Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for not being able to be here for the first part of the debate. I will end my remarks in time for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) to conclude the debate.

We should be extremely cautious about the whole process that has been put before us. If anyone has looked at the experience of the free trade agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico, they will quickly see who benefits and even more quickly who loses as a result of it. The people who lose out are those who are on the margins of society, those who are vulnerable and those who are open to great exploitation. Thus, farm workers in Mexico have lost their jobs in favour of high-tech farming imports from the US; and US companies have moved across the border to Mexico to exploit lower wages. Mexican trucks are not allowed to drive into the US beyond a short distance from the border. There are a lot of restrictions. It is not an equal power relationship. It is a very damaging power relationship. The agreement is unpopular in the US and Canada, but it is also unpopular with many people in Mexico, who see themselves losing out as a result of that.

I give that as an example. We should be extremely cautious about the claims that are made. When the North American Free Trade Agreement was reached, it was claimed that there would be several million new jobs as a result. The result has actually been the loss of about 1 million jobs. The same exaggerated but unsubstantiated claims about jobs and the profits that will be made by particular companies are being made about the transatlantic agreement.

There are specific concerns. Why is there such secrecy surrounding the negotiations? Why are all the documents not on the table? Why are the demands made on European public services by the American negotiators not made public? Why are the demands made in the other direction not also made public? I suspect that, if the agreement ever comes to fruition, every Parliament in Europe and the US system will be presented with a fait accompli: they will be told that they have to accept it.

There are huge concerns. Many of my colleagues have raised concerns about the NHS. We all, I hope, support the principle of a health service free at the point of use. What we do not support is the destruction of our health service in favour of a series of companies coming in to take over very efficient services delivered by public sector workers.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Is my hon. Friend not concerned that the Government still refuse to say that the NHS will be exempt from the TTIP negotiations?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. It seems strange that we cannot say that we are going to exempt the NHS from discussions. I am sure plenty of pressure will be put on to exempt cultural industries, particularly from France, which will probably be accepted. The same thing should apply to the NHS.

There are a couple of other issues that I want to mention. The first relates to our ability to decide the future of our own public services. At the moment, Britain’s railway system is a combination of a state-owned rail company and privatised services. The European directive on railways envisages a totally privatised system across the whole of this continent. I suspect that, under the kind of agreement we are discussing today, privatisation would be foisted on everyone on both sides of the Atlantic.

Secondly, concerns have been raised about working conditions, health and safety at work conditions and environmental protection. I am sure that all those companies that are busy lining up to destroy union organisation in the USA would want to do exactly the same on this side of the Atlantic. Various Members have mentioned environmental protection and environmental conditions. In the US, there are far fewer environmental protection measures—there is much more genetically modified food on sale and in regular supply, for example. Are we to destroy many of the hard-fought and hard-gained social advantages across Europe in relation to farming systems, to animal protection and welfare and to health and safety, in favour of a free-for-all for those big companies? We need to be very careful. Democracy is the issue, and democracy ought to be the means by which we decide these issues, rather than secret negotiations resulting in a fait accompli being presented to us.

Deregulation Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen]

I certainly do. Having been a business owner under the previous Government, and representing businesses as a regional chairman for the Institute of Directors, I know that the thought of ever more regulation is in the psyche of business people. The Bill is totemic—in fact what the Government are doing is totemic—not only in stemming the tide of regulation but in giving a commitment to reduce the burden of regulation over the term of this Parliament. That will take a lot of believing by the business community, and we need to reinforce that message. It will give confidence not only to people who have businesses but people who would not even consider starting up a business. There is no doubt that when people who work in a business see the pressure that the regulatory burden places on those who run it, they are dissuaded from going it alone and starting their own business. We want to reverse that situation.

Recommending the removal of the self-employed from health and safety law originated under the review ably chaired by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, on which I served as a member of the advisory panel with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), Sir John Armitt, Dr Adam Marshall of the British Chambers of Commerce, and Sarah Veale, who was later replaced by Liz Snape, representing the TUC. The proposed change is based on the approach taken in a number of other European Union member states, including Germany, where legislation on health and safety at work applies only to employed workers; France, where, as a general rule, the provisions do not apply to the self-employed or to employers themselves, except when they are directly carrying out an activity on a site; and Italy, where the health and safety at work regulations do not apply at all to the self-employed. Clause 1 is nothing new in a Europe-wide sense as regards health and safety.

When the clause was scrutinised by the Joint Committee, on which I also served, with my hon. Friend the Member for Witham, a number of stakeholders raised concerns that the recommendation might lead to the self-employed in risky occupations such as construction being taken outside health and safety law. I can assure the House that Professor Löfstedt has made it clear that that was never, and is not, the intention of the proposal. The clause has the support of the Federation of Small Businesses, which believes that it will help with the perception of health and safety law. I fundamentally disagree with the groups who are arguing that this change will cause confusion, because asking the self-employed, “Does your work activity pose potential risk of harm to others?”, is not too taxing a question. As I said, major economies in the European Union seem to manage perfectly well without this unnecessary regulation. It is also worth noting that it could well save small businesses not only an enormous amount of time but an estimated £300,000 a year.

Clause 2 curtails an employment tribunal’s powers to make wider recommendations. This is another needless regulation. Its discontinuation is supported by business groups, as best summed up by the British Chambers of Commerce, which stated that the measure currently in place extends tribunals’ jurisdiction beyond the

“time, information and expertise of the panel”.

I fully agree with that view. The regulation is unnecessary because it serves only to create fears among employers about inappropriate or excessive recommendations. I therefore welcome this move to abolish it.

Clauses 58 and 59 imposes on regulators the economic growth duty—a new duty that requires them to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth when exercising their regulatory function. This is a welcome move, as all sectors that are in a position to do so should do what they can to contribute to and complement economic growth. The clauses have received a positive reaction from business groups and many of the regulators themselves, with the British Chambers of Commerce stating that the duty could

“help establish more constructive relationships between business and regulators”.

The Institute of Directors said that it could be helpful in serving as a catalyst for regulators to consider the costs and the benefits when developing new policies. I believe that there needs to be a new and dynamic—a symbiotic—relationship between business and the regulator rather than the historical one that has too often tended to be adversarial, and these clauses will help to achieve that. It is also encouraging that the measure is being positively embraced by many regulators such as the Security Industry Authority, which stated that it recognises the importance of economic growth and supports efforts to encourage it. These regulators are funded to the tune of £4 billion a year, and they need to make their contribution to economic growth if we are to compete on an international level against countries with far fewer regulations and regulators than the UK.

I recognise that the measure has not been universally welcomed, with opposition from, among others, the TUC, which described the duty as “a very odd concept”—but then it often appears that the TUC and its paid mouthpiece the Labour party view free market capitalism as a very odd concept, as underlined by some recent policy announcements. I find that view rather disappointing.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

More for the sake of accuracy than anything else, may I point out that the TUC is not affiliated to the Labour party? Individual unions, some of which are so affiliated, do indeed politically and financially support the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman should be accurate in his abuse.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I always try to be accurate in my abuse, as he well knows.

Business is always looking for help to comply rather than pure enforcement from regulators, and giving regulators a complementary economic duty should not undermine their primary regulating function. A number of regulators, such as Ofsted, have made it clear to the Minister that without a duty to consider growth, it is not something they would consider. I hope that the new head of Ofsted, when appointed, will embrace that concept. This demonstrates the importance of getting the duty on to the statue book to empower our regulators. I believe that it will lead to less burdensome and better regulation for business in future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witham mentioned the use-of-land provisions in clauses 13 to 19. This aspect of the Bill has received a lot of attention, particularly in relation to rights of way and proposed changes to the designation of public footpaths. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of how emotive and protracted disputes over rights of way and public footpaths can be. Definitive maps and statements setting out recorded public rights of way have never been completed despite work on this being done for well over 50 years. The changes proposed in the Bill will harness and streamline expertise by devolving decisions on public rights of way to a local level. I understand that there have been positive responses to the proposal, with the chief executive of Ramblers, Benedict Southworth, commenting:

“The proposed legislation has been carefully put together by representatives from landowners, paths users and local government—including ourselves and the NFU—who have worked together for over three years to simplify the law around rights of way for the benefit of everyone.”

We should all applaud that. This proposal will have a positive economic impact, as it will cut the time for recording a right of way by several years and save, it is hoped, almost £20 million a year by cutting needless bureaucracy. It is also worth noting that visitors to England’s outdoors spent £21 billion last year—a significant contribution to our economy—including in my constituency, where we have many well-used public footpaths as well as the heart of the new national forest.

Overall, the Bill builds on this Government’s achievements in cutting through needless red tape that has been allowed to build up on the statue book over many years. The previous Government used regulation as a first response rather than a last resort. As we have heard, they presided over the creation of 1,500 new working regulations a year for each of their 13 years in office, or six new regulations every working day. That was a burden that fell on and hindered individuals and businesses. By contrast, this Government have committed to freeing British business of the needless bureaucracy that damages our international economic competiveness, hinders millions of individuals in their daily lives, and reduces the efficiency of our public bodies and services. This Government are committed to reducing the regulatory burden on business by 2015, compared with the target of 2010 that we inherited, and this Bill is another important part of the delivery of that pledge.

Detainee Inquiry

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the determination of the ISC to help the House to bring these matters to a proper conclusion and to form its judgments on them in due course.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Is not the heart of the issue the lack of effective accountability of the security services, and the fact that the ISC is not an ordinary parliamentary Committee? It is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to him. Are not the Minister’s proposals just a way of sidestepping the need for a serious examination of the accountability issue and for holding an independent judge-led inquiry rather than the process that has been set out?

[Mr Clarke]

I have addressed that point already, and I would have hoped that my earlier answer would have satisfy the hon. Gentleman. My starting point is the same as his. We need the intelligence services, and I share the gratitude that many have expressed for the bravery and determination that they demonstrate in protecting the citizens of this country from the undoubted threats to their lives and safety. I want intelligence services that work properly. Indeed, I hope that they will steal the secrets of our serious enemies. I also hope that they will alert us to what those enemies are proposing to do, and help us to frustrate them. It is the experience of quite a number of people in this House that that is exactly what the intelligence services do, and that they do it very effectively.

It is also important, as the hon. Gentleman says, that what the intelligence services do is proportionate to the scale of the risk posed, that they are accountable and that, when they start going in for subterfuge, it is authorised by a Minister who is democratically accountable to this House. That is what marks out our intelligence services from those of totalitarian regimes, and that must always be the case. Those standards must apply to all the activities involved, including collecting data, surveillance and the activity of the agencies in the field. I am afraid that, in the modern world, such activities will always be necessary to protect the safety of our citizens, so long as we are not damaging our values and so long as we can be confident that everything is accountable and authorised by the proper people.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I will try to be brief because so many brilliant contributions have been made today by people who fought the good fight to try to rid the world of the scourge of apartheid.

I want us to recall the many people who died in South Africa fighting against apartheid, from those who were discriminated against from 1948 onwards, when the National party won the election, to the massacre at Sharpeville, the riots in Soweto, the killing of schoolchildren and the murder of Steve Biko and so many others who died, often completely ignored and forgotten. We should also recall the poverty of the black majority population in South Africa—a poverty inherited from colonialism, a poverty arising from work in the mines and so many other places, a poverty of children going to school where there was no water, no electricity, no books and very little else, and unbelievable discrimination in employment, land ownership and everything else. It was a system of dividing people on racial grounds that the Nazis would have been proud of. The idea that there would be some sort of accommodation with apartheid was something that many of us found anathema.

It was not as though the evil of apartheid extended only to the country of South Africa. It extended to the neighbouring states and greatly influenced the white supremacist regime in Rhodesia led by Ian Smith. It also included the war in Namibia—South West Africa, as it was then called—and it spread over into the problems faced by all the front-line states during the apartheid era because of their wish to impose sanctions on South Africa. It also spread over into Angola. The war in Angola was one of the turning points in the defeat of apartheid. Let us remember that it was the South African defence forces that went to the aid of another minority regime in Angola, and they were finally defeated in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1988. Those were the significant changes that brought about a political reckoning in South Africa.

Those around the world who would recognise only the ANC and would not recognise the Government of South Africa are the ones we should also remember today—those people all around the world who took part in meetings, marches and demonstrations, and many Governments who bravely stood against the apartheid regime when it was in their economic interests to go in absolutely the opposite direction. There are therefore some very strong lessons for all of us to learn during our remembrance of Nelson Mandela.

The personality of Mandela was an extraordinary one. I was asked a question when I was visiting Holloway school last Friday morning and went into a history lesson. There was a discussion about the civil rights movement in the USA, the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Britain and of course the Anti-Apartheid Movement in South Africa. The students asked me whether Mandela would have been a better or worse president if he had never gone to prison. It is an impossible question to answer. All I could say was that I remember distinctly my mother telling me how evil the Rivonia treason trial and the Sharpeville massacre were, and how wrong it was that Mandela and all the others went to prison. In their suffering they obviously read and learned a great deal. In his final unconditional release from prison—it is very important to remember that it was an unconditional release from prison; he was offered all sorts of get out of jail cards many years beforehand—he displayed such amazing magnanimity.

I recall that when Mandela came here to Parliament shortly after his release—he was not President of South Africa at that time—there were Conservative MPs who wanted the meeting banned. There were people who said no MP should attend it. There were people who said that he was a terrorist. There were people who said that people like him should not be allowed into Parliament, but I remember the very good discussion that was held here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) was there, as were Richard Caborn, chair of the anti-apartheid group, Bob Hughes, Tony Benn and many others. We had a truly fascinating discussion with a very great man who was forming his ideas of how he would lead a post-apartheid, multiracial, rainbow nation of South Africa.

I want to conclude with some thoughts about the people who were in prison with Mandela and also suffered a great deal. My constituency, Islington North, is a place where many people have sought refuge at various times and have been welcomed. I was very proud that David Kitson, one of those imprisoned with Mandela, lived in my constituency for a long time. Denis Goldberg, who was also in prison with Mandela, lived nearby and ran a bookshop for a charity called Community HEART which still exists, collecting books to be sent to schools in South Africa. We also housed the offices of the British defence and aid fund for victims of apartheid. I was a trustee of that, with the great Ethel de Keyser and others. We were able to fund education for victims of apartheid and do our bit to try to help the next generation of African leaders who had been born in the front-line states in exile camps to get some kind of university education. Many people did incredible work in that regard.

My local authority, Islington borough council, declared itself an apartheid-free zone. This was not universally welcomed by the Evening Standard, the Conservative Government or many others. In saying that, I look at my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Many of us who were involved in local government or as Members of Parliament during the 1970 and 1980s did our bit. Okay, it might be said that it is gesture politics to name a street Mandela street or to name your student union building the Nelson Mandela building, but in that act you are showing which side you are on in the battle against apartheid. When we were being condemned by the media at that time, I always thought, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, for they know not what they do.” Now they are all agreeing with us, as unfortunately they were unable to do at that time. Many of those who stood up then were in advance of others.

We also housed in my borough the offices of the African National Congress at Penton street. That building was under the most massive surveillance from the Metropolitan police, the South African secret service and every other secret service one could imagine. Indeed, the Anti-Apartheid Movement was infiltrated. The ANC offices were infiltrated. There were some ghastly goings-on in London via the long reach of the South African secret service. Also under surveillance and questioning were the offices of the South West Africa People’s Organisation, SWAPO, which had its offices in Gillespie road in my constituency.

A number of parliamentary colleagues of mine, including the late great Tony Banks and Stuart Holland, a former Member, and I were arrested outside South Africa house. It was one of those strange moments when you are arrested by the police and you say, “On what charge am I arrested?”, assuming that one is going be told that one is creating an obstruction or some such charge. The police said no, it was under the Diplomatic Immunities Act, for behaviour that was offensive to a foreign diplomatic mission. The police officer asked me, “What do you plead? Why have you come here?”. I said, “I’ve come here to be as offensive as possible to the South African apartheid regime, but I offer no plea, so you will have to offer a plea of not guilty on my part.” The cases all went to court and we were all exonerated on the grounds of our moral outrage at apartheid and all given compensation, and all that compensation was given to the ANC and the Anti-Apartheid Movement. Some things do come full circle in the end.

Finally, in thanking so many people for all their work in the Anti-Apartheid Movement I must mention my friend the late great Bernie Grant, who went to South Africa to witness the release of Nelson Mandela. When he returned, Margaret Thatcher invited him to Downing street to discuss what he thought about it all—it must have been a pretty surreal moment for both of them. I hope that a record of the meeting was kept, but I imagine that its release is subject to the 100-year rule, or perhaps a million-year rule. I can well imagine what Bernie would have said, but I am not sure about the leaderene.

There are lessons to be learned from all that, so I will conclude with the following thoughts. After his release, Mandela of course became President of South Africa and did enormous and wonderful work, but poverty has not been conquered there. There are still children who need better schools and people who need homes, electricity and water, as Denis Goldberg reminded us at a Community HEART fundraiser. But Mandela also had things to say about other issues around the world. He was deeply concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people and sent them messages of support, not because he wanted the conflict to continue but because he wanted it to end.

Another of Mandela’s great legacies was to say, as President, that he did not wish to preside over a Government who had nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. He took South Africa out of the nuclear equation, thus enabling Africa to become a nuclear weapons-free continent. There are many lessons we can learn from that. In Nelson’s memory, let us change things a bit here. That will make for a better, safer and more peaceful world.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Commonwealth Meeting and the Philippines

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I challenge almost anyone in the House to watch even part of the Channel 4 documentary about the events at the end of the war—when there were appalling levels of casualties among civilians in the north of the country who were, it seems, targeted—and not to believe that there should be a proper independent inquiry. Of course, dreadful things happened throughout the war and it is for the Sri Lankan Government to decide how they should be investigated. It is clear, however, that those particular events at the end of the war need an independent inquiry so that the issue can be properly settled.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister explain how exactly he proposes to follow up his demand for an inquiry? What monitoring and reporting will there be, and what action will the Commonwealth take if and when Sri Lanka does not follow up on the assurances he was apparently given? Many people are dead, and many people are very angry about the abuses of human rights by the Sri Lankan Government.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. The key thing is that the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, has made the point that there should be an independent inquiry and has set the deadline for when it should at least begin. If it is not begun, there needs to be, as she has said, an international independent inquiry. We are saying that we support that view and will put behind it Britain’s international diplomatic standing in all the organisations of which we are a member, including, of course, the United Nations.

EU Council

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is always keen to get such conditions in black and white, but I can satisfy him on this occasion. I have said clearly that I would not be Prime Minister of a Government unless they put in place that EU referendum by the end of 2017. I could not be more clear. I did not have any specific conversations about the referendum pledge. It is well known by EU members. Interestingly, while holding the referendum, Britain is perfectly capable of leading the way and bringing countries together on issues such as deregulation to pressurise the rest of the EU to take up an agenda that would be good for all of us.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what discussions took place on relations with Iran, on the future of a sanctions policy against Iran and, importantly, on Iran’s participation and that of every other partner in the region in a Geneva II peace process to try to end the ghastly war in Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

There was not a Council-wide discussion, but I took the opportunity to speak with Cathy Ashton, who is doing an excellent job on behalf of this country and the EU. It has rightly taken a tough line in negotiations with Iran, because steps by Iran on the nuclear front need to be seen. On Syria, the first thing that has to happen is that Iran needs to sign up to Geneva I and those principles before being able to move forward to Geneva II.

G20

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Many of the issues around the appalling nature of the Syrian conflict were raised. The Foreign Secretary has taken international leadership on the issue that my hon. Friend speaks about, to say how unacceptable the use of sexual violence is as a conflict weapon.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

During their meetings with President Obama and Secretary Kerry, did the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary have an opportunity to say to Secretary Kerry, “Stop spending all your energies flying desperately around Europe and north Africa looking for allies in a war that nobody wants. Instead, put them into bringing about a diplomatic peaceful solution that must include Iran, Russia and all the neighbouring countries, most of whom do not support a war anyway”?

[The Prime Minister]

I would make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is hard to think of anyone who has made greater efforts than Senator Kerry to try to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Syrian crisis. He has worked incredibly hard to do that. He knows something else—if chemical weapons are used on that scale and the Americans have drawn a red line, not to act would send an appalling message to the world.

I also pick up the hon. Gentleman on another point. This whole language of saying “start a war” is put about by some to try to paint the American or other positions into something like Iraq. This is not about starting a war; it is about responding to the appalling use of chemical weapons. When we see on our television screens children being gassed by chemical weapons, that is the outrage that we should feel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have seen a model of this incredible vessel and I join her in welcoming the fantastic contribution that Clipper Ventures makes to the British economy. It was great to see the race leave London for the first time, and even better to see that the flotilla was led by a British boat and superbly supported by the great campaign. I will certainly take into account my hon. Friend’s kind invitation to come to Gosport, and I wish Sir Robin Knox-Johnston well, and all those taking part.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I take the Prime Minister back to the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) a few minutes ago? Can he be more positive about building better relations urgently with Iran, as one of the keys—one, not all—to bring about a peace process in Syria and across the whole region? Simply attacking Iran all the time will not bring it to the negotiating table, and it is better if the Prime Minister is more positive about it.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but if we are trying to build a relationship with someone, it depends on the actions that they take. Given that the Iranian Government were complicit in the complete smashing of our embassy and residence in Tehran, we will want to see some action so that we can build that sort of relationship. I have reached out by writing to President Rouhani, congratulating him on his accession to power and wanting to discuss those issues. As I have said, however, if we believe there is just some magical key to the Syrian conflict by suddenly adopting a totally different posture towards Iran, I do not think we will be making a very good decision.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to thank the Conservative Back Benchers, a number of Liberal Democrat Members, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary for their intervention over the last 48 hours, which halted what looked like a headlong rush to war. It is widely acknowledged that the American President has set a timetable, most probably for an attack this weekend. He came under pressure last year from the Republicans and McCain to set red lines as parameters. It was inevitable that that would escalate the demand for military action at a later date. That might explain the American position, but it does not explain why a sovereign independent state called Great Britain should automatically fall into line in support of military action. If there is a lesson of the past 48 hours, it is that no Prime Minister and no Government should take this House or the British people for granted on matters of this nature.

The reality is that, yes, time has moved on since Iraq. People have made references to lessons from Iraq, and I want to refer to three. First, there is no automatic approval of, or even trust in, a prime ministerial judgment on an issue such as this involving the country in military action without overwhelming justification, evidence and thorough debate. The evidence before us from the JIC today says that there is “some evidence” to suggest regime culpability in the gas attack and that it is “highly likely” that the Syrian regime is responsible. I have to say that “highly likely” and “some evidence” are not good enough to risk further lives, to risk counter attack, to inflame the whole region, to risk dragging other states into this war and, at the same time, to increase the risk of terrorism on British streets.

The second lesson of Iraq is based upon the principles of humanitarian intervention. It must be objectively clear that there is no practical alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. I do not believe that it has been demonstrated that all practical alternatives have been exhausted. In particular, discussions around the permanent stationing of UN weapons inspectors in Syria to prevent the use of these weapons have not been exhausted. That, linked to an insistence on the participation of all sides in a UN peace conference, has not been exhausted.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend not surprised that the British Government appear to have made no rational efforts to try to build a relationship with the new Government of Iran, which might be part of a road towards some kind of peace settlement?

[John McDonnell]

That leads to my third lesson from Iraq, and from Afghanistan. It is to ensure that any intervention does not cost lives and does not make matters worse; it is the “do no harm” principle. No matter how surgical the strike that is planned by the Americans or by us, lives will be lost and lives will be put at risk. A negotiated peace is the only long-term solution for Syria; that is what has been expressed by members of all parties in the House. Military intervention is more likely to undermine the potential for peace talks. Hawks within the Assad regime will be even more intransigent and defiant. The opposition—the so-called rebels—will have no incentive, because they will believe that the US and, yes, the UK and others will be on their side and that they can achieve a military victory. Military intervention would also alienate Iran and the Russians—the very people we look to now to bring Assad to the negotiating table.

If we have learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is this: military intervention does not just cost lives; it undermines the credibility of the international institutions that we look to to secure peace in the world and, in the long run, it undermines peace settlements across the globe. Therefore, I believe that we should focus on conflict prevention and conflict resolution and not support military aggression. That is why I will not support any motion that, in principle, supports military intervention in Syria, which can only do more harm than good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Later this evening, the House will divide over whether in principle this country should undertake military action in Syria. We will perhaps do justice to the suffering of the Syrian people if we first determine where, as a Parliament, we are at one.

I have no doubt that we are all united in complete condemnation of the deplorable chemical attacks on civilians in Damascus. The gut-wrenching images of those attacks are etched on all our minds as we sit here tonight. All of us seek an outcome that will bring peace and stability to the region. That much we can agree. It is also the case that this motion is less damaging than the one we were originally led to believe we would be debating. That is a tribute to the fact that Back-Bench and Opposition MPs can make a difference. To that extent, this is a good day for Parliament and for public pressure. It is clear to me that those things have helped to force the Government to think twice about their way forward on Syria.

I welcome the fact that this motion recognises that to have proceeded with a military attack as the UN weapons inspectors were still visiting the sites of the alleged chemical weapons assault would have been preposterous. It beggared belief that, once again, we could have been about to embark on military engagement, without apparently having learned any of the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. By seeking to pre-empt the outcome of the inspectors’ work, we would also have increased the likelihood that further requests for access by weapons inspectors would be denied; they would be regarded simply as a ploy for subsequent military action, regardless of the findings. As Hans Blix pointed out earlier this week:

“If the aim is to stop the breach of international law and to keep the lid on others with chemical weapons, military action without first waiting for the UN inspector report is not the way to go about it.”

Although I am pleased that the Government’s motion now accepts that we must wait for the inspectors’ reports, I am deeply concerned at their cavalier treatment of international law and I completely reject their drive towards military action. On the legal question, both the US and our Government are indicating that they are prepared to act against Syria without a UN mandate. For all that the Government’s motion talks of making “every effort” to ensure a Security Council resolution, the bottom line appears to be that they are happy to proceed without one.

We are told that intervention could be legally justified without a Security Council resolution under the UN’s responsibility to protect, but the 2005 UN world summit outcome document, in which the Heads of State unanimously approved the new international norm of the responsibility to protect, subsequently approved by UN Security Council resolution 1674, states clearly that it is still subject to UN Security Council agreement. Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who co-chaired a working group on the responsibility to protect, again stressed that it is to be implemented in accordance with the UN charter. That means that the central decision-making authority is the UN Security Council. The conclusion from all this is clearly, if inconveniently for the Government, that military action against a sovereign state, other than in self-defence, without the authority of the Security Council cannot be justified under the responsibility to protect. On that issue the Labour amendment is also, unfortunately, very weak; it regards international law as an inconvenience. That makes it all the more important that our deliberations today are informed by all the relevant information and based on sound legal grounding.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s position would be far stronger if instead of coming here proposing military action, they had come here to tell us that they were having serious discussions with the new Government in Iran and a new round of talks with Russia, and that they were trying to build a consensus in the region to bring about what must happen at some point—a political solution to this crisis?

[Caroline Lucas]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. As he rightly highlights, we have an opportunity now with the new regime in Iran and we should be responding to a more moderate leader there, yet by going ahead and giving a signal that military action is the direction in which we are heading, we absolutely undermine the authority of that new leader in Iran.

I was making the case that we should have seen the Attorney-General’s full legal opinion and that this one-and-a-half-side summary is simply unacceptable. While I am on the subject of further pieces of information that could have usefully informed this debate, I wish to refer hon. Members again to the Chilcot report—that missing report which has gone absent without leave. It is unacceptable that, yet again, many people are talking about the importance of the legacy of Iraq and we do not have that document, which would have given us the lessons to be learnt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

All parties in this House, if we are candid with each other, have had problems with the way in which big money circulates in politics. That is why I remain a keen advocate of a cross-party approach to getting big money out of political donations and why I am disappointed that the recent cross-party talks did not lead to fruition. We can make progress, which is why we are about to table a Bill on third party funding to limit the influence of non-political parties in the democratic process. I repeat what I said earlier: given that the Labour party finally seems to have had a change of heart over the way in which it organises its dysfunctional relationship with its financial backers, I hope that it will work with us to reflect that in law.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure a high level of voter registration by young people.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

The Government, politicians, political parties, electoral administrators and others in society have a role to play in encouraging people, including young people, to register to vote. As I have mentioned, the Government are making available up to £4.2 million this year to maximise the rate of voter registration ahead of the transition to individual electoral registration in 2014. That will be targeted at groups of people who are under-represented on the electoral register, including young people.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the Minister not accept that under individual registration there will be the serious problem that a lot of young people who lead slightly dysfunctional lives because they are away at college or working away, or for all kinds of other reasons, will not be at an address when a registration form arrives, will not be able to register, and consequently will not be able to vote? Will this system not end up disfranchising a large number of young people who ought to be enfranchised in our system?

[Miss Smith]

As the youngest Minister in Her Majesty’s Government, I could not agree more on the importance of enfranchising young people. However, I disagree entirely that IER will lead to what the hon. Gentleman describes. There are multiple points at which electoral registration officers will make contact; it is not a case of just one officer turning up. I stand strongly by the principle that it is right in a modern society for people to have an individual right, and indeed a responsibility, to register.