Aleppo

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

Following Rwanda, a new international initiative establishing a duty of care was agreed, under which the international community would not stand by when a leader chose to kill his own people. That agreement was introduced so that comments about acts of genocide and other phrases that came out at the time could no longer be used to justify the hesitancy of the international community to step forward. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we bypass certain legal processes to move forward. In Kosovo, we had troops on the ground and we had collective international, regional and local support. In Kurdistan, a UN resolution backed the action taken there. He has raised a profound question. Should we go into a situation to do the right thing, even though we do not have international legal cover because such cover has been vetoed by a P5 member at every opportunity?

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister is right—for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—to rule out unilateral action, but what did he mean by his attacks on the Labour Front Bench and on people like me who refused to support military action in Syria? What could possibly be achieved by more bombs falling on that benighted country? Surely, our priority should be peace. We should condemn violence wherever it comes from, including the terrible violence inflicted by the Assad regime and the attack on a school in western Aleppo, which has not been widely reported. I hope that the Minister will condemn that attack. If our priority is to strive for peace and end violence, we have to accept—whether we like it or not—that the appalling Assad and his Russian backers are going to stay. We must therefore drop our demand for them to go. We have to engage with everyone—Assad, the Russians, the Sunni rebels—to try to get peace, because that is what the people want.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is familiar with the complex make-up of Syria today given all its history. Once we move forward from this situation, it is likely that there will be a federal model that recognises the country’s differences and groupings. We face a situation today in which Russia is backing and placing all its money on the existing regime. It has a connection and relationship that goes back to 1946, which needs to be honoured and reflected. I say to the Russians—to Bogdanov, to Lavrov and to Putin—that they should have that relationship with the people of Syria, not the Syrian regime. They should have a conversation with Dr Riyad Hijab, the co-ordinator of the free Syrian opposition, and then move forward from there, so that Russia can continue to have a sphere of influence without attaching itself to the tyrant that is President Assad.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

As I repeatedly told the House, we may be leaving the EU but we are not leaving Europe, and we are certainly not leaving the EU for a small time to come. In that time, we are fully paid-up members and it is my view that we should take part to the full, including in such cultural co-operation as the hon. Gentleman describes—and we will do so. We will also continue to take part in such European cultural ventures beyond our exit from the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T3. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that a radical free marketeer, admirer of Mrs Thatcher, opponent of Maastricht, Catholic, social conservative cannot be an entirely bad egg? So will he give his félicitations to François Fillon for his progress so far in the presidential elections—after all, he is a great anglophile—and in doing so underline that our priority must be good relations with our nearest and dearest ally?

[Mr Speaker]

Until the hon. Gentleman named the name, I thought he was about to make a job application.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to welcome the visit this week of Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, who is meeting the Queen? I know a bit about Russian Orthodoxy, having been married within the Church. The Russian Orthodox Church has suffered appallingly, particularly in Soviet times, but it is growing now. This is an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to make it clear that whatever our differences with the Russian Government at the moment, we have absolutely nothing but support for the Russian people and her faith, and their perseverance in times of trial.

[Boris Johnson]

I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is important that we keep open all lines of communication. Archbishop Kirill may have some interesting points to make. It would be even more important if he took back a message from the UK that we do not tolerate what is happening in Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, and, above all, in Syria. I hope that his visit will be a factor for change in the Kremlin.

Humanitarian Law (Yemen)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of events that have taken place and are being looked into by Saudi Arabia, but there is also a comparison with what happened with the United States, when a hospital was also attacked. The question is whether any nation puts its hand up and says that a mistake has been made or whether it tries to cover things up and say that they did not happen, which would be a breach of international humanitarian law.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

These were not minor corrections issued on 21 July; frankly, the Government are now saying the complete opposite of what they said before. I am reminded of Ron Ziegler, President Nixon’s former press secretary, who said that all previous statements were inoperative. It is not just that the Government said that there was no evidence that IHL had been breached and are now saying that they are unable to assess whether there have been breaches. They also said that the MOD was of the opinion that the Saudis were not targeting civilians; now they say that the MOD has not assessed whether the Saudis are targeting civilians. This is a deeply serious matter. The Government must take action and we now want answers to these questions. Are the Saudis actually targeting civilians, yes or no? The Minister must come back to the House and give answers on these serious matters.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes his point, but I will just say that each case is considered in its own right. Each arms export is considered under the ruthless criteria under which we operate. We look to the future, to the intent of that country and at how those weapon systems will be used. As things stand, we do not believe that they will be used in breach of IHL.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Weapons of mass destruction were held to be a vital part of the justification for war. The Chilcot report found that WMD development programmes were far more advanced in Iran, Libya and North Korea than in Iraq. The imminence of an Iraqi threat to the United Kingdom was simply non-existent. The report notes that a November 2001 Joint Intelligence Committee assessment found that Saddam Hussein

“refused to permit any Al Qaeda activity in Iraq”.

I believe that many of those who voted for war and are now seeking to justify their support for it should be held to account, particularly the former Prime Minister. The Chilcot report is absolutely clear—this is a message for all of us ordinary Back Benchers—that there were severe doubts at the time, even in published documents, that Saddam Hussein held weapons of mass destruction.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend may correct me if I am wrong, but I recall Hans Blix repeatedly saying that he needed more time because there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is correct. I want to read from Hansard what I said on 24 September 2002, not in any sense to say, “I told you so,” but to establish that we as Back Benchers do not necessarily always have to believe what we are told by Front Benchers, experts, Whips and the Government. We have a duty to look at our conscience. I said:

“I do not believe that it is the job of the UN—or, even more problematically, of the US backed by the UK—to change a regime in the middle east. Leaving aside questions of international law, what are the practicalities? There are nearly 30 Arab nations, and not one is a democracy. Trying to impose our ideas of democracy on Iraq may unleash democratic Kurdish and Shia movements that could lead to the dissolution of the country. It would be wrong to believe that, from the Arab point of view, our system is necessarily superior to theirs.”—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 74.]

I believe that those messages are as right today as they were then. We have to distinguish between totalitarian movements such as ISIS, which are a real threat to us, and authoritarian regimes, however unpleasant. We should not necessarily seek to overthrow the latter.

On 24 September 2002, I went on to say:

“An attack, or the threat of an attack, may be justified on the basis of the breaking of UN resolutions, but I suspect that that will not be the real trigger—many countries are in breach of UN resolutions. Let us be serious. There are three sides of a triangle to justify a war: capability, means and intent. Does Saddam have the capability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction? We have the dossier, and I am prepared to accept that he does”—

but I was misled on that, as were many of us—

“but I would like to hear more about the weapons of mass destruction held by other countries in the region—Iran, Syria and Israel—and by other rogue states, notably North Korea.

Does Saddam have the means to deliver those weapons of mass destruction to the west? Nobody seriously suggests that he can do so militarily…The suggestion, then, is that Saddam will deliver the weapons not by conventional military means but by clandestine means. Where is the evidence of his links to al-Qaeda? What would he gain by such links? Are there terrorists already capable of inflicting devastating damage on our economy? Would not our acting alone make us a more likely target for Muslim fundamentalists? Are we not uniquely vulnerable to terrorist attacks, as an open society with no identification cards, and with the London underground, Heathrow and the channel tunnel? Means of delivery—the second side of the triangle—is problematical, not proven”.—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol.73, c. 75-76.]

Given the messages from Chilcot and from this debate, that message is as apposite today as it was then. In trying to change the middle east, we should not look to overthrow authoritarian regimes that we do not like. Rather, we should deal with what is a threat to our society and our people. ISIS is a threat to our society and our people, but regimes such as that of Assad are not necessarily such a threat.

I went on to say:

“The most difficult of the three factors is intent. What would Saddam gain by attacking the west, apart from his own immediate destruction? Has he not outlived all his foreign and domestic opponents by being at least rational and not suicidal? I do not think that anyone seriously suggests that he intends to attack the west. Would he attack Israel, which already has a nuclear deterrent?...Is the proposed attack really about a new concept of global thinking? That is the issue. Is the Truman doctrine—the concept of deterrence that has preserved peace and stability for more than 50 years—to be replaced by a new Bush doctrine of using a pre-emptive strike to overthrow dangerous regimes that could pose a threat?”.

I repeat that these messages are as true for us today as they were then. We should abide by the Truman doctrine of containment and deterrence, and not necessarily seek to impose our ideas on regimes that we dislike.

I went on to say:

“Where will the Bush doctrine take us? Where will it stop? What are the tests? A military junta is allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon in Pakistan but not in Iraq and, presumably, not in North Korea or Iran. Pakistan was only righting the balance with India, and Saddam would claim that he was righting the balance with Israel.

I do not believe that the case for attacking Iraq unilaterally, without the UN, has yet been made. That is not to say that it is wrong to threaten force—that is the only language that Saddam understands. No doubt there will be weeks of frustration. No doubt when the UN teams go in there will be more frustration and delays. However, the fact remains that after 1998, the UN contained Saddam and kept him on some sort of leash.

Finally, I remain of the belief that it is safe to contain rather than to threaten destruction of Saddam’s regime. If he is threatened with destruction, he could act irrationally, with incalculable consequences for the world community. Let us march in step with fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council and insist on weapons inspections, backed by the use of international force if they are not complied with. That is the right path to take”.—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol.73, c. 76.]

I believe that Chilcot is a powerful testimony for us all today. Never again must we be led astray along a path towards a dangerous war such as the one that has unleashed untold misery in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of decisions taken in this House. I say never again. As ordinary Members of Parliament, if this ever happens again, we must be prepared to question the Executive and, whatever the cost to our career, vote against that Executive and vote down war.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

No, I will not give way, because other people want to speak.

Tony Blair’s critics on the hard left opposed every attempt to use British forces, not just in Iraq or Syria, but even in Kosovo, where the UK intervened to prevent thousands of people from being slaughtered. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) described that at the time as “unpardonable folly”, even though Britain was intervening to prevent genocidal slaughter. I will take no lectures from the SNP on these issues.

The leader of the Labour party was a founder member and chair of the Stop the War coalition—an organisation that, under his leadership, praised what it said was the “internationalism and solidarity” of ISIS, and compared it to the international brigades. It supported what it called the Iraqi “struggle” against British troops “by any means necessary”, and among many other appalling things, it said that it stood with Saddam Hussein, compared Assad to Churchill, and promoted or provided a platform for Assad apologists. For the hard left, the world is a simple place: all the problems are caused by the west, and the solutions are easy.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Austin]

No, I will not give way. Of course we must learn the lessons from Iraq, but let us make sure we learn the right ones. For me, the central lesson is that taking action can lead to terrible consequences, and military action anywhere in the world involves huge risks. However, there can also be terrible consequences from not intervening. If we learn the wrong lessons, we might have fewer Iraqs but we could easily have more Syrias. Perhaps we ought to consider a Chilcot-style inquiry into the consequences of not intervening in Syria, where people have been slaughtered or displaced in their millions.

Human Rights in Iran

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, in a debate that is important, timely and takes us away from our own concerns about our future in the European Union to look at something that is, in many ways, much more profoundly important to millions of people suffering from such a brutal regime as that which exists in Iran today.

We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) for securing the debate and I congratulate him on his opening speech. He reminded us that 2,400 people have been executed under President Rouhani’s regime since 2013, and that the numbers have doubled since 2010 and increased tenfold since 2005. That is an appalling record of state-sanctioned murder, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, makes Iran the world’s No. 1 executioner per capita. As Member after Member has pointed out, the record of execution of minors—people under 18, who we would regard as children under our legal and other legal systems in the west—is truly appalling and shocking.

Less than 10 years ago, I was privileged to meet Shirin Ebadi, the great Iranian Nobel laureate—a woman who stood up for her nation and who is an expert in not only legal systems, but the laws of her country, including sharia law. Indeed, she can out-argue many of the so-called sharia experts in her country on their own terms. Yet, because she is a woman, she was sacked in 1979, and she has been harassed many times by the regime for speaking her mind.

Shirin Ebadi told us—a group of MPs from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—the story of a young courting couple, who were aged over 18 and were caught holding hands in a park. They were unmarried and not related, so they were arrested. A few days after the arrest of their daughter, the parents of the young woman received a call and a visit from the police, saying, “Please come to collect the body of your daughter. She has, in shame for what she has done, committed suicide.” In fact, as was discovered through the post mortem, she had been brutally attacked by the prison guards. She was thrown to the floor, hit her head and died of a brain haemorrhage.

The young woman’s parents engaged Shirin Ebadi, as an expert lawyer, to try to argue the case that their daughter had been inadvertently murdered while in custody. Through their grief, they had to endure their lawyer being accused of all sorts of crimes. The regime brought up an ancient case of Shirin Ebadi not defending a man—an Iranian citizen—who had been refused a degree by a university in the UK. That was dragged up, although it was completely irrelevant to the case. The justice that those parents deserved for the death of their child in custody—for the crime of holding hands with a boy in a park—was never resolved. No justice was ever given.

I tell hon. Members that story because it is an example of the appalling abuse of human rights that Iranian citizens have suffered since the 1979 revolution. Many of us who are old enough to remember that revolution remember the brutal regime of the Shah of Iran—Pahlavi—and the way he abused and brutalised the population simply for speaking out. But is the current regime any better? In many ways, it is far worse than a regime that was condemned the world over for its brutality.

Iranians are some of the best educated people in the world. Given what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said about the treatment of women, it is an irony that women in Iran have some of the best higher education results in the world and some of the highest attendance rates and qualifications, yet they are treated as chattels and second-class citizens.

On my visits to Tehran and Isfahan, I came across many people who were dismissive and disdainful of the regime while living in fear of it, but also had a huge thirst for knowledge and education. To my amazement, they regularly listened to the BBC World Service even though that was perhaps illegal, and certainly frowned upon. Their knowledge of the English and French languages was gained from listening to the BBC World Service. Their thirst for talking to foreigners and people from the outside world was huge, as was their engagement. Iran could be a great ally of the rest of the world, and until recently it was one of the world’s most civilised countries—one of the world’s greatest nations—in terms of its culture, art, architecture and music. Iran is an extraordinary, uplifting and wonderful place, but it is spoiled by the appalling regime that its people have to endure.

Domestic oppression, as the hon. Member for Hendon said, is important for the ruling theocracy to keep Iran’s people under its thumb and to keep the Iranian revolution going. As he said, the UK needs to address human rights abuses in Iran. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned the lifting of sanctions, which has not delivered an improvement in human rights. We have done a great favour to the regime, but what do we receive in return?

I think it was the hon. Member for Hendon who suggested that we should prosecute the officials who have carried out such blatant human rights abuses, and the Labour party would certainly agree. Relations with Iran should be based on ending torture and executions. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is not able to be in his place, made a plea on behalf of Baha’is for us to have a closer eye on Iran and its equality and human rights records. He is a strong defender of religious freedom in other parts of the world, particularly where Christians and other minorities are persecuted for their beliefs, and long may he continue.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) made some important points. He told us, as we knew already, that elections in Iran are not free and democratic. Rouhani was not elected in a free and fair election because of the way that the candidates were filtered—certain individuals were prevented from standing because they do not stand up for the Iranian theocratic revolution. He said that breaches of the convention on the rights of the child have been legion. At least 81 children have been executed, which I hope the whole world will come together to decry. He said that freedom of religion is the birthright of all of us, but it clearly is not for the people of Iran. He asked whether the British Government will make our relationship with Iran contingent on an end to human rights abuses, as did the hon. Member for Hendon.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for her thoughts on my close friend and neighbour, Jo Cox, who fought so hard for an end to human rights abuses and for equality for women throughout the world. The hon. Lady told us that Iran has the world’s most censored press, and we hear many stories of journalists being arrested and, worse, tortured and imprisoned simply for publishing criticism of the regime. Without a free media there can be no free society. We are all deeply shocked by the heavy prison sentences given to human rights defenders.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made an excellent contribution. He said that he has no doubt that the British Government are committed to addressing the issue but that they are perhaps reticent about forging a strong new relationship with Iran in the hope that President Rouhani is somewhat more liberal than his predecessors, which has turned out not to be the case. The hon. Gentleman said that the regime has engaged only when it is hurt by sanctions. We should make it clear that individuals who perpetrate crimes against humanity will be prosecuted. Several speakers have said that we must ensure that those who have perpetrated such appalling human rights abuses are brought to justice under international law.

Will the Minister make it clear whether Her Majesty’s Government will amend their policy on sanctions against Iran? Having been to that country and having seen how sanctions can hurt ordinary people, I have no desire to see such sanctions maintained or reinstituted, but we can institute smart sanctions, as they are called, against those individuals whom we hold responsible for abusing human rights. Will he specifically look at Iran’s leadership? That leadership is not just the President; there are many centres of power in Iran that contest with each other for supremacy. Will he look at all of them? We have not debated this issue this morning, but it is important because it relates to human rights abuses in Iran—are the Government concerned that, despite Iran’s signing of the non-proliferation treaty and the promises that the Iranian Government have made to the rest of the world and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran continues to try to weaponise uranium rather than use it to generate peaceful civil nuclear power, as it is obliged under the non-proliferation treaty?

Does the Minister believe that the UK and our European allies—if we still have any—can address the appalling and barbaric human rights abuses that we have discussed today? It seems to the Labour party that we need concerted action from not only the UK Government but from the rest of the world to show Iran that we are deeply concerned about the abuse of human rights and the barbaric executions and punishments handed out in the name of Iran’s faith, which many Muslims would reject. Finally, will the Minister update us on the status of the British embassy in Tehran. We have a chargé d’affaires, but are there plans to reinstitute an ambassador?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I understand that Mr Grant wanted to say something—I missed him out.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the UK needs to stay in the EU because it offers the best framework for trade, manufacturing, employment rights and cooperation to meet the challenges the UK faces in the world in the twenty-first century; and notes that tens of billions of pounds worth of investment and millions of jobs are linked to the UK’s membership of the EU, the biggest market in the world.

This is the last opportunity that the House will have to debate the issue of our membership of the European Union before our people vote in the referendum next week. It has been described as the most important decision for a generation, and it may well turn out to be so. We therefore have a responsibility to ensure that it is made on the basis of the fullest possible debate, which will be considered and, hopefully, calm.

We need to acknowledge, however, what many of our constituents have been telling us about the debate so far. It has not, as yet, risen to the occasion. On the doorstep, people repeat that they simply want the facts and our honest assessment of the consequences for them and our country of whether or not we remain in the European Union.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this paragraph. I will be taking interventions, Mr Speaker, but I know that many Members wish to speak, so I shall try to limit the number of times that I give way.

On the doorstep people have simply asked for the facts, and I have to say many of them say they have been turned off by the exaggerated claims on both sides of the argument—put off by references to world war three on one side, and to comparisons of the European Union with the Third Reich on the other. “Project Fear” from both sides simply is not working. People will not be scared into the ballot box.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am most grateful to the shadow Chancellor for his courtesy in giving way, but does he understand that many of us believe that the real threat to our economy is not whether we stay in the EU or leave it; the real threat would be the implementation of the disastrous tax-and-spend policies that all his life he has advocated?

[John McDonnell]

I always find the hon. Gentleman’s interventions entertaining to say the least, but may I return to the subject of today’s debate?

Many people have seen this debate going on within the Westminster bubble among the Establishment. They do not feel involved, and many suspect that what they are witnessing is an unseemly battle for the succession in the Conservative party rather than a considered debate about the future interests of our country.

Much of the media coverage of the internal Tory strife has drowned out other parties. Polling suggests that many of our own Labour supporters are unclear about Labour’s position. So let people be absolutely clear: as the motion before us today unambiguously states, Labour is for remain. Today’s motion spells it out. It is about jobs, investment, trade with our largest market and the protection of the employment rights of workers so they can secure the benefits of participation in that market, but for many of us it is also about creating another Europe—a Europe that is more democratic, that promotes social justice as well as prosperity, that is more equal and sustainable economically and environmentally. We must do nothing now that jeopardises our European future.

EU Referendum Leaflet

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. My father was born in Burma. I have seen the good side of immigration, but mass uncontrolled immigration has a major effect on our infrastructure and public services—the NHS, housing and school places. We cannot tackle that effectively with one arm tied behind our back. Even the Treasury report uses the assumption that the Government will fail in their policy commitment to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, not just this year, but every year until 2030.

That is not the platform on which I stood last year, when immigration was such a huge issue on the doorstep in Sutton and Cheam, as it was around many parts of the country. The equivalent of the population of a city the size of Newcastle comes to the UK from the EU each year. Apart from the obvious lack of ability to control those numbers, those people join the queue in front of migrants from outside the EU who may have more suitable qualifications and skills that we need or desire in this country.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) mentioned the leaflets produced for the original 1975 referendum. Page 11 of one of those leaflets claimed:

“No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.”

Well, something has changed over the last few years, has it not? The reality 41 years later is that 65% of our laws, regulations and directives come from Brussels. The emergency brake on migration benefits is not applied by the UK; it is applied by Brussels. The red card system that is held up as a meaningful renegotiation success actually raises the bar for vetoing EU legislation, compared with the current orange card under the Lisbon treaty. Contributions to eurozone bail-outs are still a threat, despite assurances to the contrary, as we have seen before. We are contributing financially towards Turkey’s pre-accession assistance, despite assurances that it will not be a member any time soon.

Enough is enough. We have the fifth largest economy. We have the fourth largest army. We speak the language of business. We have the ideal geographic location for world trade, and we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Yes, there are risks on either side, but I am confident that we are big enough, bold enough and entrepreneurial enough as a nation to manage that risk and to thrive if we vote to leave.

That vote to leave is a vote to take control, to bring decision making back to accountable people here in the UK and to decide how we spend up to £350 million per week here in the UK on the NHS, schools, housing and other vital services. It is that positive vision that I will be sharing with people. I perfectly understand the anger and frustration of the petitioners, who see their money—taxpayers’ money, not Government money—spent on propaganda. Even some remainers are quietly dismayed and uncomfortable at that move. I hope that the circling establishment, led by the Government, will cut the hyperbole and exaggerated claims.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the 1975 referendum, but there is a cautionary tale about that. In 1974, 36% of the population told pollsters that they were opposed to our membership of the then Common Market. The Government and the equivalent of the remain campaign outvoted the leavers by 10 to one with lies, innuendos and supposition. We should be aware, and the Government should be aware, that they can outvote us 10 to one, but there will be a tremendous sense of grievance about it.

[Paul Scully]

As my hon. Friend outlines, that grievance has lasted for 41 years. That is something we want to avoid at all costs. We must ensure that the decision that the British people take is taken freely and fairly, with as much information—unbiased, impartial information—as possible, and after listening to the two campaign groups. It is important that the Government do not continue to stack the decks on a vital constitutional question that will have long-term consequences far beyond the careers of any of us in this Chamber. That is why the question is rightly being put to the British people in a referendum. Let us make our cases fairly and freely and trust the people of Britain to make the right decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I do not want to give the Minister all the arguments about why we should remain in the EU or leave. Many of them are well known, and I am not sure that the debate is entirely about those arguments. I want to talk about fairness—that is what the debate is about. We all have strong views, and we could all give long speeches explaining why, in our view, the leaflet is wrong on a particular fact and is based on supposition. We could ask how, when the Treasury has difficulty in getting its own borrowing figures correct even for the next year, it can possibly foretell what will happen in five or 10 years or how exchange rates will move. We could go through the entire leaflet and tear it apart—no Back Bencher from the remain camp has bothered to come to the debate, which is faintly sinister from the point of view of fairness—but I am not sure that anything would be achieved by doing that. I want to concentrate on the argument about fairness.

The Minister will quite rightly say that the Government have a particular point of view and are constitutionally entitled to put that point of view. No one denies that, and no one denies that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe can give whatever speeches they like, whether or not they agree with them. We all accept that. The Minister will no doubt also say that Governments have argued particular cases during past referendums, and all the rest of it.

We cannot deny that the Government have a settled view, although of course we should point out that we are in an unusual situation where several members of the Government have a completely different view, which should temper some of the rhetoric. The Government have a point of view, but our question is, what is the whole point of this referendum? Is the point not to draw a line under the debate so that both sides feel that they have had a fair crack of the whip, that both campaigns have broadly spent the same amount of money and had the same amount of airtime, that the arguments have been made and that the public have decided one way or the other? I say to the Government that even if they win, nothing will have been achieved if at the end of the campaign people feel a fundamental sense of unfairness and if one side—the remain side, with all its resources and backed by the Government, thousands of civil servants and so on—has had an undue advantage.

There is history in this debate, as I mentioned in my earlier intervention. I will quote John Mills, the Labour donor and deputy chair of Vote Leave, who was a national agent for the no campaign in the 1975 referendum. He wrote recently:

“We were deluged by propaganda heavily weighted in favour of the stay-in campaign. The total expenditure spending on advertising, leaflets, posters and all the other elements of the campaigns conducted on each side was roughly 10:1 in favour of staying in. This had a massive effect on public opinion and can’t have failed to have had a significant impact on the result…In the autumn of 1974, only 36 per cent of the population thought membership of the Common Market was ‘a good thing’. But by 1975, this figure had shot up to 50 per cent. It is very hard to believe that this huge increase in support for staying in was not largely down to the massive and disproportionate propaganda campaign waged by the pro-Common Market campaign.”

There is history in this debate.

Presumably, the remain campaign has come to the conclusion that it has to bombard the people and outspend the leave campaign. That is unfair. The remain campaign and the leave campaign are each allowed to raise £7 million. I actually talked to the Vote Leave campaign today about having a rally. I asked, “Can you organise a rally in Lincolnshire?” and the campaigners said, “Well, we’d rather you did it, because of course it comes out of our spending, which is very carefully controlled.” That is all fair enough. The leave campaign is limited to £7 million. The remain campaign will spend £7 million, and in addition the Government have produced a leaflet at the taxpayers’ expense for £9 million. That comes to £7 million plus £9 million on the remain side, compared with just £7 million on the leave side, which is fundamentally unfair. Surely the whole point about the British mentality and way of doing politics is that both sides get a fair crack of the whip. Is that not why we have such hugely careful spending controls in all our general election campaigns in our constituencies—because we feel that there is a right to put an argument, but taxpayers’ money should not be used to overwhelm the other side?

Perhaps I may make one comment about fairness. People are asking for a genuine debate. They want genuine information. Many people are still undecided. If it were possible for the Government to help facilitate a genuine debate in which the arguments, facts and economics would be put, people would understand that, but they find it increasingly irritating that there seems to be a Government tendency to increase the war tempo of the rhetoric—there has been the latest claim today, of course. If the result of leaving would be so utterly disastrous for peace, the economy and all the rest of it, why are we having the referendum in the first place? Why did the Prime Minister risk it? Why did he say during his negotiations that he was prepared to consider recommending that we should leave if he did not get his demands, which we know were about only minor changes on migration? Now he says that leaving would have a devastating result on the economy, the prospects for war or peace in Europe, and many other things. Why did he risk all that? Why did the Foreign Secretary say during the negotiations that he was prepared to consider leaving, whereas apparently he now says that leaving would be a disaster?

I say to the Government, by all means put the arguments—no one is criticising them for doing that; they are the duly elected Government and have a right to do it—but just try to be fair, and do not try to overwhelm the opposition with taxpayers’ money. That is what other Governments have done, in places such as eastern Europe. That is what the Council of Europe is all about, and it is why we had the debate on purdah. I know the Minister will say that he made it perfectly clear that purdah would apply only for the last 28 days. We understand all those arguments, but was not the reason for that debate our wish to make it clear that the Government should not misuse their massive power and resources to overwhelm the opposition? If the Government win on that basis it will be a dirty victory, and will not close down the debate. I also believe that it is counterproductive for the Government in their campaign, because people react to it. They are not fools, and they know when they are being taken for fools and fed propaganda. It will not work, and will create a nasty taste. I regret the fact that the leaflet was published in such a way and paid for by the taxpayer. I hope that the Government will learn from the reaction to their leaflet and not make a similar mistake in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. We keep on hearing that there is nobody here from the remain side. My answer to my hon. Friend is: I do not know. I have no idea who will be in charge of the leave campaign up in Scotland, because we have no one. So far, we have 59 out of 59 SNP Members of this Parliament in favour of remaining, 128 out of 129 Members of the previous Scottish Parliament in favour and five out of the six Scottish Members of the European Parliament in favour. Nobody is emerging for the leave campaign, but we will see what comes from the new lot.

I know that Members will be wondering what happened in the Scottish Parliament elections. They will all be glad to hear that the SNP won again, with 47% of the vote, which was up on 2011. Furthermore—[Interruption.] I hear sedentary points being made by Conservative Members; I would love to take an intervention. No? Nothing at all. The SNP Government won the highest proportion of the vote of any sitting Government in Europe. They are the most trusted Government in Europe.

Let us compare the track records. The Scottish Government have already published their agenda for EU reform, and they have a better track record on publishing documents. The White Paper published for the Scottish independence referendum was downloaded free, at no cost to the taxpayer, 100,000 times. Will the Minister tell us how many times he expects the referendum leaflet to be downloaded?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

What would the hon. Gentleman have said during the Scottish referendum campaign if the Government had paid for a leaflet to be issued to every household in Scotland, urging people to vote for one side? Would he not have complained? Therefore, to be entirely consistent, should he not also complain during this referendum campaign? I am looking for consistency.

[Stephen Gethins]

The Scottish Government did produce a leaflet, and the Scotland Office, under the Conservative party, also produced a leaflet that was sent to every house. The hon. Gentleman should raise that issue with his Government’s Minister. Our leaflet was downloaded 100,000 times.

Since the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the Scottish independence referendum, let us look at it. There was an 85% turnout—I wonder whether the Minister thinks this referendum will reach that—with 16 and 17-year-olds engaged in politics and taking part, and in a study conducted afterwards there was a 95% satisfaction rating with how the referendum was carried out.

Anglo-Russian Relations

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Our relationship with foreign powers is, I believe, totally inconsistent. We chide Russia for abuses—and, by the way, nothing I say is pro-Putin; I am not getting involved in that. I am just talking about double standards. We chide Russia for abuses but kowtow to China, whose abuses are far worse. If we were outside observers looking at that situation, what conclusion would we draw? That there is a double standard; and that is the only conclusion that Russians draw. We in the west have failed totally to take into account the Russian mentality when dealing with these problems. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on the way he moved the motion, and on trying to understand how Russians think. That is important in framing our foreign policy.

Ukraine is a perfect example. The country is ideally placed as a bridge between the two worlds—Europe and Russia. Indeed, in Russian, Ukraine means “borderland”. To Russians, Ukraine is not a foreign country. Russian orthodoxy, as far as they are concerned, was founded in the Kievan Rus 1,000 years ago. We may not agree with this, but for them Kiev is as much the spiritual home of Russian orthodoxy as Canterbury is to us the home of the Anglican Church. Clever Ukrainian statesmen could have held a fine balance, playing one side against the other for the good of their country, as of course India did during the cold war. Instead, Europe and the west had to barge in with, I believe, an insufficient understanding of Russian or, indeed, Ukrainian history, or people’s thinking in the region.

We in the European Union invested millions of pounds, euros and dollars to influence Ukraine away from Russia and towards the west. Because one side insisted on owning the bridge and the other side, naturally, would not let it, now the bridge is in tatters and burning; and it is the ordinary people of Ukraine—and of Russia, subject to sanctions—who are suffering. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham says, Russia will never in our lifetime give up Crimea. After all, the Russians believe and know that the overwhelming majority of people in Crimea want to be part of Russia. So they believe that we are playing with double standards. They all remember that Krushchev signed away Crimea to Ukraine with a stroke of a pen in the mid-1950s.

The psychotic zeal for permanent expansion of the western European sphere of influence, at Russia’s expense, gains us nothing. Actually, all we have done is significantly destabilise our eastern flank; and what about the good of Ukraine? Crimea is now permanently lost to it. We know that—it is a reality. The eastern regions are enveloped in a low-level violent conflict. Whatever we may think of Mr Putin or the Russian Government, clearly our interference has not worked out for the benefit of people living in Ukraine. Russia can, we all know, with little effort or cost to itself—I am not defending it, just describing the reality—support and maintain a constant low-boil conflict in eastern Ukraine for some time.

Therefore, any real effort to secure peace, stability and the rule of law in Ukraine—and peace and stability is what we should be about, is it not?—must of necessity take into account Russian fears and interests. That is the reality on the ground. If it does not, and if we just take an absolutist line, imposing sanctions, putting the Russian embassy in London and the Russian Government into deep freeze, and not talking to Mr Lavrov, we will achieve nothing and there will be no prospect of success. What would that mean for the relationship between our two countries? Our strategy for Anglo-Russian relations should be to engage, engage and engage. By all means be firm, but engage.

Last week, I chaired an investment forum—I am chairman of the all-party group on Russia—and there is significant interest among British and European businesses in strengthening their presence in Russia. The Governments of Germany, France and Italy are actually increasing their business, unlike our Government. Given our historical alliances with Russia, the Russians cannot understand why our Government and our Prime Minister are outriders. They are way beyond the Americans, the Germans and the French in their anti-Russian stance. The Russians cannot understand it. Let us remember for a moment who, frankly, saved our bacon in two world wars. How many tens of millions of Russians died in Nazi Germany’s invasion? We should remember that, with the unfortunate exception of the Crimean war, Russia has for centuries been our natural ally. We are two powers on the eastern and western extremities of Europe.

If we respectfully and confidentially engage with Russia, we will get the most out of that relationship and start making constructive advances. Blind and mindless Russophobia gets us absolutely nowhere. We should build economic links, strengthen cultural links and seek to work together on issues such as defeating Daesh, where UK and Russian interests overlap. Daesh is our enemy; Russia is not. Russia poses absolutely no strategic threat to the people of the United Kingdom. It does not and never has done in our entire history, but Daesh does.

[Mr Hendrick]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s reaction to the fact that Russian military aircraft regularly come into UK airspace in the full knowledge that it is UK airspace?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course Russia is a great power, and it naturally tests defences as part of its training of its own people, but does anybody in this Chamber seriously believe that it poses a strategic military threat to the United Kingdom? We are no longer in the cold war; it is over. I do not defend Russian aircraft approaching the United Kingdom, but I do not think for a moment that there is the remotest chance of their actually engaging in military action with us.

Daesh is our real enemy. Allowing its reign of terror to continue simply because we dare not co-ordinate our plans with nasty Mr Putin is cutting off our nose to spite our face. The only winner in that scenario is Daesh.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

If we are truly to help the people of Syria, as the Government purport to want to do, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must have a positive and constructive dialogue with Russia—a key player in that theatre?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and I are saying and what we are trying to urge on the Minister. Assad and the Russians are not going to go away. As the Minister said very eloquently in the House of Commons yesterday, since the second world war, Russia has viewed Syria as an essential ally. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. On every level, we must be constructive, confident and respectful—and I mean self-respect, not just respect for the other side. The way we kowtow to China can reach demeaning levels, which is why I say we are engaging in double standards.

[Mr Hendrick]

The hon. Gentleman made a good point when he said that Russia fought on our side in the second world war. So did the Chinese. To illustrate the significance of this issue, Xi Jinping, on his visit to the UK, was very complimentary about British membership of the European Union. Although the Russian Government have not made an official statement about their position, President Putin is known to believe that the UK should be outside the European Union.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a remarkable statement. How do we know what Mr Putin thinks? All I can say is that I have discussed that with the Russian ambassador, and he gives the correct line on behalf of his Government. Mr Putin has made absolutely no comment, certainly in public—we have no idea what he says in private. There is simply no evidence that Mr Putin is somehow engaged in some massive conspiracy to encourage Great Britain to leave the European Union. I rather think that in practical terms he has other things on his mind. Russia has made no statement in public. It is neutral on this matter.

Constructive, confident and respectful engagement is the best way for our two countries to flourish together. If we engaged in that way, the appalling conflict in Syria might have some chance of being brought to a conclusion. Assad will not go away and the Russians will not go away, so the Minister should pick up the phone and encourage his boss to pick up the phone to do what Kerry is doing and speak to Lavrov every week. That does not in any way mean support for everything Mr Putin does, but only with constant engagement in building relationships can we make some progress towards peace in Syria.

Aleppo

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

As the right hon. Lady is aware, getting access to Aleppo is very difficult indeed. We are collecting intelligence for the long term. She is right to highlight the complexities of this large city. The al-Nusra Front is based there, and Assad has taken advantage of the ceasefire to move weapons systems up to the area. That is why it is all the more important that we get Russia to exert its influence to make sure that Assad comes back to the table.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Surely we have to accept Syria as it is. Whether we like it or not, Assad is not going to go away in a hurry. He has the only army on the ground capable of defeating ISIL, and he has just as much support as all the hundred other warring factions. If we undermine him, an authoritarian, we will unleash worse totalitarian forces. Is it not significant that any progress this week has been as a result of contacts between America and Russia, yet our Government have put the Russian Government in complete deep freeze? We are denying them visas, we are not talking to Lavrov, we have absolutely no influence—because of our obsession with Russia and getting rid of Assad, we are not actually propelling peace forwards. We must drop the present policy and try to co-operate with the Americans so that Russia can get peace.

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not agree with what my hon. Friend has said, but I agree with the direction of travel he wants. Russia has influence over Assad. We are speaking with the Russians. John Kerry is in Geneva along with Lavrov, al-Jubeir and others, acknowledging the urgency of getting a renegotiated cessation of hostilities so we can get humanitarian aid back in.