I ask the Foreign Secretary this question. Is it not abundantly clear that if the Government’s motion had been passed by this House two weeks ago, the United States military force would in all likelihood have already been used in Syria and the diplomatic path that he now advocates with such conviction would never have been reached?

None of us has any doubt about the murderous nature of the Assad regime, and no one should have any illusions about the fact that since the start of this conflict the Russians have provided not only weaponry but significant diplomatic cover to the Assad regime. The challenge confronting Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov today in Geneva is indeed daunting. Their task is to find ways to evidence that a goal that is desirable is also doable. That would mean agreeing a credible plan in circumstances not just of low trust but of violent conflict; a means to identify, verify, secure and ultimately remove those weapons from Assad’s possession, with the final goal of destroying them altogether. While these critical negotiations are taken forward, the UK must continue its work to help alleviate the suffering and engage constructively with partners in the Security Council.

[Mr Hague]

There is strong agreement about everything I said in my statement, judging by what the right hon. Gentleman said, although disagreement about one thing that was not in the statement, which I will come back to.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that there is strong unity across the House on the importance of our humanitarian contribution. He said that everything that we and other countries were doing was necessary but not sufficient to alleviate the suffering. That, sadly, is true, because only the end of the conflict will truly alleviate or give us the opportunity to alleviate the suffering of millions of people. He rightly welcomed the diplomatic efforts that we continue to make on bringing about a second Geneva conference. There is no shortage of discussion in the international community about how to do this. We have regular discussions with all our colleagues on the Security Council, including Russia, about how to bring it about. Ideas are floated about different diplomatic groups that might bring this about, but the essence of the problem remains that we need all appropriate parties to be ready to fulfil what was agreed at Geneva. There is no evidence that the regime is in a position to do that as things stand, but we will continue to work on that.

I take what the right hon. Gentleman said as agreement in the House on the approach to the negotiations now taking place about an international agreement on chemical weapons. He said that a credible plan was needed in an atmosphere of low trust and violent conflict. That is correct, and it strikes the same note as the one that I was striking—that we must take this seriously and make every effort to make it successful, but that to be successful it has to be an enforceable agreement that credibly, reliably and promptly deals with this issue and places the regime’s chemical weapons stocks under international control for destruction.

I need to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about only one thing that he said, which is a rather extraordinary claim that none of this would have come about had the Opposition not voted against the Government motion two weeks ago, which is a rather self-obsessed view of world developments. It is like the story of the cockerel who thought its crowing brought about the dawn. He will remember that the motion we put before the House said that, far from being in a rush, the Government would await the report of the UN inspectors, which has not yet come out, before taking any military action, that they would make every effort to secure a Security Council resolution, and that there would be a second vote. That is the basis on which the United Kingdom was proceeding, and there is no sign at all that this development would have taken place had Governments around the world not been debating those issues and had the United States not been debating whether to take military action.