Srebrenica

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Graham Stuart)]

It is a great, albeit sobering, pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, showing the unity to which so many referred. There is real-world power in standing up for the principles and values that are shared on both sides of the House, and that all of us, including the UK Government, wish to back and reinforce.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate and, of course, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is fantastic to have Members on both sides of the House who not only speak with passion on this issue but have deep personal knowledge and engagement from their previous professional career. I pay tribute to them for their work as the respective chairs of the all-party parliamentary groups on Bosnia and Herzegovina and on Srebrenica. The professional career of my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) also involved him in that part of the world.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am very much involved in Bosnia, so I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which is terribly important because it is widely viewed in Bosnia. People pay huge attention to what is happening, because they do not get this sort of debate in their own country. The young people, by the way, do not want another war, and people in Bosnia are watching what we say and do very carefully.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention.

Colleagues on both sides of the Chamber are right to continue drawing attention to the fragile situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to the lessons we must all learn from the Srebrenica genocide. I am grateful for the contributions made by hon. and right hon. Members, and I will try to respond to the points they have raised.

This debate comes just after the 27th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. As colleagues have said, it was the worst atrocity on European soil since the end of the second world war. Today, as we did on Monday, we remember the victims of those terrible events and stand with the families in their ongoing fight for justice so many years on.

There is no question but that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide. That was the conclusion of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and of the International Court of Justice after extensive legal processes, yet some individuals and groups continue to deny these events. We have seen this over the past few days in and around Srebrenica, and we utterly condemn this behaviour. Glorifying the perpetrators and instigators of such heinous acts takes us further away from reconciliation and hinders the country’s ability to move forward and come together, so it is vital that we deliver justice and challenge the lies and false narratives, as successive speakers have said.

To date, a total of 57 individuals have been tried at the state court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for crimes committed in and around Srebrenica in July 1995. A further 20 individuals have been tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and its successor, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, for crimes related to Srebrenica. We are proud to have supported this work.

Of course, we house Radovan Karadžić in a UK cell as he serves his whole-of-life prison sentence following his conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for the genocide at Srebrenica. Last month, the UK helped to pass a UN Security Council resolution on the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, extending the term of the current prosecutor. We will continue to fight to end impunity for war criminals, and to see that they are held to account.

As others have said, Bosnia and Herzegovina faces new challenges today. Threats are on the rise, from the knock-on effects of Putin’s war to the destabilising actions of Russian-backed secessionists, about which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) spoke so powerfully.

[Alicia Kearns]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. He is talking about the prosecutions we have achieved, but there have been very few prosecutions for sexual violence. Will he commit to meeting me to discuss whether we can create an international organisation with the sole job of going in at the start of a conflict to collect evidence of sexual violence so that we are able to prosecute and get justice? Waiting until the end of a conflict is too late because, unfortunately, the evidence will have gone.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She will be aware that, on 16 November 2021, the Government launched a major global initiative to stop sexual violence against women and girls in conflict, which included a £20 million fund. We are alive to this issue, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss how it is not enough to have effective mechanisms afterwards, and how we need to get in early to try to make sure it does not happen in the first place.

The leaders of Republika Srpska have been emboldened by Russia’s actions. With Moscow’s support, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned, they are using divisive and dangerous nationalist rhetoric. They are encouraging ethnic hatred and genocide denial, and they are pushing for the de facto secession of Republika Srpska, in direct contravention of their country’s constitution.

The situation is serious, and we must learn the lessons of the region’s history and the consequences of inaction. The west took too long to act in the 1990s, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary argued when she visited Bosnia and Herzegovina just two months ago. Sarajevo suffered under siege for 1,425 days. We were not bold enough to prevent terrible events such as the genocide at Srebrenica. If the Government and I, and everyone who has spoken today, are serious when we say “never again,” and if it is not just empty rhetoric, we must act today to preserve security and stability. That is why we are deploying a wide range of diplomatic, economic and defence support to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

First, we are working to protect the hard-won Dayton peace agreement. In April, in response to their unacceptable nationalist rhetoric and denial of the genocide, we sanctioned Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb member of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s state-level presidency, and Željka Cvijanović, the President of Republika Srpska. These designations include travel bans and asset freezes, and they were the first under the UK’s Bosnia and Herzegovina sanctions regime. We will keep the situation under review, and we will apply further designations if necessary. We will continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and we will continue to back the work of the High Representative, Christian Schmidt.

It is fantastic to see total co-operation and agreement, from what I can tell from every word of the speech by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, between Her Majesty’s Opposition and Her Majesty’s Government on almost every aspect of this.

Secondly, as has been said, we have to give hope and show that Bosnia and Herzegovina can succeed. We are investing to boost the country’s economic security. We are extending our offer of honest and reliable infrastructure investment to the western Balkans, and we aim to mobilise $100 million of UK-backed investment by 2025. Across the western Balkans there is a nearly £13 billion facility at UK Export Finance, our credit agency, to support and encourage British involvement in such activity, which will help to provide the resilience and capability to counter Russian interference.

Thirdly, we are boosting Bosnia and Herzegovina’s ability to counter security threats and malign influences—again, I am directly answering a point made today. That includes training its cadets in world-class British military academies such as Sandhurst. That support, like our support for Ukraine, is about our belief in a simple principle: the right of people to decide their democratic future and to protect themselves. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future lies on that path—it must do—and in greater partnership with NATO and countries such as the UK.

Finally, we are ensuring that the truth about Srebrenica will endure. We have built a strong partnership with the Srebrenica memorial centre, to develop its operational capacity and establish a centre for genocide research, prevention and reconciliation. We are also supporting Remembering Srebrenica, which just yesterday hosted its national commemoration event in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We have provided £200,000 to that organisation to ensure that it can continue to do its highly valuable work.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am glad that £200,000 has been given to Remembering Srebrenica. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that that charity, which has been in existence for some time, has always struggled to get sufficient funding. Every year, it has to beg for money from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities or the Foreign Office, and the situation has been very difficult for it. In the light of what is happening, should there not be a proper system in place to fund this charity, on a yearly basis, with a decent amount of money to allow it to carry out the work it does across the country?

[Graham Stuart]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. I think most Members in the Chamber would recognise that £200,000 is a substantial sum and that we in the UK are unusual in having that kind of Government backing. She and I, and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and others, attended the events this week, and it is important to see the power they have and their ability to bring people together. Like her, I hope that the charity can succeed and we can ensure that it has a viable future.

Let me have a look at some of the other issues raised and make sure that I am dealing with them all as best I can, given that there is the opportunity to do so. On tackling the destabilisation efforts, I have already mentioned the sanctions on Bosnian Serb presidency member Dodik. On the military aspect, the UK supports EUFOR and wants to see its mandate renewed at the UN Security Council in November. We cannot allow a security vacuum in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we will work with allies on a NATO alternative should Russia choose to use its veto—the House should be aware of that, as that threat could be there. But if Russia tries to stop EUFOR, we would look to provide a NATO alternative, which the Russians might find less satisfactory. I have stated on the record the importance we attribute to the need for a speedy response.

On Amir and the powerful tale told about him, I thought the most memorable line from a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton was that

“denial is fought through remembrance.”

That is why it is so important that we continue to do this, so that Amir’s story is heard and his family feel that it is, and so that it positively contributes to ensuring that there is not a repetition in this part of the world or somewhere else.

On the support for reconciliation, my predecessor as Minister for Europe visited Bosnia and Herzegovina on 16 June, where he met young politicians, Foreign Minister Turković and the Central Election Commission. We are trying to ensure that we have those kinds of ministerial ties. I have also already mentioned that the Foreign Secretary visited Sarajevo on 26 May, when she reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to peace and stability in the western Balkans in the face of Russia’s malign influence. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for his support for the role of Sir Stuart Peach, which is really important.

On work with the Department for Education, I have not yet had that opportunity, but I hope that, given the general tenor of my speech and the unanimity strongly felt in this place, we have shown that we are determined to ensure that we remember the past but do not see this act of remembrance as somehow separated from current circumstances, as it is anything but. It is part of dealing with the current threats and destabilisation and taking them seriously. On various fronts, diplomatic, civil society and defence, we are trying to make sure that we are an active player. At the heart of what a lot of colleagues have raised is that we must stay focused on this, and that we do not find ourselves asleep at the wheel and failing to respond, alongside allies, when circumstances demand action. I am delighted to conclude the debate, and I hope that I have answered colleagues’ questions.

Non-proliferation Treaty: 50th Anniversary Review

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Graham Stuart)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing the debate ahead of the NPT review conference in August, and to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for stepping in and leading it.

I completely agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on the quality of the debate that we have enjoyed this afternoon. I will try to respond to as many of the points raised as possible in the perhaps eight minutes before we vote.

We had a mention of RAF Lakenheath. It remains long-standing UK and NATO policy neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a given location. The UK does not have a policy of no first use because—this goes to the heart of much of what we are discussing—the credibility of the deterrent rests on the conviction that we would bring all means to bear to ensure the security of the UK and our allies.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion referred to the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The TPNW fails to address the obstacles that must be overcome to achieve lasting global disarmament and offers no solutions to the challenges posed by what is, as hon. Members suggested and with which I agree, a deteriorating security environment. The TPNW will not lead us closer to a world without nuclear weapons and risks creating division within the international community, at a time when we need to focus on building consensus and strengthening the NPT to make progress on disarmament together.

What I have picked up, enjoyed and appreciated in the debate—the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was particularly fluent on the point, but hon. Members across the Chamber picked it up—is the recognition of the importance of the NPT. It is a remarkably successful treaty. Over the last 52 years, the NPT has been the cornerstone of global nuclear security and civil nuclear prosperity.

In 1960, as the right hon. Member for Islington North mentioned, President Kennedy predicted that there could be up to 20 nations with nuclear weapons as soon as 1964. Yet today the number of nuclear-armed states remains in single figures, thanks to the NPT. It is important that we recognise that and cement that progress, although I recognise people will want other initiatives. The NPT has extended access to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It has prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has provided a framework for significant levels of disarmament since the cold war peak. It has been remarkably successful.

Now, after two years of delay, we are delighted that states will be able to come together next month in New York to review implementation and take forward the objectives of the treaty. The UK remains committed to full implementation of the NPT in all its aspects. We are a nuclear weapons state that takes its responsibilities seriously. We are committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons, where all states share in the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies.

At the review conference, the UK will work constructively with states parties for a successful outcome. We will mark the progress of the past 50 years and call on all states to reaffirm their commitment to the three pillars of the treaty—disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

Celebrating success does not mean ignoring reality. Since the last conference in 2015, we have seen a significant deterioration in the security environment and the treaty faces a number of challenges. We have previously identified risks to the UK from major nuclear-armed states and emerging nuclear states. Those risks have not gone away, and some states are now significantly increasing and diversifying their nuclear arsenals. They are investing in novel nuclear technologies and developing new warfighting nuclear systems, which they are integrating into their military strategies and doctrines, and into their political rhetoric, to seek to coerce others. The increase in global competition and the proliferation of potentially disruptive technologies mean there are new threats to strategic stability.

Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, which the right hon. Member for Islington North rightly and fully condemned, is a dramatic demonstration of the risks we face. We do not underestimate the challenges. They make strengthening the NPT more important. The treaty is not an academic document. It must live in the real world and adapt to address modern challenges. We believe the NPT provides the only credible route to nuclear disarmament.

The UK Government are proud of our contribution to the NPT’s success and of our own track record. We set out the steps we have taken since 2015 in the UK’s national report, published last November. I refer those asking for clarity on the UK’s views and objectives to that report. It sets them out. Our views have not changed since that report. If people have already read it, they should look again. We share the aspirations of all states parties to the NPT for a world without nuclear weapons. Disarmament cannot be done unilaterally or in a single leap. It requires a series of incremental, mutually reinforcing steps.

Building such a framework requires the active participation of the entire international community. Rallying their many disparate interests presents a huge diplomatic challenge, but it is one in which the United Kingdom has already played a significant role. We have pioneered work in nuclear disarmament verification, championed transparency and advanced understanding on irreversibility. In December we published a food for thought paper, outlining one vision for how to get to a world without nuclear weapons in support of the forthcoming review conference that hon. Members have mentioned.

We have pressed for significant steps towards multilateral disarmament, including the entry into force of the comprehensive test ban treaty and successful negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. It is the comprehensive test ban treaty that deals with the testing issues, which have been referred to by hon. Members, as opposed to the NPT. We possess the smallest stockpile. That is worth noting, given the impression that in some way the UK has not been stepping up: we possess the smallest stockpile of any of the nuclear weapon states recognised by the NPT, and we are the only one to maintain a single delivery system—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise to the Minister for rudely interrupting him earlier on. He can carry on where he left off.

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. It is a pleasure to be back. I am grateful to Members for returning to the debate.

We remain committed to our article 6 obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. Reducing the risk of nuclear conflict remains a priority and we believe that short-term progress, in line with many of the contributions we have had, is achievable. We should seek to foster dialogue, which many Members have mentioned, both among states possessing nuclear weapons and between states possessing nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapon states in order to increase understanding and reduce the risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation.

Although we recognise that work on risk reduction does not replace disarmament obligations, we see it as a complementary and necessary step to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and enhance mutual trust and security. We will continue to work with international partners, civil society and academia to build mutual trust and create the environment for further progress on disarmament.

The UK works to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. We have sought to strengthen the international nuclear safeguard system and the International Atomic Energy Agency through our diplomatic efforts and through direct assistance from our nuclear safeguards programme. We will encourage all states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement safeguards agreements. We will promote the ratification of security conventions and seek universal commitment to the additional protocol and a comprehensive safeguards agreement, which together provide credible assurances of the absence of undeclared nuclear activities and will strengthen the non-proliferation architecture. Nevertheless, the UK recognises that significant regional risks remain, particularly from Iran and North Korea. They have been highlighted in the debate. We are working hard to combat the risk of proliferation and remain firmly committed to ensuring coherence to the NPT and the IAEA safeguards regime to ensure global safety and stability.

Finally, the UK has encouraged and will continue to encourage the development and exchange of peaceful nuclear technologies, enabled by the NPT. Nuclear technologies have a critical part to play in tackling climate change, for instance, not only in helping to achieve net zero, but also through nuclear applications such as helping to improve food security and agricultural resilience. The technologies can help countries to adapt and become more resilient to climate change. They are also vital to global health, as they are used to treat cancer and prevent the spread of insect-borne disease. We want the review conference to highlight the significant global contribution that the peaceful use of nuclear technology makes to improving people’s lives and advancing progress to the UN sustainable development goals.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am interested in the outline that the Minister is giving us of what will happen in New York. Could he assure us—I think a number of my colleagues raised the question—that Britain will be represented by a suitably empowered delegation that can take part in serious discussions about building alliances for the future? These conferences do not normally come to a huge conclusion themselves, but they often point to a direction for the future. I would like assurance that this country will be adequately represented, so that we can go forward on this. Also, can we possibly offer up at least a reduction in nuclear stockpiles as part of our negotiations?

[Graham Stuart]

It is not our practice to announce in advance who will be attending. What I can tell him is that we are very much looking forward to it. It has already been delayed. I hope that the rest of my speech has made clear that we take this as a serious opportunity and aim to make the most of it.

We have published a working paper on a new sustained dialogue on peaceful uses, which aims to help overcome barriers to accessing the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies. We continue to urge all non-NPT states to sign and ratify the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states as soon as possible.

There are a number of issues, and I will try to deal with some that have been raised. The spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Leeds North East, raised the point that the UK supports the universalisation of the NPT. Though we cannot force any state to join, we discuss the importance of the NPT with all states at all levels, and whenever we engage with states. We regularly seek to encourage India and Pakistan, for example, to join the NPT.

On Scotland hosting nuclear weapons, the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent is a national endeavour benefiting the whole of the UK, and it underpins the security of this nation and that of our allies. By way of information, I note that recent opinion polls show that Trident enjoys 58% support among young Scots, even though the SNP and Green Ministers in the Scottish Government wish to see us remove it and even leave NATO altogether—[Interruption.] I do not think the SNP can have it both ways. It wants to have an independent Scotland and join NATO, which is perhaps what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) will say, while also removing part of its nuclear deterrent.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I wonder if I can point the Minister back to the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) made only a few minutes ago. He set out our policy position very clearly, and I do not think that it is helpful for the Minister to represent what has been said in an entirely different way. It is not for the Minister to determine what happens to people in Scotland and whether nuclear weapons are situated there. That is something that rightly and properly should be for those who are democratically elected by the Scottish people.

[Graham Stuart]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, that is a matter for the UK Government, and this Parliament of the Union reflects the whole of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) requested that we should put on paper our position on the New York conference. I have already directed him to our November 2021 national report, and I am confident that the Government will update the House after the rev con in due course.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for Islington North about having a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, we remain committed to that and firmly believe it can be achieved only by consensus of all the states of the region. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we continue to push for that.

I hope that has addressed most of the points that right hon. and hon. Members have made. The right hon. Member for Islington North also made a point about the humanitarian impact. The UK recognises the importance of engaging with the humanitarian consequences debate and listening to the views of non-nuclear weapon states. However, we believe that that conference was co-opted by civil society organisations to press for unilateral disarmament, which obviously is not the policy of this country. It was on that basis that the UK decided not to attend.

I hope that I have dealt reasonably with right hon. and hon. Members’ points. We will be able to discuss any further ones following the New York conference, and I look forward to working with Members of different parties in doing so.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

In response to what the Minister just said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said earlier, after the NPT conference will the Minister be in a position to make a statement or ensure there is a debate, so that Members of the House can raise in discussion what actually happened at the conference? Too often, these conferences have huge energy put into them but there is not much parliamentary discussion afterwards. If the Minister was prepared to guarantee that there will be some kind of statement, that would be very helpful.

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that fresh in my post as I am, I am not yet briefed as to whether I am in a position to guarantee that, but I am quite sure that Members in this Chamber are more than capable of ensuring that we follow up on that conference, whether in this format or another. In common with the right hon. Gentleman, I would hope that would occur, given the seriousness of the issue and the fact that it must not disappear from parliamentary debate or drift out of sight.

To conclude, the NPT remains essential to the maintenance of a safe and secure world, and I am delighted to have such cross-party support for that. At the 10th review conference, the UK is ready to work with all states parties and partners from across the international community and civil society to achieve a meaningful outcome that contributes to the preservation, universal adoption and, of course, full, ultimate implementation of that treaty, which had such foresight so many decades ago.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Funding

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes a very good point and her own work in Africa, which she continues today in her guise as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy in Kenya, absolutely confirms the point that she makes: in every continent in the world, there are countries in which sustaining this fragile plant is incredibly important. We should not be complacent about that in our own country, or across the pond in North America, either.

In this gardening analogy, the WFD is the constant gardener. We are there for the long term, and our projects need time to succeed. Let me give one example. I have seen our programmes in action in four of the countries in which our western Balkans project operates. I have no doubt that in all of them the project has been a success and great value for money. Were we to abandon the project in less than a month’s time when its funding expires, it would be another setback for open societies in the western Balkans. Yet that is precisely the risk, because the funding for the project, which comes from the conflict, stability and security fund—that is, the Cabinet Office—has not yet been decided. The work that the WFD has been able to do there, improving Parliament structures and scrutiny, helping more women into political leadership positions and so—this is the crucial aspect—reducing corruption, which is the scourge of faith in Government, is really important work, done indirectly by Her Majesty’s Government to help nations across the oceans.

Today, every organisation—barring a civil war or invasion—needs certainty in which to operate. During the pandemic, the Government provided that certainty for both businesses and the self-employed. It is therefore extraordinary that, having declared an end to the pandemic, and with departmental budgets agreed with the Treasury some time ago, until 6 o’clock yesterday evening I could not have told this debate what the WFD budget would be in less than a month’s time. Our outstanding chief executive Anthony Smith is here today, and we have roughly 100 staff in many countries around the world, and there are the rest of the governors, both political and non-political. For us to have to say in a board meeting last week that we could not sign off on a budget—only an indicative operational plan—is not an acceptable way for a non-departmental Government body to operate. It was with great relief, therefore, that I took the call last night from the office of the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for the verbal confirmation of our core funding for 2022-23. I look forward to the written confirmation as soon as possible.

However, I stress that that does not resolve everything, for many of our projects are funded through official development assistance by individual missions. The western Balkans project, pooled by five embassies, is a good example of that. They still do not know what their allocations are. The good news on core funding enables us to complete a budget and a restructure with much greater certainty, and enables us to decide the party political programmes that are arguably the unique feature of the WFD, but it does not mean that all our programmes, or the jobs of the staff delivering them, are secured. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that I speak for many heads of mission and diplomats when I say that, for an organisation well-versed in understatement, the words “frustrating” and “disappointing” are polite ways of describing widespread feelings. I hope that we never have to slog through such agonising budget treacle for so long ever again.

Let me come back to the core purposes of the WFD and our constant reinvention. Our work cannot prevent rogue states from invading others, whether in Myanmar or Ukraine, but we do have the relationships, mentoring and knowledge such that, when freedom returns, we can help those societies to work better. For example, we have an understanding of what is not working in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and beyond. Western democracies want to know why the youth is voting with its feet to leave across the west Balkans, and were they to show the resolve in helping unblock these impediments to more open societies, it would reduce the tensions in that region that exist now and could yet lead to a new round of violence.

All Governments need the tools to help deliver what they believe in. This great country of ours believes powerfully in open societies and democracy—the values on which all of us were elected. Even after temporarily reducing our development spending to 0.5% of gross national income, we still spend over £10 billion a year, the vast majority of which goes on large, multilateral organisations, delivering important work through Save the Children, Oxfam and so on. In that enormous pond of development expenditure, the WFD is but a tiny drop—£6.5 million of core funding this year. However, we do answer to those values and the choice to stand up for them, as outlined in the Queen’s Speech and the integrated review paper that the Government wrote last year, which I still believe to be a very good definition of strategic choices that defend our interests.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the WFD and the work that it does, and through him I want to appeal to the Minister. It is only natural that any large bureaucracy protects itself first and the outsiders last. When there is a cut, it tends to cut off the tentacles, however valuable they are. I hope we will hear from the Minister a personal commitment to ensure that WFD and its work are not allowed to languish, and that they have her full personal support. I know that the Department and the wider civil service will hear that message if it is given clearly by the Minister today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

The integrated review made it very clear that the UK will be a responsible and democratic cyber-power. We intend to use our global network to strengthen the case for open, peaceful and secure digital space, pushing back against those who misuse technology or spread disinformation to undermine democracy.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Could the Minister reassure the House that there are no other Members who have received hundreds of thousands of pounds of funding without question from hostile actors, and what confidence the public can therefore have in this Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

As I have mentioned in a number of answers, we have doubled aid for Afghanistan. This is being provided via UN agencies and non-governmental organisations—not directly to the Taliban—to ensure that it is reaching the people who really need it, and helping those who are most vulnerable and for whom it is intended.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

There is a huge global appetite for Government-to-Government partnerships with the UK, with significant commercial benefits to be unlocked. Will the Minister undertake to work with the Department for International Trade to build UK Government-to-Government capability, so that we cease to lag behind our competitors?

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend is right. There are hundreds of businesses that support the campaign for a say on our membership of the European Union. An important point about the Bill, which I should make clear to Members on all sides, is that I am not arguing today that we should be in or that we should be out. I am putting forward an argument that we should trust the British people to make that decision and have a say.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I regret that I disagree with my hon. Friend. He is wrong to say that the Opposition have not made up their mind. They are quite clear: they do not believe in a referendum, they do not believe in renegotiating in Europe to get a better deal for this country, and most of all—they have made this absolutely clear—they do not believe in giving the British people a say.

[James Wharton]

I am the eternal optimist. It may appear that the Opposition are united against the British people in refusing them a chance to have their say, but I do not believe that is true. I believe that at least a substantial number of them are split. They know that the people need to have a say on this important issue and even though their leader has chosen not to be here and lead them today, I hope he will summon up the strength in the future to take a firm position and will back the Bill.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

Absolutely; the hon. Gentleman is quite right. He also voted against the war and took part in the debates at the time. We have not even touched on that important subject in today’s debate, but I hope that, if he catches the Deputy Speaker’s eye, he will develop that theme. It is vital that it should be brought into the debate.

According to the Iraq Body Count project, an unofficial survey of Iraqi civilian casualties, between 113,000 and 123,000 civilians have died as a result of violence in Iraq since March 2003. According to the same source, 883 civilians died in May 2013—the highest number of civilian deaths in any month since April 2008. That is the ugly legacy of this war.

Let me tell the House that it gives me no satisfaction whatever to stand here today and say that we who voted against the motion were proved right. The damage to Iraq, has, as they say, already been done. However, many unanswered questions remain about our descent into war in the spring of 2003. I want to quote from the words spoken by the then Member for Blaenau Gwent, Llew Smith, who said:

“We…need to know whether Ministers simply proved to be very bad judges of geopolitics, stubbornly refusing to listen to the millions who marched against the war…or—worse—deliberately distorted the evidence, cherry-picked the details that suited their case for invading Iraq, and pressed the Attorney-General to provide an opinion that endorsed a political decision already taken two years earlier to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1426.]

Personally, I have little doubt that the evidence was indeed distorted, as the decision to go to war had already been made months, if not years, before a motion was ever put before the House. I saw proof of this dating from 2002, and I will return to that point later if I may.

On 9 March 2004, I opened a debate calling for the advice of the Attorney-General on the legality of the war in Iraq to be published in full. I said during that debate that Treasury counsel would have received instructions when they were advising the Attorney-General, and that, had counsel been ill informed or misled in those instructions, the advice would have been flawed ab initio. I said that it was of the utmost importance to establish whether the instructions given by the Attorney-General contained reference to the now infamous 45-minute claim. Had these instructions contained such references and had counsel accepted them as valid, the whole basis of that advice would obviously have been flawed. I made it clear in the debate that the ministerial code holds no bar on publishing such advice. In fact, the code states:

“Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.”

I argued at the time and I argue now that it is in the wider public interest on going to war that disclosure should be made, for heaven’s sake. What is more, I set out the precedents for publishing the advice of the Attorney-General—including, for example, the Belfast riots and the Archer-Shee cases. I cited the opinions of five distinguished international lawyers who each had differing views about whether the war in Iraq had been legal, but who were unanimously in favour of publishing in full the advice of the Attorney-General. One of these, James Crawford, who was then—and still is, I believe—professor of international law at Cambridge, observed:

“If the war was conducted in private, there would be every case for hiding the advice. If it’s going to be fought with public funds, in public and expending the lives of members of the public, then it should be published”.

Another, Lord Archer, QC, said that the Attorney-General’s arguments constituted

“the most important legal opinion given in the last quarter of a century.”

To this day, however, that advice has remained unpublished.

Interestingly, that debate was tabled by us in Plaid Cymru and our friends in the Scottish National party. What I think was then a joint group of nine secured a vote of about 285, as I recall, so there clearly was some concern around, and I am pleased that we brought the matter to the fore.

As I have outlined before, in 2002 I was sent documents from an unknown source which put me in no doubt whatever that Mr Blair had been determined to go to war with Iraq from the very outset. The documents had with them a note saying that they were top secret documents, some British and others appearing to emanate from other intelligence sources—American, I believe. The documents showed me that as early as 2001-02, discussions were being held about toppling Saddam, in which mention was made of the term “regime change”—which we all know is unlawful in international law.

Soon after I received the memorandums, my then colleague, Adam Price, and I were visited by two senior police officers from a special section of the Metropolitan police. I did not have the documents in my personal possession at the time, so I was unable to surrender them to those police officers. When the Chilcot inquiry was established in 2009, however, I decided to hand over the documents. I searched for them, found them and handed them over to the inquiry. I took them down to Victoria street and handed them over to the secretary of the inquiry, Ms Margaret Aldred.

Several months went by without my receiving any response to my submission. Nine months later, following a number of unanswered letters, I was finally granted the courtesy of a reply. As a result of this treatment, I had my misgivings about the secretariat of the inquiry, which I set out in full during a Westminster Hall debate on the issue on 25 January 2011.

Suffice it to say here that I discovered that Ms Aldred, the gatekeeper for the inquiry, who had previously acted as the Cabinet’s deputy head of foreign and defence policy secretariat, was put forward for her new role, in which she would inquire into the actions taken in that same foreign and defence policy, by the Cabinet Secretary himself, Sir Gus O’Donnell. The potential conflict of interest was breathtaking. I discovered that in her previous role, Ms Aldred had regularly chaired the Iraq senior officials group. Let us not forget either that it was the Cabinet Office, for which Ms Aldred had worked previously, that drew up plans for regime change and that it was the Cabinet Office and the Joint Intelligence Committee and its staff that produced the “dodgy dossier”. Her hands were hardly clean for that particular job. Thanks to the detective work of Dr Chris Lamb and others, we further discovered that this appointment had not followed the procedures set out in the civil service code and was neither open nor indeed transparent. I countered that her appointment to this role obviously made it questionable whether the inquiry was a Cabinet Office subsidiary. In the continued absence of the Chilcot inquiry’s report into the war, I am unable to comment further on this issue. But let us not hold our breath, folks.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

By way of a parallel and supporting point for the case that the right hon. Gentleman has just made, when I was a Back-Bench Member of the Education Committee in the last Parliament, there was an independent inquiry led by Lord Sutherland. I found out that the personal secretary to the permanent secretary at the Department for Education was one of the tiny number who made up this “independent inquiry” team. In fact, when we looked at the report in Word, we could see who authored certain parts of it. It was frightening to discover that the author of the section that exculpated the Department from all responsibility for the SATs fiasco was none other than the former personal secretary to the permanent secretary at that Department.

[Mr Llwyd]

There we are—another unhappy coincidence. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which shows that this kind of conduct may be prevalent in this place. Clearly, going back to what was said by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, we need to look more into the procedures of this place and to challenge them; otherwise, we might be in throes of a similar disastrous position again. There is a still a catalogue of unanswered questions.

In a memorandum from Mr Blair to his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, dated 17 March 2002, which was unpublished until the Chilcot inquiry, Mr Blair says of the problems in Iraq:

“The immediate WMD problems don’t seem obviously worse than three years ago. So we have to re-order our story and message.”

Why, then, did he tell Parliament mere months later that Iraq’s WMD programme was growing? The re-ordering to which Mr Blair referred in his memo was his decision to focus on Saddam’s monstrous nature. He went on to say:

“A political philosophy that does care about other nations—eg. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone—and is prepared to change regimes on the merits, should be gung-ho on Saddam.”

There can be little wonder, then, why Hans Blix was denied the further two months he had requested to continue his weapons inspection in Iraq. His testimony would not have been necessary.

I noticed that when we began this debate, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was firing off interventions at a rapid rate at my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion. If his points were so valid and so worthy of consideration, it is a shame that he did not stand his ground and make a speech, as we are all doing.

Mr Blair began this same memo to his chief of staff by saying:

“I do not have a proper worked-out strategy on how we would do it…I will need a meeting on this with military folk.”

“It”, we can surmise, refers to military action. Mr Blair had evidently decided, even in March 2002, that “we should be in”—despite the fact that, as I have said, regime change is unlawful under article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations charter.

What is all the more deplorable is the fact that Mr Blair’s deception in the run-up to the vote in March 2003 had disastrous consequences for post-invasion Iraq. Military plans were not constructed properly because they were not properly discussed. In his evidence to Chilcot, Mr Blair admitted that only 14 of the 28 meetings he held with key figures to discuss the possibility of war were in fact minuted. The most compelling documents, of course, have not been made public. The still classified material includes the exchanges between the former Prime Minister and President Bush.

In March 2005, I visited Iraq, going to Baghdad and Basra. During the visit, which was arranged by the Foreign Office, I had the opportunity to meet local politicians and women’s groups as well as national politicians and trade unionists in Baghdad. It was obvious that while there had been great efforts to plan for war, there had been little or no effort to plan for the peace. There were open sewers and people were complaining—I presume that the Foreign Office approved of our meeting these people. They were saying openly that they used to have electricity, running water and a decent sewerage system, but that they had nothing of that kind now. I am led to believe that, in many instances, that remains the position. We have left the country in a terrible state.

We met several senior military officers. It is interesting that they were prepared to confide to someone like me, who could hardly be described as a renowned establishment figure, their concern about the lawfulness of their being in Iraq in the first place. They were greatly concerned about whether the war was legal. I gave them my opinion, for what it was worth, but I also told them “You are doing your duty, as you are trained to do. Any question of illegality is not on your desk, but on the desks of people like me—the politicians back at home—so please do not divert your attention to that and put yourselves in harm’s way.” However, I respect the fact that they were asking those questions then; it demonstrates the feelings that were around at the time.

Saddam, as we knew, would be overthrown in days, or weeks at the most. The Americans could have done it themselves. The only plan for peace was to allow some limited western-funded repair of the Iraqi infrastructure to be carried out by American companies in which the neo-cons advising Bush had considerable financial interests. There is no interest now in returning Iraq to anything resembling a 21st-century country. Shame on them!

In February, Caroline Hawley, the BBC’s Baghdad correspondent between 2003 and 2005, wrote this in the New Statesman about her recent return to Iraq:

“Iraq remains a troubled place. During my recent visit, I saw little of its restored oil wealth being spent on badly needed social services. The nation, collectively traumatised, has only three child psychiatrists. The ubiquitous checkpoints and blast walls fail to stop…many bombers. Iraqis complain of rampant corruption. Nouri al-Maliki’s Shia-dominated government is seen as increasingly autocratic and its relations with the country’s Sunnis continue to sour. That Iraqis now seem to be fighting on both sides of Syria’s war…doesn’t bode well.”

As we teeter on the brink of entering yet another conflict in the middle east, I urge the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to learn from the obvious mistakes of our recent history. Mr Blair decided that we should go in; the history books will be the judge of why.

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I am sure that the Europe Minister has noted the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Any reform of the Court must begin by addressing the crippling backlog of cases before it; I understand that there are 150,000 cases and that number is increasing at a rate of 20,000 a year. I hope that at the end of the six months in which our Government have the chairmanship, the Opposition will be in a position to give them credit for pushing forward with these reforms. Indeed, the test of success for the Government is not only what they do in the six months when they are in charge, but whether they are able to inspire successive chairmanships of the Court and the Council to take on and continue their reforms.

Until now, I have been fairly consensual, but I am about to embark on a section of my speech that is perhaps not so consensual.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Who wrote it?

[Emma Reynolds]

I wrote it, thank you very much. That is very patronising of the hon. Gentleman. I might be a young blonde woman, but I am able to write my own speeches.

There is another area where the Government need to take action. It is incumbent on this Government to tackle the misconceptions about the European convention on human rights. I am sure that the Minister is only too aware of how some members of his own Government have peddled myths about human rights legislation to further certain political arguments, and of how there is a confusion—sometimes, it seems, a conflation—of the rulings and activities of the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the European Union and the European Court of Justice. In some cases, there seems to be a deliberate lumping together of any institution with the word “Europe” in its title, with the assumption that Europe has a malign influence on this country.

Will the Minister reassure us that the Government will take a lead on challenging such misconceptions, not only in his party but in the country, and champion the positive role that our membership of the Council of Europe has played in furthering human rights and democracy in the UK and in other countries across the continent? After all, taking on the mantle of chairmanship brings with it certain responsibilities, one of which, surely, is demonstrating accuracy in debates on human rights. Let us hope to hear no more misleading myths about cats or other bogus stories.

Labour Members remain firmly committed to the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights, but we recognise that this does not necessarily mean sticking to the status quo, and reforming the Court. We want the Government to use their six-month chairmanship to push forward with reforms to ensure that the Council continues to meet the aims and objectives in a way that is beneficial for all member countries, including the UK. Upholding a universal notion of human rights is a sign of a civilised nation and something that we should be proud of, not something that should be rubbished, heckled or blamed at every opportunity.

As I underlined in my introduction, successive Governments of different political persuasions have supported our membership of the Council of Europe and obligations that come with it. There is a long history and tradition in our country of which we should be proud.

National Referendum on the European Union

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure, as always, to speak after the Foreign Secretary. This debate takes place at a time of great peril and uncertainty for the British and European economies. I am sorry that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, for whatever reason, have felt unable to join us in the Chamber for the debate, which has already revealed, no matter what the result in the Division Lobbies this evening, the scale of division on the Government Benches.

I urge opposition to the motion because I do not believe that Britain’s national interest would be served by spending the coming months and years debating the case for Britain leaving the world’s largest single market. Recent figures have revealed that there has been zero growth in the economy since last autumn. Unemployment is rising again and has reached a 17-year high. Almost 1 million young people are unable to find work. Amid all the passion generated by this debate, no one can dispute the enduring significance of European markets to Britain’s economic prospects.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

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

Let me share with the House the description of Europe’s economic importance to Britain given to me in a recent parliamentary answer by none other than the Foreign Secretary:

“European markets account for half of the UK’s overall trade and foreign investments and as a result, around 3.5 million jobs in the UK are linked to the export of goods and services to the EU.”

He states that those markets provide

“the world’s most important trading zone, generating total GDP close to £10 billion in 2010”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 256W.]

In what I hope was a drafting error rather than an economic forecast, he of course got the size of Europe’s GDP wrong by a factor of 1,000. It actually had a GDP close to £10 trillion in 2010. The importance of the European economy to the British economy is none the less clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

The global financial crisis that was suffered in 2007 is hardly news to anybody in the House. Indeed, it seems to me that there is a broadening consensus that international economic circumstances affect the performance of the British economy. We are increasingly hearing that line from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The House has only recently debated the circumstances in which it judged it appropriate for a referendum to take place, and tried to formalise the process by which to decide what is significant and what is not. The current Government legislated for that in the European Union Act 2011.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept his role in the corrosive state of public mistrust in politics, after promising a referendum on the European constitution, aka Lisbon, and then breaking that promise, and of course after agreeing to the bail-out in the dying days of the last Government? Have the billions of pounds of public money that have been spent on that helped jobs in this country? I suggest to him that they have not.

[Mr Alexander]

First, the inconvenient truth for the hon. Gentleman is that there is no EU constitution. It was rejected by the Dutch and French voters. Secondly, if I recall properly, the newest member of the Cabinet, the Transport Secretary, is on record as having written a letter confirming the cross-party nature of support for the steps that were taken. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman might be better directing his question to the newest member of the Cabinet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I want to address the politics of this question, and in doing so pose the question why this issue, above all issues, has a sulphurous effect on our politics. I also wish to thank Ministers for getting us off the hook tonight by imposing a three-line Whip, which disguises the changing politics in the House since I have been a Member and signals that we need to rethink our position.

Why does Europe have such an evil, sulphurous influence on our politics? I am not nearly as hopeful as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who thinks that we are all sailing into the sunshine. Given the stresses caused by the stupidity of a single currency, I worry about what will happen to democracies in mainland Europe as countries’ living standards are forced down in an attempt to make their budgets balance.

The real reason why Europe has such a sulphurous impact on our politics is that, as we now know from the records, there has been an exercise in deceit from the word go. We know that Ted Heath, in presenting it to the British people as merely a common market, was signing up to the political project that we see now. We need not just dwell on the origins of the problem, because in the previous Parliament my party’s Government said that they would offer a referendum on the constitution. Of course, what we did not notice was that they were going to decide whether it was a constitution, and they decided that it was not. They said that they would have a referendum on it, but then said, “Oh, it’s rather too late now for the people to have such a vote.” Over the years, there has been a growth in cynicism among the electorate about whether we as parliamentarians are ever going to deal seriously with the issue, and that is what we ought to address tonight.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very fair-minded, so I put it to him that there is a massive difference between the Labour Government’s promise on the constitution/Lisbon treaty and the Conservative party’s leadership saying, once the cheque had been cashed and the treaty ratified, that holding a referendum on it was pointless. It was not a betrayal, it was recognition of the betrayal carried out by the Labour party.

[Mr Field]

I disagree with that. Part of the reason for rearranging our procedures in the House and giving the Backbench Business Committee more power was to try to strike a new relationship with the electorate. What has happened? We are now having a debate that the Government presumably did not want us to have, and they are railroading their Members into supporting them with a three-line Whip. The same is happening on our side of the House.

The truth is that the Government have scored an own goal. The second big change in the House in the years I have been here, along with the cancerous effect of Europe on our democracy in this country, is that the Conservative party has changed radically. People watching the debate tonight need only look at the number of Conservative Members who wish to participate and the number of Labour Members who wish to participate. When I first came here, if someone raised the issue of Europe regularly they were cast as being slightly bonkers or very bonkers. Now we see that the Conservative party has genuinely changed on the issue. Thanks to the Government’s ham-fisted approach in imposing a three-line Whip, the country will not see how significant that change has been and how in tune the Conservative party now is with both Conservative and Labour voters in the country.

I make a plea to Members on my own side of the House. We are getting it wrong on the issue of the representation of England and appear to be a party controlled by our Scottish colleagues. Increasingly, the question will be how England is represented in this Parliament, and so far we are on the wrong side of that debate. Again tonight, by trying to force Members into the Lobby in support of the Government stance, we are in danger of alienating many Labour voters.

When I first stood for election, the turnout was 85%. Last time, it was 60%. How have we managed to turn off 25% of the electorate? It comes down to our conduct as politicians. We were going to make a small move by having debates that we, Back Benchers, could control, but the Government decided it would be better to clobber us with—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to participate in tonight’s historic debate. We have heard many great, passionate speeches from both sides of the House, but none more so than from the Government Benches, many Members seeing this as an opportunity to strike out against over-whipped government and to seek a return to more democratic values.

I consider myself to be a Eurosceptic, so I find myself in a strange position: I will vote against the motion, but not because I have been leant on by any Whips. I came to that conclusion prior to the first call. It is an insight into the co-ordination of Whips that you tell one at length, then another one rings you up anyway. They could get more co-ordinated.

To follow on from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), it is a shame that tonight has gone the way it has, though it is unfair to say that the Government have not allowed debate. From a party political management perspective, it may have been naïve to do what the Government have done. They brought the debate forward to today, the Prime Minister through his statement was able to participate, and the Foreign Secretary led for the Government. Far from stifling debate, therefore, the Government at the highest level have engaged with it. Whether that was wise party management I leave to others to judge, but I think it probably was not.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who gave a powerful speech, I believe in parliamentary democracy. I do not believe parliamentary democracy puts down the small people. I know my hon. Friend has strong beliefs, which he has espoused over many years, including a belief in direct democracy. He has an agenda for direct democracy. He does not believe in the representative democracy that I believe in.

I do not believe that we are delegates. I am not about the percentage of my constituents who believe a particular thing. I should be out there listening to them, and I was out there on Saturday at my street surgery. The previous weekend I spent all day going round the villages listening to people and hearing from them, but it is not my job to do whatever the percentage majority tell me to do. My job is to come to this place and do the best I can by the people whom I represent.

[Mark Reckless]

Can representative democracy work only if we keep our promises to the electorate? On this issue, all three major parties promised a referendum and we are not giving it.

[Mr Stuart]

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, that is one of the great myths that has been peddled. He does a disservice to the party. As I said in an intervention earlier, I honestly believe that the Prime Minister was not reneging on the promise on Lisbon when it had been ratified. If I had promised a board meeting before a payment goes out and someone else pays it out, the cheque is cashed and I do not hold a board meeting to discuss the cheque that has already been cashed—I am not reneging on anything; I am simply recognising the reality. I do not believe that the Conservative party or the Prime Minister reneged on any promise.

The manifesto on which I and my hon. Friend stood in 2010 made no promise of any referendum whatsoever. What it did promise—I say this gently to my colleagues tonight—was to bring in a referendum lock if there was to be further treaty change. I recognise and my hon. Friends point out that some powers leak and leech away without a treaty in prospect. The passage of a European Union treaty, however, was historic in this Parliament and this democracy. There will come a time when a treaty triggers the provision, and it will not be far off—I do not believe that the Government can slip vast powers under it. The truth is that that time is coming and we are winning the argument. The last thing we need to do is fight among ourselves. We must recognise that we are carrying the British people, who are more Eurosceptic, with us.

I continue to believe that we are better off within the European Union, although I am open to persuasion that we could be better off out. Some colleagues who believe that passionately are using today’s debate as a Trojan horse. I respect their view, but I think that the three-part nature of the motion is confusion and that the suggestion that we can somehow mandate the Government to renegotiate is false. I do not see how we can do that. The Government must lead and get the best position they can. When they come back with a treaty, as I am sure they will in the not-too-distant future, it will be put to the British people. That will be the time to do it. I do not think that it is disingenuous to talk about timing.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My hon. Friend touches on a central point, which is that not all of us feel that we would be better off out of the EU. Many of us want the common market we signed up for, more free trade and less of the baggage. Is that not the direction of travel in which we should be headed?

[Mr Stuart]

I agree. Colleagues might say tonight with a wry smile that they, too, like the Prime Minister, believe in nudge theory. They would say that the motion, the strong debate and the number of Members who will be in the Aye Lobby will tell the Government how seriously members of our party feel on the matter, and they may have a point. My constituents, whom I have sensibly been talking and listening to, are not telling me that this is top of their list of priorities. At the top of their list are jobs, employment and the need to ensure that we do not put people in the dole queue, particularly young people, as one of the Labour party’s toxic legacies was to leave so many young people not in education, employment or training.

Our duty is to move very coolly on this subject. The time will come when we will have a referendum. We should not pass the motion tonight. We should absolutely listen to our constituents, who are telling us that they have priorities above and beyond the obsession in certain parts of the Conservative party with Europe above all other issues.