Sri Harmandir Sahib

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I was not actually standing, Mr Speaker, but if you want me to, I will ask one very short question. Why were we consulted in the first place—why us?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman was certainly standing at one point because he is on my list. Anyway, he is the most dextrous of fellows and is always capable of adjusting, as he has just proved.

Persecution of Christians

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I re-emphasise the fact that we strongly support freedom of religion for all, including in China—the example he gave—in accordance with international frameworks to which the United Kingdom and China are both party. We regularly raise the issue of religious freedom with the Chinese Government, and we have a UK-China human rights dialogue for detailed expert engagement, which will engage with this particular area, too.

Let me make a little progress, because I want to put on the record what the Government are doing about the persecution of those trying to practise their religion. We strongly believe that the freedom to practise, change or share one’s faith or belief without discrimination or violent opposition is a fundamental human right that all people should enjoy. We believe that societies that aim to guarantee freedom of religion or belief are stronger, fairer and more confident. The situation facing Christians in the 21st century is alarming. Research by the Pew Research Centre acknowledges that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world—a point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Strangford. The Government recognise that, and the persecution of Christians worldwide was the central focus of Baroness Warsi’s keynote speech at Georgetown university on 15 November. In that speech, we called for unity in confronting the intolerance and sectarianism that leads to minority communities being persecuted around the world and to a mass exodus of Christians from places where they have co-existed with the majority faith for generations. In the speech, she presented her vision for a cross-faith, cross-continent response to the problem, with a positive, practical focus on promoting the benefits of religious plurality to societies.

A key element of that speech was that our response to the persecution of Christians should not be sectarian. We should not be standing up for our co-religionists or Christians in particular; we should be supporting the right to freedom of religion or belief for all, as set out in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. History points out that intolerance is defeated only when we come together. People of all faiths and none should be appalled when a bomb goes off outside a church. Indeed, both Muslims and Christians have come together to protect each other’s place of worship, and, as in the case of the terrible suicide bomb attacks on All Saints’ church in Peshawar, to donate blood for the victims. That needs to be the response that we all take to the global crisis affecting Christians.

We should speak out on behalf of Christians. That is what we have done, for example, when we condemned the recent attacks that took place in Pakistan, which killed and injured so many innocent people. We should lobby for changes in discriminatory laws and practices that affect religious minorities, including Christians. We will continue to do that when, for example, an Iranian pastor is arrested for setting up a church in a house or for sharing his faith. We meet Christian leaders from around the world to gain a better understanding of their concerns and the issues affecting them. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers met Patriarch Gregorios III on 16 October to discuss the plight of Christians in Syria—the hon. Member for Strangford made a powerful point about that.

We are active in supporting local Christian communities. That is why for a number of years we have supported the work of Canon Andrew White in Iraq, bringing together religious leaders across sectarian divides to denounce violence that occurs in the name of religion. Similarly, when I went to Kaduna in northern Nigeria—another example cited by the hon. Gentleman—I met religious leaders across the religious divide to see the valuable inter-faith work that was taking place there. I wish to discuss Nigeria in my closing remarks, if the House will allow me.

However, I do not believe that making it our policy to defend Christians in particular is going to help them in the longer term. There is a risk of isolating them from the wider populations, identifying them as something of a fifth column and even exacerbating the persecution that they may be suffering. Instead, we should be supporting the building of societies that respect human rights, the rule of law and the equality and opportunity of all citizens, and spelling out that all freedoms of religion or belief are a universal concern.

We are also making the case that countries that protect minority rights are stronger, fairer and more confident. If people are free to believe and to worship, they can make a bigger contribution to society, boost the economy and guard against violence, extremism and social strife. Other countries should protect Christians not just because it is the right thing to do, which it is, but because it is in their interests to do so. The freedom of religion is a fundamental human rights priority for this Government, which means that we pursue it as a major element of our bilateral work, our lobbying of other Governments and our human rights programme funding.

We have equipped our staff with a toolkit to monitor and address concerns about freedom of religion or belief around the world. Our toolkit has provided the inspiration for the European Union’s own guidelines on freedom of religion or belief, and we have played a central role in securing both their adoption and implementation. We continue to play a leading role within the EU in making this a priority across member states in terms of focusing on particular countries of concern, programme funding or staff training. It is also a focus of our multilateral work at the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Multilaterally, we are working through the UN to ensure that states implement the Human Rights Council resolution that focuses on combating religious intolerance, protecting the human rights of minorities and promoting pluralism in society.

During the UN General Assembly ministerial week at the end of September, we convened a second meeting of international leaders to discuss what more politicians can do to promote freedom of religion or belief and to fight religious intolerance wherever it occurs within our society.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Minister says that we should not focus too much on Christians—I understand that—but if we accept that argument we should not have complained about the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany because that would have made them a target. I do not necessarily accept all his arguments. He must accept that the overwhelming number of persecutions in the world today are against Christians. That is a fact, and so we have to focus on Christians for better or worse.

[Mark Simmonds]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He says that the majority of those who are persecuted for their religious belief are Christians, but there are others who are suffering as well—people of different religions and of no religious faith. Another example that the hon. Member for Strangford gave was the appalling atrocities that are taking place in the Central African Republic, where Muslims are persecuting Christians and Christians are persecuting and murdering Muslims. The actions of both groups are completely and utterly unacceptable, and the United Kingdom Government need to do everything they can to ensure that a person can pursue their religion, whatever it is, without fear of persecution or intimidation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I very much agree with all that my good friend the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has said and support the comments on Assyria. I do not know whether you managed to get some rest on Sunday, Mr Speaker, and watch once again on BBC4 the excellent French film entitled “Of Gods and Men”. It is a very beautiful film about the appalling murder of six Benedictine monks in the Atlas mountains. It is such a moving film because there is one scene in which Father Christian confronts one of the terrorists—the same terrorist who ultimately decapitates him and his fellow monks. Father Christian starts reading from the Koran in Arabic and quotes directly the passages that exhort all Muslims to be peaceful to other religions. The terrorist completes the verse. That makes most powerfully the point that we should make in this debate: in practising our own religion, in no way do we diminish the practice of other religions or people’s ability to practise their religion in any way they wish.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I shall give way only once in a moment.

Many of the people we are discussing—the persecuted Christians of the world—are the poorest of the poor. In Pakistan in particular, they are very much at the bottom of the heap, and they are denied human rights. All that they require in their simple lives is an ability to practise their religion, so this debate sends a powerful message about their right to freedom of expression.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend says that in no way do we diminish other people’s right to practise their religion if we practise our own. Society has enhanced that right: where we respect the right of one religion and people of one faith to practise their faith, we respect all if we respect that properly.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I would like to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said in his powerful speech. It is slightly regrettable—I say this gently—that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke at the beginning of the debate. It is increasingly the practice for Ministers to speak early in debates—I make this point particularly to you, Mr Speaker—but it is important that they listen carefully and respond. [Interruption.] The Minister will give a winding-up speech, but it will be much shorter than it would have been.

I have taken part in every one of these debates, and I have heard this Foreign Office speech many times before. Dare I say that I do not detect a sense of burning anger about what is happening to Christians? This is something that has increased, and it is one of the most terrible things happening in the world today. Of course we should regret, attack and be angry about any persecution of any religion. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned that Christians were persecuted in 105 countries, or their human rights were somehow limited, but she immediately tried to be relative—I think that there is a danger of relativism in this debate—and said that there were 101 countries where Muslims had their rights affected. That may be strictly true, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming number of really violent and dangerous persecutions, killings and denials of human rights are directed at Christians, which is why we should congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who continues, year on year, to raise the issue. It is down to the DUP, not the Conservative Government or the Labour Opposition, that this debate is taking place on the Floor of the House, and the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on that.

This debate is not a relative debate about human rights. It is a debate about the persecution of Christians. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, speaking with all the authority of his office, and everyone who has taken part in this debate demand that the Government take this more seriously and speak out more powerfully. There was an appalling case in All Saints church in Peshawar in which 120 Christians were blown up. How much publicity was there about that case? If a similar outrage were perpetrated by a Christian suicide bomber going into a mosque and blowing up 120 Muslims, it would be considered appalling, and the House can imagine the consequences worldwide for Christians.

I am afraid that, for all the warm words from the Foreign Office, there is still a lack of real determination to speak out. We have been in this space before, with the persecution of the Jews in the 1930s and the persecution of many minorities over time, where we as a Government have drawn back because of trade and other considerations of national policy, and we have not been prepared to speak up for minorities.

I want to follow what my friend the hon. Member for Ealing North, said, because I have been there. Like him, I have been to Iraq, and I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that there is nothing more terrible than what happened to a mother I spoke to. The last time she saw her child was when he went off to church with her husband. The husband was kidnapped and never seen again. The child was murdered just because of his religion—for no other reason. My friend and I will never forget those conversations, because those attacks revealed an appalling level of hate. We invaded Iraq and we have a responsibility, so we cannot pass by on the other side. Maybe we invaded for good reasons, but we do have a responsibility.

[Stephen Pound]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was extraordinarily humbling and salutary to realise that the language in which that mother addressed us through a translator was Aramaic, the language of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It was moving. To listen to a mass in Aramaic is an extraordinary experience.

I make no apology for Saddam Hussein, and I quite understand the comments that have been made about Iraq, but things have become much worse since the invasion. The fact of the matter is that Iraq’s Christian population has fallen from around 1.2 million to around 600,000, because tens of thousands have fled. When I was in Mosul, in ancient Nineveh, Christians were being murdered and dozens of families were fleeing. Where did they flee to? They fled to Syria. What did we have a debate about at the end of August? We had a debate, once again, on the need to bomb Syria. Thank God some of us refused to support that and the House of Commons said no. Otherwise, what would have been the fate of the Syrians?

I have also been to Syria and heard numerous appalling examples of what is happening to innocent Christians there. Again, I make no apology for the Assad regime, but under his father there was a degree of protection. Can the Government be so sure that in arming those they call the “good” rebels, or encouraging them—they claim that they have in no way armed them—they are not also leeching support and armaments to the bad rebels? There have been appalling examples of persecution in Syria. Mass graves have been found in the village of Sadad, where 46 Christians were murdered and where a family of six—this is just one family—were blindfolded and shot in the head. A 26-year-old, Ninar Odisho, was shot in the street, murdered for his faith. I could go on and on with such appalling examples of violence and hatred shown towards that ancient Christian community in the middle east.

Pakistan has been mentioned. Quite rightly, there was wonderful worldwide publicity about the shooting of Malala Yousafzai and her courage in resisting the Taliban, but how much coverage has there been of Kashmala Munawar, a Christian girl who lost one leg and nearly lost the other when she was blown up because of her religion? As I said earlier, how much worldwide coverage has there really been of the appalling massacre in Peshawar?

This debate is timely. I very much hope that when the Minister responds he will reflect the powerful mood of the House of Commons. This cannot go on. We cannot have tens of thousands of people around the world losing their human rights, or having them endangered, and thousands being murdered. The Government have a role to play in articulating our anger. It must stop.

Diplomatic Relations (Spain)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Which Royal Navy warships are currently in the waters around Gibraltar, and do not these provocations give the lie to those who have complacently argued for years that the Royal Navy was not important? The best preservation of peace is the strength of the Royal Navy.

[Mr Lidington]

No one in this Government has ever decried the importance of the Royal Navy. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on ship deployments.

Iran

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was sighing loudly from his seat; he may now speak forcefully on his feet.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

How can we trust the Iranians—a terrorist regime that poses a grave danger to the Arab world and to Israel and has a long history of lying and duplicity? This is from their own chief nuclear negotiator:

“While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipments in parts of the nuclear conversion facility in Isfahan... By creating a calm environment…we were able to complete”.

So now they keep their centrifuges; they go on enriching uranium by up to 5%; and they pocket $7 billion. What is to stop them doing a North Korea and subjecting us to more blackmail in six months’ time?

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

Two weeks ago, the Minister for Europe was asked by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is not in his place today—

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Thomas]

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. He was hiding at the back. His question to the Minister for Europe two weeks ago was extremely pertinent. He asked when the Prime Minister—or perhaps the Minister—would reveal which powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to repatriate to the UK as a result of the treaty change that is coming. Two weeks ago the Minister would not answer his hon. Friend, so perhaps he will give us an answer today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to use parliamentary tactics to pepper this Bill with different dates for referendums, but I would like to know his real view. If there were a Labour Government, does he think there should be a referendum on whether we should stay in or out?

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on Friday debates. I am prepared to listen carefully to him if he wishes to make further interventions, but at this stage of my contribution, I want to concentrate on the specifics of my amendments, not on hypothetical questions—[Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but in my own time, a time of my choosing. As he knows, I do not have to disrupt the flow and the eloquence of debate on all the different amendments or the order in which I want to discuss them. I will come to his point later. As an expert on what happens on Fridays with private Members’ Bills, he will know that his intervention allows me to give more thought and more consideration to my contribution, perhaps making it a little lengthier than would otherwise be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need an independent report to prove why staying in Europe is vital.

Let me finish my comments on Nissan by giving some other statistics. Nissan has said that if the UK leaves the EU its export potential to Europe would be hit by 10% tariffs on exports of vehicles and 5% on components. That is a company worth consulting before embarking on a Bill, the contents of which will cause four years of uncertainty for the UK and the north-east economy.

Nissan might be 20 miles away from Stockton South, but the Hitachi Rail Europe factory is even closer. It started its construction phase this month in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, which is adjacent to Stockton South. The president of Hitachi, Hiroaki Nakanishi, said on 10 October while speaking in Tokyo about the UK’s relationship with the EU,

“any exit…could lead to less investment”.

He also said:

“The UK should be a member of the European Union from the standpoint of our operations”,

and went on to say:

“For Japanese businesses, the UK and the Continent are very complementary”.

Rather worryingly for my constituents and, I should have thought, for those of the hon. Member for Stockton South, Mr Nakanishi also said Hitachi

“would have to reconsider how to manage our total railways business”.

Alistair Dormer, the chief executive officer of Hitachi Rail Europe, was reported in The Northern Echo on 5 November as saying:

“We regard Europe as potentially our biggest market and we should not want anything to happen that would damage the relationship and put up barriers, we should stay in”.

Hitachi’s investment will bring train building back to the north-east of England, initially creating 730 jobs with 3,000 more potentially in the supply chain. As I said, the construction phase of the factory started this month. The Secretaries of State for Transport and Business, Innovation and Skills were at the launch on 1 November.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman wants Britain to stay in the European Union. That is perfectly okay and he can make those arguments in a referendum. Is he in favour of a referendum, and if so, when?

[Phil Wilson]

I do not agree with a referendum in four years’ time given that nobody knows what the question will be. That will create a lot of uncertainty which will threaten jobs not just in my constituency but everywhere else in the country. Those are the issues that I believe the hon. Gentleman should recognise.

The hon. Member for Stockton South turned up to the launch on 1 November. As The Northern Echo said the next day:

“Mr Wharton is the Conservative MP for Stockton South, whose private member’s Bill will see MPs vote this Friday on whether to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership with the EU.”

The report went on:

“It’s ironic that the Tory backbencher was happy to celebrate the investment Hitachi is making in the North-East, while championing a cause that jeopardises the region’s chances of securing similar job boosts in the future.”

I could not agree more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

Is not the reason for the silence from the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) blatantly clear? The question of a referendum is uppermost in the minds of Conservative Members but none of them can decide which measures they want to see withdrawn from the European Union—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. By your reckoning, has my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) been silent this morning?

[Mr Speaker]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), and to have had the chance to listen to the contributions from the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and more recently the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).

I shall come to amendment 68, the lead amendment, in due course, but I begin with amendment 3 in the name of the hon. Member for Windsor. I pay tribute to him. Despite considerable pressure to present a façade of party unity, he has stuck to his guns and followed through on his determination to press for a referendum next year. I can immediately see three tempting reasons why the House might want to support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. First, as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay reminded us, the whole House knows that the Prime Minister and many in the Conservative party are obviously on different pages with regard to Europe. Amendment 3 therefore offers us the chance to underline once again just how divided the Conservative party is on that great European obsession of theirs.

The second tempting reason to support the amendment is that if one believed that the Prime Minister will not or cannot repatriate sufficient powers and competences from the European Union to Britain, which I think is the view of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), through the treaty change that he believes is coming, and by the entirely arbitrary deadline that the Bill establishes, one might be tempted to think, “Well, let’s just crack on with a referendum next year.” The third tempting reason is that the pragmatist in all of us in the House today can recognise that the British and the European calendars are likely to be so busy in the run-up to the end of 2017 that the best time for a referendum might be next year.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If Labour forms the next Government, will they give the British people a referendum?

[Mr Thomas]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended the Second Reading debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, clearly set out our position on the question of a referendum. Let me restate it for the benefit of the House. If there has been a significant transfer of powers to the European Union, of course we are committed to the principle of a referendum.

Indeed, that was the position of every one of the main parties in this House. The only party that has changed its position since is the Conservative party, and we all know that that is because the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and other Conservative Back Benchers have bullied the Prime Minister into bringing forward this commitment now.

Let me go into a little more detail on the three tempting reasons to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor. All of us remember that the Bill and its 2017 end date is the Prime Minister’s best effort to bridge the chasm within the Conservative party on Europe. It is the product of the unprecedented Back-Bench rebellion against the Queen’s Speech earlier this year. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and many of those who want to vote for his amendment either simply want to leave the EU or are quite frightened of UKIP. They know that the Prime Minister’s pledge is a stunt to keep them on board. Conservative councillors in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) certainly know it is a stunt. We have seen a three-line Whip, photos on College green, and Michael Green getting involved. It is just Lynton Crosby weaving away at the emperor’s new clothes so that the Prime Minister can put on the pretence of a united party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes his point. The Minister for Europe should be intervening to tell us what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to get back, but he has shown no signs of wanting to give that clarity to the debate in the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I cannot speak for the Minister, only for myself, but some of us want something very simple. We want to be able to control our own borders, fishing, agriculture and courts, and we want to stop small businesses being hit by ever more regulation. That is very clear and very simple, and that is the renegotiation that we want.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bain]

It is a pleasure to speak in the Chamber for the first time under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a delight.

I shall speak to amendments 68 and 70, in my name, as well as new schedule 2, which is also in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). The reason why this group of amendments is so important is that the discussions between the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), and the Government have been in many ways one-sided. It has been an internal discussion within the Conservative party. It is time that that discussion is broadened out to include all the interest groups and all the people of this country who would be affected by the Bill and who would be affected—in my view, very badly indeed—if Britain chose to withdraw from the European Union.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does the Labour party accept the principle that there should be a referendum at all?

[Hon. Members]

Answer!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raises that issue as I will deal with it later on and call for greater consultation on the matter. Unless the facts are revealed objectively and all organisations are properly consulted, people will not be in a position to make a sensible decision about whether to vote yes or no in the referendum he seeks.

The great flaw in the Bill is that it proposes no such consultation and there is no obligation on the Government to consult anybody. Other than a campaign that will be compressed into a particular period, and the inevitable media focus at the time, there is no sense that everybody will be involved in the great debate on an historic issue for the future of Britain, and indeed Europe. The Bill sets an arbitrary time limit without placing any obligation on the Government to consult. The referendum itself will be the only “consultation”—by bouncing voters into a decision by the end of 2017 or, if the hon. Member for Windsor gets his way, by October 2014.

For example, the business community needs to be properly consulted—paragraph (j) of new schedule 2 specifies how it could be consulted. The CBI, to which specific reference is made in the new schedule, recently reported that eight out of 10 of its members, including roughly the same proportion of its small and medium-sized enterprise members, said that they would vote for the UK to remain a member of the EU if a referendum were held tomorrow. The CBI should be properly consulted, not simply presented with a referendum on an arbitrary date. Nearly three quarters of CBI member businesses reported that the UK’s membership of the EU has had a positive overall impact on their business. They should be consulted, too, so that everybody, whether employees or management, can transmit their view to the wider community.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Labour Members appear to want to consult the CBI, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, which is fair enough, but are they in favour of consulting the British people in a referendum—yes or no?

[Mr Hain]

Labour has never been afraid of consulting people in referendums. We have called more referendums in our history than any other party. Labour is the only party that ever called a referendum on the EU—the Conservatives took us into membership of the Common Market without one. Labour Members have never been afraid to consult the people, and we have specified the circumstances in which we would hold a referendum.

Despite CBI member companies’ frustrations with many aspects of EU membership, which, as a pro-European, I share, more than half of them—some 52%—say that they have directly benefited from the introduction of common European standards. Only 15% suggested that that had had a negative impact. A consultation would reveal that and enable it to be properly debated, assessed and considered.

Those CBI members believe that UK influence has helped to maximise the openness of the EU. Some 72% of British businesses believe that the UK has a significant influence on EU policies that affect them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

As a Scottish MP of high repute in this House, my hon. Friend presents his evidence with some credibility. He is right that the Scottish referendum process reinforces exactly the case we are putting for these amendments.

Those who want us to withdraw from the EU suggest that we can have our cake and eat it by staying within the European single market to retain the great bulk of our trade, which is with EU countries. Once again, this could be assessed through a proper consultation, as specified in amendment 68 and new schedule 2. Those who want to withdraw first argue that we would avoid the costs of membership, which they denounce as too high; secondly, they insist that EU regulations make our economy uncompetitive; and thirdly, they allege a loss of sovereignty that comes with European political union.

Our amendments would enable us to assess what those arguments amount to and how seriously we should take them. They would provide an opportunity properly to consult all the different groups involved and all the different sources of expertise, which would reveal that the facts are rather different. It would reveal first that the price of Britain’s EU membership is rather more modest than the anti-Europeans would have us believe. The Government contributed £7 billion to the EU in 2012, which is around 1%—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this a debate about the merits of remaining part of the European Union, or not?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I have already explained this morning that I am listening carefully to all Members to ensure that they adhere strictly to the terms of the amendments they are proposing. The right hon. Member is in order in the remarks he is making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The amendments in this group fall into three categories: the significant amendment about consultation spoken to by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), the amendments that seek to require the Government to avoid clashes between the referendum and religious holidays or other elections, and the important amendments of various kinds to do with the date in question.

First, I will deal with consultation. I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech—his paean to the merits of the European Union and Britain’s membership of it. I find myself in agreement with some elements, such as the successes of the single market, enlargement and Franco-German reconciliation, although he may have underplayed some of the downsides of how the EU currently operates. However, the point is that the Bill does not seek to prescribe whether the United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union but to give the British people the final decision on that question, on which there are perfectly honourable, long-standing differences of view within all the main political parties in this House.

The right hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that a massive consultation exercise, which the Government are leading, is already under way on the current balance of competences in the European Union, and it goes far wider than the organisations specified in the Opposition’s proposals. Moreover, the Opposition underplay the fact that in a real referendum campaign there will be the widest of debates involving all the organisations listed in new schedule 2 and many more.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

When will the serious renegotiation start?

[Mr Lidington]

The serious work on the reform of the European Union is already under way. I know that my hon. Friend will be delighted by the successful reform of the common fisheries policy, the ban on discarding, the push towards local regional management of fisheries, the cut in the EU budget, and the moves on deregulation that this Government have already achieved, even in coalition.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is an historic day. For the first time in nearly 40 years, a major political party of Government is united in its commitment to give the British people a choice as to whether they stay in the EU. That is the important part of this debate.

The Prime Minister and the Government have been criticised for not introducing a Government Bill. Let us be absolutely clear: there is only one party that is stopping this Bill being a Government Bill or having time, and that is the Liberal party. Let us be clear also that the Liberals gave a solemn promise at the last election to have an in/out referendum. They gave that promise only because they thought then that they would win it. They are now reneging on that promise, so this is down to them.

This is only a private Member’s Bill. Despite the fact that we all salute our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) for the way he has introduced it, its likely progress reminds me of the games of Cluedo I used to play as a boy. In about nine or 10 months’ time, the body of my hon. Friend with his Bill will be found dead in the morning room with daggers in his back, but nobody will claim responsibility for killing his Bill. It will not be the Rev. Yellow Cleggo or Comrade Scarlet, but my hon. Friend’s Bill will be dead. The responsibility for the British people being denied a referendum will not lie with us.

Sooner or later, the Liberal party and the Labour party will have to come clean with the British people and offer a referendum, as we are offering a referendum. When the Bill is finally talked out on some dark rainy night or morning, probably in the other place, and when we have ensured that all the other private Members’ Bills are slaughtered to make way for it, we will have to go back to the Government and say to our partners in coalition, “Give us a Government Bill.” If our partners refuse to give us that Bill, that will be an excellent platform on which to fight the next general election. We will remind the people again and again who killed the Bill by talking it out.

We must start negotiating now. There are so many fundamental issues—on our fisheries, on our farming and on our trade—that need to be worked out. I am confident that there will be a referendum. I fear that our partners in Europe will make very few concessions. I fear that the French will not be prepared to give us more freedom on agriculture, and I fear that the Spanish will not be prepared to give us more freedom on fishing. I fear that we will make very little progress, but we will try our best and the decision will then go to the British people.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, I am going to finish now.

When we get to that point, unless major concessions are made I, like many other Conservatives, will campaign for this country once more to be free. Why should this country not once again be in charge of its own destiny? Why should we not be part of a genuine free trade area? That is our vision of a free and prosperous nation, and that is what we will put to the British people.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because that is exactly the point I want to make. There should a mandatory vote of this House on issues as important as going to war. Moreover, and critically—this is the burden of what I am saying today—that vote must be a free vote based on conscience. We cannot allow ourselves to be taken along by the rhetoric of party leaders or to be bullied by party whipping and therefore, in a sense, to abrogate our responsibility to make our own decisions.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the Conservative party. I was there and know what was going on in the party. The atmosphere was very relaxed. Although there was whipping, we were allowed to vote against it. Someone resigned from the Whips Office but immediately rejoined. I voted against it. We formed a judgment. I am afraid that most of my colleagues believed the Prime Minister and took the view that Iraq was a threat, but no pressure was put on Conservative MPs.

[Caroline Lucas]

Clearly I do not have the inside information that the hon. Gentleman has, but I have heard many a different story told elsewhere.

In conclusion, I said at the start of my speech that the justification for the debate is that Parliament must accept that it made a mistake in 2003 and set out how it will prevent such a mistake from happening again. I believe that it comes down to the acceptance of one principle: there must be a limit to party loyalty, and even of loyalty to the leader of a party. Loyalty is in some way an admirable quality. There are times when it is right to bite one’s tongue, go along with the majority, set aside one’s opinions and accept the judgment and experience of others. But there are also limits. Committing our country to war, asking our young men and women to fight and accepting that men, women and children will die in our name must be beyond the sway of party loyalty.

I would like to see the end of the royal prerogative on war and the establishment of a constitutional convention that votes on war are not subject to party whipping. I know that some Members might dismiss that suggestion, but it is a serious one and I urge hon. Members to consider it carefully. Of course informal whipping would have taken place anyway, but it would have been different. Taking away the formal obligation to vote according to the party line would have pushed more hon. Members to look at the evidence for themselves and vote accordingly. It would have given their constituents more power and leverage and put more responsibility on the shoulders of each Member. Scrutiny would not have been dulled by loyalty in the same way.

Like the issues of capital punishment and abortion, committing troops to war is a matter of conscience, and MPs should be, at least formally, free from the heavy hand of the Whips. This principle is relevant now as we grapple with the terrible situation that is unfolding in Syria. Members should demand not just a vote on whether we arm the rebels but a genuinely free vote. If Iraq teaches us one thing, it is that if MPs are to vote on grave matters of conflict, for that vote to be meaningful it must be the view of their own conscience, not their party’s line. As individual constituency MPs, many of us have constituents who have died in Iraq—who have lost relatives there. It is no answer to them to say that on a serious matter like this we did not challenge the case and satisfy ourselves that war was justified and unavoidable.

In future, when we are faced with a decision about whether to go to war, we simply cannot have a situation where the Government of the day tell the story and we take what they say on trust. MPs have to do the work themselves. In any future vote, we and our successors must establish, to our own satisfaction and on evidence that we have seen and heard ourselves, that the case for war has been made. Three lines on a Whips sheet are not enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. For many of us, the lesson from all this is that we must be wary of Government spin when we are addressing foreign policy issues, in particular; instead, we must focus on the evidence.

Bringing this up to speed, I suggest that in the case of Iran, for example, no intelligence service, whether American, British, Israeli or any other, has yet been able to publicly produce any hard evidence, as opposed to circumstantial evidence, that the Iranian leadership has decided to build a nuclear weapon or is taking that course. Nevertheless, that has not prevented our policy makers from painting a very different picture, and tensions are running unnecessarily high as a result.

The Iraq war is also a reminder that interventions often produce unintended consequences that can turn out to be counter-productive to our interests. A woefully inadequate post-war reconstruction ushered in a vicious civil war, as other Members have outlined. Studies estimate that many hundreds of thousands died in Iraq as a result of the invasion. In fact, Iraq became a honeypot for extremists worldwide. In a bitter irony, al-Qaeda only gained a foothold in Iraq after Saddam’s downfall and then proved difficult to eradicate. Minorities suffered as well. The Iraqi Christian communities, resident for centuries, have suffered immeasurably in the wake of the invasion.

[Mr Leigh]

I have since visited the Christian communities and heard the harrowing tales of what has happened to them. Is not what happened in Iraq a lesson for future action in Syria?

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend and I are very like-minded on this. We have a very bad track record of considering the consequences of our actions in relation to minorities within these countries. Syria is a good example, in the case not only of the Christians but of the Alawites.

Today, Iraq looks into the abyss because of economic failure, sectarian violence and political turmoil and corruption. Prime Minister al-Maliki, having centralised power, is a tentative supporter, to say the least, of President Assad, and a new wave of sectarian unrest seems imminent. That is one example of how unintended consequences can come back and bite us when we do not think these things through carefully.

Furthermore, there is little doubt that the removal of Saddam Hussein fundamentally altered the regional balance of power. We tend to forget in this House that we supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s attack on Iran. At that time, there was an approximate balance of power in the region. In effect, by taking Iraq out of the equation we ourselves created a regional superpower in the shape of Iran, the consequences of which we are still living with today.

I also suggest to the House that the invasion ignored the lessons of history. Interventions have a tendency to support, reinforce or have an embedding effect on the existing regimes. Looking back at history, communism, for example, has survived longest in those countries where the west has intervened militarily, such as China, Vietnam, Cuba and Korea. Meanwhile, the neo-con dream of establishing a sort of liberal democracy in Iraq lies in tatters. Democracy is taking root in north Africa, in regions where the west has put in very little support, not in Iraq or Afghanistan, where the cost to the west, particularly to this country, has been very high in terms of lives and treasure.

Meanwhile, as we have heard, our intervention has radicalised elements of the Muslim world against us, not only in regions of the middle east, but on the streets of this country. Scandals such as Abu Ghraib reinforce this alienation. As has been mentioned, Dame Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, said that the invasion “increased the terrorist threat” and

“spurred some British Muslims to turn to terror.”

We are still living with the consequences of this radicalisation, as very sad recent news has highlighted.

One scratches around for positives from this period. Perhaps there are a few. If al-Qaeda was one of the reasons for the invasion, it is now abundantly clear that the Iraq war was a 19th-century colonial-style solution to a 21st-century terrorist threat. There is no point invading countries if we are chasing extremists and terrorists. Instead, our efforts against international terrorism must be much more nimble and nuanced. They must reflect the flexibility of the terrorist threat itself, focusing on intelligence and operations, supporting friendly Governments in their anti-terrorist endeavours and applying properly resourced special forces. Indeed, there are encouraging signs that we have learned lessons from that period. We must also better focus international aid on the poverty and grievances that al-Qaeda and others have all too readily fastened upon in the past.

Perhaps—I am coming to an end—there is a more general lesson to be learned. We failed at the time to carry the international community with us, and in doing so I would suggest that we lost the moral high ground. The view adopted by the US and the UK at the time was that might is right. This sets a dangerous precedent. The coming decades will see the emergence of at least regional superpowers—or even global superpowers—that might be eager to flex their muscles. Our invasion of Iraq will make condemnation of any future aggression by others less effective. The invasion showed international law to be no guarantee of sovereignty or, indeed, security. This in itself may have encouraged some countries to seek other guarantees.

If there is a positive, it is perhaps that this war may have served to lay to rest, once and for all, the view that the British electorate would instinctively support politicians advocating intervention or war. I would suggest that Blair was never trusted thereafter. As our Prime Minister considers possible responses to Syria, he would be wise to reflect on that. In conclusion, let us hope that these lessons have been learned, for the sake of future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

If the hon. Lady will be patient, I will give the House an update on the Chilcot inquiry.

The decision to go to war has had long-lasting implications not only for Iraq, but for the region, the United Kingdom, our allies and international relations more broadly. Those implications are not necessarily yet clear, but they will be debated for many years to come. There were also more immediate implications. One hundred and seventy-nine British armed forces and Ministry of Defence personnel lost their lives in Iraq, as did a number of British civilians. We must also never forget the loss of life suffered by the Iraqi people. It is right that now, 10 years on from the start of the war, we remember all of them. We must also remember those who were wounded in the war and those who lost loved ones.

[Mr Leigh]

Those of us who opposed the war are often told, “If you’d had your way, Saddam would still be there.” Surely we are entitled to say that so would hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, because they would still be alive.

[Mark Simmonds]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I say to him that the tragic loss of life, wherever it occurs, needs to be remembered. We must also bear in mind the huge disparities between the estimations of the number of Iraqi civilians who lost their lives. There needs to be better analysis of that. It must also be said that the vast majority of Iraqi civilians who lost their lives did so in terrorist incidents, not in military action.

Syria

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely; the right hon. Gentleman is right. The danger of the spread of the crisis regionally, into other countries in different ways, is one of the reasons we cannot just watch it develop. We have to work out the best constructive approach, difficult though these choices are, to try to turn this crisis in the right direction, rather than let it drift in the wrong direction. Any of the neighbouring countries will take action if their borders are infringed, of course. We have agreed to the stationing of Patriot missiles by NATO in Turkey, Lebanon has been very concerned about clashes on its border, and the Jordanian border is a tense place—and that is even before we consider the Golan Heights and the Iraqi border as well. The regional dimension is of serious and increasing concern, which is one of the reasons for today’s package of policy changes and announcements.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I strongly reject the neo-con policies and ideas emanating from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)? What could be gained by our sending arms into this cauldron? Have we forgotten the disastrous policy of arming the rebels in Afghanistan? Have we forgotten the appalling atrocities being committed now by jihadis against Christians in Syria? What is wrong with basing our policy on life and not death?

Relations with the Arab World

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)]

The highlight of my parliamentary career is undoubtedly the wonder goal that I scored for the House of Commons football team at the Stretford end at Old Trafford—the Manchester United theatre of dreams. The goal has passed into history, but less well known is the fact that the little inside forward who supplied the final pass, in a move involving the legends Pat Crerand and Sir Bobby Charlton, was the Minister whom I face in today’s debate.

The Minister and I have always had civilised—indeed, friendly—relations. I hope that they survive the next 30 minutes, for I am going to say some pretty harsh things about the Government’s policy. As Minister for the middle east, he will have to come in for his share of criticism, but nothing personal is intended, as I am sure he knows.

The Minister is highly qualified as a Minister of the Crown, but the least of his qualifications was the most important in his being made a Minister at the Foreign Office: he was previously a luminary—indeed, a leader—of the Conservative Friends of Israel. That is an indispensible condition in Britain; in the 25 years I have spent in the House, and I suspect for much longer than that, no one has been able to be the Minister for the middle east without being a member, preferably a leading one, of either the Labour or Conservative Friends of Israel. That is the first problem I want to deal with today.

The fact that one has to be a friend of Israel to be the Minister for the middle east speaks volumes about the absolute unwillingness on the part of the British state, the British Government and the British Parliament to face up to their responsibility to the Palestinian people. The entire tragedy of the Palestinian people was authored in this building, when our Foreign Minister, then Mr Balfour, promised on behalf of one people a second people the land that belonged to a third people, when we did not even own the land of Palestine even as an imperial possession.

That is the original sin of Britain—all the blood that has flowed under the bridge since that declaration was made, and the fact that we do not recognise our special responsibility to the Palestinian people. On the contrary, one has to be a friend of Israel to be the Minister for the middle east. That is central to our problems and our credibility in the middle east.

As a result of Mr Balfour’s declaration, the Palestinian people had their country wiped off the map. We hear a lot of talk in the middle east about people threatening to wipe other people’s countries off the map, but the only country that has been wiped off the map in the middle east is Palestine—go to your atlas, Mrs Brooke, and you will see. The Palestinian people were scattered to the four corners of the earth—stateless, paperless and passport-less, hunted from pillar to post and regularly subject to massacre and attack of one kind or another. All the responsibility for that originates here.

Instead of recognising that special responsibility, we do precisely the opposite. If someone is not a known and celebrated supporter of the country that supplanted Palestine and drove the Palestinians out of their country into the four corners of the earth, they will have no chance of becoming the Minister for the middle east.

I could adumbrate the perfidy at great length, but I do not have the time. I shall give only one example: Israel illegally holds hundreds of nuclear weapons, undeclared and subject to no treaty or inspection of any kind. It was a British Government who transferred the heavy water technology that made that illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons possible; it would have been impossible otherwise. We know that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons because the brave Jewish whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu told us, for which he was kidnapped in Leicester square and ended up serving 18 years in solitary confinement in an Israeli dungeon. When brought to court, his jaws were wired together, like Hannibal Lecter, in case he told us any more about that illegal mountain of weapons of mass destruction.

Israel has a mountain of weapons of mass destruction. Iran has no weapons of mass destruction. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran has no nuclear weapons and that there is no evidence that it is trying to build them. Yet it is Iran that is subject to endless sanction and threat, while Israel has the red carpet endlessly rolled out before it.

Successive British Governments, both Labour and Conservative—the last one were even worse than this one; Mr Blair is now in almost permanent residence in occupied Jerusalem—have consistently backed Israeli crimes or failed to sanction them properly. Even when our own citizens’ passports were stolen by the Israeli intelligence services to commit murder in Dubai and we called in the Israeli ambassador and deported the Mossad representative from the embassy in London, the new Mossad representative to London flew here on the return flight and is ensconced still.

If this was a debate only about Palestine, I would have much more to say, but the proximate cause of my application for this debate is the ludicrous situation that occurred at Prime Minister’s Question Time a couple of weeks ago. The Minister will have come briefed, I am sure, for this point. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would adumbrate for the House the key differences—just the key ones—between the “hand-chopping, throat-cutting” violent, Islamist and extremist jihadists we were now going to Mali to kill, and the hand-chopping, throat-cutting, violent, Islamist, fanatic and extremist jihadists to whom we were giving money to help kill Christians and other religious minorities in Syria. There was a reply, but it was not an answer; it was a brief ad hominem attack—that if there was a brutal Arab dictator anywhere in the world left standing, he could no doubt count on my support.

As psychologists would say, that is just about as good an example of projection as it is possible to imagine. The Prime Minister projected on to me the sins—indeed, crimes—of which he himself is manifestly guilty.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

One of the reasons why I voted against the Iraq war, like the hon. Gentleman, was that I was worried about the fate of Christians in Iraq. They have had a terrible fate since the invasion. Many of them went to Syria, and their lives have been made a misery now; they are the people in between. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it is essential that we do not send, or countenance sending, indirectly or directly, any arms into Syria? That would make the situation far worse.

[George Galloway]

I agree wholeheartedly. The Christians in Iraq have effectively been wiped off the map of Iraq. Most of them are in Syria, where they live in daily terror for their churches and of their clergy and devotees being slaughtered by the hand-chopping and throat-cutting al-Qaeda elements to whom we are giving money.

However, the hon. Gentleman is wrong—we are already giving them weapons, and we are giving them money, which is the same as giving them weapons. If we give al-Qaeda money, what do we think they buy with that money? Are they buying Elastoplasts and other medical supplies? No, they are buying weapons with which to terrorise not just Christians, but Muslims and other ethnicities—Kurdish people, for example—on a daily basis. The Minister and the Foreign Office know that, and they must give an answer, if not to me, then to the British people.

What are the differences between the jihadists we are killing in Mali and the jihadists we are financing in Syria? I know why the Prime Minister did not answer my question; there can surely be no logical answer to it, for there are no differences. Al-Qaeda is al-Qaeda, and the al-Qaeda mindset is the al-Qaeda mindset wherever it is found.

I demand an answer to that question. The people in this country deserve an answer—after all, it is their money that is being given. I put a question to the Prime Minister:

“Has the Prime Minister read ‘Frankenstein’, and did he read it to the end?”—[Official Report, 30 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 906.]

Does he not know that Dr Frankenstein’s monster broke free and out of control, which is why it is called a monster?

As a case of projection, the Prime Minister’s response is pretty difficult to beat. In The Guardian, an American journalist by the name of Glenn Greenwald—the day after, if not the day after that—wrote:

“Cameron’s attack on George Galloway reflects the west’s self-delusions. In an act of supreme projection, the British PM accuses a critic of lending support ‘wherever there is a brutal…dictator’: the core policy of the US and UK”.

Who can doubt that?

The Prime Minister has travelled with his sales bag and a retinue of arms salesmen to one brutal Arab dictatorship after another. I do not know where he is today, but it will be a red letter day if he is not trying to sell weapons to a brutal Arab dictator. Saudi Arabia is our best friend in the middle east. We sell billions—tens of billions—of pounds of weaponry to the Saudi dictatorship, some of which is used in other countries. In 2009, the Saudi air force used UK-supplied Tornado fighter bombers in attacks in Yemen, which killed hundreds or possibly thousands of civilians.

The Saudi army is in occupation of its neighbour, Bahrain, where the democracy protesters are daily being gunned down with guns bought from us, by soldiers trained by us. We have a military training mission in Saudi Arabia, the darkest tyranny in the entire middle east. The most brutal dictatorship in the entire middle east is in occupation of its neighbour, killing people because they demand the right to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

In my answer, I was indicating that a friendship with Israel is not a requirement for the job, which is what he was indicating. I was pointing out that one of his colleagues had held the job without such a qualification. The reason why we did not support the vote, which was not for membership but to advance the cause of statehood for the Palestinian Authority, was that we had explained that what we believed was most in its interest was not a vote at the United Nations at that time. Our commitment to statehood for the Palestinian people in due course is very clear, however, and I reiterate it again today.

Without wishing to stay on that subject, I will briefly cover the others. On Iran’s nuclear programme, Iran is still acting in defiance of multiple International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions, including the most recent resolution adopted last September, and no fewer than six UN Security Council resolutions. The IAEA has expressed its serious concerns about the possible military dimension to Iran’s programme. Anyone who mistakes what is going on in Iran and believes that it is purely peaceful is missing the point. If it is purely peaceful, that is not difficult for Iran to demonstrate. We still hope that it will take the opportunity to do so this year. The IAEA has made reference to the possible military dimension of that programme.

On Syria, the hon. Gentleman again went too far. It is not true that the United Kingdom is supplying al-Qaeda with either money or weapons. I do not believe that to characterise what is happening in Syria as an attack on the Christian minority is accurate. There are jihadists involved. It is the wish of the United Kingdom and our partners to ensure that they are not supplied with weapons. That is why we are so determined to see the success of the Syrian national opposition coalition, so that it has legitimacy and an opportunity to represent the future of Syria in its political transition. We are more than well aware of the danger of jihadists becoming involved in what was originally a clear expression of reform and opinion against the Assad regime. That has turned into something different, because of the length of time that the situation has been unresolved, which is not through lack of effort by the United Kingdom with the United Nations. We are extremely concerned for the Christian minority and for others, which is why there must be an effective rule of law, but it must cover all.

[Mr Leigh]

Can the Minister give me a categorical assurance that no British taxpayer’s money is finding its way to jihadists through indirect means? Money is being given, but not arms, and it may find its way to them. Will he give me that categorical assurance?

[Alistair Burt]

I can give a categorical assurance that it is not the intention of the United Kingdom, in any efforts being made to support the Syrian people, that any money goes to al-Qaeda or any of its acolytes. It would be logically ridiculous of the United Kingdom to do that, which is why we give our support in the way that we do. No one can be absolutely certain about my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but it is absolutely clear that the United Kingdom has no interest in doing that. It is totally contrary to our interests and is not what we are doing. For him to say that that is clearly what we are doing is simply wrong.

I have to finish, because we are running out of time. It is a complex issue with a complex set of relationships. It is essential that we are able to deal with this issue in a way that examines the facts, and polemics sometimes get in the way. The hon. Member for Bradford West and I share a sense of justice for what must happen in the region. The policy objectives that we have set out are not always simple to achieve, but they are clear. I hope that we can continue to debate in a manner that allows the truth to be got to, even though opinion may vary.