Commonwealth Day

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone—we both learned how meetings should properly be conducted on Bromley council.

I pay tribute to two individuals. First, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who not only made a distinguished contribution to the debate but has played a considerable role in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—both the UK branch and, as he outlined, worldwide. With his usual frankness, he acknowledged that his work has not been without its difficulties. He has played a significant role in trying to move the organisation along. His work is very much appreciated and I hope that it will steadily bear fruit over the coming years.

Were it not outwith the procedures of the House, I would also draw attention to the welcome presence of the chief executive of the UK CPA, who is listening to proceedings from the Public Gallery. Through you, Mr Hollobone, I thank him and his staff for the enormous amount of work that they do in maintaining the organisation and assisting individual members. They also do great work with the various groups that come here from other Commonwealth countries for valuable exchanges of views and ideas, from which I am sure that those groups benefit and I know that we do too.

I join the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden in paying tribute to the founding father of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, whose death was announced this week. He was a figure not without controversy, but no one can doubt his achievements to the great benefit of his country, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations generally and the wider Commonwealth. It is no surprise that his wise counsel was sought by not only his successors in Singapore, but leaders and diplomats around the world. That has been evident in the tributes paid to him. On Sir Christopher Wren’s gravestone in St Paul’s cathedral is the inscription:

“If you seek my monument look around you.”

Looking around modern Singapore, one can see clearly the monument to Lee Kuan Yew, as well as his ultimate achievement of ensuring a system and progress that will continue after his demise.

A while ago my local council, Sandwell, was on an anti-litter purge, which gained some press coverage. Some busybody organisation that hoped to insult Sandwell dubbed it, the “Singapore of the west midlands”. The high commission here was slightly concerned, but my local council leaders were immensely flattered by the description.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden on the importance of having an annual debate on the Commonwealth to help us to focus, although I think we would hope that future debates do not take place just a couple of days before Dissolution. The debate on the Commonwealth is part of a wider debate about Britain’s position and role in the world. Some want to make us an inward, insular country, bitter at the outside world. That is not in Britain’s history, nor is it in its interests or destiny. In many ways, it is a replay of the old debate of “Little England” or “Great Britain”. That relates to our membership of the most successful defensive alliance in history, NATO; to the largest single market on the planet, the European Union, and to our position as a P5 country at the UN.

No less remarkable was the creation of the Commonwealth out of the end of empire—a multicultural, multi-ethnic body that has overcome so many of the issues of our shared history. Even countries that do not share that legacy are keen to join the Commonwealth, which is a significant tribute in itself—some hon. Members from Northern Ireland mentioned applicant countries for consideration. Without a hint of superiority or arrogance, we should take pride in the institutions and values that we have introduced worldwide, not least the institution of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law with an impartial judiciary. The success of Singapore—and, interestingly enough, of Hong Kong—is testimony to the ongoing strength and legacy of an impartial judiciary, but it goes much wider.

Learning from each other is by no means a one-way street. Debates in Westminster Hall derive from the Australian Parliament: we have a side Chamber with the full value of the main Chamber that allows more subjects to be debated—not only subjects of interest to individual Members of Parliament but debates such as this one.

Part of the Commonwealth’s shared history has been in conflict. Throughout the country, we are currently commemorating many of the events of the first world war, and we are reminded very strongly and deeply of their impact. I have been visiting Sikh gurdwaras around the country, where tremendous work has been done on researching the history and reminding youngsters of the significant contribution of the Sikhs in the first world war. They came to a continent that they had never visited and were faced with dramatically different weather conditions, and they fought bravely and at great cost against German imperialism. They were only one of the communities from the then India who participated at great cost to themselves.

Next month will be the commemoration of the landings at Gallipoli, with services at the Cenotaph and in Westminster abbey. The Minister and I are representing our respective parties at those events. The Gallipoli action not only defined the character of Australia and New Zealand, but deepened the bonds between their countries and ours.

In the absence of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), it would be remiss of me not to follow up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden about the unique concerns and problems of small states. Had the hon. Member for Romford been present, I am certain that he would have raised once again the position of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. We need to see how their concerns can be incorporated. Furthermore, on the smaller states, last year I had the privilege of attending a conference of south Pacific states held in New Zealand. That was an excellent CPA initiative. Those states are under considerable pressure from a China that is seeking to expand its influence in the area—they are not hostile but have some concerns—and the ability to discuss the issue within the framework of the Commonwealth was very much appreciated and understood.

As I said, this is not only a Commonwealth of nations, but a Commonwealth of values: parliamentary democracy, free trade, universal human rights and, especially, a commitment to pluralism. To be frank, in some cases—this has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members today—our relations with fellow Commonwealth members can be slightly strained over some issues. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) highlighted a particular one. Will the Minister indicate the actions taken and representations made by the Government on the important concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed? It is right to raise such issues.

Putting that in the wider context of values and the very welcome Commonwealth charter, I have another question. At the Perth Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—CHOGM—there was, as I understand it, much discussion but postponement of a final decision on the report of the eminent persons group. Some of its work is reflected in the Commonwealth charter, but what further work will be undertaken to build on that of the eminent persons group?

The Commonwealth is not simply a static organisation. Maintenance of linkages needs to be undertaken and a particular one is the “Young Commonwealth” theme. Young people make up a significant percentage of the populations of many countries in the Commonwealth. Focusing attention on that for the future of their societies and of the Commonwealth is extremely welcome.

There is also the work between states. I pay tribute to some of that work that the Government have undertaken, in particular by developing relations with India and, significantly, in the valuable connections of the AUKMIN group of Australian and United Kingdom Ministers. The next Labour Government look forward to continuing such initiatives.

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

However, some of this Government’s actions have put relations under strain. Only a week or so ago, a meeting hosted by the Russell Group of universities echoed and amplified the great complaints of the tertiary education sector about the negative impact on them and on British industry, commerce and society of our over-prescriptive visa regime, which has already caused a big decline in the number of students from India, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries. Real concerns have also been expressed by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand about the declining opportunities for their youngsters, many of them our relatives, to spend time working here, contributing to the British economy and gaining experience to take back to their home countries to develop their growing economies, which, incidentally, are also major trading partners of ours.

Given the large number of countries in the Commonwealth, I can touch only on a limited number of them. Mention has been made of the welcome return to the Commonwealth of Fiji, which is particularly good news for the British Army. I remember officials at the Ministry of Defence telling me that they had had expressions of interest from Fijian soldiers about joining the British Army and asking what we would do about it. We set up some protocols but, with some foresight, I predicted that that would play havoc with the inter-service rugby competition, to the benefit of the Army, although I had not anticipated the havoc in the regimental rugby system, because a number of the Fijians played for some of the previously more minor regiments. It is welcome that Fiji is back in the Commonwealth, following what is generally regarded as a successful election. Obviously we must ensure that such developments continue to make progress, in particular in the field of trade union rights.

Concerns have been expressed widely, if not in the debate today, about the imprisonment in Malaysia of Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has raised the issue. A number of Opposition Members and activists there have been arrested too. Will the Minister indicate what action our Government have taken in response to such concerns?

A number of constituencies have sizeable Bangladeshi communities which, whatever their views or whichever party in Bangladesh they supported, are concerned about the escalating tensions in Bangladesh and about the unnecessary violence and tragic deaths. In the election in January last year, not all the people of Bangladesh were able to express their democratic will fully. Progress can be achieved only through dialogue between all parties. All sides need to call for restraint and an end to violence. The international community should certainly support Bangladesh in that regard.

On the Maldives, concern about due process has been expressed about the arrest, conviction and sentencing to 13 years in prison of former President Nasheed. The Commonwealth has discussed the matter and is providing a measured response. It is important for the Commonwealth to work together to promote democracy and due process.

As the hon. Member for Reigate indicated, equality is a significant underpinning of the Commonwealth, but LGBT equality remains a major omission from the Commonwealth charter. Will the Government pursue the issue with individual countries and more generally in the Commonwealth?

With regard to Sri Lanka, there has been a welcome change as a result of the election. It is also important for the further upcoming parliamentary elections to be free, fair and peaceful. We look forward to the postponed publication of the report of the UN Human Rights Council inquiry, to improvement in relations between the communities in Sri Lanka and in the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law—justice and accountability—and to the country getting back to rebuilding its economy and society.

That is only a small number of the issues facing the Commonwealth today, but they indicate its vibrancy in tackling them, which adds to the ability of the Commonwealth countries to work and trade with each other. In particular in Africa, the attempts to break down customs and other barriers to trade between countries are important and would be to the benefit of the countries, which have huge young populations with a real need for employment. The Commonwealth offers a beacon of hope and a mechanism for dealing with such issues.

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) stated that the Ashers bakery had refused to bake a cake for a same-gender couple. Let it be very clear that that is not the case: Ashers said that it was unwilling to use the wording that was requested on the cake. The issue is the right of those at Ashers bakery to hold fast to their religious views. Incidentally, according to the latest poll, the vast majority of the population in Northern Ireland—over 70%—supports them.

Russian Membership of the Council of Europe

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chope]

Of course it would be, but the point that I am making, and the reason why I have secured the debate, is that everything suggests that the reverse is true. In relation to the Court judgments, on 13 December 2013 President Putin praised the Russian Constitutional Court for upholding the Russian constitution by effectively stating that the Constitutional Court’s authority was superior to that of the European Court of Human Rights. As a result of that, did the Commissioner for Human Rights tell Russia that it should withdraw from the Council of Europe, as he told my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that the UK should do? No, he did not. Has the commissioner said anything similar about the various actions that Russia has taken in defiance of its obligations under the statute? No, he has not, and that is where the double standards come in.

We are being told that, because of our failure to implement an interpretation of the European convention on human rights which is in breach of the original terms of the convention—originally, it was clear that they did not apply to prisoner voting, but the interpretation has been extended—the United Kingdom should expel itself from the Council of Europe. Meanwhile, the commissioner has not said anything to the Russians about their membership.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I am following the trend of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I am slightly unclear about whether he is against Russia, against the Council of Europe, or against our engagement with either.

[Mr Chope]

I am very much in favour of engagement, but only with those who want to engage on the same page, if I may put it in such a way. My concern is that the Russians are not showing any willingness to do so. If we believe that there has been a fundamental breach of the statute, as I have set out, and if that is allowed to happen with impunity, it brings into question the whole purpose of this international organisation. What is the point of belonging to it? That is the question to which I hope we will get an answer from the Minister.

[Mr Spellar]

We are a member of the United Nations, in which there is a huge range of opinions, democracy and practices. How does the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument follow?

[Mr Chope]

The Council of Europe is different from the United Nations, and the statute spells out that it is separate from the United Nations. The Council of Europe covers only Europe—European values and principles. I would be concerned if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to be an apologist for the Russian Federation, although I do not believe that he does. Until now, cross-party concern has been expressed in the House about the behaviour of the Russian Federation. If we are prepared to take economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, why should we not take the sanctions that are available to us under the Council of Europe statute? The answer may be because certain other members of the Council of Europe are too frightened to want to join in, but my answer to them is that the United Kingdom has traditionally taken a lead in such things. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in his response to the debate, will say that we are taking a lead and explain what we will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I think this is also the first and last time I have served under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. We should record that it is 30 years to the day since Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. That set off, or was the catalyst for, momentous global change. Not all welcomed that change. Vladimir Putin and the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) lament the decline, demise and fall of the Soviet Union, but western Europe and the peoples of the freed countries of the Warsaw pact and the former Soviet Union do not—they welcomed that change. That is not, however, to proclaim the end of history, as was most unwisely done at the time. History has shown that she has a lot of resilience left in her yet.

Where are we now? The annexation of Crimea and conflict in Ukraine have undoubtedly focused attention, but they did not come out of a clear blue sky. Assisted by the previous escalation in oil prices, Russia had already embarked on a substantial programme of rearmament. I outlined that on Monday in the Chamber in the debate on the non-proliferation treaty:

“We need to be concerned about the expansion of Russian capability and a major modernisation of Russia’s strategic forces—involving the deployment of two new types of sea-launched ballistic missiles, a new class of ballistic missile submarines, a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile; and work on a new bomber and long-range cruise missiles.”

I also said that Sir John Sawers, the previous head of MI6, gave evidence that the Russians had indicated that they were

“prepared to use those weapons in certain circumstances.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 118.]

That rearmament has been accompanied by increasing activity and tension, especially but by no means exclusively on Russia’s western borders. The pressure on countries in the near abroad, especially the Baltic states, has already been mentioned. Cyber-attacks have hit Estonia in particular, and NATO is discussing its response to such attacks. There is increasing maritime activity, particularly from submarines—not only in the Baltic, but around our shores. We have seen numerous instances, as have other countries, of near incursions by aviation activity, which is very much about testing our defences and our responses. We have also seen wider diplomatic initiatives, with an evolving approach from Russia.

We do not have time to explore Russia’s involvement in the middle east, but her deepening engagement in Asia, whether multilaterally through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or bilaterally with the agreement with China, is interesting and of concern; it remains to be seen whether they will be allies or adversaries in the end. That engagement was aptly described, I think by The Economist, by the headline “Autocrats of the World, Unite”. The underlying question is whether Russia sees herself as a European power or whether she sees her future in Asia. In other words, this is about the comment from General de Gaulle that Russia was not left, but east. That evolving situation has implications, including for our discussions here.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) outlined at some length the position in the Council of Europe, but I was still slightly unclear at the end on whether he had answered Vladimir Lenin’s question, “What is to be done?”, particularly by Britain and our European allies. Lenin asked that question in one of his pamphlets. Clearly, the isolationism of the left or right is not a realistic option—certainly not for Britain. As a member of the P5, a leading member of the Commonwealth and a member of the G7 and the G20, we are engaged internationally. We dealt with the isolationism of the left and the belief in unilateralism on Monday in the debate on the non-proliferation treaty. Interestingly, many of those engaged with the debate on the unilateralist side held the same views in the cold war about the malign intentions—they did not see them as that—of the Soviet Union and the need to resist them.

We also have to resist the isolationism of the right, which seeks to detach us from the institutions of Europe and, in particular, the EU. The hon. Gentleman gave a vigorous documentation of recent actions by Russia, but Europe’s response is crucial. Interestingly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), whose portfolio this is, is addressing a conference on precisely that issue and our need for engagement. He will be saying that the EU has in recent months stood together to agree sanctions against Russia over its proxy war in Ukraine.

The security dimension of our membership of the EU is becoming more important. The hard edge of our security will continue to be provided by NATO, but the commitment to the common values represented by the EU is crucial. Eurosceptics seek sovereignty, but the security situation demands common action and resolve. If the EU was to splinter or split, no one would be more pleased than President Putin, which is presumably why he supports some of the populist parties of the right in Europe, financially and rhetorically. It is no accident that the political forces that he admires are anti-European, nor is it an accident that the Front National in France has received loans of millions of euros from a Russian bank. It is also possibly no accident that Mr Farage has singled out Mr Putin for admiration “as an operator”.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) used an unfortunate word—I do not blame him for it—when he talked about “understanding”. It has an unfortunate resonance. The Germans have a phrase—the Putinversteher—for those who understand Putin. Talking about being able to “comprehend” the argument might be better, because we have to understand the different landscape that is evolving. I would say that it is reverting to a previous era. In Ukraine, we are seeing the implementation of hybrid warfare, with irregular forces and a wide range of propaganda, which softens up the will to resist. All that is reminiscent of the cold war, when there was a wide cultural front that covered the arts, sport, non-governmental organisations and trade unions. The labour attachés of the Russian and American embassies were major players in the trade union movement in that period.

It is extraordinary that we are cutting defence expenditure at the same time as we are cutting expenditure for the World Service, but we need to look at how we respond across the wider complex and whether we stay engaged. That is the crucial point arising from today’s debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch wants to engage only with countries that are on the same page, but that is a policy for hermits. Russia is a fact and China is a fact. We therefore need to look at how we can engage, and we should not underestimate the impact of engagement and of channels of communication and dialogue.

There is good historical precedent for that. There was a lot of criticism by the Republican right of Republican officials in the Administration when they undertook the Helsinki accords in 1975, which were seen as legitimising Russia and its control over the near abroad. In fact, those officials provided the basis and the channels that started to trigger the break-up of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union. It is about widening those channels. As was rightly said by the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), we should not underestimate the value to Russian citizens of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights.

We need to work to ensure that Russia meets its obligations if it wants to remain a member or active participant in international forums. That is why we support the steps taken so far by the Council of Europe to increase the pressure on President Putin to change course. Nevertheless, it is important that we maintain channels of communication, so that there is a possibility of moving forward through dialogue: ultimately, jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

It certainly does, and to show the ecumenical nature of that concern, let me quote from a recent article in The Herald of Glasgow by a former Labour Defence Secretary, later the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson:

“Those people seduced by the SNP’s obsession with abolishing Britain’s nuclear deterrent should perhaps Google the Budapest Memorandum of December 1994. They would see there a document representing the deal struck when Ukraine, holding the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile, agreed to give them up in return for solemn security assurances from Russia, the US and the UK.

These countries, with France and China as well, promised to a) respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in its existing borders, b) to refrain from the threat or the use of force against Ukraine, and c) to refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics. Don’t these promises look good in the light of the carnage we see on our TVs every night?

Yet that is what Ukraine got in return for unilaterally disarming. Some bargain. And it is legitimate to ask this; would Crimea have been grabbed and Eastern Ukraine occupied if the Ukrainians had kept some of their nukes?”

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the Budapest memorandum, for which the United Kingdom has a degree of responsibility. Does he not therefore find it extraordinary that the British Government are hardly involved in the talks on the future of Ukraine?

[Dr Lewis]

I am not sure that we want to start discussing the foreign policy dimension of this now. The only reason I brought Ukraine into this particular debate was in order to focus on the impact on its future of its one-sided disarmament in return for unreliable and undeliverable guarantees from other countries.

There are two ways of looking at the state of defence, armaments, security and peace in the world. The way to which I subscribe was summarised by an inter-war chairman of the League of Nations disarmament commission, Salvador de Madariaga. He was writing about disarmament, which was very much in vogue in the early 1970s. This is what he wrote in 1973:

“The trouble with disarmament was (and still is) that the problem of war is tackled upside-down and at the wrong end… Nations don’t distrust each other because they are armed; they are armed because they distrust each other. And therefore to want disarmament before a minimum of common agreement on fundamentals is as absurd as to want people to go undressed in winter.”

I must point out that the hon. Member for Islington North, being typically objective about the matter, quoted article VI of the non-proliferation treaty in full. That is very important, because often it is quoted only in part. I wish to focus my remaining couple of minutes on article VI. It states:

“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date”.

In so far as that affects Britain, it can be seen that we do not engage, and never have engaged, in a nuclear arms race. We have a policy of possessing a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent. Indeed, over the years, successive Governments—both Labour and Conservative—have reduced the number of warheads in that deterrent. And what direct response has there been to each and every one of those unilateral reductions? A big, fat zero. The ending of the nuclear arms race certainly applies to Russia and the United States, but it does not apply to China, Britain or France, because none of us has ever engaged in it.

Article VI goes on with a commitment to

“nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

That leads me to my final substantive point. There has been a lack of emphasis on the overall picture of what is recommended by article VI. It recommends not only a nuclear-free world, but a conventional arms-free world, so that we do not end up in a situation whereby countries get rid of all of their nuclear weapons and leave conventional arms bristling in the hands of the protagonists. We do not want to create a situation where, unless we are crazy, we abolish one type of deadly weapons system—whose use lies not in the firing of it, but in the possession of it so that nobody starts firing any such weapons—and replace it with a world that is riven by all the old rivalries that bubble away beneath the surface and that would rise to the surface once again if the threat of the balance of terror is removed.

When we get to that happy state—when we have a world Government and the lion lies down with the lamb—we can be absolutely confident that the moment has come to get rid of those nuclear weapons and, while we are at it, get rid of the navies, the armies, and the air forces as well. Some might say, “That’s nonsense. We don’t want to get rid of those conventional forces, because aggressors would take advantage of that against victim countries.” However, if that is what we think those aggressors would do if we get rid of all our conventional arms, we should ask ourselves what they would do if, without resolving those tensions and rivalries, we get rid of the nuclear stalemate and open up the world once again for conventional slaughter on a massive scale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I believe that this debate is about to take a turn that we have not seen in recent years. It has been very difficult to discuss Trident in this Parliament. Although I hope and will do all I can to make sure that colleagues in my party in Scotland are re-elected, the message I see day after day is that we are likely to have a group of people here who have put the ending of Trident at the top of their agenda. That will be a very significant change in this place. The suggested alternative of a grand coalition, if it went ahead, would not include many Labour Members.

The cost of Trident is £100 billion over its lifetime. Last week, a £5 billion increase in the cost of the clean-up in Sellafield was announced. On the same day, the news that we had sold our share of Eurostar was given headline treatment. It was sold for a seventh of the increase in the cost of the clean-up of Sellafield. The cost of clearing up the waste from Sellafield, mostly from the weapons we have created, will eventually cost more than £100 billion. These are vast costs. If we have in the new Parliament a phalanx of Members who put a very high priority on the elimination of Trident, we will have a public debate. I believe that that public debate will have a very significant effect.

[Mr Spellar]

Yet again, my hon. Friend repeats the £100 billion figure. Would he mind telling us how much a year that actually represents?

[Paul Flynn]

Taken over the period, I have given the accepted figure. I am not going into the details. I know the arguments, but the figure is realistic. The costs are enormous, but for the waste it is even greater. Forget about the cost of Trident, just concentrate on the cost of the clean-up that is going on at the moment. The clean-up of Sellafield has just been nationalised by the Government. The Labour Government actually privatised it some seven years ago.

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who I heard on “Desert Island Discs” say that her greatest regret in a very distinguished parliamentary career—I had the great honour of being part of her team with Robin Cook in the late ’80s on the different subject of social security—was that progress has not been made on nuclear disarmament. I think there is a mistaken impression that there are those who believe in getting rid of all weapons overnight. That has never been the aim of the anti-nuclear movement. The aim has been to progress towards countries reducing their stockpiles and reducing the risks, until eventually there are probably just two nations possessing nuclear weapons: America and Russia. I believe that is the likely way ahead.

The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has been making speeches on this subject for many years. I believe he is in a state where he ignores from his calculations the existence of the United States and regards us as the key player. That is only right if we believe we are back in the gunship days of the 19th century. If there is an attack on the Baltic states, they will not come looking for us to defend them; they will look towards the United States. The NATO countries met in my constituency in September. Of those 28 nations, how many are nuclear powers? Just three of them. The rest are not. The belief that we must punch above our weight—a hangover from Victorian times—has done us much damage. We did it in Iraq and Helmand. We punched above our weight, spent beyond our interests and died beyond our responsibilities.

I received a letter today from the Minister about the event on Friday to recall the heroism of those who died in Afghanistan, saying we had to be grateful to them because they reduced the threat of terrorism in Britain. No they did not—our being in Iraq and Helmand increased the terrorist threat. We did not get rid of the Muslim bodies threatening us; we multiplied them. We went from small organisations in one or two countries to a threat in many countries throughout the world. I was once expelled from the House for saying that Ministers were not telling the truth when they said to our soldiers, “Go to Afghanistan and you will stop bombs coming to the streets of Britain.” It was never true. It was never true when Tony Blair said he was going into Iraq to stop terrorism.

We have this whole mismatch—this idea that the threats in the world can be held back by nuclear weapons—but the threats are very different. We cannot hold back terrorism with nuclear weapons. We cannot hold back global warming with nuclear weapons. We cannot provide clean water to our planet with nuclear weapons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) on leading this debate and on her role in these issues over many years, not to mention her role in our party in a number of positions. She set the tone for the debate by the way she introduced it. It has been a good humoured, but extremely well informed debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was right to mention a degree of optimism. If we look back to when the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was originally drafted, we see that the expectations for the spread and proliferation of nuclear weapons were far worse than has been the outcome. What happened is certainly not perfect, but it is much better than was anticipated.

We have seen significant reductions in weapons worldwide, and particularly among the arsenals of Russia and the United States, which reflects the theme running through the debate that disarmament follows confidence, rather than confidence following disarmament. Many fewer countries than anticipated, although still too many, have proliferated, and Britain has played a prominent role in that, which we should not underestimate.

Under the previous Labour Government, in which I served as a Defence Minister, we cut the number of operationally available warheads from 300 at the time of the ’98 strategic defence review to fewer than 160 by the time of the 2010 general election. We reduced the number of warheads carried by submarines from 96 to 48, and we withdrew the WE177 nuclear capability from service. It is important, too, that there has been a cross-party priority for the UK to continue on that path, and I am pleased that the current Government have continued in that vein, and that the UK has been one of the most transparent of the nuclear powers in dealing with that.

As I indicated, the relationship between the US and Russia is the crucial one in nuclear negotiations. Those countries are the clear and indispensable leaders, I suppose one could say, with the overwhelming majority of nuclear capability. Reference was made to the strategic arms reduction treaty and to the on-off discussions that go on. Considerable developments have taken place, such as a substantial amount of nuclear material being removed not only from the United States but with the co-operation of the United States and Russia—yet things are not necessarily heading in the right direction.

We need to be concerned about the expansion of Russian capability and a major modernisation of Russia’s strategic forces—involving the deployment of two new types of sea-launched ballistic missiles, a new class of ballistic missile submarines, a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile; and work on a new bomber and long-range cruise missiles. Sir John Sawers recently indicated that Russia is prepared to use those weapons in certain circumstances. So while there are some encouraging trends, the trends are not all in one direction.

The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) reminded us that the prospect of nuclear war is horrific, but that conventional war is pretty awful as well. A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the fire bombings in Tokyo consumed huge numbers of lives, as indeed did the fire bombings in Hamburg, and we have recently heard more controversy over what happened in Dresden.

The horrors of civil war in Syria show that it is not only state-on-state conflict that can cause such tragedy and devastation. It can happen in well-armed civil wars, as well. Nor is it only in this or the previous century that we have seen these horrors. It was not a general during this or the 20th century who aptly said “war is hell”. It was General Sherman, who had seen more than enough of that during the American civil war, which led to huge loss of life and injury.

As the hon. Member for New Forest East rightly said, countries do not distrust each other because they are armed, but are armed because they distrust each other. That applies to nuclear issues as between India and Pakistan. The issue is not their possession of nuclear armaments, but the incessant pressure that they exert on each other and the great distrust that exists between them. I was very encouraged by the fact that embarking on discussions with Pakistan was one of the first acts of the new President Modi in India. That process will not be easy, but it is enormously important. The same applies in the middle east: disarmament will proceed from confidence, not confidence from disarmament. That is why it is so crucial for peace talks to be restarted, notwithstanding the difficulties that have arisen along the way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West repeated what has been said in other debates that have been based on the proposition that nuclear weapons are an inappropriate response to many of the very real contemporary threats that we face, such as terrorism, insurgencies, cyber-attacks and climate change. Of course, they were never designed for that purpose. That is not their role. They are focused on state-on-state conflicts.

In Europe, given the increasing assertiveness of Russia, we are starting to see the re-emergence of that scenario. It is not only the actions in Ukraine that are causing concern; they are merely the most extreme symptom of a number of problems that have been manifesting themselves. There are, for instance, increasing pressures on countries in the “near abroad”, especially the Baltic states. I am pleased that the Government have responded by engaging in military co-operation with those states, along with other NATO countries. There are the cyber-attacks by which Estonia has been hit particularly badly. NATO is currently discussing whether a significant cyber-attack constitutes an article 5 attack on a member state. There is also increased maritime activity, especially submarine activity. Let me depart briefly from the slightly more bipartisan attitude that I have adopted in this debate, and say that I think it was absurd for a country that is as dependent as ours on its sea lanes for both trade and security to lose its maritime patrol capability. We have also seen the testing of our aviation defences, which has been very well publicised recently.

Incidentally, it is not just the United Kingdom that is experiencing such problems. They are also being experienced by, for example, the Scandinavian countries. There is a genuine public debate across a wide part of the political spectrum in two countries that have maintained a position of neutrality, Sweden and Finland, about whether they should consider a relationship with, or even membership of, NATO.

While being cautious, we should also be constructive. Indeed, as one of the P5, we have a special responsibility to be so. That is why—as a number of Members have mentioned—my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) wrote to the Prime Minister in November 2014, urging him to ensure that the United Kingdom was represented at the Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in December. I agree with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire that that was a difficult and delicately balanced decision, but I think that it was the right decision, because engagement is important.

That is also why it is important for Britain to play a constructive role in working for a nuclear-free world by not removing itself from the equation through nuclear disarmament, and why, at the Labour party conference, we committed ourselves to a minimum credible deterrent delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent, while taking a leading international role in pressing the agenda of global anti-proliferation. Contrary to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, ours is not a unilateralist party. The Scottish National party, whose members are conspicuous by their absence—they seem to have plenty to say, but they did not actually participate in the debate, apart from one Member who intervened—want to abandon our nuclear capability, while still applying to be part of a nuclear alliance in NATO.

As a number of Members said, the NPT review is coming up at a very inconvenient time. International conferences have taken place at inconvenient times in the election cycle. Potsdam was slightly disrupted by that, with one Prime Minister at the beginning and another at the end—a very welcome change, of course, and an encouraging precedent—but we should still be engaged, and the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire rightly mentioned the officials, the sherpas, who will be working on that. As he rightly concluded, a successful conference will not be achieved by grand gestures; it will be achieved by dogged determination, and although many of the details may seem arid, they are hugely important and relevant. We pay tribute to the officials for their work, and I hope that we have indicated that the UK and this House as a whole are determined that those discussions should succeed. We remain alert, but we also remain positive to working towards achieving a nuclear-free world and a safer world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is a cause of pride for this Government and this country that the FCO, particularly under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, has for the first time got the international community to take seriously the scandal of the sexual abuse during war and conflict of countless numbers of women and, let us not forget, many men as well. We are now seeing the fruits of that, in the way in which countries such as Nepal, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kosovo are taking up the challenge to put right the wrongs of the past and amend their practices for the future.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

When this question was handed out, I was not sure that the Government would be aware that US General Ray Odierno would express concern about our defence capability, following Government cuts, or that the British General Sir Richard Shirreff would describe the Prime Minister as “a bit player” in the Ukraine crisis. When will the Minister recognise how much this Government have marginalised Britain?

[Mr Lidington]

I wish the right hon. Gentleman could talk to the leaders of countries such as Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, who have been grateful for the resolute political leadership this Government have given, and for the very practical contribution we have made to Baltic air policing and NATO training exercises to defend their security. The—[Interruption.]

Yemen

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I thank the Prime Minister’s envoy to Oman and Yemen, particularly as he has kept me up to date over the past few days with his contacts and his thoughts and advice. He is absolutely correct that we do not want ungoverned space to develop in Yemen and with all the activities and challenges going on in the middle east, this area does not have the same profile as others. It has now moved up the agenda by virtue of this urgent question and it is important that we give assistance to the country to ensure that all parties come together, not only those in the country but those in the United Nations and the United States, to work towards a peaceful solution.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

As we have already seen, the situation in Yemen is a matter of considerable concern for Members on both sides of the House and for many of our citizens of Yemeni heritage in long-established Yemeni communities, including in the borough of Sandwell. As the security system in Sana’a has worsened, there have been reports of Houthi rebels shelling the President’s home in Sana’a and seizing control of the presidential palace.

The UN Security Council has rightly condemned these latest attacks, and clearly the priority must be to resolve this situation peacefully and quickly. In the wake of this sustained violence, may I first ask the Minister what emergency provisions have been put in place to help ensure the safety and security of British citizens still based in Yemen? We know there are many brave and committed NGO workers in Yemen, as well as a dedicated team of UK Government officials. Their work continues to be vital and their commitment to the country is long standing, so can the Minister give the House an assessment of the number of British citizens potentially affected by the recent violence? Will he also set out, as far as he can, what contingency arrangements are in place, should there be an urgent need to evacuate British citizens and personnel from the affected areas?

A statement adopted by all 15 members of the UN Security Council made it clear that President Hadi was “the legitimate authority” of the country. He was reported to be inside his house when it was shelled. The Minister said that the President is now under house arrest. Can the Minister offer any further assurances about the President’s safety and whereabouts?

Clearly, as well as restoring calm to the country, the implications of renewed violence in Yemen are far-reaching given al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has established it as their base, especially in its efforts to destabilise Saudi Arabia. In light of this, can the Government set out what long-term support is being offered to the Yemeni authorities to help counter the threat of AQAP, and how is this support being affected by the recent attacks? An end to the violence is the urgent priority, and we know that all sides have agreed to ceasefires in the past, but given that today’s attacks followed the breakdown of a ceasefire that had been in place less than 24 hours before, what can international partners do to try and encourage a return to ceasefire talks, and also to secure more lasting agreements?

Yemen faces not only a worsening security situation, but continuing political and economic challenges. Recent progress towards a political transition, including drafting a new constitution and holding a referendum as well as general elections, were welcome, but even this limited progress is now at risk of being undermined by these latest attacks. As the Minister said, the UK is chair of the Friends of Yemen group, so what steps will the UK Government be advocating to focus all parties’ efforts on the need to secure an effective political transition? UN Security Council resolution 2140 was unanimously adopted in February last year and included a sanctions committee responsible for implementing the restrictive measures under that resolution. Can the Minister confirm whether the committee has published any new recommendations or guidance in the light of the recent attacks?

The international community must remain determined to help achieve the transition that is needed within the country, while the UK Government will also have our support in doing what is necessary to ensure the protection of British citizens in the affected areas.

[Mr Ellwood]

First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman, the Opposition spokesman, for the cross-party support on this? He speaks about the UK diaspora. It is important that it is informed and kept up to date with what is happening in the country. He also spoke about the role of the UN, and I wish to put on record my thanks to the UN special representative to the Secretary-General, Jamal Benomar, who I have met a number of times, including at the UN General Assembly in September, when UN resolution 2140, which the Opposition spokesman referred to, was agreed.

There is, as I have mentioned, a well-rehearsed evacuation plan. The number of Britons based in Yemen is minimal, and the embassy assures me that plan is ready to be activated if required, but that is not currently the case.

My understanding is that the Yemeni Prime Minister is under house arrest. I have no further information on that at present. The right hon. Gentleman is right to underline the spoiling activities of AQAP, and that has already been underlined in the House. AQAP continues to undermine and harass the Government and to undertake targeted assassinations and mass bombings. This makes the situation ever more complex, with the Houthis moving in from the north-west.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the constitution and the referendum. They are the building blocks that lead us to a better political space, and they are part of the national partnership for peace agreement, which I mentioned in my opening remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the Helms-Burton Act, which will, I have no doubt, be part of the discussion between the Americans and the Cubans. I am pleased that the US Assistant Secretary of State for the western hemisphere, Roberta Jacobson, with whom I discussed these matters in Washington before I went to Cuba, is in Havana this week. That is the good news. As for the question of bilateral trade between the UK and Cuba, if the hon. Gentleman has a company in his constituency that wishes to trade and to sort out such matters with Cuba, I would suggest that he gets in touch with Lord Hutton and the Cuba initiative, as they are putting together a multi-sector trade delegation visit later this year to support economic reforms in Cuba and to contribute to jobs and growth back here in the UK.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Following President Obama’s welcome Cuban initiative, what is the Minister’s expectation of improving human rights and political freedom in Cuba? Following on from his previous answer, what is the Government’s assessment of the opportunities for British businesses and for broader relations with Cuba?

[Mr Swire]

The three memorandums of understanding that I signed covered foreign policy, trade and investment and sport. I have referred already to the fact that Lord Hutton and the Cuba initiative are taking a large delegation there in a few months’ time. On the human rights front, I am particularly encouraged by the recent release of prisoners from both sides. I discussed human rights with Cardinal Jaime Ortega, the Archbishop of Havana, and I also met Mariela Castro, the director of the Cuban National Centre for Sex Education in Havana and an activist on gender and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights. We continue to stress the need to release prisoners of conscience and I also call on Cuba to ratify the UN covenants on political and economic rights.

Nigeria

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for asking this question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.

The whole House will be shocked and outraged by reports that up to 2,000 people were killed in northern Nigeria last week following a series of brutal and deadly attacks by Boko Haram extremists. Most recently, we have heard reports of 23 people killed in a bomb attack involving three young girls, one of whom is reported to have been just 10 years old. Eyewitness reports suggest that after one such murderous attack hundreds of their victims’ bodies were left strewn across the town of Baga, including those of children, women and the elderly.

As the Minister highlighted, that follows months of violence across northern Nigeria with killings, mass abductions and attacks on innocent civilians. These attacks and brutality have been rightly condemned around the world, and although many people have rightly praised the moving solidarity seen across Europe this week, there can be no doubt about the need for solidarity across continents in the wake of such appalling attacks. That includes the atrocity in the school in Peshawar; we welcome its reopening today, striking a blow against terrorism everywhere. The world must not simply stand back and tolerate Boko Haram’s brutal campaign of violence.

Here in the UK there is cross-party support for Britain to continue to provide support alongside our allies to the Nigerian authorities in their efforts to tackle Boko Haram. Will the Minister update the House on the level of that support and say whether there have been any additional requests for British advice and expertise from the Nigerian Government? The Minister rightly reminded us of the appalling kidnappings in Chibok, which brought much needed global attention to the security situation in northern Nigeria and the vulnerability of civilians, in particular women and girls, at the hands of Boko Haram.

The recent testimonies collected by Human Rights Watch from victims who escaped or who were released show the appalling extent of the violent and brutal conditions in the Boko Haram camps where women and girls are held. In October the Nigerian authorities announced that they had agreed a ceasefire with Boko Haram, which was supposed to see the schoolgirls safely returned, but this agreement was shattered by the horrific news of the suicide bomber wearing a school uniform who set off a backpack full of explosives in the middle of a school assembly. Can the Minister provide the House with an assessment of the current plight of the girls who have been kidnapped by Boko Haram? What discussions has his Department held with the Nigerian authorities on working together to secure their release?

[Mr Swire]

I stand alongside the shadow Minister in welcoming the reopening of the school in Peshawar. We should all stand together against violence and terrorism around the world. By doing that, we can face it down.

The shadow Minister asked about UK support. I imagine he was referring to the package of support announced on 12 June 2014 by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, then the Foreign Secretary, who is in his place now. Since then we have enlarged our programme of capacity-building support for the Nigerian armed forces to provide direct tactical training and advice to the Nigerian forces engaged in this fight against terrorism. With France and the United States we are supporting regional intelligence-sharing arrangements between Nigeria and its neighbours. As I said to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), a DFID-US aid partnership will draw 1 million more school children into education by 2020, which includes increased support for girls’ education in particular. This is in addition to the £1 million which we committed in May to the UN safe schools initiative, which I alluded to earlier. DFID is providing advice and assistance to Nigeria for a more strategic approach to economic development in the north.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the brutality of Boko Haram. There is no other word that better describes their actions. They are extraordinarily brutal to their own Muslim brothers, as well as to Christians—indeed, to any one who seems to get in their way. The tales of what they leave behind when they move into these areas are too ghastly to rehearse here this afternoon. They are one of the most brutal organisations known to man.

The issue that caught the attention of this House and of the world was the abduction of the Chibok girls. We are still supporting the Nigerian authorities in trying to establish the girls’ location through the provision of surveillance assets and intelligence expertise. Information generated by these assets has been provided to an intelligence fusion cell in Abuja, where British personnel are working alongside Nigerian, American and French colleagues. We are clearly unable to comment on the results of ongoing intelligence operations, as the House will accept, but while the girls are still missing our resolve and that of the international community to continue the search remain strong. I remind the House that we are dealing with an area the size of Belgium under the control of Boko Haram, and intelligence is difficult, but we are not giving up at this point.

US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Might my hon. Friend not want to question why the Liberal Democrats, who seem to be exerting some influence—undesirable, I would say—over the Trident renewal programme, do not seem to have managed, or even tried, to exert that influence to get this issue debated? Nuclear policy has been debated, as I will say later; my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made Labour’s position very clear. Why does my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) think that the Liberal Democrats have not insisted on having a debate?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The shadow Minister invites me into a difficult situation. I cannot speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, nor would they want me to. They apparently wanted a Trident review, with no like-for-like replacement. The review took place, and it is a matter of record and of history.

On the question of this debate, I do not know what pressure was or was not applied by particular Ministers. I know that a number of Back-Bench MPs on both sides of the House believe, as I am sure the hon. Member for New Forest East would agree, that parliamentary scrutiny of all things is important; that is why we are sent here as Members of Parliament. As for the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) on nuclear weapons, he and I have a slightly different history on this matter, and we have debated it.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there was a Trident review. It came to the self-evident conclusion that if we are to maintain the nuclear deterrent, continuous at-sea deterrence is the only way of doing so, in spite of many fanciful schemes that have been dreamt up by the Liberal Democrats. He has a perfectly straightforward, long-standing and honourable position of being opposed, but where does he think that the Liberal Democrats now stand on the issue?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Well, it is—[Interruption.] My friend the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) helps me in this. It is an unfair question. I do not know and I cannot tell, but I hope that the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley will come round to the view that nuclear weapons are unsustainable, expensive, dangerous and immoral, and that the world would be a much safer place if the five declared nuclear weapon states stood up to their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and took steps towards disarmament. This debate is not solely about Trident; it is about the mutual defence agreement. Nevertheless, there is obviously a close connection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I think it would depend on the extent of the debate that had taken place before the question was asked. I would be confident that if there were to be a debate on the subject, the public would come to share my view that no amount of conventional forces can be adequate to prevent an attack on us by an enemy armed with weapons of mass destruction if we lack the means to retaliate in similar terms.

While I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, let me return to a point that he made earlier in an intervention on the hon. Member for Islington North. He pointed out that nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence had not abolished war, and that wars continued all over the planet. That is not an argument against nuclear deterrence; it is an argument in favour of it. After the second world war, if we had lived through 50 years of hostility between the then Soviet bloc and the west and there had been no conflicts anywhere in the world in which the nuclear balance of terror did not apply, one could indeed make the case that the nuclear balance of terror had had nothing to do with the prevention of war. The reality was that proxy wars were being fought by client states of the superpowers during the cold war, but the one thing that the superpowers never dared to do was to fight against one another directly, because they knew the potential outcome of all-out war between nuclear-armed powers.

Why is it important to have a debate on the matter, even though public opinion is fairly settled and parliamentary opinion is fairly relaxed? There are two reasons.

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman says that parliamentary opinion is fairly relaxed, and that may be a proper assessment of the arithmetic. In that case, why does his Prime Minister not put the issue of Trident renewal to a vote of Parliament?

[Dr Lewis]

I wish I knew the answer. I have asked that question many times, and it takes me neatly on to the two reasons why it is important that we have a debate on this subject, even though Parliament seems relatively relaxed about it. There is no doubt that if we look at the arithmetic of the 2007 vote that took us through the first stages of the successor programme to the Vanguard class submarines, it was exactly as the shadow Minister says—virtually every Conservative MP and a substantial majority of Labour MPs voted for continuing the deterrent into the next generation, and a significant minority of Labour unilateralists voted against the measure. The figure was about 80 or 90, if I remember correctly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman refers to wriggling out, but that is exactly what he is doing. It was absolutely clear where the parties stood in the debate on 17 July 2013, when the policies were enunciated perfectly clearly. My party’s policies were endorsed by the national policy forum and the recent Labour party conference. I am not aware of any changes in his party’s view. This debate is therefore not about the position of the parties being enunciated or holding people’s feet to the fire. The fact is that he has not managed to persuade his Prime Minister to do anything, and he ought to come clean about that.

[Dr Lewis]

There is a very good reason why I have not been able to persuade the Prime Minister to do anything, which is that it was evidently part of the negotiations—albeit that they were not made public at the time—on the formation of the coalition Government.

[Mr Spellar]

Secret negotiations.

[Dr Lewis]

Indeed. Evidently as part of the deal an agreement was reached between the Conservative leader and the Liberal Democrat leader that the decisive steps for the renewal of the successor submarines for Trident would be put off until after the next general election.

[Mr Spellar]

rose—

[Dr Lewis]

I will give way one more time, but I want to make some progress.

[Mr Spellar]

I wholly understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to make progress. Let us be clear that what he has said is that, for a squalid deal to get office, the Prime Minister was prepared to damage the defence of this country. That is according to the hon. Gentleman’s own arguments.

[Dr Lewis]

What I am saying is quite clear. If we end up with a hung Parliament and the balance of power is held by a small unilateralist party, it will be able to blackmail one or other of the main parties into not doing what should be done, which is to sign the contracts to make the renewal of Trident for another generation a certainty. I am clear that that was part of the potpourri of things that were negotiated in private. At the time I described it as a love gift to the Liberal Democrats. I thought it was absolutely wrong. It was a shock and a surprise, and it is not something of which any Conservative should be proud. Having said that, I look to my own party’s Front Benchers for an assurance that nothing like that will ever happen again, and I look to the Opposition spokesman for an assurance that no Labour leader will be tempted to conclude such a deal either.

The second reason why it is important to have a debate on this subject at this time is that the terms of trade, as it were, in international relations have changed. When the hon. Member for Islington North and I addressed these matters in January 2013, when we debated the nuclear deterrent, and in June 2013, when we debated the non-proliferation treaty, much of the argument was focused on the fact that the cold war was over and showed no sign of returning and that the nuclear deterrent was therefore irrelevant to the threats that then confronted us. As some of us stated at the time, it was far from certain that we could ever know significantly in advance whether those circumstances were going to change. We all hoped that Russia, having shed communism and started along a more democratic path, would continue to go in that direction, but there could be no guarantee.

Even now, we cannot tell where our relationship with Russia will be in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Nobody predicted the crisis that has arisen over Ukraine, and some might argue that if Ukraine were a member of NATO, the Russians would not have done what they have done. Conversely, it could also be argued that if Ukraine were a member of NATO and the Russians had done what they have done, we would possibly now be on the brink of an extremely dangerous east-west confrontation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this debate, which was secured by the unlikely duo of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

My hon. Friend and I served together for many years on the London Labour party executive; it was probably around the same time that the hon. Member for New Forest East was a member of the Labour party. I have known my hon. Friend a long time and he has been consistent; it is fair to say that I have consistently disagreed with him during that time. However, he has been extremely patient in constantly ploughing his furrow, as I suppose would be true of any allotment-holder in being patient as they wait for things to come around, but I fear that he will not see fruition on this issue too soon.

Of course, the hon. Member for New Forest East has a very different position from that of my hon. Friend. I almost think that his working with my hon. Friend is a sort of diversion therapy from his frustration with his own leader. He vented that frustration very strongly back in 2010, when he wrote about the formation of the coalition. He said:

“It is not in dispute that, when Conservative MPs met at Westminster to endorse the proposed Coalition, we were categorically assured that the Liberals would have to accept the Trident successor programme. As David Cameron gave this guarantee, George Osborne nodded in confirmation. Unfortunately, all these assurances have since been disregarded.”

I hope that the Minister, in his response to the debate, may be able to shed some light on whether the hon. Member for New Forest East was either wilfully self-deluded or woefully misled by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the assurances that they gave.

However, that situation is also based on a misapprehension that the Liberal Democrats are unilateralist disarmers—the hon. Member for New Forest East said that again today—because the policy that they have been pushing to get the Trident review is not a unilateralist one; it accepts the continuation of a nuclear deterrent. However, to try to provide some differentiation between themselves and others, they went for some rather exotic—as well as more expensive, destabilising and uncertain—alternatives, all of which were appropriately demolished by the review.

[Dr Lewis]

I do not intend to emulate the right hon. Gentleman by making as many interventions on him as he made on me, but I will say that I have never regarded him as a naive politician. Nevertheless, if he really thinks that the undercurrent and the real message of the stance taken by the Liberal Democrats on this matter is that they were really in favour of a nuclear deterrent, he should do what I did, although it might disturb his sleep a bit, and watch the rebroadcasting of the Liberal Democrats’ conference debates on this subject, because—believe me—all they were interested in during those debates was getting rid of Trident. One never heard anything mentioned about the positive case for a nuclear deterrent. It was another indirect way of going for unilateralism, because they knew that overt unilateralism would be too unpopular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

I always say that MPs and Ministers must be responsible for their own words, but if the hon. Gentleman rereads the debate from the time of the Trident review he will see clearly that at one stage the Liberal Democrats argued for the use of nuclear-enabled Cruise missiles. Apart from being a much more expensive option, that is—as I have already said—a far riskier option. I do not mean “risky” in terms of whether or not that option is a credible deterrent, although that is true as well, but in terms of being a destabilising factor, which could lead to much greater tension and—equally importantly—considerable risk of error.

[Dr Lewis]

In the spirit of compromise and convergence, can the two of us at least agree that, since the review of the Trident alternatives, the Liberal Democrat position—sending submarines to sea with no nuclear warheads on them, then waiting for a crisis to arise before sailing them back to port and arming them with nuclear warheads—has to be the most irresponsible fantasy-land thinking in the age of the nuclear deterrent? Furthermore, is it not a shame that no Liberal Democrats are here in Westminster Hall today to defend their decision, or—indeed—to explain it?

[Mr Spellar]

We can draw a veil now over the incoherence and absence of the Liberal Democrats, and get down to the serious and proper debate—it is certainly a proper debate to have—about Britain’s nuclear posture. It is a debate that my party has engaged in for a considerable number of years, in fact ever since the great post-war Attlee and Bevin Government commissioned Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, a policy that, I am pleased to say, continues today.

Having said that, none of us should underestimate the weighty issues—both the hon. Members who have already spoken stressed this point—that should weigh heavily on all those who have to make these decisions or arguments. I say that because it is very clear that there are huge issues. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, nobody underestimates the impact of nuclear weapons nor the potential devastation that they could cause. Nevertheless, nuclear weapons are a fact in our world.

I partly differ from my hon. Friend in this regard. He made passing reference to the non-proliferation treaty conference that is due to take place next year. Clearly, it will be resolved by—we could say by the nuclear weapon states, but frankly the key discussions that need to take place are between the USA and Russia. If agreement can be reached by them, we should rightly be part of the subsequent discussions. However, as I say, the key initial discussions must be between the USA and Russia.

I do not think that any of the participants in this debate about nuclear weapons, including those who have spoken today or in similar parliamentary debates, in any way underestimate the impact of nuclear weapons on those directly affected, on the environment or indeed on the wider world.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Obviously, discussion between the USA and Russia on nuclear weapons would be a good thing; anything that helps nuclear disarmament is a good thing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the last two five-yearly conferences both agreed that there should be a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, and that at the last review—the preparatory conference last year—every state agreed that that should happen? Therefore, I am sure that he will join me in pushing the Government to do their best to initiate, or bring about, that zone. Otherwise, the danger is of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. There are other countries besides Israel that could develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to.

[Mr Spellar]

I take my hon. Friend back to the Attlee memorandum, and indeed to many other documents by those who have written about this subject. That is because the key issue—as Michael Quinlan, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, who is also a committed Christian and someone who has thought very deeply about these issues, has said—is the removal of the risks of war and instability. That is absolutely crucial in all these circumstances, including in the middle east. That is why it is so important to achieve a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, although Israel-Palestine is by no means the only source of tension in the middle east. We are seeing so many conflicts taking place in that unhappy region, and that is without any question of nuclear weapons, although, sadly, chemical weapons has been another issue. The resolution of those conflicts and the creation of a stable and peaceful environment is so important.

In the meantime, notwithstanding that, it is also important that the UK plays its part—indeed, it has played its part more than any other country, as I think the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned—in reducing the proportion of our nuclear armoury. Significantly, that took place under the defence team that I was a member of in 1997 to 2001, but, to be fair I should say that it has been continued by our successors not only in the Labour Government, but in this Conservative Government as well.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

This is positively my last intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, although that is perhaps giving a hostage to fortune. Will he confirm that, when we took those unilateral steps of reducing our nuclear warhead stockpiles, there was no similar response from any of the other existing nuclear powers?

[Mr Spellar]

I think that is right. We had hoped that there would be such a response, but we took that decision in context and reduced to the minimum level necessary to maintain effective deterrence. We have reduced the explosive power of our British deterrent by some 75% since that time. That gives us good credentials and bona fides in those discussions.

I return to the point I made about the NPT. The crucial discussions have to be between the two major nuclear powers, which are still the United States and Russia. That needs to be re-emphasised.

The policy of the Labour party was made clear, as I made clear in previous interventions, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in a debate in the main Chamber on 17 July last year. He was explicit about our commitment to continuous at-sea deterrence—in the most cost-effective way possible, of course. I mentioned earlier that that was also the conclusion of the Government’s own review, which systematically and elegantly dismantled the Lib Dems’ excuses, even though the document contained the bizarre disclaimer, which I hope the Minister will touch on, that it was not a statement of Government policy.

Incidentally, I hope that this afternoon we will hear no more nonsense from Ministers, as we have heard previously in the main Chamber, claiming to speak not on behalf of the Government but on behalf of a political party, because I think that I have fairly well established, with rulings from the Speaker, that whoever speaks from the Dispatch Box—from that position and that microphone—actually speaks from the Treasury Bench and is therefore speaking on behalf of the Government. At a time when various Ministers seem to be dissociating themselves from the Government, it would help, particularly on an issue as significant as this, if the Government spoke with a clear voice.

An argument about cost is sometimes made regarding the more general Trident discussion, and we have mainly had that discussion here, rather than discussing the debate subject of the UK-US mutual defence agreement. Indeed, cost was mentioned in an intervention by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech). The question there was, would people rather have the nuclear deterrent or the Army? Would they rather have soldiers or air cover? It is not an appropriate comparison. However, one argument is that this programme costs too much. It therefore seems rather strange, if not perverse, to then argue against an agreement that substantially and significantly reduces the cost of the programme in a number of ways. For example, it reduces the cost of delivering the deterrent, even the design and development costs. It is reckoned that the common design has saved the UK in the region of £500 million and precludes the need to design, develop, manufacture and test our own missile system.

The Trident alternatives review estimated that a new warhead alone would cost £8 billion to £10 billion. I have already mentioned the extra cost of moving to cruise missiles. Regarding a cost-effective system, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham made it clear that our two criteria were maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence and doing so with the minimum possible cost, and the approach I am talking about assists us towards the minimum possible cost.

There was a cross-debate on the independence of the system. The fact that we are buying F-35s, made in the US but with substantial elements made in the UK, does not mean that we do not have an independent Air Force. It is the control of the system, not the sourcing of the weaponry, that is the important test of independence. Therefore we ought to be clear that this is Britain’s independent deterrent, but in a NATO nuclear alliance, as was reaffirmed at the NATO summit. It is slightly odd that our now absent friends from the Scottish National party want to be anti-nuclear but want to join a nuclear alliance. That is a slightly perverse position to take.

I want to be clear, because the hon. Member for New Forest East wanted me to be clear—certainly, clearer than his own Government—about the Opposition’s position. We have made it clear through our policy statement. Labour has said that

“we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent…Labour recognises the importance of Britain leading international efforts for multilateral nuclear disarmament”—

I mentioned the NPT—

“and non-proliferation. Following the action we took when in government, Labour would actively work to enhance momentum on global multilateral disarmament efforts and negotiations”.

The NPT conference in 2015 will be a key moment for a Labour Government to show leadership in achieving progress on global disarmament and anti-proliferation measures.

For all those reasons, we will support the reaffirmation of the agreement and the policy initiated by that great Labour Government of Attlee and Bevin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman takes me straight to the point that I was about to make about article I of the NPT, which touches on the transfer of nuclear weapons and devices between countries. The Government regard the MDA as compliant with our obligations under article I for three reasons.

First, nuclear devices or weapons are not transferred to the United Kingdom under the terms of the MDA. As I described earlier, what we receive under the MDA is a certain amount of nuclear technological know-how and some non-lethal elements, such as propulsion systems, that are not prohibited under article I.

Secondly, article V of the original mutual defence agreement—not including the amendments—quite explicitly states that the transfer of nuclear weapons is not permitted.

Thirdly, article I of the NPT refers in particular to transfers from the recognised nuclear weapons states to non-nuclear weapons states. However, the MDA refers to transfers of things other than nuclear weapons or devices from one nuclear weapons state to another, both of which are party to the NPT. I think that that answers the challenge that the MDA is in some way incompatible with article I of the NPT.

The other criticism made is that the mutual defence agreement is at odds with the obligation that we and the other four recognised nuclear weapons states have under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty to work towards multilateral disarmament. I have already described how the United Kingdom has significantly brought down its nuclear arsenal as a contribution to multilateral nuclear disarmament, but we have also been active and continue to be active in a range of multilateral disarmament initiatives.

We remain a strong supporter of the NPT. We signed and ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty as long ago as the 1990s and remain a strong supporter of the treaty both financially and technically, operating our own voluntary moratorium on testing pending the treaty coming into effect. We actively urge the remaining states that have not yet ratified the treaty to do so. We want an early start of negotiations in Geneva on the fissile material cut-off treaty and are an active member of the group of governmental experts that is working on those negotiations, which are currently blocked not by the United Kingdom or any of the recognised nuclear weapons states, but by Pakistan for national reasons.

In addition, we currently chair the forum of the permanent five nuclear weapons states and will be hosting the next annual conference in London in February next year. The purpose of the P5 process is to build transparency and mutual confidence to make it possible for all nuclear weapons states to engage in further rounds of multilateral disarmament. At the same time, we lead an informal working group at the United Nations, discussing the UN’s role in future nuclear security work. This country therefore has a good record of active work on multilateral disarmament that sits perfectly well alongside the arrangements that we have with the United States under the MDA.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I want to highlight the fact that these developments have taken place under Governments of both parties. To what extent can we support, encourage or stimulate the key discussions between the United States and Russia on their agreement, to which the agreements of the other nuclear states are secondary, although important?

[Mr Lidington]

First, I happily acknowledge that the multilateral disarmament work that I have described has taken place under Governments of both political colours.

Secondly, I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman that the prime responsibility for leadership in multilateral nuclear disarmament must lie with the two biggest nuclear powers: the United States and Russia. We encouraged the talks that led towards the second strategic arms reduction treaty, which will impose limits for each party of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads from February 2018. We need to see that target fulfilled and would welcome and support its implementation.

One could make a similar point about the talks on an intermediate nuclear forces treaty. There was a bilateral US-Russia treaty back in 1988, but each side now accuses the other of breaching it. For reasons relating to Russia’s conduct in Ukraine, there has been a significant erosion of trust between the US and Russia. It will therefore not be easy to get talks between Washington and Moscow back on course, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is in the interests of all of us that Russia and the United States are able to rebuild a sufficient degree of trust for meaningful negotiations towards multilateral nuclear disarmament to take place.

I want it to be clear that the United Kingdom is not using the amendments to the mutual defence agreement to upgrade its system’s capabilities. There is no move to produce more usable weapons or change our nuclear posture or doctrine. The amendments to the MDA that we are technically debating this afternoon do not in any way provide for an upgrading of the capabilities of the Trident system. That is a decision for 2016.

The hon. Member for Islington North asked a couple of detailed questions about plutonium tests at Aldermaston and the relationship between the mutual defence agreement and the planned replacement of the Vanguard-class submarine fleet. The Atomic Weapons Establishment has conducted sealed hydrodynamic plutonium experiments, which are sub-critical, do not produce nuclear yield and are fully compliant with the non-proliferation treaty. The experiments were described in a published article in the journal Nature in February 2002. Aldermaston and its experiments are also, of course, fully in line with the commitments we have undertaken in agreeing and ratifying the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I am therefore advised that what has happened at Aldermaston is fully compliant with our international legal obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend’s question illustrates the complexity of the situation. We do require leadership on both sides. From Israel we require a commitment to dialogue and to avoiding all actions that undermine prospects for peace, including settlement activity, while the Palestinian Authority must show leadership in recommitting itself to the dialogue and establishing itself as the authoritative voice in Gaza.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Arab peace initiative could prove vital in assisting a move towards the essential two-state solution for Israel and the long-suffering Palestinian people. Does the Minister agree that in the light of yesterday’s welcome Tunisian election results, which were good news not only for the Tunisian people but for the wider Arab world, it is right for such regional initiatives to be considered as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think that those are wise words. I have congratulated Tunisia on the journey it has made, bearing in mind that it was responsible for the very start of the Arab spring. It is a small ray of hope in a very complex area, and I hope that other nations will take a lead from it.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who gave a rare but most welcome dose of common sense from the Opposition Benches on the subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on his speech, on the powerful argument he has made for the Bill and, in particular, on his principled defence of the British people’s right to decide on their future in Europe. We are all grateful to him for taking up the noble cause of getting a referendum on Europe in the next Parliament on to the statute book before the general election.

The hon. Lady speculated in the closing moments of her speech on the Labour party’s tactics on this Bill. Perhaps the Opposition do not know, or perhaps she is just not on the mailing list for such sensitive information. I hope that later the shadow Foreign Secretary will enlighten the House on the Opposition’s precise position. I should make it clear that in making the case for this Bill I am doing so not on behalf of the coalition but as a Conservative. I shall say something about the position of my Liberal Democrat colleagues—although not of the one Liberal Democrat who is in the chamber.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you guide me on this? Is it not the procedure of this House that whoever speaks from the Government Dispatch Box speaks on behalf of the Government?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The Foreign Secretary is speaking as Foreign Secretary today, and is at the Dispatch Box doing so.