Yemen

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

I am not aware of that report. That would be extremely damaging to the process that I am talking about today, which is the need for all parties, including the United States, to support a ceasefire. I will certainly look at that report. Perhaps the Minister who has heard what the hon. Gentleman said will have an opportunity to reply.

When I was in Oman, I also had the opportunity to speak to President Hadi. The President, speaking to me from Aden, was focused on addressing the humanitarian crisis, but he was no closer to agreeing to the UN special envoy’s proposal. If President Hadi signs up to this agreement, he has an opportunity to be remembered as the man who brought peace to Yemen, and who stopped the suffering of his people. He should take it. I am grateful to him for accepting an invitation to address the all-party group in June. Can the Minister confirm whether President Hadi is any closer to agreeing to the terms of the special envoy’s road map?

The UK can and must be the honest broker. That means putting pressure on all parties, including those who receive British support. Can the Minister tell us whether the UK is prepared to sanction the Yemeni and Saudi Governments, if they allow the next round of negotiations to fail?

Tomorrow may be one of the most critical days in the history of Yemen. At 10am in New York, the United Nations Security Council will hold a full session on the conflict in Yemen, where they will hear directly from the special envoy. It will be chaired by our excellent ambassador, Matthew Rycroft. The United Kingdom is the current President of the Security Council, as we are, of course, the “pen holder” on Yemen at the United Nations, which means that we lead on all issues relating to Yemen. This is a unique opportunity to make a case to the Security Council, and to secure a new resolution that would enable a ceasefire.

Stephen O’Brien, the outstanding UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, and a former Member of this House, made a stunning announcement this month that the world faces its worst humanitarian crisis since 1945. He focused on Yemen. The French Government, who previously took a backseat on Yemen, announced last week the need for an immediate ceasefire. I have met both the Chinese and Egyptian ambassadors to London. On behalf of their Governments, they told me that the first priority was the cessation of hostilities. Most importantly, it is very clear that nobody is winning the war on the ground, and that nobody will ever win by military means. The only solution will come from the negotiating table. That point was forcefully made by the UN panel of experts.

I spoke to Matthew Rycroft yesterday, and he explained that the political process needs to begin moving in the right direction. It is clear to me, and I hope that it will be clear to the House, that a resolution adopted tomorrow would commit all sides to guarantee the ceasefire. Will the Minister ensure that the United Kingdom proposes such a resolution at tomorrow’s session? That will really help the peace process. If it is not to be tabled tomorrow, what is the timetable for putting forward that motion? Quite simply, these efforts cannot wait.

While we push for peace, Yemen continues to face myriad challenges. Organisations such as Save the Children, Islamic Relief, Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières, UNICEF, CARE, Christian Aid and the Red Cross are performing wonders on the ground, but there are still chronic humanitarian access issues. Despite the generous contributions to the UN appeal, which is only 50% filled, serious damage to the port of Hudaydah has, as we have heard, created a monumental blockage for aid delivery into Yemen. If Hudaydah cannot function, we cannot stop famine in Yemen. Has the Minister considered proposals by the Yemen Safe Passage Group, led by a former British ambassador to Yemen, that the UN takes over the running of the port to allow aid to flow into the country? I am sure that other officers of the all-party group will speak further on the humanitarian crisis.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

rose—

[Keith Vaz]

I will take this final intervention.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I apologise for not being here for the right hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks, but I did hear him say that he had a meeting with General Asiri this morning, as I also did. The point he made to me was that the Saudis have the capacity to block the port—they are not doing so—and that the port is in the hands of the militia, who are taking their tithe on all the goods coming in. In fact, it is the Houthi militia who are standing between the aid and the people who need it.

[Keith Vaz]

I was at the same meeting, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why we need a ceasefire, and why we need the UN going in there to monitor the delivery of aid. As we heard, the aid was being hijacked and used for other purposes, which is why the ceasefire is so important.

To conclude, what we do know and what is beyond all doubt is that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Daesh have exploited the crisis that has grown in Yemen as a result of this conflict, and that they now de facto control swathes of territory. My interest in Yemen is not political; it is deeply personal. Aden, the city of my birth, was once the jewel of the Arabian sea. It was once a centre of British influence and of global trade, as ships passed through the Suez canal. The people of Yemen do not deserve to be condemned to suffer one of modern history’s greatest human catastrophes. I see a crisis that is not intractable. I see that there is a path to peace.

I began by warning that Yemen stood on the precipice of an unprecedented tragedy. This is true, but we have the chance in New York tomorrow morning to save this beautiful country. We are part of this conflict, and the time for waiting, watching and failing to act must end. Nero fiddled as Rome burned. The presidency that we hold tomorrow gives us the opportunity to demonstrate leadership, and leadership is exactly what the Yemeni people need. Let us bring light back to a country that otherwise will be consumed by darkness, starvation and evil.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this very important debate on Yemen. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and the hon. Members for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I want to pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend. Yemen has been called the forgotten conflict. The way he speaks so passionately about his country of birth means that that will never be the case in this House as long as he is here.

The political situation in Yemen, which has led to this point, is obviously very complicated. Once the Houthis captured parts of Yemen and essentially launched a coup d’état against the new President Hadi, it became evident that the country would descend into civil war. There is a natural instinct and a well-established principle in international law that where there is conflict and a humanitarian situation develops, there is not only a right to intervene but an international responsibility to protect civilians in certain circumstances.

In a single attack in March last year, which involved a Saudi air strike on a crowded village market, 106 civilians, including 24 children, died. We must face up to the fact that there is a very realistic chance that the weapon used to cause so much destruction and grief was sold to Saudi Arabia by the UK. We have heard that the UK has given advice and support to Saudi forces to help them to comply with their obligations under international law, but the message clearly is not getting through. Saudi Arabia has designated the entire Yemeni governorate of Sa'dah a military target. That tramples over protocol I of the Geneva convention which defines legitimate military targets, and to which both the UK and Saudi Arabia have signed up. The definition includes a wide range of infrastructure, military industrial and communications targets, but it does not include hospitals, including those run by aid organisations or village markets. Illegally declaring an entire governorate a military target, and recklessly killing civilians in cities, schools and hospitals as a result, is a clear breach of international law. This is a position supported by the UN humanitarian co-ordinator for Yemen.

Turning war into peace is never easy, but the United Nations can be a fantastic vehicle when properly used. We must take the civil war in Yemen and seriously encourage our counterparts on all sides of the conflict—with the exception of the terrorist groups of Daesh who are taking advantage of the war—to stop the armed conflict and get around the negotiating table. Brokering a ceasefire is the first step towards that, and it is something in which we could and should play a role.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Saudis have invited the United Nations to monitor the port movements? Would that not help to relieve the humanitarian problem?

[Chris Evans]

I fully accept that the Saudis have been invited into the Government, but what I am concerned about is the Saudis using civilians as targets and those civilians being hurt. That is when we have a humanitarian catastrophe on our hands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

With great respect, I must say that I think the right hon. Lady is again being far too pessimistic. We were told by the US presidential candidate that NATO was obsolete; we now hear that he is 100% behind NATO. We were told that the JCPOA, the joint comprehensive plan of action on Iran, was going to be junked; it is now pretty clear that America supports it. We were told that there was going to be a great love-in between the new US Administration and Russia; they are now very much more in line. As for climate change, I think the right hon. Lady is once again being too pessimistic. Let us wait and see. We have heard the mutterings of the right hon. Lady; let us see what the American Administration actually do. I think she will be pleasantly surprised, as she has been, if she were remotely intellectually honest, in all other respects.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of recent developments in eastern Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

The causes of the conflict in Ukraine lie very much with the Russians, who bear the overwhelming responsibility for the considerable loss of life there. I was pleased to be able to raise the matter with my Polish counterpart, Witold Waszczykowski, during a visit to Kiev a few weeks ago. What is crucial to progress in Ukraine is not just for the Russians to desist from supporting military activity in Donbass and pull out of Crimea, but for the Ukrainians themselves to make the reforms that will increase international confidence in Ukraine.

[Mr Speaker]

We must hasten progress somewhat. Sir Gerald Howarth—briefly.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Is it not clear, though, that unless we do more to help our Ukrainian friends, Russia will continue with impunity to seek to destabilise Ukraine? Given that the western Ukrainian-owned businesses in Donbass have just been expropriated by so-called separatists, no doubt with the support of Russia, perhaps we should consider expropriating Russian assets in the United Kingdom, starting with football clubs.

[Boris Johnson]

I am grateful for that suggestion. This country already leads the way in imposing sanctions on the Russians for their actions in Ukraine, and we continue to insist on those.

Budget Resolutions

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman resumed his seat. I do not intend to give way to him again.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way to me?

[Boris Johnson]

I will.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful. May I say how much I support the Government’s commitment to the 2% minimum on defence spending? However, does my right hon. Friend agree that we are going to need every penny of it, given in particular that the Chinese—my right hon. Friend mentioned east of Suez—are seeking to colonise militarily a number of uninhabited atolls in the South China sea, which is destabilising the region? Given that we are signatories to the five power defence arrangements, does he agree that we need to take action on that, and therefore increase the defence budget and not keep it steady where it is?

[Boris Johnson]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend makes that point. He reminds me that it was the leader of the Labour party, the current Leader of the Opposition, who said that he did not think this country needed a defence policy at all. I think he said that we do not even need an Army, let alone any spending on the security and stability of the South China seas. I remind my hon. Friend that 25% of the world’s trade goes through the straits of Malacca, so it is more vital than ever that we have a truly global commitment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

Let us be absolutely clear. As both the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and indeed the Palestinians, have said, there needs to be dialogue, but at the moment I do not think that the Palestinians are committing to dialogue in the way they could and should be. It takes two to negotiate. We have seen no progress over the last eight years. Let us not rule out the possibility of progress today.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

9. What plans he has for co-operating with EU countries on defence policy after the UK has left the EU.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

We are strongly committed to European scrutiny and will remain so after we leave the EU. NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence, and we will continue to play our full part in supporting European security, particularly in eastern Europe.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to NATO, but does he not find it as depressing as I do that while other EU countries are completely obsessed with creating an EU defence identity, they are failing miserably to meet their NATO requirement of spending a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defence? Is not the foot-dragging by Germany, the richest country in Europe, and its refusal to honour that commitment until 2024 particularly perverse?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We continue to make it clear that nothing should cut across NATO’s role as the cornerstone of European defence. Other parties’ contributions being fairly distributed to NATO would make sure that NATO can remain the force it needs to be.

US Immigration Policy

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I will simply have to repeat what I have already said about 15 times this afternoon about my views on this policy, which I think are exactly the same as those of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle): it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. That is our position. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) can find all sorts of other adjectives, if he chooses to. Let him reach into his thesaurus and exhaust the wells of outrage, by all means. We have made our position clear, and we have also secured an important exemption for UK nationals.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As recent barbaric attacks across Europe demonstrate, we all face a continuing threat from Islamic fundamentalism, which we are all trying to address in our different ways. Although we may not have adopted the same policy as the United States, surely this is a matter for the newly elected Administration in America, its courts and its people. Our position has been immensely enhanced by the fantastic visit by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Britain now has influence, thanks to her.

Yemen

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but let me turn that question round. At present, we are unclear—perhaps the Government will tell us definitively today—whether the weapons and planes sold to Saudi Arabia today will be used in Yemen tomorrow. Until we have an answer to that question, it is impossible for us to say what type of support we will be giving to the coalition. Should that support include the sale of arms that could be used in Yemen next month?

It is manifestly clear that we need a UN-led investigation. It is equally clear to me, and I hope to all Members, that until that investigation is concluded, it is right for the UK to suspend its active support of the coalition forces. That is partly a matter of our own moral protection, but, we should not be actively continuing to support those forces while their conduct of war is under investigation. It is partly about the pressure that such a decision—[Interruption.] If I can just finish this sentence, I will give way in a moment. It is partly about the pressure that such a decision would place on the coalition forces to avoid further civilian casualties, to engage constructively in peace talks and to allow full access for humanitarian relief.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. Will she explain her proposal to the thousands of people across the country who support our allies in the region? Does it mean, for example, that she is in favour of suspending all spares for the aircraft operated by the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and the other members of the coalition? Does it mean that she wants to withdraw the advice given by skilled British employees that helps our Saudi friends? If that is what she means, she is doing great damage to the British national interest.

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The question is about whether it is right at this stage, given the impact on our economy, for us to be suspending our support for Saudi Arabia. Given the amount of arms and planes that we sell, is it right for us to suspend arms sales to Saudi if that is part of the support that we are giving the coalition? We have always complied with international humanitarian law when selling arms to our allies. We have regulations about who we sell arms to and in what circumstances. The Foreign Secretary himself said that the test for continued arms sales

“is whether those weapons might be used in a commission of a serious breach of international humanitarian law.”

We have rules on arms exports and we must make sure that we abide by them. We are a proud country that does our utmost to abide by international law. The questions that we are raising today are important because if our support means supporting a coalition that is acting in contravention of international law, we must reconsider that support. That is the right position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I do not regard myself as an expert on Yemen, but I have had a long association with the region, both as a banker and as a Member of Parliament. I am a former Defence Minister who was responsible for defence exports, and a Member of Parliament for Aldershot. I represent the headquarters of the fourth largest defence company in the world, BAE Systems.

As we heard from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—and I agreed with everything that he said—it is important for us to understand that the United Kingdom has enjoyed a very long and mutually beneficial relationship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There have been occasional differences between us, but those are to be found in any relationship.

We have got to understand the big picture. The kingdom is a key player in a region currently facing massive challenges, not least from Iran. In the case of Yemen, the kingdom has assembled an Arab coalition to take action against Houthi rebels following the ousting of President Hadi by Houthis widely believed to be supported by Iran. The coalition is operating under UN Security Council resolution 2216 and is composed of a pretty formidable array of Arab states: Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar. That is a not-insignificant Arab grouping.

The coalition is also taking action against Daesh and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as demanded by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) when she was a shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, who said that the UK needs to

“work with the Saudis to ensure that we stop the flow of funding and support to ISIL/Daesh.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2015; Vol. 603, c. 122.]

The Saudis should be commended for what they are doing, not criticised.

As the hon. Member for North Durham said, the Houthis have a long record of atrocities, including recruiting child soldiers, using civilians as human shields and preventing aid groups from delivering medical supplies. Members should also know that the Houthi flag reads:

“God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam”—

a motto partially modelled on that of revolutionary Iran and almost word for word a translation of Ayatollah Khomeini’s slogan. So we should be doing all we can to support our key ally in dealing with these disreputable people.

So, what about the criticism of Saudi Arabia? There was indeed an attack on 8 October on a funeral party which tragically killed some 140 innocent people, but the Saudis ordered its joint incidents assessment team, a body formed of representatives from the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Yemen as well as the kingdom itself, to undertake an immediate inquiry which established that the air operations centre in Yemen directed a close air support mission to target the location without obtaining approval from the coalition command to support legitimacy and without following the coalition command’s precautionary measures to ensure that the location was not a civilian one. JIAT concluded that action should be taken against those found to be responsible.

We all make mistakes. I have had responsibility for targeting, and the Americans are not without criticism in this regard; they attacked a hospital manned by Médecins Sans Frontières. To suggest that the UK should suspend defence exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is at best SNP grandstanding and at worst a kick in the teeth for an important ally, as well as doing a disservice to the hundreds of highly skilled workers at Raytheon and Leonardo plants in Scotland which supply equipment to the BAE-led Salam programme of defence exports to Saudi Arabia—but I suspect SNP Members do not care about the employment prospects.

Like the Al Yamamah programme before it, Salam has made a significant contribution to the maintenance of the defence-industrial capability of the UK, generating prosperity across the UK, including Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

As mentioned in the debate, the Committees on Arms Export Controls has in recent months conducted an inquiry into the conflict in Yemen and the use of UK-manufactured arms in it. In a joint report of the then Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the International Development Committee, following the inquiry that I chaired, the conclusion from the widespread evidence that we heard was that there have been violations of international humanitarian law, as reported by organisations such as the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. As a result, the joint Committee report has called on the Government to push for a UN-led investigation into the conduct of the Saudi-led coalition, and for the suspension of arms sales to the country while this investigation takes place.

Since the report was published on 15 September, we have seen further civilian casualties—not least on 8 October, which saw the most severe attack of the conflict yet, as mentioned by a number of colleagues.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I would like to ask my hon. Friend the same question as I put to the shadow Foreign Secretary. When he talks about suspending arms sales, what does that mean? Does it mean that he and his Committee believe that the United Kingdom should withhold the supply of spare parts and withdraw our advisers to the Royal Saudi Air Force, or does it relate just to future sales down the track?

[Chris White]

rose—

Victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism: Compensation

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge]

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, will be looking in detail at the issue of espousal shortly. If we go through all the documentation over the years, it is striking how there was a distinct change in tone around 2010. Let us be quite open about it—until then, the Government were proactive; they wanted to help and wanted to fight for justice. After that time, we kept getting the same line: “This is a private matter, but we will facilitate.” That has been the line ever since, and it has almost never changed. Even if we took that as the Government position, more can be done, but I will come on to that.

In terms of the precedent, if no money had ever been paid to anybody, there would still be a campaign, but I dare say it would be slightly easier for those campaigning to live with that and swallow it. If the money had been paid to a country such as Russia that had some deal with Libya, we might not be so surprised. However, the fact that money was paid to a citizen of the United States—our closest ally, with whom we stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight against terrorism—and that they hatched a deal in which they got paid off and our citizens, murdered in their own country, got nothing, remains a disgrace and a shame to this day. That is why we fight on this issue and why I will continue to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I represent Aldershot, and we were the victims of a response to what happened in Londonderry on 30 January 1972. IRA terrorism burns deeply in the resentment in Aldershot. He talks about people receiving nothing, but some people were compensated. I had a chat with our noble Friend Lord Tebbit, whom everybody knows suffered horrendously; his wife suffered even more horrendously than he did. He has been compensated, but the level of compensation was very pitiful indeed. It is a question not simply of those who have received none, but of those who have received some compensation being adequately compensated. I wholly support what my hon. Friend is doing.

[James Cartlidge]

It is a pleasure to receive an intervention from my hon. Friend. I agree with him, of course. I am not sure whether the money in that case came from Libya or from a state sponsor, so I honestly cannot comment on that point. Obviously, we want to see all victims compensated, not only in terms of accountability and the balancing of the scales, but because they will have injuries and so on and will need to use that money to support the quality of life to which they frankly are entitled.

I mentioned the actions of the United States. Despite the news in respect of the President, it is important to read the purpose of JASTA, which was passed unanimously:

“The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.”

The phrase “broadest possible basis” is incredibly powerful. I am not talking about the Minister individually, because I know he feels strongly about this issue, but many hon. Members here will think that at times, it has been the narrowest possible basis for the Government here, with them looking not at what we can do but at the reasons why we cannot do the things that campaigners are pressing for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

We need to make a powerful case that there was clearly state-sponsored terrorism, with devastating effects in Northern Ireland. I will continue to make that case in New York next week, but I will also do so in further meetings as relationships with Libya become stronger.

Frozen assets have been mentioned several times. If we dip into the frozen assets based in this country, where would that take our relationship with Libya as a whole, when we are about to have the very conversations that my hon. Friend just mentioned? We need to be careful. I pose some difficult questions to the House. How much would we take? To whom would we give the money? How would we distinguish between somebody injured by Semtex, where it is very clear—Semtex has a footprint that can be identified because of the way it is made by hand—and somebody injured by ammunition provided by Libya? These are difficult questions that those involved in compensation need to start thinking about.

Were we ever to get any form of compensation from Libya, I suspect that we would need to get our heads around the idea that it will be a single sum that is slid across the table. It will be for the victims’ organisations to assess how the compensation is divided up, as those in authority in Libya would not want to be involved in the detail. I share that now because these are awkward, difficult questions.

One Member talked about the mental scars that have been caused. People who have not necessarily come forward yet are subject to these issues, which raise difficult questions. When we speak about frozen assets and so forth, let us also ask ourselves exactly what the mechanisms will be if we go down that road—let us do the homework—so that we are prepared if such questions are asked of us.

However, I do not want to raise any expectations at all. Ultimately, we still need to convince the necessary authorities that they will speak for what a previous Government under Gaddafi did by putting their hand up and saying that they sponsored terrorism through the IRA. I am also aware that a private Member’s Bill is coming through from the Lords—my hon. Friend the Member for Romford might be involved in that as well—so we will undoubtedly explore such issues in due course.

On asset freezing and Brexit, as I said, maybe I can write to the hon. Member for North Down in more detail, but the issues are subject to myriad regulations, some of which involve the EU, from which we might be liberated if article 50 passes. Nevertheless, the reputation of the City of London is also involved, which is significant as well. If we are seen to dip into assets, where does that place Britain as a safe place to do business? Morally, we might say, “Absolutely. Let’s go down this road and take those assets.” I simply suggest that there will be consequences if we do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Surely there is a simple solution. We are masters of our own destiny—even more so after Brexit. Let us just pass a Bill. This House is sovereign; we can write our own laws.

[Mr Ellwood]

As I said, that is an option that we can consider, but it has severe consequences, which is why I would not recommend it when we are about to embark on discussions. If there is any whiff that we are about to dip into frozen assets to the tune of £9 billion, where will that take our relationship with Libya? There would be consequences. I will make it clear: our objective is to gain compensation, but our strategy to gain that compensation should take us to the best possible place, rather than making us enemies along the way.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

The right hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to put his views on the record, and I am sure that he will speak later. My view is that if things had been fixed in the way that the Foreign Secretary has stated, we would not be swinging backwards and forwards on our military budget. We make cuts and create holes in our defence capability, then the next time we try to patch them up.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As one of the Defence Ministers at the time, let me say that it was a most unpleasant experience, as a Conservative, having to make cuts in our armed forces. However, the truth was that the Budget deficit we inherited of £156 billion was itself a threat to our national security. We had to take action. Sadly, defence had to take some of those cuts. Where would the hon. Lady have made cuts, if not in defence?

[Emily Thornberry]

We are moving a long way from the lessons that need to be drawn from Chilcot, and if I may, I will return to my speech. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed defence on many occasions. I always enjoy the discussions, and I am quite happy to take his points at another time. However, I do not want to spend the entire afternoon discussing defence, much as I am tempted to. I simply say that if the NSC has brought in outside perspectives from time to time, it has clearly not done so enough to deal with the underlying problem.

Another issue that comes out in Chilcot, and that has not been fixed, is the lack of challenge in Parliament. That was the other potential source of challenge to the Government. Although there were vigorous debates in the House, those debates and the 217 MPs who voted to indicate that the case had not been made were ultimately not enough to stop the march to war. I was not yet in the House; I was on the demonstrations. Although more Labour MPs than MPs from any other political party voted against the war, there were not enough of us to stop it.

Have we moved on since then? Many people have said that the 2013 vote against taking action in Syria was a watershed moment. It cemented the convention that whatever the views of the Executive, this House has the final say. The House was asked to approve a broad mandate for the use of military force without a coherent strategy, clear objectives or a long-term plan. It was all too reminiscent of the approach to Iraq. Members from all parts of the House exercised a healthy degree of scepticism, and they were right to do so.

At the same time, the Government have increasingly taken advantage of loopholes in that convention to intervene in more conflicts with less oversight. They have developed military capability in cyberspace, but they refuse to say in what circumstances it might be used or when Parliament might be informed. They have increased investment in drones and special forces at a time when there have been many cuts to other parts of the armed forces. They have shown a willingness to use both as a means of intervening in conflicts to which the UK is not a party; that has included the use of special forces in quasi-conventional combat roles. In doing so, the Government seek to bypass not only parliamentary support for their interventions but any form of parliamentary oversight. The development of hybrid warfare demands new mechanisms for holding the Executive to account. All parties, on both sides of the House, should be working on developing those mechanisms, because as we all know, hybrid warfare is likely to be the future.

Europe, Human Rights and Keeping People Safe at Home and Abroad

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend tests me on the exact number. I think that a dozen or more new posts have been opened, but I will write to him with the exact figure. The important point is that we have opened new posts in secondary cities in China—when we talk about secondary cities in China, we mean those with populations of between 5 million and 10 million—and India, as well as reopening posts in countries in Latin America from which we had withdrawn.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentioned our commitment to 2% of GDP on defence spending. Will he confirm that had we not transferred £820 million from the pensions budget in another Department, and funds from other Departments, Britain would have fallen below that 2% figure? By that sleight of hand, we have committed to the 2%, but we have not added a single penny to the defence budget, when, as my right hon. Friend said, we face a very dangerous world.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend and I were Defence Ministers in a past life, and there is no sleight of hand. The 2% NATO target is based on NATO definitions, according to which Britain will spend 2% of its GDP on defence. As I am sure he has already found from talking to people in the defence community, the important thing is not the amount spent today, but the long-term commitment to maintain defence spending at 2% of our GDP so that our defence spending rises in line with our prosperity as a nation. That is the right thing for us to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I am just going to make a little progress, if my hon. Friend will allow me, as he has had one bite of the cherry already.

While we step up the fight against Daesh and Islamist extremism, the old challenge of state-based aggression has not gone away. To our east, Russia’s disregard for international norms, its illegal annexation of Crimea and its continuing destabilisation of eastern Ukraine are echoes of an era that, frankly, most of us thought had passed with the fall of the Berlin wall. They represent a clear threat to the stability of the post-cold war European security order, and, more widely, to the rules-based international system on which an open, free-trading liberal democracy such as ours depends.

As well as violating the sovereign territory of another country and undermining the rules-based system, Russia’s actions in Ukraine have led to the loss of more than 9,000 lives and the displacement of up to 1 million people from their homes. Responsibility for this human misery lies squarely at the door of the Kremlin. It is a direct result of a deliberate policy that seeks to deny the right of independent former Soviet republics to determine their own economic and political destiny. This Government remain clear that Russia must be held to account for its actions. We will work through the EU to keep up the economic pressure with hard-hitting and carefully calibrated sanctions. Those sanctions must remain in place until such time as Russia delivers on the pledges it made at Minsk. In the meantime, we will continue to provide non-lethal support and training to the Ukrainian armed forces. Building on the British military units already rotating through Poland and the Baltic states, we will announce at the NATO summit in Warsaw in June further measures to reassure our eastern allies in the face of this continuing aggression.

At the same time, we will engage with Russia where it is clearly in our national interests to do so. Russia, along with Iran, is one of the two countries that have real influence on the Syrian regime.

As members of the ISSG, they have the principal responsibility for telling Assad that it is time to go. We will continue to work with Russia on Syria and at the UN and to collaborate with it on counter-terrorism, where British lives are potentially at risk, but it will not be business as usual. All nations must know that we cannot and will not look the other way while the rules-based system is repeatedly violated. We look forward to the time when Russia rejoins the community of nations as a partner in upholding international rules, but our eyes are wide open and we know that it might be a long time coming.

As we said in the 2010 strategic defence and security review and again in 2015, Britain’s national security is indivisible from its economic security. We cannot keep people safe if we do not have a strong economy, and vice versa. As we have continued to deal with the economic legacy we inherited—bringing down the deficit and restoring sustainable growth to our economy—we have also been strengthening our diplomatic muscle in emerging economies in order to grow our trade and support jobs here at home. And those efforts are paying off. The state visit by China’s President Xi last year generated £40 billion of commercial deals, helping to create more than 5,000 permanent jobs in this country and more than 20,000 construction-phase jobs. During Prime Minister Modi’s visit in November, UK and Indian businesses agreed deals worth £9 billion. Inward investment from India in 2014-15 created more than 7,000 jobs and safeguarded more than 1,500 others. Since the UK’s free trade deal with the Republic of Korea in 2011, the value of UK exports to Korea has more than doubled.

While we seek to grow our links with the world’s emerging economies, however, our trade and investment relationship with the EU will always be central to our economic success story. As the House knows, the Government’s clear view is that Britain’s continuing prosperity is best served by our remaining a leading member of a reformed EU. Our membership puts us, the No. 2 economic power in the EU, inside the world’s largest single market, with a seat at the decision-making table. It is a market with 500 million consumers and a quarter of the world’s GDP and a market that buys 44% of Britain’s exports.

There is a world of difference between being inside such a market, with tariff-free access as of right, and being outside it, scrabbling around for a deal; between making the rules of the market to protect our interests and being governed by rules designed for the benefit and advantage of others. Our membership safeguards the pound and the Bank of England, and with the deal that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated in February, our membership keeps us out of Schengen, exempts us from ever-closer union and limits EU migrants’ access to our welfare system. It is the best of both worlds.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The Foreign Secretary and I are good friends but we disagree on this matter. Will he confirm that under this much-vaunted reform deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated, which does not add up to a row of beans, if the UK were to introduce financial measures that we believed to be in the interests of the City of London but which the eurozone deemed to conflict with theirs, we would be obliged either to change our measures or to go to the European Court of Justice for arbitration—and we know that the Court always finds in favour of the acquis communautaire?

[Mr Hammond]

We do not know by any means that the ECJ always finds in favour of the Community. Indeed, we have done rather well when challenged in the ECJ. For example, when the European Central Bank disgracefully tried to prevent euro-denominated financial instruments from being cleared in the City of London, we went to the ECJ and won the case, with a clear declaration that the ECB’s proposal was illegal. So I simply do not accept the premise of my Friend’s question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on taking his seat, and to endorse the tribute he paid to his predecessor. Huw Irranca-Davies is living proof of the fact that one can be a genuinely nice guy and still succeed in politics, and we will miss him.

Members of Select Committees are as divided as any other groups on the question of membership of the European Union, and so it should go without saying that in my remarks on this subject today I am speaking solely for myself. My concern is that the fixation of the European Union on creating a single European defence and foreign policy may make future conflict more likely rather than less. So why has NATO proved to be the most successful military alliance in history? The answer is clear: it is the deterrent effect of United States membership. Taken together with article 5 of the NATO charter, according to which an attack on any member country will be considered an attack on them all, this means that any would-be aggressor must face the prospect of war with the world’s most powerful state, the United States, right from the outset. If Germany had faced that prospect in 1914, not 1917, or in 1939, not late 1941, who knows but that those wars might not have begun, and all that suffering might have been avoided?

In order reliably to deter, collective security must combine adequate power with the virtual certainty that it will be brought into action if triggered by an act of aggression. On both grounds, NATO succeeds, and the European Union fails, as a collective security organisation. Since the US does not belong to the EU, the latter can muster only a fraction of NATO’s deterrent military power. Nor can there be any certainty that the US will respond to an attack involving EU member states outside the north Atlantic alliance. By trying to create its own foreign policy and its own military forces—which on typical European levels of defence investment will remain modest indefinitely—the EU risks reverting to the uncertainties of the pre-NATO era. The NATO guarantee is a solemn commitment to be willing to start world war three on behalf of a member country facing attack or invasion. NATO membership must not be proffered lightly nor extended to countries on behalf of which article 5 of its charter is simply not credible. Where security is concerned, it is dangerous folly to give promises and guarantees that we are in no position to fulfil, and the EU needs to be particularly careful in pursuing a foreign policy that gives promises of that sort.

In terms of deterring an external threat, the EU adds nothing to the exemplary role discharged by NATO. As for the threat of EU members attacking each other, there is certainly no risk of their going to war once again with each other as long as they remain free, democratic and constitutional. That is because constitutional democracies do not attack one another; instead, wars break out between dictatorships and other dictatorships, or between dictatorships and democracies.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Is it not absurd to suggest that peace in Europe might be destabilised by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU? The fact is that before we became a member in 1973, Europe had managed for 28 years not to go to war with itself.

[Dr Lewis]

Indeed, and my hon. Friend anticipates a point I was just about to make. Looking at the internal threat, one sees not the slightest chance of members of the EU going to war with each other as long as they remain democratic and constitutional, but if they lose that element of popular democracy in their constitutions, all bets are off.

We heard warnings today about the rise of the far right in some EU member countries. Why is the far right—the extreme anti-immigration right —on the rise? It is on the rise because people feel that they are being disfranchised to some extent and the fate of their country is being decided instead by people whom they did not elect to power and whom they cannot remove. By trying to build a supranational state in Europe in the absence of a democratic mandate, the EU runs the risk of sowing the seeds of precisely the sort of conflict it seeks to abolish.

I know that in this Chamber today more voices have been raised in favour of remain than of leave, but I am not disheartened because I know that all those people campaigning to leave are out there, at the grassroots level, ensuring that when independence day comes on 23 June, the right decision will be taken by the majority of the British people.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I am always reluctant to disagree with the Chairman of the Defence Committee, and on this occasion I could not agree with him more profoundly. I do agree that our defence and security policies must embody the values that they are established to defend. There is no trade-off to be made between security and the values and principles on which a free and open political society is based. On that, we can agree. I think we can agree too that only a defence policy governed by rules established in laws will retain integrity and credibility in the fluid and fickle world of international relations in which we are now mired.

I was disappointed that an opportunity was missed in the Queen’s Speech to provide clarity, particularly on the legal consequences of the Government’s new policy on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, especially given that in September last year the Prime Minister announced that a UAV had been used for the targeted killing outside armed conflict of a British citizen who had been fighting for Daesh. Since then, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has issued a report calling on the Government to clarify the legal basis for using UAVs in that way. A rebuttal to the Joint Committee’s findings was rushed out by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and his colleague Sean Aughey, which criticised aspects of the legal analysis and accused the Committee of adopting “a blunt approach” to the application to drone—I hate that word; UAV—strikes abroad. Clearly opinion is divided, and I feel the opportunity was missed in the Queen’s Speech to disperse the fog of law in relation to our defence.

Equally, in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, the Government announced a £178 billion investment in arms and equipment, in part to compensate for the dire budget cuts imposed five years earlier, particularly their cutting of the RAF Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft.

Instead of going to an open contract to replace the Nimrod with a competitive tender, the Government agreed to purchase nine Poseidon P-8 aircraft from the US-based firm Boeing in a deal worth £2 billion. I felt that this was a clear snub to the UK aerospace industry, for which I know Government Members, like me, share a huge respect. The industry employs 80,000 people and contributes £9 billion annually to the UK economy.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Moon]

I will certainly give way to someone who shares my love of the aeronautics industry.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I wholly support what the hon. Lady says about the British defence industry, but I was the Minister at the time involved in the decision on the Nimrod MRA4. It was £750 million over budget, nine years late and still not fit for purpose. I am afraid the project had to be scrapped, but we should have replaced it.

[Mrs Moon]

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that issue, but I want to move on to the P-8. The MOD has repeatedly evaded all my attempts to obtain information on the P-8 contract. How many UK jobs will be generated by that contract in either manufacturing or support? No answer. Will the P-8 be capable of carrying British torpedoes or sonar buoys? No answer. Standards of ministerial answers to parliamentary questions have deteriorated desperately, and Members of Parliament, constituents and UK business and industry have been left in the dark.

For too long the MOD has used commercial confidentiality to hide the true cost to UK industry and jobs of its single source contracting. The Single Source Regulations Office has revealed that the MOD’s use of non-competitive defence procurement represented 53% of the value of new contracts in 2014-15. Approximately £8.3 billion was spent on single source contracts, and this figure is set to rise. How many of those companies are non-UK? How many have included no offset work to UK companies? The House, the public and our defence industries deserve to know.

Finally, I have to raise a campaign I feel passionately about. Again, I am disappointed that it was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. The campaign calls for veterans and reservists to be included in the census. It is essential that we know how many veterans we have and where they are. How are we to put in place an effective response to the community covenant if we do not know how many veterans we have in each of our constituencies?

It is a great pity that the Government reneged on their promise to introduce a war powers Act.

I will work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) to make sure that Bridgend does not lose valuable jobs, particularly those in the Ford factory, where his constituents and mine work. Ford Bridgend won a bid against Romanian, Spanish and German factories to build the new Dragon engine in Wales. That is what Europe does for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The good news is that the Scottish Tories doubled their representation in the Scottish Parliament. The Tories are coming, so the SNP had better watch out—the only non-socialist party in Scotland is on the march.

Some have said that this Queen’s Speech is a bit thin. I personally take the view that it is much better that the Government limit their activities and do less but do it well, rather than trying to rush through a whole load of ill-thought-out measures. I particularly welcome the proposal to give local authorities the power to retain their business rates, and the Investigatory Powers Bill.

I also very much support what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) said about prisons. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and I served as prison officers in Dartmoor for three days, as a consequence of which I changed my view. I used to be a “lock ’em up and throw away the key” man, but then I found that we were spending £25,000 per prisoner a year on just locking up people who learn nothing. That is wrong, and this Government are absolutely right to try to bring education into our prisons.

In the short time available to me I will concentrate on four issues: the proposal to speed up the adoption process, the introduction of further measures to prevent radicalisation, defence and, inevitably, Europe. I welcome the adoption measures in principle, and understand that social services are caught between a rock and a hard place. But I have myself witnessed Surrey County Council’s behaviour in respect of two young people in my constituency. The council had made up its mind to remove the children from a couple. Each was represented by a different law firm, whose narrow interest was alleged to be the individual client and not the couple. I was threatened with contempt proceedings for having had the temerity to intervene on behalf of my constituents, and the social worker wrote that for the parents to provide good care was not “good enough”. If half the energy expended by Surrey Council on removing those children from their parents had been invested in helping them, the outcome might have been better all round. I am encouraged by my conversation with the Minister for Children and Families earlier this afternoon. I think he understands the problem.

On radicalisation, the principal threat we face is not generic terrorism. We have to be honest about this; the threat is specifically Islamic fundamentalism. That is what threatens our country. Young people brought up in Britain and taught in our schools are nevertheless being indoctrinated by Islamic fundamentalists and persuaded to engage in acts of medieval barbarity, in the name of Islam, beyond the understanding of the British people. The principal onus to root out that evil must therefore rest on the Muslim community. I will wait to see what the Government produce in the way of legislation before making a final judgment. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) set out some of the challenges that the Government will face in defining extremism.

Earlier this year, the Government mooted a proposal that any group that met in an out-of-school setting for more than six hours a week should have to register with Ofsted. Although it is vital that the Government take action against those people who wish to do harm to our society, regulating groups such as Sunday schools is clearly absurd. It would place a huge administrative burden on such groups, would severely damage volunteering and would be a serious infringement of personal liberty and freedom of association. Furthermore, any such extremist groups simply would not register, or, given the arbitrary nature of a six-hour figure, would divide their teaching into two three-hour groups a week. This is unworkable and a danger to our freedoms.

On the wider issue, it would be perverse in the extreme if, in order to manage extremist Muslims who are bent on our destruction and whom we have allowed to settle in the country, the Government were to impose severe restrictions on those practising the state religion of Christianity, which espouses turning the other cheek and love for thy neighbour. I believe that Christian society here is under threat. It was reported in the paper today that only 52% of people regard themselves as Christian, and we are in danger of creating a vacuum that will be filled by others.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I have never been able to document this, but I remember my father telling me—coming as we do from a Jewish background—that when Polish émigrés who settled here at the end of the second world war began, in certain enclaves, to bring some of the anti-Semitic traditions from their homeland of the past to our homeland of the present, the Labour Government of the day made a very firm statement about that. There was nothing discriminatory about focusing on that particular problem; we must focus on the problem where the totalitarian doctrine is being applied.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful, as ever, to my right hon. Friend.

I raised with the Foreign Secretary the issue of how the Government calculate defence expenditure, and I entirely accept that that expenditure fits with NATO guidelines. However, we have only met that 2% target by shifting money from other Departments into defence, which I do not think is the way to proceed. I hope that we will see a real increase in defence expenditure in the coming years, so that we can proceed with the Type 26 global combat ship—our new frigates—for which I had some responsibility in the Department. I welcome the renewal of the deterrent, as will my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), but let us get on with it.

On Europe, in their determination to frighten the public, the Government and their “remain” friends stand accused of talking down the British economy. If leaving would produce such dire outcomes, why on earth are we holding a referendum at all? Why did the Prime Minister readily acknowledge that Britain can survive outside the EU? What has changed? We prospered well enough in the glorious 1950s under the Macmillan Conservative Government—“you’ve never had it so good”—and people were able to move around the continent for work, as my father did in the mid-1950s, when he weekly commuted to Hamburg where he established the Johnson Wax company in Germany. These fears are being raised deliberately to frighten the British people. We should have confidence in our ability to exit the EU, and head for the sunlit uplands where we can prosper as an independent nation on our own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent and informative debate, during which we have been treated to the marvellous maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). He told us that his constituents have set him the goal of being half as good as Huw. On today’s evidence, and given that he is already making the case for steelworkers who will lobby Parliament tomorrow, he will pass that test with flying colours. We wish him well.

A clear majority of speakers, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), have made the case that Britain will be immeasurably stronger by remaining part of the European Union. Just as the economic case for leaving has crumbled under questioning in recent days, so today’s debate has put the security case for Brexit under intense scrutiny and found it to be illusory. A vote to leave is a vote for isolation, and that simply makes no sense whatsoever in a highly volatile and unpredictable world. Nobody put that case more powerfully than my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Foreign Secretary, who gave yet another tour de force in this House. [Hon. Members: “Shadow Foreign Secretary!”] I am sure everyone will agree that it is only a matter of time.

We agree with the Government that our membership of the EU strengthens our security at home and abroad, but we do not agree that the Bills in the Gracious Speech will make our society stronger or fairer. Indeed, they could do the opposite, undermine our standing in the world and expose us to greater risks from radicalisation.

Let me quote from the Gracious Speech:

“My Government will bring forward proposals for a British Bill of Rights.”

That was, in fact, from the 2015 Gracious Speech. This year’s said:

“Proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights.”

Is it not a little unfair on Her Majesty to ask her to keep reading out a cut-and-paste Queen’s Speech?

One can speculate why this long-promised Tory Bill of Rights has never materialised. Might it be because it springs from an impulse for political grandstanding, rather than a carefully thought-through response to the challenges of the modern world? I fear that the same can also be said of the counter-extremism Bill. In both cases it seems that the Government are opening Pandora’s box without fully knowing where they are going or what they are trying to achieve. In areas as sensitive as these, that is a dangerous thing to do.

Let me take each Bill in turn. A few weeks ago, the Home Secretary gave a speech in which she called for Britain to leave the European convention on human rights. What a terrible message that would send to the rest of the world, but what a boost for regimes that seek to deny human rights to their own citizens to claim that Britain is doing the same, as the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), eloquently pointed out in his speech. Of course, the nuances of our debate would be lost on the other side of the world, and Britain’s moral authority on the world stage would be severely dented.

A few days ago, however, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister did not support any change to the ECHR, so we have the Home Secretary saying one thing and the Prime Minister another. How can we possibly have confidence in what the Government are proposing when their position is so confused?

They have lost sight of a simple point, which might explain why they are so muddled on this matter: the Human Rights Act is a British Bill of Rights. These are the basic rights that Britain wrote and promoted around the world in the post-war period—rights that protect ordinary people from the unaccountable power of the state and vested interests.

Look at some of the examples of how those rights have helped people fight injustice. I think of the elderly couple, Mr and Mrs Driscoll, who had lived together as a married couple for 65 years but who were then put in separate care homes by a local authority. They used the Human Rights Act to be brought back together. I also think that if the Human Rights Act had been in place in 1989, the Hillsborough families would have had much more ability to challenge the cruel decision of the original inquest to impose a 3.15 cut-off time, which prevented them from finding out basic details about what happened to their loved ones.

One can only surmise that the Government’s purpose in legislating in this area would be to water down the rights in the Human Rights Act and to add more qualifications. I ask the Home Secretary: how is that going to build a stronger and fairer country? It will not do so, and that is why Labour will proudly defend its Human Rights Act and fight any attempt to weaken human rights laws in this country.

Similarly, I struggle to see how the proposed counter-extremism Bill will do anything other than undermine community cohesion. I would be the first to say that the Government are right to want to tackle extremism, and I support them in that aim. However, the question is not whether we do it, but how we do it. I am genuinely concerned that the Government are getting their approach drastically wrong. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was at her best on this subject today. I say this not out of party politics nor a desire to score points, but because I am worried about the deep despondency caused by the existing legislation, as I hear in the Muslim community when I visit mosques and madrassahs. If the House legislates in haste once again, the damage could be profound.

At the weekend, the Home Secretary received a letter from police representatives, faith groups and civil society organisations expressing major concerns about the proposed Bill. She cannot just ignore this and plough on regardless. The Prevent duty to report extremist behaviour is creating a feeling that the Muslim community is unfairly targeted and monitored. It is building a climate of suspicion and distrust. In my view, if the Government legislate further and extend what is perceived to be an illiberal and discriminatory approach, far from tackling extremism, they will risk creating the conditions for it to flourish.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I understand the shadow Home Secretary’s concern, but the rest of the nation knows that the real threat we face is a specific one. As I said in my speech, for which he was not in the Chamber, the threat is specific: with Islamic fundamentalism, barbarity on a scale previously unimagined is being carried out in the name of Islam, and it is up to the Muslim community in Britain to address this problem in its midst.

[Andy Burnham]

The way to address the hon. Gentleman’s point is not to tar everybody with the same brush and throw suspicion on the whole community. That is the language we have heard from Conservative Members. We have heard the Prime Minister say that parts of the Muslim community are “quietly condoning” extremism. That does not win hearts and minds in the community, and we need 99.9% of people to work with the Government to find the very small number of people who may be at risk of radicalisation.

Rather than compounding the damage by legislating in haste, I urge Ministers to take a step back and to set up a cross-party review of how the statutory duty is working in practice. That would be much more beneficial than pushing on with further legislation.

The Gulf

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Nuttall, to morally carp on the sidelines about human rights, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) put it. None the less, I congratulate her on securing the debate, because the topic is important and is perhaps not debated often enough.

I will not use my position as the only Labour Member in the debate to speak at length, but I want to make one or two points that I hope the Minister will have time to respond to. Last night I read again the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report “Human Rights and Democracy”, which was published last month. Although it is a slimmed down volume and in many respects weakens the Government’s commitments on human rights—at least in relation to the death penalty—it does include three Gulf countries among the countries of concern: Saudi, Bahrain and Yemen. It does not include the United Arab Emirates, which I think is a significant omission. The Minister may want to mention human rights in the UAE when he responds.

I am glad that the countries in question are what are now, I believe, called priority countries—another slightly euphemistic term. However, I am afraid the language that is used, particularly in relation to the Gulf states, does not match the seriousness of the human rights issue or the task that needs to be done. The Bahrain section of the report says

“there was progress on human rights”,

and mentions that the UK is providing “technical assistance”—which in some cases it is being paid for. We have just established a naval base in the country for the first time in decades. The report mentions that

“allegations of ill-treatment in detention continue”

and that there are concerns regarding

“freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly”.

However, little more is said than that.

As I mentioned, the report is entirely silent about the UAE, and that is regrettable. It is slightly more candid in relation to Saudi, particularly on the serious issue of executions, reminding us that 158 people were executed in 2015, which is a more than 15% increase on the previous year. On 2 January this year, 47 people were executed on one day, including three minors. There remain three minors on death row. They are Ali al-Nimr, Dawood al-Marhoon and Abdullah al-Zaher. Again, I ask the Minister, as I often do in written and oral questions, whether their cases have been raised again. I know that the Foreign Secretary has said he believes they will not now be executed, but in the light of what happened on 2 January and their continued detention, I cannot feel quite as assured as he does. Perhaps the Minister will respond on whether further representations have been made or whether there is further news.

Reports from Human Rights Watch, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International show a rather more serious situation in Bahrain than the impression given by the Foreign Office. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has spoken of a clear realisation that

“little has been done in the fields of accountability and ending impunity, particularly in relation to violations committed against protesters and detainees, including alleged acts of torture”.

That has been going on since the Arab spring, five years ago, and there is continued oppression of the mainly Shi’a majority in Bahrain. There have been a number of deaths at the hands of the security forces. There was of course the notorious incident when medics who had treated those injured in protests were themselves tortured and prosecuted. Generally speaking, what the Bahrain Government have been best at is whitewashing what has happened by setting up commissions whose recommendations are not implemented, and mounting an effective PR offensive.

I pay particular tribute to The Independent and The Guardian, which have sought to expose what happens in Bahrain. Headlines from the last couple of months include “Britain lobbied UN to whitewash Bahrain police abuses” and “British arms sales to Bahrain total £45m since Arab Spring—while claims of torture and oppression continue”. There is a lot more I could say about that, but I think the Minister gets the impression. I do not say, and have never said, that Gulf countries are, in either scale or degree, the worst offenders, but I do say that the Government operate a soft touch in dealing with such countries. We have just heard from the hon. Member for Bristol North West that it is often better to comment on such things in private, which I think is what the Foreign Office says about Saudi. I think it is right to raise them in private, but it is also right to speak out, and the Government have a moral obligation as an upholder of international human rights to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is concentrating on human rights, but does he not attach any importance to the key role that the nations in question play in the battle against tyranny, and the long-standing support that they have given us and we have given them, historically? They are important allies of the United Kingdom and the hon. Gentleman is sending out the message that stability counts for nothing and that the only thing he is interested in is abuses by the authorities. I remind him that we have our own history. We took out 14 people on the streets of Northern Ireland. Does he regard that as a human rights abuse as well?

[Andy Slaughter]

I think you will forgive me, Mr Nuttall, if I do not stray into talking about Bloody Sunday this morning. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his points in his own way. I am simply setting out these matters, perhaps as a correction to others that will be raised this morning, and I think that is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. Of course we must have a relationship with countries overseas whose human rights records do not match our own, and of which we perhaps do not expect exactly the same standards. However, if the hon. Gentleman is saying we should not raise the issues, I cannot entirely agree with him.

To deal briefly with the UAE, the recent case of David Haigh, the former Leeds United managing director—[Interruption.] I am being heckled because I am taking some time. I will take a little more time. I said I would not speak for a long time, Mr Nuttall, but if I continue to be interrupted, perhaps I shall speak for rather longer. We will see where that goes. I think, particularly given that the Foreign Office did not address the matter in its human rights report, that it is worth putting it on record. Again, I will simply read some headlines. The first is from The Law Society Gazette: “Solicitor claims he was tortured in Dubai jail”. Another headline reads: “Businessmen held in UAE were tortured into confessions, says UN report”. I have mentioned the number of British nationals—37 in the last five years—who have made allegations of torture or mistreatment in detention in the UAE and the fact that there are 27 such detainees there at the moment.

I recently asked the Minister the following questions. Will the Prime Minister review the UK’s special relationship with the UAE in the light of the report by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention calling on the UAE to release several foreign nationals, including from Canada and the US, who it says have been detained arbitrarily, tortured and forced to sign confessions? Will the Government confirm that no further Arab Partnership Participation Fund moneys will be allocated to the UAE by the Foreign Office until a review has been conducted in the light of the recent statement by UN special rapporteur on torture, Professor Juan E. Méndez? His office has received credible information that detainees were tortured and forced to sign confessions, and his request for a country visit to the UAE is outstanding.

I mentioned David Haigh, a former managing director of Leeds United who I think is a member of the Conservative party. He was recently released from a UAE prison and, on returning to the UK, said that he had suffered ill treatment and abuse:

“I was punched around, I was hit, I was tasered. People attempted to sexually abuse me. I now have a problem with my eyes. You are constantly kept in the dark…it damages your eyes.”

He was imprisoned, incidentally, under the cybercrimes law—a particularly Orwellian statute that criminalises electronic abuse. There are well-documented incidents of human rights violations in the UAE.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of a fellow member of the Procedure Committee, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) on securing the debate. Her speech was thoughtful and considered, setting the context for the debate. I understand the frustrations of Members who have not been able to speak for as long as they might have wanted to. Scottish National party Members have experienced that on a number of occasions since arriving in Westminster. I will try to keep my remarks reasonably brief so the Minister has time to respond to the various serious points that have been raised by all parties.

The hon. Member for Bristol North West made a number of cultural references, so I will chuck in one or two of my own. I recommend a book called “The Years of Rice and Salt” by Kim Stanley Robinson, which presents an alternative history of the world, imagining that the population of Europe is wiped out by the black death. As a result, the entire cultural, social and economic enlightenment comes from the east and from the Islamic world. The various reflections that the hon. Lady made about the role of Islam reminded me very much of that book and of the counter-history it suggests. Without giving anything away, the ultimate conclusion of the book is that some things change and some things stay the same.

While listening to some of the speeches, I was reminded of the television satirist Mrs Merton, who famously asked Debbie McGee, regarding her husband, “What first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?” An element of that attitude is, perhaps, reflected in some relationships with small, oil-rich countries that have huge energy potential and industrious, increasingly well-educated populations. In Scotland, we were told that such a model would lead to nothing but doom and gloom but, evidently, it seems quite acceptable for the countries of the Gulf.

Much has been made of personal experience. I will not pretend to have much in the way of first-hand experience of the countries being discussed, other than transiting Dubai airport, incidentally in an Airbus A380. I looked out of the window and was struck by those magnificent buildings rising out of the desert in the distance, but the sight made me ask at what cost many of those buildings were constructed. What was the human cost and what were the labour conditions when such cities rose from the desert? What is the ongoing cost to the environment and the climate of using carbon and energy-intensive methods to build a western model of capitalism in that part of the world?

I will reflect briefly on economic relations, defence and human rights situations, and echo some questions that have been raised with the UK Government. Although I have not personally travelled to the region, a delegation from the SNP visited Iran at around Christmas time. Perhaps the agreement that has been reached with Iran presents something of a model of stability and transition. The point about stability has been well made and it is a perfectly acceptable point, but perhaps something can be learned about transition and opening up economic opportunities. Bilateral trade with the region is into the billions. We have spoken about Dubai as a transport hub and tourist destination. My city—Glasgow—benefits from direct flights to Dubai.

I have not heard mention of the 2022 World cup in Qatar, so I will touch on that. I mentioned labour rights and building rights. It would be interesting to hear what continued dialogue the Government have with FIFA and with the Government in Qatar about the treatment of migrant workers and the continued reports of deaths and injuries on construction sites. The Government are committed to the sustainable development goals of promoting equality and leaving no one behind in the world. How do those goals apply to the Government’s relations with the Gulf states?

The issue of migration and security, including the ability of people to travel, was touched on. The Government have introduced visa waivers across the region, most recently in Kuwait. That contrasts quite interestingly with the crackdown in other areas—for example, the difficulty that people in sub-Saharan Africa face in obtaining visas for the United Kingdom. We have heard about defence contracts and the base in Bahrain. All I would say is that the arms industry is a choice. It is not inevitable. If we are to deal in arms and military contracts, we must ensure that they are not being abused.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I represent the headquarters of BAE Systems, which, for half a century, has had a very important relationship with Saudi Arabia. Does the SNP not understand that these Gulf states are allies of the UK, and that they face a threat, to which my hon. Friends have all referred? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the UK should help our allies in the Gulf to defend themselves against that threat with British equipment, much of which is made in Scotland?

[Patrick Grady]

I am not entirely sure that now is the best time to talk about defence contracts coming to Scotland, given the concerns being expressed about the shipyards on the Clyde. The reality is that, if British weapons are being exported and traded, there is a responsibility under the international instruments to ensure that they are being used appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. That is a great example of countries using that experience of dealing with diverse groups and communities that have been broken in the past and that need to heal and move forward. That experience and knowledge can be taken to countries in the Gulf, so that it can be shared. I pay huge tribute to the teams who have gone from Northern Ireland to the Gulf. In fact, it is not only in the Gulf where they are doing such work; they are doing it even further afield. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point and putting it on the record.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend the Minister was talking about the role of women. Does he agree that the Bahrainis themselves have shown remarkable foresight, as their previous ambassador here was not only female but a Christian? Does that example not illustrate the kind of diversity that we see in Bahrain, which is one of our closest allies and best friends?

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Change is happening, but of course we want to increase that change, so we are doing our best to advance it and expedite it. On the Shura council in Saudi Arabia, there were no women before; now there are women on it. In municipal elections, the most recent of which have just taken place, previously there were no women involved; now there are women being elected. In fact, when women were first elected to the Shura council, guess what happened? They were placed behind a glass screen, because the men on the council did not want them in the room. However, the women banged on the glass and said, “We want to be part of the actual debate,” and the chairman had no choice but to invite them in. When I visited Saudi Arabia a couple of months ago, I was delighted to meet some of the women connected with the British relationship—the British grouping—we were all able to sit in the same room together and have a conversation. That might seem quite small, but in the period that I have been honoured to have this role, it was an important step to allow those voices to come across.

There is even debate now about women drivers, partly because there is an economic cause. The drop in oil prices means that if a country has a workforce capable of driving, why not take advantage of it? The reasons for such a debate happening are not perhaps the ones we would want, but the fact is that the debate is now happening and that is very much encouraged.

I simply make the point that we have developed the strengths of our democratic society over many, many years, but as nation states the Gulf countries are very new. Saudi Arabia was not really formed, as such, until 1932. Oman and, indeed, the other Gulf nations did not gain their independence until the 1970s. It is from that starting point that those countries then had to develop from a centralised model of governance and move forward to provide change at a pace that is acceptable to their people. If we try to expedite the pace too quickly, we will find that the religiously conservative groups will not accept it, and we will end up seeing what we have seen in Syria taking hold in other parts of the region. That would mean that change had gone too fast to be accepted.

It is important that we stand with the Gulf countries. We encourage change—we do not step back from it at all—and we use the strength of our friendship and the trust bestowed upon us. However, there is also an expectation, because of the depth of the relationship, that we are there with them—that we have these conversations—and we do that better with them, rather than shouting from afar and expecting change to happen.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the challenge of extremism, which is something that Gulf nations are working incredibly hard to address. All the nations in the Gulf are part of the counter-Daesh coalition and are playing a formidable role in providing funds to tackle the movement of foreign fighters, in making efforts to stop the flow of money that is going into Daesh accounts and in helping with humanitarian support. All the Gulf nations have taken refugees, but again that is not shouted about perhaps as much as one would anticipate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West mentioned the Sawab centre and the Hedayah centre, which are important aspects of allowing imams—the grand muftis and so forth—to recognise that there is a responsible way of preaching the Koran and of ensuring that the word of Allah is shared correctly, because it is among the vulnerable where Islam is misused, with the false promise of paradise that then encourages people to become suicide bombers and continue extremism. The United Arab Emirates is doing an incredible job in challenging extremism as it grows.

Time is against me, so I will end shortly, because I want to give my hon. Friend at least a minute to comment on this debate. I will just say, finally, that our mature relationships with our Gulf partners are deeply rooted in our shared history, and our future security and, indeed, prosperity are closely linked with theirs. The Gulf states have significant regional influence that they can bring to bear on issues that affect our national security, such as regional conflicts and violent extremism, so it is in our national interest to deepen co-operation with them, building on our existing relationships with them to our mutual benefit.