Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend’s excellent speech. Does he agree that the issue is not just about supporting Israel’s right to exist; it is about supporting its right to defend itself?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about recognising that the country that will take the primary responsibility for defending the state of Israel is the state of Israel itself. We should defend that principle.

At this centenary moment we can with sadness observe—and we have this afternoon observed—that we have yet to see the completion of the vision for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Jewish state. That has been a difficult path, marked with false starts and missed opportunities, and it will ultimately require bold leadership and difficult compromises from both sides if progress is to be made. On my most recent visit to Israel in February, I was struck again by the number of Israelis from different walks of life who told me of their deep desire to live in peace and security. Those words, “peace and security”, are heard time and again in speaking to Israelis. I remain hopeful that we can reach that point, but, if we are being realistic, recent history does not provide much encouragement. The successive failures of the Palestinian leadership to grasp opportunities have already been pointed out this afternoon. I am reminded of the famous quotation by the former Israeli diplomat Abba Eban:

“Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”.

It is a great tragedy that Palestinians have been let down by successive poor leadership and poor decisions.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to redouble their efforts in pursuit of the two-state solution, and to do whatever they can, in a challenging and difficult environment, to get the two sides to speak to each other and pursue that course. I also encourage him to enjoy celebrating the Balfour centenary, and to do so with pride. It is important that we all do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady in the first instance to discuss this; we would like to extend all the consular assistance we possibly can to anyone in such circumstances.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Given the grave situation in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, what does my right hon. Friend think will be the impact on our currently deployed British Army teams who are training the peshmerga as we speak?

[Alistair Burt]

At present, I do not think there is any reason to change the arrangements of the armed forces who have worked with the peshmerga and have done such an outstanding job to push back Daesh. What we are all hoping for is that there will be no conflict in the area and that the determination already expressed by both sides to prevent any conflict will lead to a peaceful resolution of the current difficulties.

Kurdistan Region in Iraq

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Kurdistan region in Iraq.

Mr Davies, it is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I begin by declaring an interest. I travelled to Kurdistan in November 2016 as a guest of the Kurdistan Regional Government and I am now chair of the all-party group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq.

It is three years since the last debate here on the Kurdistan region, and everything has fundamentally changed in that time. The Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), earned much respect in his first stint as the Middle East Minister, and his wisdom, experience and expertise, not least with the Kurds, will be major assets in his second stint.

I have visited Kurdistan twice with the all-party group, which has done much in its 10 years of service to improve and increase understanding of Kurdistani issues. I use the term “Kurdistani” because Kurdistan contains non-Kurds as well; however, I refer only to the Kurdistan region in Iraq. I will start by testing key points and end with the measures that I believe require our Government’s help.

My basic points are that Iraqi federalism has sadly failed and cannot be revived, because the Shi’a majority has no appetite for federalism or minority rights. The Kurds voluntarily re-joined Iraq in 2003, on the basis of western and Iraqi promises that Iraq would be federal and democratic. This exercise of their right to self-determination did not expire on its first use. They cannot be forced into subordination by leaders in Baghdad. In effect, Iraq has severed itself from Kurdistan—it pays no budget contributions and does not help Arabs sheltering there—but recent co-operation between their separate militaries have been very successful indeed.

The Kurds have rejected the option of making a unilateral declaration of independence and wisely seek a reset of relations with Iraq, which could be much stronger without the constant internal disputes between Baghdad and Irbil. Sectarianism and centralisation caused the rise of Daesh and could do so again. A yes vote in September’s independence referendum in the Kurdistan region will lead to negotiations. The west should help, not least over the disputed territories, and the UK should send observers to the region during the referendum. In any case, the west should continue to nurture relations with the Kurds, as they are a beacon of moderation and pluralism and support for western values.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that the Kurdish people have helped to fight Daesh and have been a key ally to the western world?

[Jack Lopresti]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I absolutely agree. I will return to the peshmerga and the fight against Daesh later, but we owe the Kurds a huge debt of gratitude for what they are doing on a daily basis, including as we are here today.

I will briefly give some history. The treaty of Lausanne in 1923 led to the Turks formally ceding all earlier claims on Syria and Iraq and, along with the treaty of Ankara, settled the boundaries of the two nations. The earlier post-world war one discussions about a Kurdish state being formed after the break-up of the Ottoman empire, which had been nominally supported by the British, including Sir Winston Churchill, were absent from the treaty of Lausanne.

The Kurds have a long history of suffering second-class citizenship, and in the late 1980s they experienced genocide at the hands of Saddam Hussein—a genocide that was formally recognised by this House in 2013. From 1991 onwards, Sir John Major’s no-fly zone and safe haven protected the Iraqi Kurds from further attack by Saddam Hussein, and Tony Blair and George Bush’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein was welcomed by the Kurds as a liberation. Indeed, on my visits to the region I have personally been thanked for the British contribution to the liberation of Iraq.

The Kurds re-joined Iraq in 2003 and they have tried to make that arrangement work. They brokered a federal constitution, which was agreed by 80% of people in the Iraqi referendum in 2005. It enshrined a binational country of equals and, for instance, agreed a mechanism for resolving the status of the disputed territories. The deadline for that resolution was supposed to have been 2007, but it has still not been carried out. The end to federalism was demonstrated in February 2014 by Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki, who unconstitutionally cut all federal budget transfers to Kurdistan.

In June 2014, Daesh captured Mosul, took a third of the country and seized sophisticated American military kit, including lots of vehicles and heavy weapons. A Kurdistani offer of help before the attack was spurned. Maliki failed in the most vital duty of any leader, which is to uphold the security of the state and protect its people. So the Kurds suddenly acquired a 650-mile border with Daesh and there was an overnight influx of Iraqi Arabs from Mosul, who increased the population by a third, straining all public services to breaking point. Daesh attacked Kurdistan in August 2014 and came within 20 miles of the capital, Irbil, which was only saved by immediate American air strikes and other assistance.

Then, a massive slump in the price of oil exposed the inefficient nature of the Kurdistani economy—massive state employment, little productivity, a miniscule private sector and an almost complete reliance on energy revenues, which now came through independent exports via Turkey. The Kurds faced a perfect storm of crises and came through, not unscathed but in one piece. This highlights their great resilience.

The story of how the Kurds eventually united with the Iraqi army against Daesh is instructive. When I visited the Kirkuk frontline in November 2015, I was told that there was no co-ordination, or indeed any communication, between the peshmerga and the Iraqi army. A year later, with western support the two forces concluded a deal to continue to drive Daesh out of Mosul, and I saw for myself the result of that deal last November, both on the road to Mosul and inside Mosul. This unprecedented military partnership came despite the historic bad blood and bad feeling between the Kurds and the Iraqis, which largely exist because of the Iraqi army’s chemical weapons attacks on hundreds of villages and the extermination of nearly 200,000 people in the 1980s.

I will not focus on the moral reasons for airing arguments for Kurdish independence; instead, I will address the strategic gains for the west. Once Daesh is defeated in Mosul and later in Raqqa, the key question is how to prevent any such force re-emerging and how to undermine the ideological and political appeal of such “vile fascism”, as the KRG’s High Representative to the UK, Karwan Jamal Tahir, has put it.

We have to understand why many Sunnis came to believe that Daesh was less awful than Baghdad. Many could not accept the loss of the privileges they had enjoyed under Saddam. Thanks to the Kurds, however, Sunnis joined power-sharing Governments in Baghdad, and their militias and tribes helped to defeat the al-Qaeda insurgency in 2007-08.

However, the immediate consequence of the disastrous American decision to withdraw all its forces, a decision favoured by Maliki, was that Maliki brutally repressed Sunni civil rights protests. Sunnis had seen how badly Shi’a politicians had treated the Kurds and concluded that they themselves could face worse.

The central task now is to eradicate the drivers of Sunni radicalism and protect minorities, who have suffered rape, murder and dispossession by Sunni neighbours, as well as facing the massive cost of reconstruction and the need for a “Marshall plan of the mind” to tackle the deep traumas of those who were raped in their thousands and saw their menfolk slaughtered. The Kurdistanis also need devolved governance.

Already, we see that the old centralising is in contention; and it would be odd—bizarre, even—if the status of Kurdistan was not part of the conversation after Daesh. There are those who say that this is the wrong time, citing internal division in Kurdistan, the starkest symbol of which is the paralysis of its Parliament. I hope that the continuing negotiations, which have involved our diplomats, will resolve the dispute. As candid friends, we must continue to put pressure on the Kurds, so that their Parliament sits again and there is a functioning democracy as quickly as possible.

The state of the economy is another reason why some people say that now is the wrong time for the Kurds to consider, ask for and seek their own independence. However, I take the point made by the Kurdistani leader and former Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, that

“if we wait for all the problems to be resolved, we will have to wait forever”.

I commend the reforms of Prime Minister Barzani and Deputy Prime Minister Talabani: aligning revenues with state spending and introducing better forms of identification of the work force, to eliminate double-jobbing and ghost workers. They have much further to go, but statehood could end excuses for neglecting reform and allow access to development funds that are conditional on such reform.

The Kurds reckon that old foes are weaker or amenable to a potential independence deal, agreed with Baghdad. Turkey, Kurdistan’s major trading partner, could see Kurdistan as a major source of secure energy supplies, an interlocutor with the Kurds in Turkey, and a buffer between Turkey, Sunnis and Shi’as. Iran, of course, is resolutely opposed, but it is, thankfully, under intense pressure from America and the Gulf states and has absolutely no right to veto Kurdish independence. Arab-Iraqis adore Kurdistan, as Shimal Habib—the beloved north—thanks to the holidays they have there, enjoying the temperate climate and the hospitality. But Bagdad has refused to treat the Kurdish region fairly or with any good will. As for the bilateral relationship, the Kurds see us as a partner of choice, and the APPG supports a bigger British footprint in Kurdistan.

There are three specific issues I would like the Minister to address in his remarks. The first is the peshmerga. The gallant, brave, wonderful peshmerga are fighting Daesh on the ground, and that helps to secure our own security, freedoms and way of life. One of my most moving visits was when I went to see wounded peshmerga soldiers in Irbil. Many seriously injured soldiers are beyond the capacity of the medical facilities and the health system there, and I have asked two Prime Minister’s questions urging the British Government to supply a small number of beds at Queen Elizabeth hospital Birmingham because, as I am sure we agree, we owe the peshmerga a huge debt of honour and gratitude.

The second matter is visas. The visa application system is a vexed issue and the rejection rate has increased from 55% to 66%. We need up-to-date figures, and I ask the Minister to help with that. Entry clearance officers have perhaps three minutes to examine an application, and any small query means a no. One application was rejected due to a small discrepancy over claimed income, even though exchange rates had moved in the intervening days. Such issues are not clarified because we no longer interview and our diplomats and Ministers can no longer intervene to assert a national interest. We should, of course, police and secure our borders, but we must, looking forward to a post-Brexit world, encourage people to do business and holiday here, and not make it excessively difficult for them to do so.

Thirdly, on bilateral relations, the KRG’s Prime Minister visited the UK in May 2014, and we established a joint committee, which was obviously then overtaken by events. When will the committee begin to function or a new committee be set up? I urge the Government to invite the Prime Minister or the new President of Kurdistan to meet our Prime Minister.

Today’s debate coincides with independence day in the United States. The Kurdish people will decide in their referendum in September whether they, too, want to be an independent state.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I think I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s speech carefully. Is he really saying that a vote for independence by the Kurds in Iraq would be welcomed in Ankara?

[Jack Lopresti]

What I am saying is that the moods have shifted. I am not saying it would be welcomed, but I hope that, looking towards perhaps more co-operation and trade, we might get a better response than we had anticipated.

We can be optimistic and helpful in whatever discussions and negotiations follow on from the referendum, but whatever the people decide, the UK and the KRG have a lot in common, and our special relationship must be nurtured and developed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Lopresti]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene; I am enjoying his speech. On the military support we have given the peshmerga, some have said it has been inadequate and some have said we could do a bit more, but, importantly, there has been a shortage of body armour, helmets and respirators. Does he agree that we have a responsibility to make sure not only that they are properly equipped and armed, but that they have access to medical care and treatment as well?

[Leo Docherty]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue is not only about arming, but about protecting and providing facilities.

We are still living with the legacy of the unintended consequences of the 2003 liberation of Iraq and the end of Saddam’s tyranny. One of the most important unintended consequences is the fact that Iran is strategically dominant: the presence of Iran-backed Shi’ite militias across Iraq indicates a new-found political dominance of the Shi’a crescent by Iran. When Mosul falls, an Iran-controlled land corridor will link the Islamic Republic to its ally Hezbollah on the Mediterranean. That is likely to have increasingly serious regional implications. We must plan accordingly, with our allies.

Furthermore, today the viability of the state of Iraq is called into question, as it has been on a number of occasions since 2003. I want to be clear that I hope that the state of Iraq as a federal state is indeed still viable. However, the Kurdish hold on Kirkuk, the impending referendum, which hon. Members have mentioned, and the likely antipathy, when Mosul is liberated, from among the Sunni population towards the Baghdad Government, are factors that will shape the future of Iraq and they are beyond our control.

My experience as a soldier in Iraq has taught me that British direct involvement in its politics rarely meets with success. However, we are doing what we must continue to do and what we do best: engaging in full-throttle defence diplomacy to help the Kurds to defend their interests, and ours at the same time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes his point well. The United Kingdom provides support to those who are imperilled by Daesh and those who fight it through legitimate means. The British military is involved in a coalition—that job is being done. Much though people may feel inspired to go out to the region, the United Kingdom Government does not support that, as we are engaged in other ways.

[Jack Lopresti]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

Briefly. I am keen to make progress to get on to my hon. Friend’s questions.

[Jack Lopresti]

Although I recognise, accept and agree with the Minister’s position on British nationals going to fight for the peshmerga, does he agree that there is no moral equivalent between people who go to fight with Daesh and people who volunteer to serve with the peshmerga?

[Alistair Burt]

Absolutely. There is no moral equivalent whatever, and I was not making that point; I was merely making the point that the United Kingdom Government are supporting those who are countering the most evil force, and that is the right way to do it. We counsel caution to those who wish to do it any other way.

In addition to the military support that I mentioned, the UK Government have provided £169.5 million in life-saving humanitarian aid to Iraq since June 2014, which has helped to support internally displaced people across Iraq, including those hosted in the Kurdistan region.

The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) mentioned the women who have been captured and used by Daesh forces. I absolutely take her point about support from clinical psychologists; I will make inquiries about that. Yet another previous role of mine was Minister for mental health, so I am aware of the importance of that work and I will look to see what may be available. I am the United Kingdom’s commissioner for the International Commission on Missing Persons, and at a recent meeting in Stockholm I met a Yazidi woman who had escaped but whose mother and sister were still being held captive. As was mentioned, providing evidence for what may well turn out to be war crimes is of significant importance. Gathering evidence and, in time, using that evidence is as important as ensuring that those who are lost are recovered and missing no longer.

Let me turn to the specific questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke asked. I will look at the specific item that he mentioned about medical assistance. Such assistance is not disaggregated, so I will look at what specifically goes to the Kurdish region. I take his point about visas, which are a constant issue in the middle east. I will discuss that with the Home Office, which is responsible for visas. We will welcome Kurdish officials meeting the Prime Minister in due course. The Prime Minister has not yet met Prime Minister Abadi, which should come first, but I take my hon. Friend’s point carefully.

I must mention the referendum before I give my hon. Friend the chance to wrap up. We understand the aspirations of the Kurdish people and will continue to support them politically, culturally and economically within Iraq, but we also believe that a referendum on independence risks detracting from the more urgent priorities of defeating Daesh, stabilising liberated areas and addressing the long-term political, social and economic issues that led to Daesh’s rise. That is why we maintain that any referendum or political process towards independence must be agreed with the Government of Iraq in Baghdad and that unilateral moves towards independence would not be in the interests of the Kurdistan region, Iraq or wider regional stability. Our position is shared by many of our key allies. My sense is that those responsible in the Kurdish region understand that well, and we expect this matter to proceed with due care, recognising the sensitivities of disputed areas as well as other parts of Iraq.

[Jack Lopresti]

Thank you for your chairmanship of this debate, Mr Davies. I am hugely grateful to every colleague who came along to support it; there have been some very good interventions and great speeches.

The debate has, to a large degree, demonstrated and reinforced the British Parliament’s support, affection and understanding of the Iraqi Kurdish people. I want again to put my thanks and appreciation on the record with respect to the peshmerga. The Minister referred to this, but I remind him that although training, equipment and war-fighting capabilities are important, those things have a cost and we must be mindful of the medical care and support that some of the peshmerga are not getting. Whatever the Kurdish people decide in the referendum in September, the British Government need to get fully behind them and continue to develop our relationships on security, trade, business and democracy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Kurdistan region in Iraq.

Britain-Iran Relations

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Seema Kennedy]

I think that jaw-jaw is always better than war-war, and we have to consider all options before we enter into any military action.

In January this year we reached implementation day, when it was agreed by the observing authorities that Iran had reduced its uranium stockpile, cut its capacity to enrich uranium and modified the heavy water reactor at Arak. At that point the nuclear sanctions were lifted. I will not address the rights and wrongs of the nuclear deal, as many other hon. Members can speak on that, but I contend that the deal has made the region safer.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and making a very good speech. Hon. Members have spoken about the success of the nuclear deal. Iran is reported to have launched up to nine ballistic missile tests, in defiance of UN Security Council resolution 2231, since the deal was agreed in July 2015. It is still the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism and is funding chaos, havoc and murder right across the region through its proxies. So what is my hon. Friend’s view of the success of the nuclear deal?

[Seema Kennedy]

I would say to my hon. Friend that the deal was limited to Iran’s nuclear programme. I agree that there are many points of difference between our Governments and I am sure the Minister will address them in his summing up.

The deal made the region safer by reducing the possibility of a nuclear stand-off between regional rivals at such a volatile time. It was an example of diplomacy in a part of the world where there has been too little of it.

Small Weapons Trade

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on the trade in small weapons.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I want to say at the outset that I have an interest in this topic. I am a Quaker attender, a member of Amnesty International and I have observed and documented peaceful protestors at the London arms fair at the ExCel centre.

I have called for this debate because some constituents who came to my surgery were concerned about the UK’s role in the small weapons trade. The weapons may be small, but I am sure the Minister will agree that the problem is not small. According to a Government briefing, there is one small weapon for every 10 human beings on the planet. We know from other work by non-governmental and Government organisations that between 60% and 90% of conflict deaths are caused by so-called small weapons. That means about 300,000 fatalities and about 900,000 injuries every year. As we know, in conflict situations, most deaths and injuries in this century have involved civilians. The problem is not small.

I have come across injuries from small weapons in my work as a doctor abroad. I have come across near-fatal injuries from rubber bullets and I have come across fatalities from live ammunition and dum-dum bullets. But I was most concerned about trade in small weapons when I was working in a peaceful setting in an African village with no electricity outside the hospital and no running water. There was an emergency one night—a young man had a gunshot wound—but we had no idea where the gun or ammunition came from.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that our country is at the forefront in the control of trade in all weapons and was one of the first to sign the UN arms trade treaty in 2013?

[Dr Mathias]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I believe we are leading when it comes to trade in larger weapons, but we are doing very poorly when it comes to small weapons. I will give examples.

The young man in Africa nearly died from his gunshot wound. We need to be responsible because, when there are small weapons in the community, it is very rare for them to be dismantled or to disappear. You may live in a mud hut with no furniture or belongings of note but, if anyone has a small weapon, it remains in that community for generations. We must be more responsible about this and, as a major trader in small weapons, we must take the lead.

Strong defence means transparency and regulation. Historically, we have not done well. I am sure the Minister is aware of some UK traders in small weapons. One transferred about 40,000 AK47s, 30,000 other assault rifles and 32 million rounds of ammunition to Nigeria— what one commentator said was enough for a small army. That UK trader was under investigation for three years before that licence was removed.

Another UK trader had a conviction in the 1990s for trading in pump-action weapons. They were found guilty in 2009 of selling arms to Iraq. Another UK trader, who we believe supplied the man who was responsible for the Hungerford massacre in the 1980s, was found guilty of trading with North Korea in 2012.

[Jack Lopresti]

On a point of clarification, are the people my hon. Friend cited as UK or British traders British nationals or do they just trade from the UK? There is a huge difference.

[Dr Mathias]

I regret to say that they are UK citizens. One was extradited to the US. I believe the others are from the UK. The first one I mentioned was selling arms to our police and our Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend may know that, when Sir John Stanley was Chair of the Committees on Arms Exports Controls, he went to Ukraine and was given a list of UK traders. Many of those were known to our Export Control Organisation, but it did not know that several of them were transferring arms from Ukraine to Libya, Rwanda and Sri Lanka. Therefore, historically—these are recent enough cases—our policy on the trade in small weapons has not been good enough. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that things have changed dramatically, but I am not aware of evidence of that.

I am asking for a pre-licence register whereby there are criminal record checks so that we do not have a case like that of the person who had a record in the 1990s and was found guilty in the next century of illegal trade, and whereby we check for financial illegalities. My suspicion—again, I would like the Minister to reassure me—is that there is more vetting of a man who would like to volunteer as a scout leader than there is of a man who is going to trade in weapons that end up in the hands of a child soldier in Nigeria.

I am asking that the UK lead on the marking of small weapons—by that, I mean conform to the 2005 UN instrument. I had it from a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Minister that we were or are aiming to go along with those measures, but the instrument is more than 10 years old now. I want these weapons to have the marking of the dealer, the importer, the exporter and the carrier.

I would like there to be better sharing of information. I would like the Minister to assure me that there is intra-governmental sharing of information so that we do not have a repeat of those cases in which people were under investigation but still dealing with other Departments. I would also like reassurance that there is a transfer of information between Governments.

I commend the UK for doing well when it comes to large weapons. I believe that if, for instance, there is trade in a combat aircraft such as a Typhoon, a Minister will be a co-signatory on the contract. That shows a high level of responsibility. I am asking for that level of responsibility for small weapons, which as we know are contributing to most of the injuries and fatalities in conflict situations.

The Government did issue a call for evidence last July on a pre-licensing register of arms brokers. What is disappointing is that only 78 people were consulted and most of those were arms traders; I do not believe any of the consultees were victims. One of the problems cited in the consultation was cost, but I would say that, if most UK traders are dealing with tens of thousands of AK-47s or millions of rounds of ammunition, cost should not be a bar to a good register, vetting and good marking of these weapons. We should be responsible and we should be leading on this.

In summary, I would like the Minister to tell me about a register, a vetting for the register, a regular vetting and transparent marking that leads the way internationally. We need to know how many and what type of weapons are being traded, not just give someone a licence and carte blanche to trade. With this strong defence, we can lead. We can take a lead from the scouts on leadership and responsibility. I believe that the Minister can do what is done for the larger weapons and transfer that level of responsibility to small weapons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) on securing the debate and particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for making insightful interventions, given his history and expertise in this matter.

With your permission, Mr Rosindell, I will interpret the subject of the debate widely and will refer to small arms and light weaponry—rather than small weapons—a term that is more established in the trade and in Government policy, as a way of encompassing the totality of what is happening. I will also try to draw a distinction between traders and brokers, because I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. A broker is someone who arranges a deal, perhaps through a third country, and the goods more traditionally come through the individual trader.

The effective control of small arms and light weaponry is a goal that clearly unites us all, because, as we have heard, the potential consequences of their misuse are so grave. I see that across my portfolio and particularly on the African continent. When states fail to control the supply and sale of these weapons, they not only jeopardise the safety and security of innocent people worldwide—including a disproportionate number of women and children—but fuel instability more generally and threaten international peace and security.

The debate has focused on national arms trade and controls, so I would like to deal with that up front. The UK Government operate one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control systems in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke indicated that. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham talked of Sir John Stanley, whom I served with in two Parliaments. For the last five years, he was the Chair of the Committees on Arms Exports Controls, on which I briefly served as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, which contributes to that work. Sir John Stanley has previously acknowledged that the UK operates

“one of the most transparent export licensing systems in the world”.

So we really are at the cutting edge of what is being done. That is not to say that we should not do more, but I do not want the House to be left in any doubt as to whether we are a laggard on these issues; we are right at the forefront. However, I will deal with the points that my hon. Friend raises. Just because we are right at the forefront and doing the right thing globally does not mean that we cannot and should not do, and aspire to do, more.

It is right that the Government facilitate responsible exports by British companies, and support them in winning such contracts. In many cases, the export of arms is of benefit. It brings security and stability. It is in the interest of the importing country and it is in the British national interest.

[Jack Lopresti]

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is vital that we protect our sovereign defence capability, not only for jobs and exports but for our very protection, our expertise and our ability as a sovereign country to conduct our own operations with our own kit?

[James Duddridge]

Absolutely, and I defer to my hon. Friend, with his military expertise. It is important to maintain that capability overall, in terms of critical mass. Also—I travel from country to country with conflict areas—there are issues of interoperability between weapons, particularly large weapons as opposed to small arms. Having a production facility with similar arms and munitions is very helpful in theatre, as well as in building critical mass to maintain the British Army.

All export and trade licence applications are fully assessed, very carefully, on a case-by-case basis, in line with international legislation but also domestic—national—arms licensing criteria. That takes into account all the factors at the time of application, including the prevailing circumstances in the recipient countries, the nature of the goods that are being sent, the nature of the end-user and, in addition, the stated end-use. The Government follow a clear procedure for each application. That is informed by expert advice from a number of Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham asked about the degree of co-ordination. I think that some of her interactions have been with BIS. The Foreign Office takes the lead on a lot of these matters, but the Home Office and a number of other Departments are also involved. A licence will not be issued in any way, shape or form if it would be inconsistent with the provisions of our export regime in its totality.

If there is a clear risk that the goods may be used for internal repression or external aggression, a licence is always denied. The UK has one of the world’s most effective enforcement regimes for arms exports. Enforcement of the UK’s arms export controls is led by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which works jointly with Border Force to detect and prevent unlicensed arms exports. HMRC and Border Force work closely with other Government Departments and with other intelligence agencies across the world to ensure that arms are not exported through the UK in breach of the UK’s licensing controls.

Additionally, HMRC works with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to engage with legitimate arms exporters and to help them to comply with the law, but we are vigorous in actively pursuing those who either deliberately or carelessly circumvent legislation. We remain committed to transparent exchange control systems, as demonstrated by the publication of export licensing decisions and details of export controls policy in the UK annual report on strategic export controls, as well as in the European Union annual report on arms exports.

The Government recognise and respect the public interest in export licensing decisions, and therefore we took the decision to publish quarterly statistics on all export and trade licences issued, refused or revoked. I understand that my hon. Friend would like us to publish more information. That has a cost. If we were to do that in looking at the overall picture of reducing the number of atrocities, we would focus too much on already law-abiding providers supplying more detail. There is a much bigger picture in respect of the supply of small arms and light weaponry. If someone is looking to source weaponry for nefarious purposes, there are many places across the world where they would look before looking to the United Kingdom, both in terms of laxer export controls and in terms of price and quality—such countries offer lower quality but, all importantly, lower price.

In parallel to our work on our own system, it is important that we ask others to step up and meet the same exacting standards to which Sir John Stanley referred when he said that we operate

“one of the most transparent export licensing systems in the world”.

If I were able to do one thing on this issue, it would be to get others to do as well as we are, not to improve an already excellent, but not perfect, system in the UK.

Among other things, in terms of data, we are committed to a reporting timescale and the provision of data analysis. The Government are a world leader on transparency, and we are fully compliant with European Union and other international requirements.

The brokering of arms sales continues to be controlled on a rigorous case-by-case basis through the licensing assessment process. The idea of creating a pre-licensing register of arms brokers was explored by BIS, and my hon. Friend’s predecessor as the MP for Twickenham, in a call to evidence in 2014. I have reviewed BIS’s correspondence. I am sure that my hon. Friend has tales of campaigning against Liberal Democrats in Twickenham. In my 10 years in the House, and during the coalition, there were occasions when—I say this gently—the Liberal Democrats over-promised and under-delivered. If that had been a priority, and if it had been the right thing to do, it could have been pushed forward at the time, but in letters to constituents her predecessor promised a lot but did not deliver. The consultation showed that, actually, delivering that was the wrong thing to do. In a sense, it would have layered in extra bureaucracy without addressing the fundamental problem.

In the last 10 years, the UK has successfully prosecuted eight UK nationals for arms trafficking and brokering outside the UK. Customs investigators work jointly with law enforcement officials across the world to gather the necessary evidence to enable such prosecutions. Additionally, we continue to work with international partners to prevent and disrupt arms transfers before they occur, including through the sharing of intelligence. The global control of arms requires an overall global commitment to marking, record keeping and tracing weapons. Without the proper management of stockpiles, weapons may end up in the wrong hands, fuelling crime, terrorism and conflict, so we need everyone to up their game.

The UK has signed and supports various politically binding agreements, including the international tracing instruments, which promote effective national controls over the full life-cycle of small arms and light weapons. We encourage and support states to improve their stockpile security, including by funding projects through, for example, the counter-proliferation programme fund, which is FCO-led but delivered across Departments, in priority countries such as Libya. We look at how we can prevent arms from disappearing out of that country, as has happened previously.

In conclusion, the Government support the responsible trade in defence equipment but always apply rigorous and accountable national export control systems. The Government have one of the most rigorous and transparent export control systems in the world. I welcome the continued high level of scrutiny—including debates such as this one—which remains central to our goal of achieving global security through responsible exports.

Gibraltar and Spain

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Gibraltar and relations with Spain.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, for this very important debate. I wish to declare an interest, as chairman of the all-party group on Gibraltar. I also recently visited Gibraltar to take part in its national day of celebrations as a guest of the Gibraltar Government.

I understand that there were 285 unlawful incursions of Spanish state vessels into British Gibraltarian waters in the first eight months of this year, and more than 80 in September alone. I hope the Minister will update us on the current situation in his response.

There was also an extremely dangerous incident in August this year, when a Spanish state vessel fired live rounds at anglers on a Gibraltarian pleasure boat. The Royal Gibraltar Police apprehended the vessel and searched it, and no sign whatever of any illicit activity was found. Members may be surprised to hear that the Spanish Government denied the use of live rounds until video evidence of the incident materialised. All the Spanish authorities need to do is communicate with the British Gibraltarian authorities if they are chasing criminal suspects—a system that works well elsewhere around the world. Currently, Spain is putting lives at risk in a needless and seemingly casual manner.

On the matter of British Gibraltarian waters, Spain’s former ambassador, José Antonio de Yturriaga, has said publicly that Madrid’s position on British Gibraltarian territorial waters has no legal basis and that the Spanish Foreign Office has legal opinions that confirm this. According to published reports, the current Spanish Foreign Minister recently acknowledged at a university seminar that the Spanish position on the waters around Gibraltar would be very difficult to defend in court.

It is clear that the treaty of Utrecht in 1713 did not specify territorial waters, because the three-mile—later 12-mile—rule as far as territorial waters are concerned had not yet come into existence. The principle is today enshrined in article 2 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which Spain signed. Although Spain attempted to exclude itself from that clause when signing the convention, it was not able to do so under the agreement.

Interestingly, I read recently that for most of the past 300 years the waters under British control around Gibraltar were much larger and stretched on to several hundred metres of Spain’s south-eastern coastline. Spain was aggrieved that the waters off a section of its coastline were under the jurisdiction and control of another state, and made frequent complaints to Britain. It seems it was under Franco in the late ’60s that Spain came up with the absurd idea that Gibraltar should have no territorial waters. Before that, the Spanish just wanted the equidistance principle—the internationally accepted standard line, requiring countries’ seas to be divided along a median line. Essentially, Spain’s view on and behaviour concerning British Gibraltarian territorial waters has no standing at all in international law, and Madrid is very aware of the fact.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend rightly says, the incursions by Spain into Gibraltarian territorial waters have been going on for a considerable time. Spain has been throwing down the gauntlet with these provocative incursions and is clearly saying, “What are you going to do about it?” Is it not time for the United Kingdom to say what we are going to do about it?

[Jack Lopresti]

I agree completely. The fact is that Spain— a NATO and European ally—is so consistently and flagrantly breaking the law that it is astonishing. Spain’s ban on NATO forces moving between Gibraltar and Spain, overfly rights and travel between ports is quite simply to the detriment of western security. The fact that the Spanish will not allow RAF aircraft to overfly Spanish airspace on their way to and from Gibraltar results, I understand from the last speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) in the House on the matter, in a cost to the British taxpayer of an additional £5,000 to £10,000 for each flight. Our military resources are finite. Spain seems to feel it acceptable to reduce NATO’s defensive capacity by causing totally unnecessary extra costs, yet we are bound by article 5 of the NATO Washington treaty to expend British “blood and treasure” if Spain ever finds itself under attack.

At the same time, Spain continues to allow Russian naval vessels to refuel at its territory of Ceuta. The press reported that a state-of-the-art submarine had a three-day visit to the port of Ceuta in August this year. It was allowed to take on fuel and water while its crew enjoyed shore leave and Ceuta’s amenities. It is believed that the Russian submarine was headed for the naval base at Sebastopol, although the Russian military denied that. This is at a time when NATO insists that the alliance has suspended all practical co-operation with Russia. It seems Spain organised that with Russia directly against NATO’s and Europe’s position on Russia. Will the Minister explain how that is acceptable and allowed to continue?

Spain seems to be trying to wage some sort of economic warfare on Gibraltar with the ongoing issue of border delays. As the Foreign Affairs Committee report last year made clear, much of the evidence against the border delays came from Spanish workers who commute into Gibraltar on a daily basis. That is still a major problem, but Madrid is not being successful. Gibraltar is a fantastic economic success story, with impressive economic growth. Its GDP for 2013-14 increased by more than 12% in nominal terms, and I understand that forecasts for 2014-15 show a further 10.3% increase—a higher GDP per capita, which is a measure of living standards, than the UK and Spain as a whole, and greatly higher per head than its neighbours in Andalucia. GDP per capita for Gibraltar is forecast to be £50,941 in 2014-15, a long way above that of Andalucia, where GDP per capita was £13,300 in 2014, and higher even than Madrid’s, which was £25,000 per capita in 2014. It is unsurprising that up to 10,000 Spaniards a day cross the border to work in Gibraltar.

The Chief Minister said this week in London that the OECD has confirmed that in terms of financial regulation, Gibraltar is alongside Britain, Germany and the US as the best in the world. Spain’s oft-used propaganda insinuating the opposite about Gibraltarian business has been completely discredited.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He talks about economic warfare. Would he agree that it is actually in the Spanish Government’s and the Spanish people’s interest to come to an accommodation, accepting the people of Gibraltar’s right to be there? Economically, they could then thrive, rather than attempt to marginalise the people of Gibraltar, penalising the thousands of Spanish workers who depend on Gibraltar for their livelihoods.

[Jack Lopresti]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This situation penalises Spain’s own people and damages its own economic prospects and success for the future. It is completely bizarre that Spain should behave in this fashion.

I turn to the matter of the Royal Navy. The two Royal Navy ships in Gibraltar are more than 20 years old and are, I understand, not the best modern option. The Government of Gibraltar have indicated that they would finance another Royal Navy vessel. Does the Minister think we should accept that offer? Regardless of that fact, the British Government should significantly increase their naval presence in the straits. That would send the clearest possible signal to Spain that we are absolutely serious about defending our strategic interests in Gibraltar and our people there.

As history has proven countless times, weakness is provocative. We should make the rules of engagement for our naval vessels more robust for clarity and to act as a deterrent. I fear there will be a tragedy sooner or later as a result of the aggressive, illegal Spanish incursions, with lives lost, if we are not clear about how serious we are.

Will the Minister tell us what the rules of engagement are for our forces operating around Gibraltar? We can draw our own conclusions about the fact that the Spanish do not harass or get too close to US navy vessels operating around Gibraltar. I would like to know how many times the British Government have protested to Spain about its hostile and illegal actions with regard to the British sovereign territory of Gibraltar. I know that since 2011, the Spanish ambassador to the Court of St James has been summoned at least five times. That puts Spain in the same category as North Korea and Syria—a completely ridiculous situation.

If the Spanish Government cannot start treating their NATO and European Union ally correctly, what can the British Government do next—recall our ambassador to Spain? Send its ambassador back? Spain’s position on Gibraltar is as if we did not accept the treaty between the US and the UK that recognised the outcome of the US war of independence. Gibraltar has been British for longer than the US has been a nation. It is time for the Spanish Government to stop using Gibraltar to mask their own problems and inadequacies and start behaving like a true NATO and European ally, with all the positive benefits that would bring for Gibraltar and the Spanish people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I feel that on Monday night there was a real sense of economic optimism about Gibraltar’s future, based both on the economic success that Gibraltar has achieved and on the way in which Gibraltar has organised itself—I will return to this in more detail—so as to meet global standards, particularly in the provision of financial services, which match the best in the world.

Before the intervention, I was saying that I wrote to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar after the Government’s election in May to tell him that we were about to embark on the European negotiations and that he should let the Foreign Secretary and me know at any time of any matter in the process that is of concern to Gibraltar. Since then, there have been regular contacts at official level between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Gibraltar, as well as conversations at ministerial level. I last discussed EU matters with the Chief Minister in Manchester last week. The Government will hold to that commitment.

I was also asked about the Government’s attitude towards Spanish hospitality to Russian warships in its Moroccan exclave of Ceuta. The fact is that that is ultimately a matter for the Spanish Government to decide. I find it extraordinary that such hospitality should be shown at a time when Russia is not only engaged in a campaign of aggression and destabilisation in Ukraine but has acted in a way that threatens the security of a number of our EU and NATO allies, particularly the Baltic states, but this is ultimately a matter for Spanish Ministers to consider.

The UK has promised to protect the right of the people of Gibraltar to determine their own political future. We stand by our assurance never to enter into arrangements in which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their wishes, and we will never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. I want there to be no misunderstanding of our position: Gibraltarians will be British for as long as they wish to remain so. We regard Gibraltar as including the isthmus and British Gibraltar territorial waters, as well as the Rock itself.

[Jack Lopresti]

Going back to security and NATO in particular, given that the Spanish are inhibiting NATO naval craft and aircraft from going to Spanish ports and overflying Spain, and the added dimension of their help to the Russians, can we do anything in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly or use Spain’s membership of NATO to put pressure on them? As the Minister says, the way that if behaves is astonishing.

[Mr Lidington]

We make representations about Spain imposing restrictions of the type that one should not expect of a NATO ally. In most respects and over most policy areas, we have a very constructive and co-operative relationship. I do not think that the Government raising such matters in a formal NATO setting will help. In the meetings of the North Atlantic Council and the like, the emphasis will be on what we need to do jointly in the challenges to the collective security of NATO members. We have not forgotten about the issue. We shall continue to press for changes. I can assure my hon. Friend that the armed forces have advised Ministers that although the Spanish restrictions are irksome, they do not adversely affect the military capacity or preparedness of the UK or of NATO collectively.

I want to focus on exactly how the UK Government works with and for the people of Gibraltar. When I last spoke in the House on the subject of Gibraltar, in January, Spain had only just started work on improving the infrastructure on its side of the border with Gibraltar. Those improvements were demanded by the European Commission, whose officials had visited twice to survey the situation at the border. Those visits were themselves a direct result of sustained and targeted lobbying by the UK, including by the Prime Minister, who raised the issue directly with the then President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso. Our lobbying, in close partnership with the Government of Gibraltar, is now paying off. Spain has completed the work at the border. I am pleased to say that delays have now dropped to levels comparable to those before the summer of 2013.

I understand that the Commission plans to visit again later this month. Obviously, we will continue to monitor the situation at the border closely, and we will not hesitate to raise our concerns again with Spain and the Commission if we see any further politically motivated tactics to create delays. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East and other hon. Members pointed out, one should expect passport checks and other proportionate checks at the Spain-Gibraltar border, but those should be no more and no less burdensome than the kind of checks that would be carried out on any other non-Schengen European border.

In turning to incursions, I pay tribute to the vigilance and sheer hard work of the Royal Navy Gibraltar Squadron, whom I visited on my last trip to Gibraltar, and the Royal Gibraltar Police and customs service, who ensure that the law is upheld in British Gibraltar territorial waters.

Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Iran and the proposed nuclear agreement.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is an opportune moment to consider once again the proposed nuclear agreement regarding Iran. It is opportune because an outline agreement was presented on 2 April 2015, and it is expected that a full agreement might be reached by the end of this month. It is therefore right and proper that Parliament should once again consider the issue.

This debate follows the good and positive Back-Bench business debate held in November 2014, during the last Parliament. Since then, a number of parliamentary questions have been asked of the Government, and several statements have been made. On top of that, by way of context, it is important and relevant to consider the report published by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs during the last Parliament. The context extends beyond this place to the outside world, and we need to be aware of it. The debate is opportune. I shall ask the Minister a significant number of questions, to which I hope he can respond. It is relevant to ask those questions before an agreement is finalised, as there are genuine concerns across the House about the details of the proposed agreement.

To start, we must ask what the intention is of any proposed agreement. That is crucial. My understanding was that initially, the aim of any nuclear agreement with Iran was to deal with non-proliferation and ensure no further development of nuclear weapons in that country, yet given the developments that we read about, it appears that the discussion has moved from being about a non-proliferation treaty to being about something more closely related to an arms control treaty. That is an important, but not necessarily positive, development. The original talks between the P5+1 and Iran definitely commenced on the basis of a non-proliferation treaty.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the proposed deal seeks to legitimise Iran’s nuclear activities, such as enriching and stockpiling low-grade uranium, for which there is no civilian use whatever? We are talking about a country that is one of the world’s largest—if not the largest—state sponsors of terrorism.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. That intervention was perfectly legitimate and in order, but I say to all Members present that there are a lot of Members here and we have only 90 minutes, so it is not my intention to call anybody to make a speech who makes an intervention beforehand. I want to ensure that everybody has a chance to have their say.

Gibraltar

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure, if not slightly daunting, to follow my friend and neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). I hope he will forgive me if I repeat one or two of the points he eloquently made.

First, I wish to declare an interest, in that I was honoured to be elected the chairman of the all-party group on Gibraltar in September last year. Unfortunately, it was in the worst of circumstances, following the very sad and sudden death of the former Member for Heywood and Middleton, Jim Dobbin. I am proud to say that Jim was a friend of mine; one of the nicest and most decent Members of Parliament I have ever met and worked with, he is an extremely tough act to follow as chairman. I have been a member of the all-party group since 2010, in which capacity I have been invited to Gibraltar by the Gibraltar Government and visited a number of times over the past four years.

I have got to know Gibraltar very well over the past 10 years or so, and it has important links with the south-west region. In 2004, Gibraltar was able to vote in the European elections for the first time and, as a candidate in that election for the south-west region, I spent many weeks campaigning in Gibraltar that year. When the case was made that Gibraltar should be in the South West region, it was specifically on the basis of the self-evident links that tie Gibraltar with my home region— shared coastal traditions; unique and intertwined maritime heritage; mutual support for defence capability; and interest in contemporary industries, such as tourism. Those dictate that there was no other logical outcome. The south-west is seen by most as the home of the Royal Marines, and it is no coincidence—indeed it is for a proud battle honour—that the cap badge of the Royal Marines is inscribed with the word “Gibraltar”.

Gibraltar is a vital strategic asset, commanding the straits of Gibraltar and being the gateway between the Atlantic and Mediterranean. It is one of the UK’s permanent joint operating bases. It is also used for the forward mounting of operations in the Mediterranean, north Africa and the Gulf and, as my right hon. Friend said, for vital intelligence gathering. I know that our comrades and friends in the United States also see Gibraltar as a vital strategic asset to NATO and to them. Gibraltar continues to be a crucial military base, with approximately 155 UK military personnel serving in the headquarters of the British forces Gibraltar. In addition, approximately 705 Ministry of Defence UK-based and locally employed civilian personnel provide support services to defence operations, including 95 serving in the Gibraltar defence police. The Royal Gibraltar Regiment comprises 226 full-time and 166 reserve personnel, who are routinely deployed on operations and exercises with other units in the British Army. The regiment’s personnel have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and have been decorated for service in these operational theatres.

I totally agree with what the Chief Minister of Gibraltar said to the Foreign Affairs Committee about his wish to see a larger Royal Navy presence in Gibraltar. I would also argue that too little progress has been made over the past 16 years towards lifting NATO’s reservation against ships travelling between Spanish and Gibraltarian ports, and on overflying rights, which have been mentioned by a couple of my colleagues. The Government should actively seek for this position to be overturned. I thank the Foreign Affairs Committee for its substantial and thorough report.

I fully agree that, while intensifying the diplomatic pressure, the Government have made it clear to the Spanish Government that Gibraltar is self-governing, and the Gibraltarians have consistently and democratically made clear their wish to stay British. In the 2002 referendum held by Gibraltar’s Government, almost 99% voted no to shared Spanish and British sovereignty, on about an 88% turnout. As the Prime Minister pledged in his speech on Gibraltar national day in 2013,

“the British Government wholeheartedly supports your right to determine your political future. As I have said before, we will never agree to any transfer of sovereignty—or even start a process of negotiation of sovereignty—without your consent. And I wouldn’t want us ever to go down that route. Gibraltar has been British for 300 years. Let’s keep it that way.”

The Spanish Government’s recent behaviour towards Gibraltar, be it the illegal and politically motivated border delays of often several hours, the illegal incursions into Gibraltarian territorial waters—in 2013 there were 496 such incursions—the threats against bunkering companies operating in British Gibraltarian territorial waters, which are a big part of Gibraltar’s economy, and the aim of limiting Gibraltar’s aviation rights, is appalling and completely unacceptable. The fact that the Spanish ambassador to the UK has had to be summoned by the Foreign Office five times in the last couple of years is shocking—on that front, our NATO and European ally is in the same group as Syria, Iran and North Korea, which is plainly and frankly ridiculous.

Given the Spanish Government’s ongoing behaviour, it is fully understandable that Gibraltarians feel threatened, bullied and under siege. As far as the incursions by the Spanish into Gibraltarian territory are concerned, the Government should use article 259 to take Spain to the European Court if the situation does not rapidly improve, and the Government should seek a much stronger response from the European Commission on Spain’s behaviour at the border crossing. The current Government of Spain’s attitude to Gibraltar shows complete hypocrisy given their own contested and larger overseas territories—Ceuta, which has been Spanish since 1668, and Melilla, which has been Spanish since 1497—which are surrounded and disputed by Morocco.

I welcome the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report. Gibraltar should definitely be removed from the UN’s list of non self-governing territories. Indeed not removing it rather undermines the UN’s list as Gibraltar is obviously self-governing. I understand the Government’s response to this, but urge the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to continue to exert pressure. We need more high-profile ministerial visits, which would highlight our solidarity and support for the people of Gibraltar. Is it not time, as others have said, that we have another royal visit to the Rock of Gibraltar?

Gibraltar is a success story of which we can all be proud. Recent economic growth stands at 7%. Its GDP is estimated at £1.4 billion in 2013-14, which is equivalent to just over £43,000 per head. That is considerably higher than the UK as a whole, which is about £26,000 per head, and Spain, which is under £20,000 per head. The GDP of the neighbouring Spanish province of Andalucia was estimated at £14,300 per head in 2013, which may explain why 7,000 to 10,000 Spanish citizens cross the border every day to work in Gibraltar. I understand that the local authorities in Andalucia have complained about border delays to the Spanish Government.

Finally, every time I visit Gibraltar, I marvel that on a small piece of land, the Rock, there is a fantastic melting pot of cultures and religions. We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Protestants and Sikhs living in harmony and peace, thriving and secure. Indeed, Gibraltar is an example to the world, and I am hugely proud that it is part of the great British family.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that welcome. The right hon. Gentleman and I have spent much time in this place discussing some of the very issues that we are talking about now. He is right to raise concerns about the deal. Rather than making a bad deal, we believe it is important to delay it to make sure that we have an appropriate deal. Talks have been productive. Both sides have worked hard on a draft text but more time is needed to bridge the differences that remain, in particular on enrichment, and to agree the details of how the agreement will be implemented.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

21. The joint plan of action abandons the demands made by the six United Nations Security Council resolutions that Iran must halt all enrichment, so what assessment has my hon. Friend made of the message that this would send to the Iranian regime about how serious we are about sticking to our guns where Iran’s nuclear capabilities are concerned?

[Mr Ellwood]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns and pay tribute to him for his interest in this area. We are looking for the appropriate deal to be struck. It has not been on the table up to this point. It was decided to delay matters until November and I hope to be able to report back to the House very soon on what progress has been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

We certainly do not rule out the necessity for that to happen, perhaps within a matter of days. I think it would be wise to assess the outcome of today’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting first, but the Prime Minister is alive to the possibility of such a meeting.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

T4. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the stalled election process in Afghanistan is undermining the democratic institutions that so many of our brave men and women fought so hard for and sacrificed so much to deliver?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about the election process in Afghanistan. Abdullah Abdullah received 45% of the vote in the first round, and that figure remained the same in the second. Ashraf Ghani went from 31% in the first round to 56% in the second, with an extra million people voting. He threatened to form a breakaway Government, and we are grateful for the work of the United States, and of John Kerry in particular, on reconciling that matter. The votes are now being recounted and we look forward to the result.

Iran (Joint Plan of Action)

Jack Lopresti Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Offord]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is certainly one of my significant concerns, and I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to comment on it when he sums up the debate.

It is also of great concern to me that the P5 plus 1 have tacitly recognised Iran’s right to enrich uranium, something that has been rejected by the international community for many years. In essence, the deal eases the pressure on Iran’s economy in return for minimal concessions that fail to curb the nuclear ambitions of the country. The interim deal has unravelled an internationally imposed sanctions regime that took years to enforce and was having the desired effect.

The ultimate objective is to prevent, on behalf of many countries, a nuclear-armed Iran. The repercussions of that could be disastrous, not least because Iran has threatened to destroy the state of Israel, but also because it remains the world’s leading financier of terrorism, and has the potential to provoke a major regional power struggle and arms race.

For the rulers of Iran, this is just another chapter in a dangerous game. Iran has a long history of exploiting international talks to buy time and further advance its nuclear programme, and the fear remains that this agreement is yet another example.

On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs updated the House on the progress of the E3 plus 3 and Iran talks. He reminded the House that the challenges to the success of the talks remain considerable and that a

“comprehensive solution must address all proliferation concerns related to Iran’s nuclear programme.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 29.]

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that the fact that Iran continues to support terrorist activity—Hezbollah and Hamas—and to support attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan puts into perspective its so-called peaceful aspirations in the area?

[Dr Offord]

My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), has mentioned something that I hope to come on to in my speech. It remains a great concern that, while Iran is engaging in the process of reconciliation through the talks and the agreement, it is also engaging in activities not only in places such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, but in places such as Lebanon, combining forces with Hezbollah and others.