International Immunities and Privileges

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

If the shadow Secretary of State wants to say something, I would be happy to allow him, following your advice, Mr Speaker.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. Can she confirm that there will be no delay to the Ministry of Defence’s currently planned spending on GCAP this year?

[Catherine West]

To be clear to Members new and old, this instrument is the legal framework within which the programme will sit. It does not have specific funding recommendations attached to it because it is the scaffolding, or the nest, within which all the work will happen.

This order was laid before Parliament in draft on 23 May 2024. It is subject to the affirmative procedure and will be made by the Privy Council once it is approved by both Houses. Subject to approval and ratification, the treaty will enter into force on the deposit of the last instrument of ratification or acceptance of the parties. That is anticipated to be in autumn 2024 to meet the 2035 in-service date.

This order confers a bespoke set of privileges and immunities to enable the GIGO to operate effectively in the UK. The Government consider those privileges and immunities both necessary and appropriate to deliver on the interests and commitments that the UK has towards the organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

May I associate the shadow Defence team with the remarks from the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition about the terrible attack on a British solider in Kent? Our thoughts are with his family.

I can confirm that we support the measures before us and recognise that they are necessary to deliver into law the administrative governance of the global combat air programme. Although this is a Foreign Office measure, the statutory instrument was prepared with strong input from the Ministry of Defence—it certainly crossed my desk when I was Minister for Defence Procurement. May I put on the record that it was a great honour to serve in that role—with significant responsibility in relation to GCAP—alongside the two previous Secretaries of State, Ben Wallace and Grant Shapps.

It was a privilege to engage with our international GCAP partners from Italy and Japan, whom I had the pleasure of hosting last September in Lancaster House for trilateral discussions. This is not just about delivering UK military capability in the crucial area of combat air, but about doing so to the benefit of two great partners, and, in the case of Japan, one that faces the threat of China and Russia right on its doorstep. Since that trilateral, the project has achieved significant goals, not least the signing of the international treaty last December that we are legislating for today. The treaty establishes the legal basis for the formation of a new GCAP international organisation, the GIGO. I am delighted that we are able to agree that the international HQ of the GIGO will be in the UK, but that, in keeping with the spirit of equal partnership that underpins GCAP, the first chief executives of the GCAP agency and joint venture are from Italy and Japan. As such, the SI before us effectively enables this international treaty to enter into effect, with further important measures on immunity and privileges that are necessary for the effective operation of the GIGO.

All that said, although the SI is necessary to deliver GCAP’s governance arrangements, it will not directly deliver a single aircraft. Alongside this SI, we need the Government to back the GCAP programme wholeheartedly by ensuring that it has the funding necessary to deliver our sixth-generation fighter capability. Indeed, it would be quite extraordinary for the Government to ask us as a House to approve the regulations if they were at the same time seriously contemplating scrapping UK involvement in GCAP. Yet that prospect has figured prominently in the press in recent days. While the best of British defence aviation has been gathered at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough, incredibly the Government have not been able to repeat the wholehearted backing of GCAP that they gave prior to the general election.

In responding to the statement from his predecessor Grant Shapps on 18 December last year, when he confirmed the trilateral agreement for the GCAP treaty, the now Defence Secretary said:

“Developing a sixth-generation fighter will ensure that we can continue to safeguard our UK skies and those of our NATO allies for decades to come. It will inspire innovation, strengthen UK industry and keep Britain at the cutting edge of defence technology.”

I totally agree with his remarks. Yet fast-forward to the present, and, as we have just heard at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister is only able to say that the programme is “important.” Meanwhile, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is on the Front Bench and for whom I have great personal respect, said:

“It's not right for me to prejudge what might happen in the defence review”.

He thus implied that the defence review might not continue the UK’s commitment to GCAP. We now need clarity from the Government for Parliament, industry and our international partners. We are being asked to approve this SI to deliver a key stepping-stone to the GCAP project, so are the Government still committed to it?

This is my guess about what is currently happening. I would be truly staggered if the Government were to withdraw from a programme that they have previously given such full support—not because theirs is a party that does not know a good U-turn, but because it would bring international ramifications that do not bear thinking about either for the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence. Rather, in my view, we need to have in mind another Department—one that I have also had the pleasure of serving in—the Treasury. I suspect that the overall question of whether the Government are committed to GCAP is a red herring. What really matters is whether they are committed to funding it this year, with important spending decisions to be made right now. They will be in the inbox of the Secretary of State, under “Funding decisions on GCAP.” We want the Government to continue that funding in the years beyond, and we want to know whether they are using the review as a chance to shift spending decisions to the right.

It is not unprecedented in the history of the Treasury for it to work in that way under successive Governments, probably. It might offer illusory short-term savings, but it would cause immediate and lasting pain to the most important conventional defence programme of our time. To be clear—and I mean this—I have the greatest respect for the way the Treasury has to balance the books and be responsible for the nation’s finances. I was delighted that the previous Government proposed moving to 2.5% once it was affordable—we were prepared to make difficult decisions to fund that 2.5% by reducing the size of the civil service to pre-pandemic levels—and once it was sustainable. Far from this Government inheriting what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has described as the “worst economic inheritance” since world war two, we did what we promised and moved to 2.5% only once the economic conditions allowed—namely, when inflation was back to target, with healthy economic growth and a deficit heading towards a little over 1% over the forecast period. That is our clear pathway to 2.5% versus Labour’s uncertainty and delay, which makes the real difference.

To understand the direct short-term importance of 2.5% and its relevance to GCAP and this statutory instrument, we need only go back to what the Secretary of State said the response to the statement from his predecessor Grant Shapps in December. He said:

“This month, the National Audit Office reported on the MOD’s equipment plan. It exposed a £17 billion black hole in Britain’s defence plans and showed that Ministers have lost control of the defence budget.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 1137.]

It is not so much that we lost control of the defence budget; rather, Putin invaded Ukraine and sent inflation soaring all around the world. In a world that was then in a rush to rearm, that context caused an inevitable hit to the costs of major defence projects and matériel. I have never pretended otherwise.

Bearing in mind that the equipment plan—the MOD’s forward inventory—accounts for over 10 years, the NAO’s assessment of a black hole did not take account of one thing: moving to 2.5% by 2030. As I said in my wind up to the Thursday’s debate on the Gracious Speech, by setting out a fully costed and clearly timetabled pathway to 2.5%, we were able to deal with those funding pressures head on, and ensure that our largest two programmes—the nuclear deterrent and GCAP—would be stabilised, and, as a result, properly funded into the future. I asked the Foreign Office Minister who responded to my to confirm that the Government’s timetable would not put funding of either programme at risk. There was no answer, and we have had no answer today, either. That is the problem. The Government can afford to bring forward this SI and to continue building the administrative apparatus for GCAP, but we fear that they cannot afford to approve the funding requirements for the next stage of building the actual aircraft, because of their vacillation on reaching 2.5%.

We Conservatives are clear that we support the SI on the basis that we are also supporting GCAP as a whole, including by putting in place the funding necessary to deliver its requirements over the urgent timescale that all three member nations require. That is a key point: for all three nations, GCAP is all about pace and timetable. For the UK and Italy, that means replacing the Typhoon before it is withdrawn from service towards 2040; for Japan, with equal urgency, it means replacing the Mitsubishi F-2. That is why any delay or deferment, whether caused by the lack of a clear timetable to 2.5% or otherwise, is so important and critical.

Overall, it is my view that withdrawing from GCAP now would be the equivalent of scrapping the Spitfire programme in the 1930s. It is that serious. However, if such an outcome is seriously under consideration—and we know that there are those in government who are hugely sceptical—I will explain why we are ultimately supporting this SI. It is because we on the Conservative Benches believe that GCAP is a military necessity that will bring enormous economic and strategic benefits to the United Kingdom.

To start with the military capability argument, if there is one key lesson from Ukraine, it is that in the absence of air superiority we face the prospect of terrible attritional warfare with huge casualties, reminiscent of the worst battles of world war two.

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

I know it is thinking very far into the future, but does my hon. Friend accept that one of the lessons from the Ukraine conflict, where we have had to give indirect support, is the importance of maintaining aircraft that we have withdrawn from service—in mothballs, if necessary—so that they can be made available to allies, should they ever face a crisis such as this one? When the happy day comes that we have these great sixth-generation aircraft, can we be certain that we have not unduly disposed of their predecessors, in case someone else needs them in future?

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend’s question is an interesting one. Whenever I was in front of the Select Committee—it was always a great joy and privilege to be cross-examined, particularly by my colleagues on the Conservative Benches—there was always a debate about when we withdraw platforms and when we bring in their replacements. That will never go away, and I wish the Armed Forces Minister well when he has the unique privilege and experience of going in front of the Committee. What I would say to my right hon. Friend is that we have to accept that, as a matter of avionic reality, the Typhoon will reach the end of its service life, and we as a country have to replace it. GCAP is key to that, with the construction of the new core platform.

While investing in the best combat air capability does not guarantee air superiority in the future, it offers us the chance to deny adversaries such potentially deadly freedom of operation by maintaining technological competitiveness. However, there are those who ask, “Why don’t we simply go off-the-shelf and buy more F-35s?” I noticed similar views being expressed in The Daily Telegraph this very day, and there is even a rumour that some Government Departments, such as those I mentioned earlier, may take a view along those lines. We must be clear that the F-35, while a brilliant and highly capable aircraft, is a fifth-generation platform, not a sixth-generation one. It is not optimised for the battle space that is likely to pertain by the late 2030s, and the United States—which, after all, possesses and manufactures the F-35—is itself investing in a sixth-generation programme, as are our adversaries.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the shadow Minister for what he is saying: his great focus on the issues of modern technology, our companies and what they are involved with. I know that he has a tremendous interest in Northern Ireland—he visited there regularly in his former role in government. Can he give us some suggestions about the role that aerospace in Northern Ireland could, and will, play in finding a way forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is an absolute champion of the defence industry in Northern Ireland. He is right: one of my last visits was to the Thales factory in Belfast, which of course is home to the next-generation light anti-tank weapon, the lightweight multirole missile, and other key munitions. In terms of aerospace, the first small and medium-sized enterprise forum that I held as Defence Procurement Minister was in Larne in Northern Ireland, on Armed Forces Day last year. Spirit was one of the attendees, and I am confident that it has a strong place in the future of British aviation in the defence sector, as long as we put the funding in place and keep with the programmes.

Having said all that, there must obviously be debate when we are spending this amount of money on a capability, and I understand why there are those who question the sums of money involved, the timeframes and so on. To be clear, as a former Defence Procurement Minister, I would not support a programme that was purely about spending such a vast amount of money just on a new core platform to replace Typhoon. That brings us to what GCAP is really about, which the Minister mentioned in her opening remarks, to her credit. On one of my last visits to a land company—a company manufacturing armoured vehicles for this country—the chief executive I spoke to referred to the GCAP of land. The point is that, although the “A” stands for air, when we talk about GCAP in military capability terms, it is equally about how we work with autonomous and uncrewed systems. That is the key to the sixth-generation concept.

I am very passionate about this issue—I was proud to bring forward the first defence drone strategy at the Ministry of Defence—and although there are those who are concerned about the timeframe, I would just make the following points. First, the timescale for delivering GCAP is very ambitious compared with that of Typhoon; secondly, we can gain capability benefits from GCAP on a much shorter timescale. We have heard the Chief of the General Staff talking about the need for the Army to be able to fight a war within three years, and when I was Defence Procurement Minister, I was keen to ensure that all the services were looking at what they could do to boost lethality and survivability in the near term. Surely, the key to that is how we make use of uncrewed systems.

The United Kingdom is incredibly well placed in that regard: we jointly lead the maritime coalition in respect of Ukraine alongside Norway. Of course, Ukraine’s greatest military success has been naval, having pushed back the Russian fleet using what we might describe as innovative weapons rather than traditional naval deployments. Likewise on land, the incredible importance of drones cannot be overstated, including the psychological impact on those who are fighting out there.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I totally agree with what the former Minister is saying about the requirement for and necessity of sixth-generation aircraft, as well as about maintaining sovereign capability. However, does he agree that it seems peculiar that the Americans are developing their own sixth-generation aircraft with Lockheed Martin, the French and the Germans are developing their own sixth-generation aircraft as well, and we have forged this strange partnership with the Italians and the Japanese to develop GCAP? Does the Minister think that makes sense, in terms of pooling effort and making sure that our allies have at least one good sixth-generation fighter aircraft?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not regard it as a strange partnership. All my experience of dealing with GCAP and meeting my Italian and Japanese counterparts, particularly industry representatives from all three countries, and working so closely together—there is already so much work going on—tells me that this is about developing a brilliant platform that is needed by all three nations. There will always be a multiplicity of platforms from different countries, which I think is perfectly healthy. What is good about the hon. Gentleman’s question is that he has opened up the debate about sovereign capability, which I will come to shortly. I just wanted to finish my point about the uncrewed domain, and what it means to be sixth-generation.

[Mr Francois]

Before my hon. Friend does so, would he give way very briefly?

[James Cartlidge]

Of course—it is a pleasure.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend was a very good Defence Procurement Minister, and we on the Committee liked him because, crikey, he actually answered the questions. He will know from that experience that even the Americans, who have a new thing called the next generation air dominance fighter, are struggling to afford it; there have been media reports in the US that they may even cancel that programme, because even the Americans cannot afford to do everything unilaterally anymore. In the light of that, does my hon. Friend believe that a three-way programme represents good value for money?

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend, who not only served on the Committee but was an Armed Forces Minister, makes an excellent point. There are those who argue that we should go beyond 2.5%; I would argue that 2.5% is still a significant jump for this country. We had a funded plan, and that 2.5%—crucially and critically, with the pathway we set out, which became an accumulation of significant additional billions of pounds for the MOD—enabled us to afford GCAP and stabilise that programme.

I want to make one crucial point about the uncrewed domain. To be frank, for the uncrewed side of the Navy, Army and Air Force, those programmes are not funded: hitherto, the funding has come primarily from support for Ukraine. That is entirely logical because, under the defence drone strategy, we were very clear that there is no point in the Army, for example, ordering large-scale drones now; it might order them to train with, but the technology is changing so fast. What we as a country need to build, as I set out in the drone strategy, is the ecosystem to develop those drones, and we are doing that.

I have always said—I said it during my statement on the integrated procurement model—that my most inspiring moment as Defence Procurement Minister was visiting a UK SME that was building a drone for use in Ukraine. It was a highly capable platform, but brilliantly, it was getting feedback and spiralling it—as we call it—the very next day. On GCAP, it should be a technology for the whole of defence—it should be a pan-defence technology of how we team with uncrewed systems, how the Navy fights with an uncrewed fleet above and below the surface, for the Army and of course for the Air Force.

I have two final points on military capability, as a couple of points have been floating around in the press. The first is that the Army is putting out its opposition to GCAP. I find that idea impossible to believe. Of course, if the Army wants to succeed, it needs the support of the Air Force and so on. That is why an integrated approach to procurement is so important, not single service competition. There has also been the point that we should choose between GCAP and AUKUS, as if, when the next war comes, the Russians will step into our dressing room and ask if we would like to bowl or bat: would we like to fight on land or sea—what is our preference? The fact is that we do not know where the threat will come from, but we know that it is growing, so we should support both GCAP and AUKUS, not least for the enormous economic benefit they bring.

You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that that brings me to the last part of my speech, on the economic benefits of GCAP. There are those who say we should buy off the shelf. We would stress how, in a state of ever greater war readiness, it pays to have operational independence and sovereignty. In particular, investing in the great tradition of UK combat air offers huge economic gains for every part of the country.

In 2020, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the Tempest programme alone would support an average of 20,000 jobs every year from 2026 until 2050. Those are well-paid jobs in every constituency up and down the country—including many in Lancashire, as you will know, Mr Speaker. Scrapping GCAP would hit our economy hard. Even delaying or deferring GCAP expenditure would undermine our brilliant aerospace industry, which was on display this past week at the Royal International Air Tattoo in Farnborough, and cast doubt over the vast sums of private investment that are waiting, from which hundreds of UK SMEs stand to benefit.

An interesting point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition when asking the Prime Minister about exports and discussions with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is an incredibly important point. I was clear that, in reforming procurement, we have to have exportability at the heart of it because otherwise industrial supply chains wither. It is as simple as that. The demand from this country is not big enough. This has been the French lesson for many years, which is why they have put so much effort into export, and we need to do the same—whether it is GCAP, or any other platforms or capability manufactured by the United Kingdom.

To undermine GCAP is to undermine our economy, our future war-fighting capability and relations with our closest international partners. The Government should instead embrace GCAP wholeheartedly and confirm that they stand by their previous position of steadfast support. Then they should commit to a clear timetable on 2.5%, so that we can turbocharge the programme by investing not only in the core platform, but in the associated technology of autonomous collaboration and a digital system of systems approach, enabling the mass and rapid absorption of battlespace data.

To conclude, the best way to win the next war is to deter it from happening in the first place. Part of our overall deterrence posture is to signal to our adversaries our preparedness to always be ready to out-compete their technology. How can we send that deterrent signal if we have such mixed messages on our largest conventional military programme? We support this statutory instrument, we support GCAP and we support the powerful gains it will give to the United Kingdom’s economic and military strength.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I gently say that I welcome the very thorough response from the Opposition, but the shadow Minister did take twice as long as the Minister? I do have other speakers on his own side who also want to get in, so please just work to make sure we can get everybody in.

We now come to a maiden speech—I call Calvin Bailey.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to questions to the Prime Minister. On behalf of everyone in the House of Commons, may I say congratulations to the Prime Minister and Carrie Symonds on the birth of their son? It is such happy news amid such uncertainty—2020 is certainly a year that they will never forget. I will call the First Secretary of State to answer the engagements question. I call James Cartlidge virtually.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I join you in sending heartiest congratulations to the Prime Minister and to Carrie on the birth of their son? It is wonderful news and I am sure that he will bring them great joy in these difficult times.On coronavirus, surely we should not underestimate the significance of getting to what we hope is the peak of the outbreak without the NHS being overwhelmed. To do that, we have had to take the difficult but unavoidable decision of putting elective surgery on hold for many people. What more can we do to free up the NHS so that our constituents with cancer and other serious non-covid conditions start being treated again as soon as possible, and in significant numbers?

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)]

I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As Members will have seen and as Mr Speaker has explained, the Prime Minister and his fiancée, Carrie Symonds, have announced the birth of a healthy baby boy this morning. Both mother and baby are doing well, and I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending congratulations and our very best wishes to them.

The whole House will also want to join me in paying tribute to the 85 NHS workers and the 23 social care workers who have sadly died from coronavirus. My deepest sympathies are with their families and their friends at what is an incredibly difficult time, and we will continue to do whatever it takes to support them.

I am sure the whole House will also want to join me in wishing Captain Tom Moore, who has done so much in raising £29 million for NHS charities, a very happy 100th birthday tomorrow. His life of service for his country and his dedication to helping others is an inspiration to us all.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) notes, it is because we have taken the right measures at the right time that we have flattened the peak of this virus and prevented the NHS from becoming overwhelmed—the two single most important elements of this strategy that we have delivered. That has meant that the NHS has had capacity to deal not just with covid-19 patients but other urgent treatments. My hon. Friend is also right to say that as we move forwards towards a second phase, we must plan to ensure that the NHS is able to deliver elective surgery and to treat patients with other conditions, which is exactly what we are planning to do.

UK Telecommunications

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. No, it would not just be for the future. The reality is that with a 35% cap, which could be changed over time, and with the investment initiatives we need to take in order to diversify supply, we should start to grapple with the domestic challenge as soon as possible—I cannot give him a precise date—as well as considering what we do afterwards in regulatory terms. The reality is that the more trusted home-grown supply we have, the less we will need to rely on high-risk vendors.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In debate after debate in this Chamber on the economy, hon. Member after hon. Member rightly laments this country’s long-standing failure to raise its productivity. There are serious security concerns, which my right hon. Friend has addressed pragmatically, but does he agree it is hard to think of a single measure more likely to raise our productivity than the early and comprehensive adoption of 5G?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right. Those who advocate an outright ban need to come out and defend what that would mean, first, for security—because it would not be a targeted response to the security challenges we face—and, secondly, for investment due to the delayed roll-out of 5G.

Australian Bushfires

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Wheeler]

It is great to hear of how much work is going on behind the scenes in Parliament, but I stress again that is a No.1 Government priority and all our embassies are on it. It is a great honour to host COP26 with our Italian friends, and it will be the success that it needs to be.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome you back to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We should remember that on new year’s day National Grid announced that this country just had the first ever year in which the energy from zero-carbon sources exceeded fossil fuels—it is the first time in our history—so we are doing our bit. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not be lecturing Australia when it is in the middle of a national emergency if it is not yet doing the same? As she rightly says, we should be giving it all the support we can. Will she confirm that if the fires worsen, we stand ready to provide whatever help is needed, should the Australians request it?

[Mrs Wheeler]

Those are wise words from my hon. Friend. The UK policy on climate change has been dramatic: we are setting out legally binding targets to eliminate climate change by 2050; we have been the fastest in the G20 to decarbonise since 2000; and since 1990 we have reduced our emissions by more than 40% while growing our economy by two thirds. We can get the message out to other countries that it can be done and it does not affect the economy. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, National Grid’s use of energy from renewable sources is leading the way as a great example to others.

Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to take steps to obtain the required international authority to use a proportion of the assets of the Libyan Government that were frozen in the UK to compensate the relatives of people murdered and injured as a result of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism and to fund community support programmes in areas affected by that terrorism.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate and all right hon. and hon. Members, and indeed the Minister, for attending a debate on a subject that should have been finalised and closed a long time ago.

During my time as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we had the opportunity of holding an inquiry into Her Majesty’s Government’s support for UK victims of IRA attacks that used Gaddafi-supplied Semtex and weapons. That was an opportunity not only to hear from the victims of those attacks and the families of those who, sadly and tragically, lost their lives, but to draw attention to a series of missed opportunities to secure compensation for those victims. Today, we call on the Government to make amends for the inaction of previous Governments by securing justice for those victims and their relatives.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that it is very timely given the Attorney General’s statement earlier, which revealed—and it may be entirely justified—that a Libyan citizen who was wronged by this Government has received £500,000 in compensation?

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I get deeper into my speech, I will refer to other compensation awards, but the Government should certainly follow that guiding principle.

The role of the Libyan Government in bolstering the activities of the Provisional IRA should not be understated. When he appeared before the Select Committee, the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Jack Straw, stated:

“In the 1980s and early 1990s, Libya was probably the most serious state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”

Those were very strong words. From the early 1970s through to the 1990s, the Gaddafi regime in Libya supplied arms, funding, training and explosives to the Provisional IRA, which is accepted by many to have both extended and worsened the troubles.

Through a series of shipments that took place in the mid-1980s, the regime supplied the Provisional IRA with up to 10 tonnes of Semtex, a highly powerful and virtually undetectable plastic explosive. The Semtex supplied made possible a deadly bombing campaign from the late 1980s, resulting in a horrific loss of life across Northern Ireland and the mainland. These include the attacks in Enniskillen, where a bomb was detonated that killed 11 people during a Remembrance Sunday ceremony, the bombings in Warrington that resulted in the deaths of two children—Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball—and the attack at docklands in this city, where a bomb killed two people and injured about 100 more. This is to name just a few of the atrocities carried out by the Provisional IRA using the Libyan-supplied Semtex. It does not come close to illustrating the extent of the devastation caused. While that loss of life is a tragedy, those attacks also had far-reaching implications for those who were injured and for the families and loved ones of those who sadly lost their lives.

During our inquiry, many victims emphasised not only the physical effects of the attacks, but the emotional, psychological and financial difficulties caused. The testimonies of those victims have been highlighted in previous debates, but it would be valuable to the House to consider them once more, to illustrate the sheer loss, heartache and pain caused by those attacks.

Colin Parry, whose 12-year-old son, Tim, died following the Warrington bombings in 1993, told the Committee:

“Describing the final moments of your child’s life is beyond words…because, as a parent, there is no greater pain or loss than the death of your child.”

Suzanne Dodd’s father was the inspector on duty on the day of the Harrods bombing. She told the Committee that, on the day of the attack, she and her siblings had been waiting for their father to come home to put up the Christmas tree when their mother told them that there had been a bomb at Harrods and that their father would be late. It emerged that her father had been seriously injured. Her mother returned from hospital on Christmas eve, telling Suzanne and her siblings that her father had died.

The urgency of this issue is possibly best illustrated by Mrs Gemma Berezzag, whose husband was left blind, paralysed and brain damaged by the docklands bombing. For 20 years she cared for her husband’s complex needs on a daily basis. She sadly passed away in 2016, before any resolution could be found. I ask the Government: how many more individuals affected by those atrocities will not see justice in their lifetime? Those cases provide only a snapshot of the suffering caused by Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, and time is running out for many of the victims.

Losing any loved one through natural causes is bad enough. Losing someone through an accident is perhaps even more shocking, but how much worse must it be when that life has been deliberately taken through terrorism? Add to that grief the involvement of a foreign, rogue state, and the victims’ relatives and friends must suffer more than any of us could ever imagine.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard how victims have been repeatedly let down by successive Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments, owing to their failure adequately to pursue compensation on their behalf. At times, it seemed that during periods of improved relations the concerns of victims were secondary to other considerations. The Committee concluded that there had been a series of missed opportunities to raise the issue of compensation, particularly during a period of deepening relations between the UK and Libya in the 2000s.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing it. I was fortunate enough to persuade the Backbench Business Committee to grant a Westminster Hall debate on this matter in my name in September 2016. There have been developments since then, although I would not quite say that there has been progress. I want to focus on what has happened recently, which I believe means that the matter is even more pressing.

There is background to why I take such an interest in this matter. A constituent of mine, Charles Arbuthnot, is one of the campaigners; his sister was a 22-year-old WPC killed in the Harrods bombing in 1983. When I first heard about that, I wanted to help as a constituency MP, but the following really struck me about that case, and it is at the core of the matter. I found out—as finally admitted in correspondence to me from the Foreign Office—that a United States citizen who was one of the victims of that Harrods bombing was compensated to the tune of several million pounds by the Libyan Government, yet UK victims have to date received not a penny.

Indeed, I do not comment in any way on the following case and whether the money is justified, but I am bound to say that we heard today from the Attorney General that in the case of Belhaj and Boudchar, two Libyan citizens whom we failed as a country—they suffered harm as a result of the actions of this state—the wife, Fatima Boudchar, will receive £500,000 in compensation. We must look at that and ask how our own victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism would feel about that. I hope we will get an answer to that from the Minister.

I want now to look at some of the things that keep moving this issue forward. With a group of MPs and Lord Empey, I went to see the Foreign Secretary in October last year, and he promised us in a letter by return that he would be “more visibly proactive” in standing up for victims. I know the Minister is supportive and wants to see progress on this, so my key question to him is what does “more visibly proactive” mean? Does that mean more engagement with the Libyan Government? We know there is great difficulty in terms of the credibility of that Government and the lack of firm government in Libya. Does “more visibly proactive” mean we will get more regular updates, and more discussion between our Government and the Libyans? That is what I want to know: what exactly does that phrase mean in terms of coalface action?

The other point concerns the issue of assets, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury. It is hard to ignore the fact that billions of pounds of Libyan money is held in this very city. One of the great features of this country is the reliability of our legal system, and I understand why the Government would be reluctant to look at this issue and in any way undermine the reputation of the City by appearing to be weaker in terms of security to those who might want to put their money here. However, we must also recognise that that Libyan money is frozen under UN mandate, and there will have be a vote in the UN Security Council for those assets to be unfrozen. That would be at the request of Libya once there is a stable Administration, and they would be asking us, in effect, to vote in the UN Security Council to unfreeze those assets. We have already heard from my hon. Friend how the French threatened to use their veto to favour their victims of Libyan terrorism, and it astonishes me that we would not consider at all in any sense using that veto.

In fact in that same letter from the Foreign Secretary, he said:

“At our meeting, we discussed the feasibility of the UK using its veto in the UN Security Council, when the time comes, to prevent the unfreezing of assets until the Libyans had agreed to pay compensation to UK victims. While I sympathise with the intention behind this approach, I need to explain that I believe it highly unlikely that any Foreign Secretary would wish to do this.”

I would like to think that he is not “any Foreign Secretary”; he is a Foreign Secretary who believes in standing up for Britain, and who says he will be “more visibly proactive”, and I would like to think that, “when the time comes”, there will be discussions about that possible procedure.

Lord Empey is bringing forward a Bill again. I sponsored it when it came to the Commons last time; the Government objected and it fell. We must give that Bill at least a chance to be debated in this Chamber.

I want to finish with a really important development in the United States. This concerns a piece of legislation I referred to in the Westminster Hall debate: the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It was vetoed by President Obama, as I was informed in that very debate, but I can tell the House that Congress overrode that and it is now an Act in America. In March 2017, 1,500 injured survivors and 850 family members of 9/11 victims filed a class action lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We have, then, a situation where a Libyan citizen is to receive compensation for what they experienced at the hands of the UK Government, while we know that an American citizen received compensation following the Harrods bombing and that the United States is empowering its citizens to take action against state sponsors. We have to ask ourselves what the British Government are doing for British citizens slain on British soil by a terrorist organisation that was aided and abetted by a brutal regime. The scales of justice have yet to weigh in their favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In 1999, “Bandit Country: The IRA & South Armagh” a book by Tony Harnden, outlined in some detail the links between Libya and the Provisional IRA. The Provisional IRA’s campaign was given huge stimulus by the series of vessels full of weapons that arrived in places such as County Wicklow from the mid-1980s onwards. We are talking about missiles, ammunition and explosives. We make a mistake if we think it was just explosives, because people were killed by Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and so on; they were killed by Libyan-inspired weapons. I wish to outline one shipment, to give colleagues an idea of what was coming in.

In about October 1986, a deal was arranged between Thomas “Slab” Murphy of the Provisional IRA, who is pretty well known to people like me, and Nasser Ali Ashour, a Libyan intelligence officer and diplomat. It took about 30 Libyan soldiers two nights to load up a converted Swedish oil rig replenishment ship called the Villa. Some 80 tonnes of weapons and explosives were put about the Villa, including seven RPGs, 10 surface-to-air missiles, a huge number of Kalashnikovs and one tonne of Semtex H, which is an incredibly powerful plastic explosive. It is far more powerful than the normal fertiliser-based bombs used up until that time. The Villa slipped through international waters and landed at Clogga Strand in County Wicklow. From there, its load was spirited away to long-term hides and then secretly distributed to Provisional IRA active service cells for use to kill indiscriminately.

It is indisputable that the Gaddafi regime—let us not say Libyans—supplied weapons and explosives used by the Provisional IRA. It is indisputable that so many innocent people died as a result of Provisional IRA activity using Libyan-supplied arms and explosives. It is indisputable that other nations have ensured compensation for victims of Libyan-backed terrorism. It is indisputable that huge sums of Libyan cash are frozen in London’s banks—we have just heard that there is nearly £12 billion of it. Surely the Government can find a mechanism that can compensate victims, perhaps in advance for those who are getting older, sometimes living in agony or in poverty. Get some money to them!

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. I was not even aware of the figures cited by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). Do those figures not suggest that when the request is made, we could return the assets to Libya with some kind of indexing so that it got the full value of its assets, and there would still be billions left with which it could pay recompense?

[Bob Stewart]

They do indeed—my hon. Friend is so right. We could use just a little of the interest. That is all it would take: just a little of the interest to compensate our citizens for this criminal terrorist activity. I am quite sure that decent, honourable Libyan citizens would want that to happen. The Government have a duty to do something about this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[Alistair Burt]

I will give way, but I need to finish at 4.57 pm to give my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury time, and I cannot make progress if I am constantly responding to interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I do not think that the presently constituted Libyan Government is in any position to make a decision in relation to such compensation or to pay it. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, that is one of the practical issues that we are dealing with at the moment.

[James Cartlidge]

I am delighted that the Minister is raising this issue. Did he discuss with Libyan representatives any aspect of the frozen assets issue? Did he remind them that, if those assets are to be unfrozen, that will require a resolution of the UN Security Council, in which we have a vote?

[Alistair Burt]

No, I did not raise that at this time. Our position on the frozen assets is known, but let me come back to that in a moment. If I may, I will make a little progress so that I can present some conclusions.

One or two colleagues raised the issue of visibility, which the Foreign Secretary has previously raised with the Prime Minister of Libya. As far as visibility is concerned, we will continue to raise the matter at the highest level with Libyan counterparts. However, I must say that my conclusion from such meetings and from meeting Ministers myself is that I just do not think they are in a position to deal with this or to put forward anything at present. I am not sure that we can put any timescale on this process, which means that we may have to think about it differently. Progress is likely to continue to be difficult and slow until the situation in Libya changes significantly for the better.

Hon. Members have raised the question of Libyan assets. I do not want to take too much time, but I must repeat that the advice I have been given is that there is no lawful basis on which the UK could seize or change the ownership of any Libyan assets, whether they are owned by the Gaddafi family or by the Libyan state. The UN Security Council resolution under which these assets were frozen is clear that they should eventually be returned for the benefit of the Libyan people, and to breach the resolution would be a violation of international law.

We set out our position on several of the issues that have been mentioned in the Government response to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report last year, and in substance the position has not changed, but let me look towards the future. The Government will continue to help victims engage directly with the Libyan authorities to pursue their campaign for compensation. The Foreign Secretary and I have previously met victims groups and the hon. Members who support them, and we remain committed to keeping them and the House updated on any developments.

In view of the likely absence of any progress within a reasonable timescale, I will now write to my colleagues across the Government to explore whether there is anything else the UK Government can do to support victims, their families and their communities. Hon. Members have previously suggested the idea of a community fund to provide assistance with physical, emotional and mental rehabilitation. I will discuss this with my colleagues across the Government and explore what further support may be available under existing Government schemes. I will strongly take into account what hon. Members have said about the way in which we must approach relationships with a friendly Government in Libya who are, at present, unable to respond.

In conclusion, I am quite clear that the concerns raised today have been raised for far too long. We have a long tradition in this House of eventually getting around to things which, under successive Governments, ought to have been done—Hillsborough, contaminated blood and the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General earlier this afternoon—and, except for the victims themselves, there are very few clean hands. I and my colleagues are being urged to do more, and I will do my best to keep open all channels of pressure on the Libyan Government, as we help them with stabilisation and for the future. With other colleagues in the Government, I will also try to be as imaginative as possible in dealing with the current situation and with requests for us to do more.

Syria and North Korea

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the end, it was the Russian intervention that saved Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The Russians have it in their hands to change the outcome in Syria for the benefit of not just the Syrian people, but Russia as well.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but, to echo the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), there are Members who are concerned about this phrase “regime change” and any policy that moves in that direction. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the US moves towards a more explicit regime-change policy with regard to Assad, we would support it only after a vote in this House endorsing such a policy?

[Boris Johnson]

The policy of the Government is spelt out very clearly in resolution 2254, which calls for a political process leading to a transition away from the Assad regime. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is the right way forward.

President Trump: State Visit

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your highly tuned chairmanship, Mr Walker. I do not normally speak on foreign policy matters, but I feel duty-bound to speak because so many of my constituents have signed the petition. I have some sympathy with them. They are entitled to sign the petition against the state visit. As has been said, some of the things that Donald Trump has said are extremely offensive, but what concerns me is the points of substance, such as the ambiguity about NATO. That is what we should be worried about.

What we are debating here is UK foreign policy, which is best served by following the national interest, not through gestures or knee-jerk reactions. We need calm, effective diplomacy done in the old-fashioned way, often behind the scenes. We need to work towards a long-term strategy, rather than something redolent of student politics and gestures that get us nowhere. We need to focus on the strategic points, to which there are two parts. The first is the recognition that we need to be as close to the US Administration as possible. If we have concerns—hon. Members clearly have concerns about President Trump—we should be trying to shape his Administration rather than rescinding an offer that was sent and accepted in good faith.

My second point on strategy is to understand who wins if we rescind the offer. We will gain nothing if we withdraw the offer. I can tell Members who will win—there is one man: Vladimir Putin. There will be smiles all round the Kremlin if we follow the suggestion in the petition, because the one thing it wants above all else is to divide the west. It wants the UK and the US to be divided. It does not want a strong transatlantic partnership. I am talking not just about our interest but the global interest in saying that we would be crackers to withdraw the invitation. In fact, I would offer a state visit to Vladimir Putin, as Tony Blair did, despite the fact that Russian Bear bombers are buzzing our airspace and the fact that the Russians have nuclear missiles pointed at us and pose a huge threat. That is precisely why we offer invitations—because we want to influence an Administration.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

My hon. Friend is quite right that everyone wants us to influence the US Administration. Is he not buoyed up by the fact that Donald Trump has taken the opposite position to that of Obama, who came here during our referendum and told us that we would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal? He tried to influence our referendum, whereas Donald Trump has said that he wants to see us at the front of the queue for a trade deal.

[James Cartlidge]

The referendum is done and dusted, of course, and we have some interesting days ahead in the other place. I campaigned to remain in the EU, but when President Obama spoke about the referendum, it was a gift to the leave campaign. The issue today, however, is Donald Trump. As I said, I would invite Vladimir Putin for a state visit. For me, people can say offensive things and represent terrible values—Russia is not a serious democracy, and it has a terrible human rights record—but our foreign policy is about the national interest of the United Kingdom. That means being as strong as possible and having as much influence as possible on countries that are the major global players. I conclude by saying we will serve this country best by sticking to the invitation we have made instead of making ourselves a laughing stock to the countries that matter.

Victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism: Compensation

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. It is a great honour to bring forward this important debate on long-overdue compensation for UK victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism.

To set the scene of why this is such a critical and important debate, I first want to make a hypothetical case. Imagine if, in the coming weeks, the media were to report that there was strong evidence of the involvement of a sovereign state in the recent outrages in France. Imagine if we were to read that there was firm evidence that another country—not just the so-called Islamic State—had trained the lorry driver for the attack in Nice or had supplied the Kalashnikovs and the bombs for the attack on the Bataclan. There would be international outrage. Although that is hypothetical, the victims and their families in this case have had to live with such a reality for many years: throughout decades of IRA terrorism and murdering of people in this country, the weapons and explosives used were willingly and knowingly supplied by the regime of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya.

Two key and timeless principles are at stake here. The most obvious is justice. Quite simply, we wish to obtain compensation for the victims of this terrorism as a way for them to get accountability from Libya, and for Libya finally to pay for its role in those actions.

The other principle is fairness. For me, the most extraordinary fact of this whole issue is that compensation has been paid, but to citizens of countries other than the one where the murders were committed. Of course, this is a long-running campaign. These outrages happened many years ago and the victims and their families have been waiting many years for justice. It is no surprise that, in that time, many of the arguments have been made time and again, but I happen to think there is good reason to look at the issue that I am discussing again.

Before doing so, I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), and which has an ongoing investigation into the matter. I pay tribute to the debate about the docklands bomb called by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is my friend, which I attended and at which he argued most passionately. I also pay tribute to the Bill to do with asset freezing currently going through the other place, which was brought by Lord Empey.

There is a lot going on and there have been many debates, but there are three key reasons why we should be looking at this issue again today. First and foremost, it is to seek an important update from my hon. Friend the Minister about what is happening in Libya. When he appeared before the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, he spoke of the fact that the Libyan Deputy Prime Minister will be setting up a new committee to look at the issue. It will be interesting to hear whether there have been any developments. We are hopeful but, of course, realistic and aware of the difficult situation that pertains in Libya at the moment with the civil war and so on.

Secondly, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), we parliamentarians have formed a campaign group to represent victims and their families. Many of its members are here today, including myself, and I am delighted to see them. We will continue to fight for justice for those victims, whatever happens and whatever the Government do.

Thirdly, the most important and timely point is that on Friday the House of Representatives in America voted unanimously, as did the Senate in May, to pass into law a Bill known as JASTA—the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act; it will empower private citizens of the United States to sue those involved in state-sponsored terrorism. In my view, the fact that that was passed unanimously in Congress throws open the whole issue of state-sponsored terrorism and its relation to individuals and their ability to seek redress through the courts and likewise.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. He is alluding to the recent American experience. Does he agree with me that, although there is a fundamental issue of restitution and compensation, alongside that is an issue of sending an international message to nation states across the globe that there is no escape from their responsibilities if, at any stage in the past, present or future, they finance international terrorism? That is the message that needs to come across from the debate.

[James Cartlidge]

I strongly agree. The point we are trying to put across is that the past catches up with those who perpetrate these vile acts. I am told by the Minister that the President of the United States has vetoed that Bill. It remains to be seen what will happen because, as I understand it, Hilary Clinton has pledged to support it. It seems hard to believe that the Bill is going to go away quietly, given that the biggest act of terrorism in the history of the west and the biggest attack on US sovereign territory since, I believe, Pearl Harbour, is involved.

After all, it must be remembered that cases against Saudi Arabia have been ongoing for years. The whole point of the Bill was to enable those litigants to overcome the issue of immunity. I personally think the Bill will come back and that we need to be cognisant of that. The hon. Gentleman’s important point was well made and I think it encapsulates that, when states support terror, justice eventually catches up with them. We are here to ensure that that is the case.

It will be helpful if I explain my personal involvement with this issue. I was elected last May as the Member of Parliament for South Suffolk, and that summer I met one of my constituents, Charles Arbuthnot, who is a campaigner on this cause and whose sister, as a 22-year-old WPC serving her country on the frontline early in her career, was murdered in the Harrods bomb attack with explosives supplied by Libya. He is one of the key campaigners.

In the months afterwards, Charles and I exchanged letters, and I wrote to the Minister many times about the subject to probe a key point. I had been surprised, being new to the subject, unlike many hon. Members here, to hear from the Minister that a US citizen who had been caught up in the same bombing that had so brutally slain my constituent’s sister had been compensated. To me that was quite extraordinary.

I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister and we had a long exchange of letters about it. I was shocked to discover, when looking back over all the debates on the subject, that the assumption, including by many hon. Members sitting here, was that the Government were aware of that compensation—it was a given—but that there was never any formal recognition of the fact that it had been paid out. I should say that my hon. Friend cares strongly about this issue, has served in Northern Ireland and will do all he can to help; there may be, shall we say, institutional issues at stake, in terms of the Department and successive Governments.

Finally, in March this year, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister in which he referred to the deal made between the US and Libya, saying:

“Whilst the Commission did award compensation to a victim of the Harrods bomb, it is not possible to determine who the recipient was.”

He then went on to talk about whether that sets a precedent, which I think is absolutely key to this. He said:

“In future engagement with the Libyan Government, it may help us to mention that Libyan money has already been used to compensate victims of Qadhafi-inspired IRA terrorism. On the other hand, the Libyans may claim that Qadhafi made the decision to make payments to the US and that the decision to include US victims of the Harrods bombing within these payments was a US and not a Libyan one. They may therefore argue that this does not set a precedent for any future payments for victims of Qadhafi-inspired terrorism.”

My view is that it absolutely sets a precedent. Quite simply, money was paid to the victims—that is the bottom line. That is what our victims are seeking, because they want their redress and their justice, just as the Americans have received.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this very important debate. Bearing in mind that the coalition Government took over in 2010, headed by the then Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment, to put it lightly, that the British Government have not espoused the claims of the individual victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA violence? Instead they have insisted that individual victims should make their own individual claims. That is quite impossible for them. The simple solution is for the Government to do the right thing and to espouse their claims.

[James Cartlidge]

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

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

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

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

[James Cartlidge]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Without singling anybody out, I should say that all the interventions have been quite lengthy. Interventions need to be short and to the point.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you, Ms Ryan. I am coming to my concluding point of substance. I share the sentiments just expressed about all the efforts up until now. I am well aware, as a new MP, that much water has passed under the bridge.

The point in respect of the United States Congress is their proactivity in really supporting their victims. In January 2008, the US Congress passed the annual National Defence Authorization Act, which is the omnibus Bill through which it funds its military commitments every year. In 2008, special provisions were added, allowing victims of state-sponsored terrorism to collect court judgments from terrorism-sponsoring states by seizing their assets. When that happened, Gaddafi immediately realised he was looking at a fairly substantial bill of several billion pounds, which led to the settlement that capped the liability. From that amount, the money was paid out that eventually led to compensation for the victim in Harrods to whom I referred.

It is incredibly important to reflect on the fact that the measures taken in America are not gesture politics; they lead to real action. In fact, JASTA was passed precisely because those civil litigants were running up against a brick wall of immunity, and Congress passed the Bill to help them go further. I am not commenting on whether Saudi Arabia has any implication at all. It is the principled point of proactive support.

The Government can do more. The key channel here is communication with Libya and trying to reach a deal, which I fully support and understand. In the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) talked about aid. We have a huge aid budget in this country. We are going to be spending a lot of money on aid in Libya, as I understand it.

Conditionality was also discussed in that Committee. Although I am not suggesting we should involve that now, if we see no progress, that may be something we can look at. We have the power to influence transparency. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any way we can have clearer communication, particularly for the victims—for example, a dedicated section on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website periodically informing us what is happening with the committee out in Libya and in this dialogue.

We do not expect dramatic things immediately, though we hope for them. We are aware of the reality of the position in Libya. I simply make the point that a contrast is now apparent to us, particularly given what happened in America on Friday, when it comes to the approaches of two supposed allies in the war on terror.

I conclude with a quote from Senator Chuck Schumer of New York in May, during the passage of JASTA. He said:

“The fact that some foreign governments may have aided and abetted terrorism is infuriating to the families if justice is not done. That is what they seek—justice, justice, justice.”

I would add that if families in other countries get justice and ours do not, ours also want fairness, fairness, fairness.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

This has been an excellent debate. I thank all hon. Members, from all parties and all parts of the United Kingdom, for participating. In this short time, I will highlight some of the key points made. Different proposals have been made on the subject of assets. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) talked about payment in lieu. The key thing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned, is Lord Empey’s Bill, which unless I have misunderstood—I will check Hansard tomorrow—we will have Government time to discuss. We would be grateful if that Bill could be debated fully in the House of Commons so we can explore the details. I welcome that.

On the subject of aid, I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). To me, it is hard to defend paying large amounts of aid to Libya without any discussion of compensation. We should pursue that point. On Tony Blair, we would all like to see him before the Committee; I think that is unanimous. We want to discover what happened in those negotiations. It is a mystery to us, and we hope to explore it.

The Minister asked how we might determine how much compensation is due. As I understand it, in the US-Libya deal in 2008, a tariff was set up for the victims. Otherwise, how would payments have been awarded? It was not done on a random throw of the dice, so there is a precedent in the US for the people of the United Kingdom. The point is that compensation was paid—in some cases, millions of pounds. Either way, there is a precedent. That is what we should look at, and it is a key point in this debate. Compensation has been paid, and we want it for our victims in this country.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Lady is right. The deal on the table between Switzerland and China is deeply asymmetric and deeply unfavourable to the Swiss, but reflects the mismatch in scale between those two marketplaces. Being part of the world’s largest economic bloc allows us to stare squarely into the eyes of Chinese and American interlocutors when negotiating trade deals.

It is a well rehearsed and well understood fact that 44% of the UK’s exports go to the EU, but it is an underestimate because it addresses only exports to the EU. If we take into account the countries with which the EU has a free trade agreement—destinations for another £56 billion of British exports—the figure goes up to 56%, which does not take into account any of the countries with which the EU is negotiating free trade agreements. If we included them, we would be talking about more than 80% of UK exports going either to the EU or to countries with which the EU had trade agreements. At the very least, more than half of Britain’s exports would therefore be at risk if we left the European Union, and it could take a decade or more to put in place new deals with the EU 27 and the 53 other countries with which we have free trade agreements. It is not about choosing between growing our trade with the EU or with the rest of the globe—as the figures show, our EU membership is key to both.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Is not the central absurdity of talking about the EU deficit and the surplus with the rest of the world that our trade with the latter is largely conducted through foreign companies—Japanese car makers and American banks, for example—that base themselves here precisely because we are in the single market? They trade with the whole world—they do not see it as two different places. We as a country should have that attitude.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. The world’s supply chain has globalised itself. If I am honest, when I listen to the arguments of some of our opponents in this debate, although framed in terms of hostility to the European Union, I sometimes wonder whether what I am hearing is hostility to the globalisation of our economy.

What is true for trade is also true for investment—the other side of the coin. The reality is that Britain benefits hugely as a platform for investment from both EU and non-EU countries, many of which see us as a gateway to the rest of the European Union. They come here because of our language, our skills, our flexible labour market and our domestic regulatory environment, but if I talk to foreign companies based in this country—I have lots of them in my constituency, and other Members will be in a similar position—and to others around the world thinking of making that investment decision, it is clear that the single most important factor in the decision making of most of them is our membership of the European Union. Our membership makes Britain a launch pad for doing business with the rest of Europe. Almost three in every four foreign investors cite our access to the European market as a principal reason for investment in the UK. If we lost that access, we would lose the investment. It is as simple as that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clegg]

I will, if I may, make a little progress.

The second point, which is completely omitted by the analysis of Brexit campaigners, is our current account deficit. To be fair, the Government are very silent on that as well, for the very good reason that it is shockingly large. We now have a current account deficit which, at 7% of GDP, is historically and internationally very high and, in my view, unsustainable by historical standards in the long run. As the Governor of the Bank of England has said, if a country runs such a huge, unprecedented current deficit, it has to rely, as he put it, on the “kindness of strangers”.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clegg]

If I may finish this point, I will then give way.

The only way in which that current account deficit is sustainable is if strangers from elsewhere in the world invest in assets in this country—in property, infrastructure, the financial services sector, factories and companies. It is on those investors, and on the kindness of those strangers, as Mark Carney has said, that the sustainability of the ballooning current account deficit relies. What will those strangers think after next Thursday, when they do not even know whether our country will survive at all? The United Kingdom may not persist because Scotland may trigger a second referendum, and see the United Kingdom fall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint]

My hon. Friend is right, and in Yorkshire alone more than 2,000 EU migrants work in health and social care. Sometimes we must consider the nature of the work going on, and ask why those insecure, poorly paid sectors are using migrant workers. Those workers are being exploited, and that does not do much for the users of those services either.

[James Cartlidge]

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Labour Government introduced tier 3 in 2008, which was for unskilled migration from outside the EU? That has been closed ever since, with the official reason that we get those unskilled workers from the EU. Will she speculate on where we will get unskilled workers from in future, when the Poles, Lithuanians and so on no longer come here to do the jobs that we struggle to fill with UK workers?

[Caroline Flint]

I will not speculate, but we need a future where work in social care is not poorly paid, because we are doing a disservice to social care workers, and to the elderly people and other independent adults who rely on them. That is the challenge, and we as a country must take ownership of that and not blame the EU for all the problems on our doorstep.

There is fraud and people who are paid off the books, but that happens with British people who work illegally too, sometimes with bad employers or organised criminal networks behind them calling the shots. Many more people come here because of the work available and because English is the international language. Change is not as easy for some as for others, and leaving the EU will not solve that. The coalition Government were wrong to abolish the migration impacts fund, and it is right that freedom of movement should mean freedom to work, with people putting in before they take out. It is good news that the much maligned European Court of Justice has ruled that it is right for EU member states to be able to withhold benefits.

Let us be honest. Young Brits today do not queue up to pick crops or work in social care. The greatest deceit by the leave campaign is that the UK can keep all the access to the EU single market, but not allow EU workers to work here. If we restrict EU workers who are allowed to work here, why would the 1.6 million Brits who work or live in Europe not face similar restrictions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s experience echoes my own on the other side of the midlands economy.

The fact is that investment, particularly by Tata in Jaguar Land Rover, has transformed the manufacturing economy in my constituency and the surrounding constituencies. We now have the new i54 development, which is a supreme example of what new investment in modern motor manufacturing can do. As a result of that, the local supply chain has been rejuvenated.

We have problems, however. My constituency has more foundries than any other in the country, and they form a vital part of the supply chain that underpins our ability to produce high quality cars and superb manufacturing exports, but they have skills shortages and an ageing workforce. However, they have been helped by the recruitment of skilled workers from eastern Europe through the EU. The companies involved tell me that without those workers, their ability to meet the demands placed on them by the cutting-edge technology that we are producing to expand our manufacturing exports would be hampered and jeopardised.

[James Cartlidge]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of vote leave is that, when we leave the EU, we will stop all unskilled migration into this country? Does he think that that is even remotely credible?

[Mr Bailey]

No. Unfortunately, however, I do not have time to address all the issues that would arise from the leave campaign’s immigration policy, or lack of it. I need to focus on the relevance of these arguments to my constituency.

The fact is that without those workers, our ability to sustain this country’s cutting-edge manufacturing capacity would be lost. I would be the first to agree that we should be pioneering better skills, apprenticeships and so on, and I am glad that the industry is looking at that, but it does not have the capacity to recruit those workers at the moment. If those in the leave campaign were to carry out the promises they have made on migration, there would be a real prospect that those companies would be starved of the skills they need, and it could well lead to unemployment among the long-standing indigenous population who have worked in those industries.

As I do have a few moments left, I will address some of the wider issues raised by those in the leave campaign’s migration policy. Andrew Neil got out of Nigel Farage eventually the idea that they would try to reduce net migration figures to 50,000. They then deploy a seductive argument that if they stopped migration from Europe, they could have more from the non-EU countries, which I think is a pitch to our ethnic minority population, without it having an impact on our skills base in this country. The fact is that the sort of figures being quoted by the leave campaign, and by Nigel Farage in particular, would mean there would be no way we could recruit the levels of staff needed both for the manufacturing industries, which we have in my constituency, and the service industries, particularly the care industry, which have been highlighted by one or two Members today. Those in the leave campaign are raising a particular issue to try to inflame local public opinion, but then peddling only a bogus solution. We have one week to expose that and demonstrate to people that their interests are within the EU and in sustaining our current economic and manufacturing base.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to be called to speak in this historic debate. I will vote remain for one fundamental reason. I am a father of four small children, and the last thing I want is for them to grow up in a country with less opportunity than I have had the great privilege to enjoy. What an opportunity it is. If we vote to leave, this country will not go to the dogs; it will rather be a case of an opportunity cost and an opportunity missed. Alone in the world, we are the only major nation on earth that enjoys unfettered access to the European single market in a currency over which there is no existential doubt.

I was passionately opposed to membership of the exchange rate mechanism and the European Union, but I believe that to be a major nation in the EU but outside the straitjacket of the eurozone is to be in an incredible position; and that position has been strengthened greatly by the Prime Minister’s renegotiation. Some say that it was not a fundamental renegotiation, but the securing of the one key point that the EU cannot discriminate against countries that do not use the euro means that our platform of prosperity is now secure. I believe that, by voting to remain, we can build on that in four vital strategic economic areas.

First and foremost, we will restore our reputation as a safe haven and a sound and stable country in which to invest. This referendum, like the referendum in Scotland, puts that at risk by threatening huge uncertainty. If we vote to remain, while those two constitutional issues will not go away, to the people who matter—

[Stephen Gethins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I should be delighted.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the independence referendum in Scotland. At least he will concede that the Scottish Government provided a 650-page White Paper saying what they would do in the event of an independent Scotland. I have seen squat from the vote leave campaign.

[James Cartlidge]

I do not need to add very much to that, but the point that I am making is in no way intended to incite the Scottish National party. I am simply saying that I believe we will restore our international reputation as a sound and stable nation by putting those two constitutional issues not to bed but to the margins, in the eyes of the investors and the people who matter most.

My second point concerns the terms of trade. Last year I was standing on the platform at Marks Tey station, on the main line into Liverpool Street, with a member of my Conservative association. A goods train passed, travelling from the Felixstowe direction towards London, and therefore its load was obviously from China. There was a container on every single wagon. A few minutes later, a chap looked at me with dismay when another goods train went in the opposite direction, with not a single container on it. I reassured him by saying, “Don’t worry: that’s what we mean by ‘invisible exports.’” [Laughter.] But actually, that is the key point. Because a few minutes later, on the same platform, herds of commuters—including many from my constituency —boarded the train to Liverpool Street, not to go and make widgets to be sent back to China, but to sell the insurance, to negotiate professional services, to do the finance.

That is where our comparative advantage lies. Trade is about comparative advantage—doing what you do best. If we leave, there is no way in which we can have a say in the attempt to complete the single market in services. I believe that if we stay, we will achieve that, and you cannot put a value on what that will add to our economy, given our expertise in the service sector.

My third point is about inward investment. I find it absolutely astonishing that we keep hearing from Brexit campaigners about the deficit in European trade compared with trade with the rest of the world. Only one group of companies is doing all that trade, and most of those—the ones that are making the biggest dent in exports—are foreign companies: Japanese car makers, American banks, and French pharmaceutical firms such as Sanofi, based in Haverhill, which I visited recently. Its biggest export market is, by far, the United States of America, but it is based here in the United Kingdom because we have access to the single market. To pretend that European trade and global trade are somehow separate is complete nonsense.

I believe that if we vote to remain, we will drive inward investment far higher, and therefore drive our exports. Instead of worrying about trade figures as some negotiating stance, let us look at them as we should, and conclude that we need to do better—and one way of doing that is to vote to remain, to show that this country is open again for business from around the world.

My fourth point relates to what is said about the future of the eurozone. Those who want to leave the European Union say, “The glass is half empty: we should leave because the eurozone will collapse,” and so on. Our flexible position means that if the eurozone gets into trouble, that will simply reinforce our unique status in that we alone, as a big country, have unfettered access and are not in the euro. If the eurozone strengthens, that will massively boost our exports and help with our trade deficit. We cannot lose, provided we play our cards right.

I would make one final, fundamental point. There are those who say that in this referendum on neither basis are we voting for the status quo, and they are right. If we vote to remain it will not be the status quo, because we will have made up our mind: after all these years of being held back by this interminable debate about whether to be in or out, if we decide as a country to remain, we are deciding to get stuck in in Europe, representing this country. I believe we will then have to stand tall, proud and prosperous in this great continent on behalf of this great country, and the only way to do that is to do the patriotic thing and vote to remain in the EU.

UK’s Relationship with the EU

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am in no doubt about my position and that of the Prime Minister: we will accept the verdict of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, and we will regard that as binding.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is something completely absurd about the Leader of the Opposition using his entire remarks to criticise the absence of a Prime Minister to deliver a statement on a renegotiation that will lead to a referendum, none of which would have taken place had there been a Labour Government?

[Mr Lidington]

I think it was a pity that the questions from the Opposition Dispatch Box were about today’s process rather than about the substance of European matters, but the Opposition will have another chance tomorrow.