Prevention of Nuclear Proliferation

Debate between Jack Straw and Ben Wallace

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend would have a point if it was not for the fact that at the moment, the Iranians need our goods more than we need theirs. I meet plenty of day-to-day Iranians in business and everything else—not in my business, as I do not have any such interests—who try to do the right thing and live by the rule of law.

Secondly, I ask the Minister what our European colleagues are doing. Historically, Germany and Italy are some of the biggest traders with Iran, and my worry is that the strength of the E3 plus 3 was unity. That was its strength: we brought together the three European powers of Britain, Germany and France along with China, Russia and America. For every round of sanctions that has come before this House or the international community, there have been fewer and fewer signatories to it. As the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) pointed out, as we get fewer and fewer signatories we are at risk of undermining the message that says that we all agree that Iran should not be progressing along such a path.

My worry is that the Iranians are super-sensitive to such differences. They are one of the greatest trading nations in history, of course, and my word, are they canny! When I was there, there was no shortage of some of the things that were subject to sanctions. They used to use the Bahrainis as one of the greatest routes for money, goods, new cars and so on. Without Germany and without Italy, there is a real danger that we could be left high and dry.

[Mr Straw]

May I, as one of the three Foreign Ministers who got the arrangement going in the middle of 2003, underline the hon. Gentleman’s point about the E3? There were two huge advantages. One was that we were not the United States, although we consulted them, and the second was that because France, Germany and the UK were working together, each of us could reach out to a series of other allies. We did not just get three rather large countries on board but many others, too.

[Mr Wallace]

It is absolutely true that Russia and China often need to know that the west is united before they move from an agnostic position to a proactive one. One worry I have about the full closure of the embassy in Tehran is the fact that I have seen the Chinese and Russian embassies in Tehran, and the Chinese and the Russians will not waste any time in becoming the prominent voice of the E3 plus 3. I know that we have not shut down diplomatic relations, and I reiterate the importance of that.

Another thing to which the Iranians will be hypersensitive is the charge of hypocrisy in the middle east. We must always be aware of it. Pakistan is one of their neighbours, and it not only started a nuclear programme but distributed it. In fact, Mr Khan is probably the one responsible for giving the Iranian programme a bit of a boost. The response to that is that the west has done everything other than punish the Pakistanis for not being a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation pact: therein lies part of the problem. I noticed last week that Australia has agreed to sell uranium to India. India is not a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation pact and is not going by that rule, and although the nature of the Indian Government is entirely different, the Iranians are obsessed with treaties and they can see what is happening. We must be consistent.

The other issue is Israel, of course. This is not about the conflict or whether it is right or wrong, but Israel is another country in the middle east with a nuclear weapon that does not sign up to the UN nuclear non-proliferation regime at all. That will be used against us. As long as we are consistent and say to Iran that it must comply, but we would also like Israel to comply, that strengthens our hand.

Thirdly—and finally, because I am aware that many people wish to speak—where will we go from here on sanctions? It is important to recognise that sanctions are part of the process of trying to bring Iran back to the rule of law, and back to attempts to solve the issue by allowing inspectors in. That would allow Iran to play a full role in the world, which it should do, and would allow the Iranian leaders to understand that we are not trying to make war with Iran but to make peace and allow it to live to its full potential. The worst thing for the Treasury and this Government would not be if the sanctions failed, but a war or military intervention that would see oil prices go through the roof. I do not think that this frail economy could survive oil at $250 a barrel.

Constitution and Home Affairs

Debate between Jack Straw and Ben Wallace

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point, but the truth is that under the amendment to which I referred—there is no need to speculate because this is what is proposed—all the considerations that she and the whole House are concerned about, along, I dare say, with voters across the highlands and islands of Scotland and in many other places as well, would be swept aside, “subordinate”, as the amendment says, to a simple arithmetical rule.

I have said to the House that we favour a referendum on the alternative vote, but I make it clear that we will not allow that to be used as a Trojan horse for an omnibus Bill that will profoundly harm our democracy. The Liberal Democrats would do well to consider the damage to democracy that will arise from these proposals. If appealing to their sense of democracy is not enough, then I appeal to their sense of self-interest. [Interruption.] That is always best with Liberal Democrats. Why do they and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam think that the Conservatives are now pursuing this idea? It is not out of any principled concern about the size of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister argued passionately against a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament when he was defending the size of his own constituency before the 2003 inquiry into the boundaries in Oxfordshire. The Liberal Democrats have now apparently been pulled along in the wake of this undemocratic proposal to cut seats, yet the Liberal Democrats in Oxfordshire were not then arguing for the status quo of six seats in Oxfordshire––which, at least the Prime Minister was arguing for––but for seven seats, which would have led to a House of Commons of 700.

We need to understand that a 10% reduction in the number of seats and rigid mathematical formulae will change every single boundary in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) mentioned, that is where the Liberal Democrats are uniquely vulnerable. Their seats are isolated—tiny dots of orange in seas of red or blue—and they have proportionately twice as many marginal seats as either of the other parties. I hope the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam will accept that this proposal is dangerous—dangerous to his own party, for sure, but to the legitimacy of our democracy, as well. There is to be an argument about reducing the number of seats and the way we conduct boundary reviews, but the better way through, since so many reviews have already been set up, is to have an independent examination of how we conduct boundary reviews. That would be far better than the crude and undemocratic system that is being proposed.

Let me make this last point to the right hon. Gentleman. In the United States—this idea came from there—they have simple, rigid arithmetical rules. As the Electoral Reform Society—no great friend of mine and hard-wired into the Liberal Democrat party––has pointed out, the United States also has the worst gerrymandering in the world.

That brings me to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) raised: the proposal for a 55% threshold to secure the dissolution of Parliament. That 55% threshold appeared in no party manifesto. It is a partisan measure stitched up by the coalition partners to protect themselves from each other—nobody else—while retaining their ability to go for an early election if they believe it would be advantageous.

Where does the figure of 55% come from? That is an interesting question. [Interruption.] Well, I am going to give the answer. It comes from the fact that the Liberals and the Conservatives together have—guess what—57% of the seats in the current Parliament. They would, thus, have the power to dissolve this Parliament if the polls and the signs looked encouraging. The Conservatives, on their own, hold 47% of the seats and the rest of the parties hold 53%, so in the event of a Conservative minority Government it would be impossible to reach the 55% threshold required to force an election. If that is not a political fix, I do not know what is.

The Labour party agrees with fixed-term Parliaments, in principle, and our manifesto included a commitment to legislate. However, given that most Parliaments since the war have lasted four years or less, we favour a four-year term.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Before entering this House, I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why a 66% threshold was chosen in the Scotland Act 1998 when it went through this House? For what reason was that appropriate then, but not now?

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) allow me to deal with that point?