UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No, I do not accept that at all. I have to say to the hon. Lady that, sadly, she and some Labour Members seem to be the first to defend the country’s enemies and the last to accept these capabilities when we need them.

None of this means that there will be no threat from nuclear states in the coming decades. As I will set out for the House today, the threats from countries such as Russia and North Korea remain very real. As our strategic defence and security review made clear, there is a continuing risk of further proliferation of nuclear weapons. We must continually convince any potential aggressors that the benefits of an attack on Britain are far outweighed by their consequences; and we cannot afford to relax our guard or rule out further shifts that would put our country in grave danger. We need to be prepared to deter threats to our lives and our livelihoods, and those of generations who are yet to be born.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Of course, when SNP Members go through the Lobby tonight, 58 of Scotland’s 59 MPs will be voting against this. What message is the Prime Minister sending to the people of Scotland, who are demonstrating, through their elected representatives, that we do not want Trident on our soil?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that means that 58 of the 59 Scottish Members of Parliament will be voting against jobs in Scotland that are supported by the nuclear deterrent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

That was a totally ridiculous intervention, which is not worthy of a reply. The hon. Gentleman might like to consider what kind of aggressor we might face in the future. We are not just talking about a resurgent Russia. What about groups of nations or individual nations? We know that nuclear weapons have proliferated in recent years. As we have reduced our arsenal, others have increased theirs. He needs to think not just about today, and not just about himself and his constituents, but about the future generations whom we are talking about protecting.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Benyon]

No, I will not take any more interventions.

We have to think through the recent conflicts in our lifetime: not conflicts in which nuclear retaliation would ever have been appropriate, but the Yom Kippur war, the Falklands—mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—the invasion of Kuwait, 9/11 and even last week’s coup in Turkey. We did not know that they were going to happen. Who can say that we would be any the wiser in the event of a coup de main operation that might not have happened if the potential enemy had been deterred by our possession of weapons that made them sit up and think? We need potential enemies to hold in their mind the fact that there is no advantage to them in aggression.

I have spoken tonight about our constituents and about future generations, but let us also talk about the concept of using nuclear weapons. There is a good, honest and decent concept, which goes back many generations and which I can respect, of disarmament and pacifism in this country. I happen to think that in this context it is wrong, but we can respect it. When people talk about using nuclear weapons, they need to understand the doctrine that governs them. Our nuclear deterrent has been used every single day of every single year for which it has been deployed. It does what it says on the tin; it deters.

I am sorry to say it, but no one believes that an independent Scotland would suddenly start to invest in Type 26 destroyers, fast jets and all the other paraphernalia of a nation that somehow wants to engage in the world in the way that Britain does. SNP Members’ sudden attraction to the idea of massive defence spending is complete nonsense.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

Before the proposal for independence was rejected in the referendum, there was a debate about whether we would have the nuclear weapons in the south-west, and I think most people said, “Yes, of course we will.” Other MPs representing the south-west have spoken in the debate, and we would certainly welcome the jobs and investment involved.

Let us be clear about the choice before the House today. It is whether to have a deterrent. I have listened to some of the alternatives that have been put forward today, and I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) would find it useful to visit Coulport and see what is actually there. That might help his knowledge. It has been suggested that we might put something on an Astute-class submarine. I think it is safe to say that no nation, seeing a cruise missile coming towards it, is going to wait until the thing detonates to find out whether it is a conventional missile or a nuclear missile. That proposal would also involve far more risk to the submariners, because they would have to get much closer to the country that we were deterring. The operations would also have to become more sneaky. People might think that a submarine might want to act sneakily in order to remain hidden, but that is not the case. The idea behind a ballistic missile capability is that it assures people that we can provide a credible deterrent and a credible response to a nuclear attack, either on ourselves or on our allies, but also that it provides other nations with an assurance that we are not planning a sneaky first strike. If we had the kind of technology that some have suggested, it would simply undermine the situation and provoke worry and fear in others.

It is also worth looking at what we have done to reduce our own nuclear weapons. The RAF no longer has strategic bombers, and we have also removed the weapons from Royal Navy shipping. I think that we are the only one of the declared nuclear powers that has nuclear weapons on one platform only. That is the real way to reduce the nuclear threat, not through some gesture towards disarmament.

Is the nuclear deterrent still needed? To answer that question, we need to look at the alternatives. One of the alternatives put forward is to rely on article V of the north Atlantic treaty—that is what the SNP proposes. NATO is not just a conventional alliance but a nuclear one, yet the SNP would wish to join it. I find it interesting that the SNP wants a nuclear-weapons-free Scotland, yet when I enjoyed all 670 pages of “Scotland’s Future”—the White Paper for independence—I found that it contained the classic comment that the SNP would still allow NATO vessels to visit without confirming or denying whether they carried nuclear weapons. In effect, the SNP’s own version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” A big ballistic submarine could still pull up, but that would be all right, because the SNP would not have asked the question.

[Ian Blackford]

What the SNP wants is to be a member of NATO and for NATO to be nuclear-free. That would be the best solution. There is a choice between investing in Trident and extra investment in conventional arms, because the reality is that no conventional surface warships are based in Scotland. We heard about the Falklands earlier, but there are no warships in the Falklands. We are not taking up the responsibilities that we should be. Should we not fix that rather than waste £200 billion on weapons of mass destruction?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to expose some of the holes in his defence knowledge. The Royal Navy regularly bases a capital ship around the Falklands when the needs demand it, and there is also an offshore patrol vessel down there.

We have heard in today’s debate that nuclear weapons do not deter Daesh, but a battle tank will not deal with a cyber threat and an infantryman will not shoot down a high-altitude jet aircraft. The reality is that we need to consider the spread of current threats and possible future threats and then look at what we put into them. Could we, as a NATO member, realistically face nuclear blackmail? Yes we could. Vladimir Putin is not revamping Russia’s nuclear capability because he wants it to appear at an air show.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I regret that the Prime Minister has come to the House today and the first thing that she has tried to force through is a motion to commit this country to spending up to £200 billion over the next few decades on weapons of mass destruction. Where is the leadership? Where is the vision?

I welcome the Prime Minister to her position, and I wish her well over the next few years, but let us put this in the context of a Government who lecture us about fiscal responsibility. When the Prime Minister was asked twice by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) to tell us what the cost of Trident replacement would be, she refused to answer. Every single Conservative Member will march through the Lobby and give a blank cheque to the Government. Do not lecture us about fiscal responsibility; that is fiscal irresponsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) asked the Prime Minister if she is prepared to press the button. Her answer was yes. Have we forgotten the lessons of Hiroshima, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) spoke about? Are we prepared to obliterate humanity? That is the result of pressing the button. We on the SNP Benches are not prepared to put a price on humanity by backing weapons of mass destruction. It is immoral.

We have to face up to the fact that this country’s conventional capability has been stripped to the bone. There is currently not a single surface vessel in Scotland, and the UK Navy has 17 frigates and destroyers—that is all. The Falklands, which we fought to defend as we entered the 1980s, does not have a warship stationed by it. We should be investing in conventional defence and taking care of our responsibilities in respect of terrorism, not investing in rusting hulks that will do nothing for humanity and nothing for our defence. In the context of Scotland, we now know that the price of Trident is that the contract for the Type 26 frigates has been put back. Workers in Scotland face redundancy as a consequence of this Government’s actions.

I shall conclude, as I want to let colleagues in. Fifty-eight Members from Scotland will be voting against the motion tonight. Scotland is speaking with a very clear voice: we do not want these weapons of mass destruction. Let me say to the House that this will be another nail in the coffin of the Union. If the House rejects what the people of Scotland want, which is the removal of these weapons from our soil, ultimately my country will be independent and free of nuclear weapons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

3. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the effect of the outcome of the EU referendum on Scotland.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the effect of the outcome of the EU referendum on Scotland.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

5. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the outcome of the EU referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I confirm that the Scottish Government will be at the heart of the negotiation process. I can also confirm today that I and my Cabinet colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who is responsible for the European unit within the Government, will meet the First Minister next week to discuss how that might be achieved.

[Ian Blackford]

The Secretary of State says he is a democrat. Will he support the long-established position in Scotland that sovereignty rests with the people? Now that the Parliament has said that we wish to negotiate Scotland’s remaining in the single market, will he stand up for those rights? Is he Scotland’s man in the Cabinet, or is he, as we suspect, the Cabinet’s man in Scotland?

[David Mundell]

I expect slightly more original lines from the hon. Gentleman. My position is clear: I very much welcome any initiative pursued by the First Minister or by the Scottish Government that can be to the benefit of Scotland without being to the detriment of the rest of the United Kingdom. I look forward to hearing from the First Minister when I meet her next week how the various initiatives she is pursuing are going. We want to work together. Businesses in Scotland yesterday made it very clear that they want a Team UK approach: the Scottish Government and the UK Government working in tandem in the best interests of Scotland.

Outcome of the EU Referendum

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There are a number of decisions that we are going to have to look at in the light of the new circumstances with which we are faced. I will be doing that over the coming days. I want to make sure that this Parliament is still debating, discussing and deciding important issues, and I will set out in the days to come what I think those important issues should be.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Is this not the biggest foreign policy disaster for a Conservative Prime Minister since Eden and Suez? Specifically on the Scottish question, if the Scottish Parliament, backed by the Scottish people, calls for a referendum on Scotland’s independence in Europe, will the right hon. Gentleman leave a note for the next Prime Minister to say, “You must accede to the wishes of the Scottish people and allow that referendum”?

[The Prime Minister]

The question is not “Could there be a second referendum?”, but “Should there be a second referendum?” I do not believe there should be. That is the point that I would make. It is not clear from the Daily Record poll today that the Scottish people want a second referendum. They, like me, want to focus on getting the best relationship for the United Kingdom with Europe. Let us try and keep all these single markets together.

Debate on the Address

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

Right. I noticed that the body language was a bit hostile. There is a debate to be had about what form of electoral system should be used. Some favour single transferrable vote and others favour the additional member system. Let us just agree that surely first past the post has had its day. It is long past its sell-by date.

Let me move on to issues that were not but should have been in the Queen’s Speech. I want to consider justice and home affairs. The UK Government’s approach to immigration has been heavy-handed and one size fits all, and has only fuelled the misconceptions about migrants. The Government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, by public opinion on issues such as unaccompanied children on the European continent. The Prime Minister needed to be reminded of the UK’s role in the 1930s in taking in unaccompanied children from the European continent, and I commend him for thinking about that issue again. I hope that those changes can be brought about quickly so that those children arrive in the UK as soon as possible, and I reiterate that I hope he does not see 3,000 children as the height of his ambition.

Putting the Human Rights Act in danger is a matter of great concern to a great number of us—indeed, I would go so far as to say that I do not think the idea has a majority in the House of Commons. The Scottish National party will be happy to work with Members across the House, and we may even have started discussions with some right hon. and hon Members on that subject. We will work together to ensure that human rights are not undermined in the UK, and we will always seek to protect the national and transnational legislation that underpins human rights in our country.

The SNP’s alternative Queen’s Speech would deliver a more measured approach to migration and reaffirm the importance of human rights. Why not have a migration Bill to ensure that the UK maximises the benefits of migration and that people who come to the UK are treated with respect? Why do the Government not report annually on migration forecasts, and produce a strategy that includes plans to maximise the benefits of migration? How about reversing changes to immigration laws that prevent UK citizens from living here with their partners and children from overseas? Those laws deprive businesses and public services of key staff, and prevent universities from competing for the brightest international students. How about reversing cuts to support for asylum seekers, and adopting a strategy of providing integration opportunities from day one? How about reintroducing a post-study work visa? All that could have been in the Queen’s Speech. Sadly it was not, but—I am looking at those on the Treasury Bench—there is still time.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

If we had a post-work study visa, families such as the Brains in my constituency, who are being forced out by this Government, would be able to stay in the highlands and make a valuable contribution to our economy.

[Angus Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point—[Interruption.] I notice the Foreign Secretary shaking his head because he thinks that is a bad idea, but I ask him to please consider that case, that family, and their qualifications. Those are the kind of people we need. Scotland’s problem has never been immigration; it has been emigration. People have come to our shores from all kinds of countries, and they have contributed in all kinds of ways that have made Scotland the country it is today. I appeal to the Prime Minister and the Home Office to consider that case and reverse the ruling.

On human rights and enhancing equalities law, what about preventing the revocation of the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to any devolved nation, without the express consent of the Parliament or Assembly of that nation? How about modernising the Equality Act 2010 to strengthen the rights and liberties of citizens across the UK? How about affirming and protecting the role of the European convention on human rights in the UK through entrenchment? The SNP is in favour of that, and we would welcome the Government thinking likewise, although unfortunately that is unlikely.

On social justice, the Government have orchestrated truly devastating cuts that have destroyed the safety net that social security should provide, and any of us who hold regular surgeries know that to be true. Instead of “business as usual” the Government should return to the drawing board on social security and abandon their austerity agenda. The cuts have butchered the aspects of universal credit that might—might—have created work incentives, and instead they have hammered low-paid workers. The time is up for universal credit, and the Government need to find a fairer solution and an alternative for children, for working, low-income families, and for disabled people.

ISIL in Syria

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will give way in two minutes. Some 800 people, including families and children, have been radicalised to such an extent that they have travelled to this so-called caliphate. The House should be under no illusion: these terrorists are plotting to kill us and to radicalise our children right now. They attack us because of who we are, and not because of what we do.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, and I pay tribute to his constituent’s son. We will be part of the de-confliction process that already exists between those coalition partners flying in Syria and the Russians. Of course, our own aeroplanes have the most advanced defensive air suites possible to make sure that they are kept safe. The argument that I was making is one reason why members of the international coalition, including President Obama and President Hollande, who made these points to me personally, believe that British planes would make a real difference in Syria, just as they are already doing in Iraq.

[Ian Blackford]

I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. It is important in this debate that there is respect across the House. In that spirit of respect, he must—he has been asked before—apologise for the slur that was put on every Opposition Member last night. He should do it now, and let us have a proper debate.

[The Prime Minister]

We are going to vote either way tonight—either vote is an honourable vote. I suggest that we get on with the debate that the country wants to hear.

In many ways, what I have just said helps to answer the next question that some Members have asked about why we do not simply increase our level of airstrikes in Iraq to free up coalition capacity for strikes in Syria. We have the capabilities that other members of the Coalition want to benefit from, and it makes absolutely no sense to stop using these capabilities at a border between Iraq and Syria that Daesh simply does not recognise or respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is not part of the motion today, so we move on with this debate.

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister understands that public opinion is moving increasingly against what I believe to be an ill-thought-out rush to war. He wants to hold this vote before opinion against it grows even further. Whether it is a lack of strategy worth the name, the absence of credible ground troops, the missing diplomatic plan for a Syrian settlement, the failure to address the impact of the terrorist threat or the refugee crisis and civilian casualties, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Prime Minister’s proposals for military action simply do not stack up.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the case has not been made. Under the circumstances and the slur on Opposition Members, will he reconsider the importance of the Labour party, in its entirety, joining those on the Scottish National party Benches in opposing the Government, and whip the Labour MPs to make sure the Government are defeated on the motion?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Every MP has to make a decision today, every MP has a vote today, every MP has a constituency, and every MP should be aware of what constituents’ and public opinion is. They will make up their own mind. Obviously, I am proposing that we do not support the Government’s motion tonight and I encourage all colleagues on all sides to join me in the Lobby tonight to oppose the Government’s proposals.

Last week, the Prime Minister focused his case for bombing in Syria on the critical test set by the very respected cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee. Given the holes in the Government’s case, it is scarcely surprising that last night the Committee reported that the Prime Minister had not “adequately addressed concerns”. In other words, the Committee judged that the Prime Minister’s case for bombing has failed its tests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, in which strongly held views are being put forward with passion but also with respect for the other side’s point of view. I follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who I have known for many years, but I rise to support the motion. I well remember back in 2003 sitting on the Opposition Benches—very much second-class seats compared with those on this side of the House—in the third row back, studying the face of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as he made his case for the invasion of Iraq. Of course, none of us ever votes lightly to send our forces to war. I have 42 Commando in my constituency—magnificent Royal Marines—and knew that if we voted to send them into battle not all of them would come back and not all of them would come back in one piece. That was a very weighty matter.

I have acknowledged publicly that that decision was a mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction and going to war on a false premise was a serious matter, perhaps the most serious thing—the worst thing—that a Government can ever do in a mature democracy, but just because it was wrong to invade Iraq in 2003, that does not mean that it is wrong today to join our allies in the bombing of Daesh in Syria. If we are to keep our citizens safe here in the United Kingdom, we have to take the fight to Daesh and to destroy them where they are as well as protecting ourselves in our own land through our excellent security forces and police.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on what he has been saying about the dodgy dossier we had on Iraq, having heard from the Chairman of the Defence Committee, in particular, that the stories of the 70,000 troops are something of a fantasy? Given that they are central to the Government’s story and strategy, will he reflect on what we have been told about those 70,000?

[Mr Streeter]

I certainly do not accept that the Syrian Free Army of 70,000 is a fantasy. There are different views, but I prefer to trust the Prime Minister’s security briefing and I certainly take a lot of comfort from that.

I recognise that bombing alone will not solve the problem and that revenge for the Paris attacks is not a sufficient motivation, but I am fully persuaded that we cannot do nothing. I realise that bombing must be part of a much wider response—a response that the Prime Minister set out last week and again today in very credible terms—and I realise that it does not lie within the gift or power of European nations alone to resolve these deep-rooted and complex regional conflicts, but just because we cannot do everything, it does not mean we should do nothing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, to be called in this important debate.

We have heard many speeches from both sides which have shown considerable passion and a surprising degree of knowledge and commitment. This has been one of the best debates that I have had the privilege to participate in. If we are to look at the question cleanly and lucidly, we have to try to remove the impassioned speeches. As others have mentioned, everyone in the House is equally appalled by the barbarous crimes of ISIL or Daesh. We are united in that. No one can claim the moral high ground by being more against ISIL or Daesh than anyone else. What we have to do as legislators is look at the premise of the argument and at what the Government are trying to do.

The Government, in a way that is historically and constitutionally not usual, are asking the House of Commons to extend a campaign for which the House voted overwhelmingly in a previous Parliament only 18 months ago. The vote was something like 524 to 43. This gave the Prime Minister and the Government authority to launch attacks on Daesh in Iraq. For the life of me I have not been able to understand why those people who in the last Parliament voted for intervention in Iraq draw the line, so to speak, in Syria.

Those borders, as everyone knows, are incredibly artificial. After 1918, they moved around two or three times. The Sykes-Picot agreement that people go on about did not define Iraq and Syria. It simply defined regions within those countries, which were under British and French rule in the form of a mandate.

[Ian Blackford]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to understand some of the problems for those of us who oppose the motion. We all want to see peace and stability. All of us in the House agree on that, but the difficulty we have is that we cannot see that the air campaign in itself will defeat Daesh. We now know that the 70,000 troops do not exist. How are we going to defeat Daesh? It is not clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

May I pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for your incredible stamina this afternoon, which I have been unable to match?

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for her impassioned speech. Like her, I have recently visited refugee camps. A few weeks ago, I was in Gaziantep, talking to refugees in a camp near the border between Turkey and Syria. There were rows of containers converted into two-room dwellings, a school and a clinic. It was basic, but sufficient. Without exception, however, every refugee I spoke to was desperate to leave, desperate for an end to the chaos and desperate for their children to grow up to live a decent life. There are millions of people who share that plea in countries around Syria and within it, and who want us to help bring about peace in Syria.

Compelling though that may sound, it is not a case for war. The justification for airstrikes in Syria is, first and foremost, that Daesh is a threat to our national security. It and its affiliates have targeted British people on holiday in Tunisia; through social media, where they incite young people to leave their homes and fight in Syria; and here in the UK, although their plots have been foiled so far.

As other Members have said, targeting Daesh in Iraq but stopping at the border does not make sense. If we are serious about reducing its ability to attack us, we have to degrade its capabilities in its heartland in Syria.

Secondly, we should stand by our allies. If we do not stand with France after the Paris attack, when will we? What confidence can our allies in the middle east have in us if we sit on our hands now? For months, they have called for us to play a leading role in the coalition against Daesh. We cannot ignore that call any longer. We have to restore their faith in us as an ally.

Of course there are concerns, and we in this House are right to raise them. Is this another Iraq? My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) spoke sagely on that point. I am reassured that we have learned the lessons, but we should be careful that the mistakes of the past do not mar our judgment in the present.

Airstrikes will degrade Daesh but not defeat it, so what will happen next? Some boots on the ground will be needed and one group of terrorists must not be replaced by another. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) said, we may search in vain for certainty. One thing that I believe for certain is that the coalition, with Britain as part of it, must commit to seeing this through.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Hon. Members]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

We stood with the Kurds a year ago. This Parliament voted to intervene when the murderous thugs of Daesh were on their way to overrun the Kurdish Autonomous Region, which could have resulted in a massacre on the same level as that of Srebrenica. Members of my party—and, to be fair, members of other parties—wanted to do something about that. Some of the arguments we have heard today have been in favour of pulling away the air support that has helped to prevent Daesh from massacring the Kurds. It is the air support—not warm words—that represents solidarity.

In approaching the motion, I have asked myself a number of questions. What specific objectives do we have for our involvement, along with our allies? Is there a clear legal basis for the action? What will a post-civil war Syria look like? Who or what will be the Government there, and how will our intervention assist in bringing that about? The question of legality is now much easier to answer. There is a pretty clear UN Security Council resolution. Had that resolution not been passed, we would have been hearing today about how we needed such a resolution. Now we have one, we are hearing that it is not quite enough. The reality is that no resolution would be enough to satisfy some in this Chamber, despite the clear wording of the one that we now have. The action is definitely legal.

What are our specific objectives? The ultimate objective is to clear Daesh away from the territory it controls, which gives it its power base.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of interventions. I will not take this one.

This is about ensuring that we can assist our allies. It would be ludicrous if our allies were fighting a Daesh unit and they reached an invisible line in the sand that happened to be the Syrian border—which Daesh does not recognise—and our allies had to say, “Sorry, you’ve gone one foot over the border. We’re not going to do anything more.” This is about being part of a coalition. [Interruption.] It is ironic that I am being shouted at by Opposition Members for not doing enough. The present situation is an argument to do more, not less.

I want to talk about what a post-war Syria would look like. That is what the Vienna process is there for. It is a negotiated agreement to deliver a stable Government in Syria for the future. [Interruption.] I must say that I always love having—

Syria: Refugees and Counter-terrorism

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Every country must take its own approach, and justify it to its Parliament and its people. I do think that the money we spend in Syrian refugee camps is hugely important, because it not only saves lives but gives people the chance of security and safety without having to make a perilous journey.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The mark of a civilised society is the way in which it deals with a humanitarian crisis. All of us have had full postbags over the past few weeks as people have reflected on the human misery and suffering that have taken place, and people in my constituency will reflect on the paucity of the response from the United Kingdom. When we see Germany taking in 10,000 refugees a day, talking about taking 20,000 people over five years is inexcusable. This Government should be ashamed of themselves. We have talked about the capacity to take people in. What is this country’s capacity to take real action to deal with this humanitarian crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, I think taking 20,000 people is the right response for the United Kingdom, and I think we should come together and work out how best our local councils and local voluntary groups can give those people a warm welcome.

Tributes to Charles Kennedy

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today as we pay tribute to the previous Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. Charles was a man who was clearly loved by many in this House, but he was also deeply loved by many in his constituency. The Prime Minister spoke about Charles winning the seat in 1983, when he came from fourth place to first. I suspect that many of his then colleagues in the Social Democratic party did not expect that Mr Kennedy would win that seat. There are legendary stories around Ross, Skye and Lochaber on the campaigning that took place back in 1983. Charles travelled around the constituency with his father, with his father playing the fiddle. What truly happened in that election campaign is that Charles charmed the constituents, just as he charmed others when he came into this House, when he burst on to the political scene and when he became a big figure, not only in Scotland, but on the world stage, as leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Charles loved campaigning. We saw in the recent general election campaign his desire to appear in front of the electorate at both his own public meetings and at hustings, where we saw that debating style that has been referred to by so many. It was an absolute privilege to campaign against him. When I look at the strength of the Scottish National party in the Chamber today—56 SNP members were elected—I see that truly the national tide meant Charles lost the seat of Ross, Skye and Lochaber.

Many have referred to Charles as that cheeky chappie, as we would call it in highland terms—they refer to that highland bravado that was demonstrated in his debating style—but we should also reflect that highland characters tend to be complex. While Charles had that exterior of wanting to engage in debate and to be jovial, there was also the private Charles, a man who had many traditional highland characteristics—he was a rather shy character as well, so there was a contrast between the two faces.

Much has been said about the humanity and the humility of the man himself. He was robust in debate, but had respect for those of all opinions, whether on the Iraq war or anything else. My abiding memory of Charles is not from the recent period, but from the first election to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I can recall that evening that Charles and I were in the television studios. Unlike the recent election, it was not a wonderful night for the SNP—it was not as great as we had hoped on that occasion. There were a number of seats that we would have liked to have won but did not. I was getting a hard time in debate. I remember Charles turning to me and consoling me. Rather than putting the boot in—if I may put it that way—he recognised the kind of evening we were having. That was the mark of the man: a decent, human man, who saw the struggles that others were going through.

I deeply regret, as my constituents will, the passing of this supremely talented man. Rest in peace.