Antarctic Bill

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

That is an important question, and there are two points to make in response. First, by showing British leadership and demonstrating that the existing treaty arrangements are important to us and should be important to the other signatories, we will signal that we mean business in respect of international control, ownership and responsibility in the Antarctic. That will make dealing with the challenges we face easier. Secondly, we must be aware of other nations, notably China and Korea, becoming interested in the Antarctic for obvious reasons. We therefore need to protect and enhance our international structures to deal with that.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

May I assist the hon. Gentleman? One recent concern has been whether the proposed merger of the British Antarctic Survey and the National Oceanography Centre was sending the wrong signals. As he will be aware, the Science and Technology Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), produced a very good report recommending that that merger should not go ahead. I am pleased to see that in response to it the Government have today issued a statement confirming that those two bodies will not be merged. That sends a very good message to other countries with interests in the region, especially Argentina.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for that assistance from someone on the Opposition Front Bench. I was intending to celebrate the fact that that merger will not go ahead. That is exceptionally good news for the BAS, and I will discuss it in more detail later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have indeed worked very well together on the issue of the Chagos Islands—the British Indian Ocean Territory—which is another policy that I hope the Minister will review. Yes, we will work with Argentina and Chile on the issue of Antarctica—it is our responsibility to work with all the nations that are signatories to the Antarctic treaty—but it would help the cause if they respected the sovereignty of territories that are under the Crown. It is not helpful that countries such as Argentina in particular ignore the democratic wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands and retain an illegal claim over that territory. I hope that they will take the hon. Gentleman’s advice and show respect for the traditions that we all respect, namely democracy and the right to self-determination.

One organisation maintains the British presence in the Antarctic like no other. It is a body with a proud record of scientific research and unparalleled achievements in the field of polar science. It is, of course, the world-class British Antarctic Survey, which, until today, faced a battle for its own survival as the result of a foolhardy proposal by the Natural Environment Research Council to merge BAS with the National Oceanography Centre. I could not have supported that plan in any way whatever.

[Mr Spellar]

I do not wish to appear churlish, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is unfortunate that we had to await a report of the Science and Technology Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), before the Government took action to slap down the proposal, instead of their intervening at an early stage for all the good reasons that the hon. Gentleman and other Members have mentioned?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I commend the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and his Committee for its report, which has certainly made a contribution, but the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) might not be aware of the impact of the letter that the Minister recently received from the all-party polar regions group. I had his response today. There has been collaboration from all parties to end the proposal, with many of us working together on it, and all those who have spoken up against it should take some credit. I completely agree, however, with his commendation of that report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Yes. The reason we are in Afghanistan is for both our national security and theirs, and to ensure that the use that was made of Afghanistan’s territory in the past is not made in the future. That is why we have been there; our forces have done a remarkable job and so have the development workers. They will continue their work post-2014 to ensure as best they can the future stability of that country for its own security and for the security of the rest of us.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

As the Minister rightly identified, since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 the number of girls going to school has risen from fewer than 5,000 to 2.2 million. That is an achievement Britain can be proud of. Maintaining that progress is crucial, both to the development and the future security of Afghanistan, so what initiatives is he taking with the Government of Afghanistan and, equally importantly, with neighbouring powers to ensure that progress continues after the draw-down of ISAF?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the progress that has been made. There are two things in response. The first is the Tokyo international agreement in July; the United Kingdom has been asked by Afghanistan to co-chair the first review of it in 2014. It is a series of commitments made by the Afghanistan Government in relation to a variety of matters, such as social and economic development, including the rights of women. In addition, the enhanced strategic partnership that the Prime Minister signed with President Karzai in January this year also includes commitments on women’s rights, and we will be looking to ensure that those rights are confirmed in the future as our development support continues.

European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Friday 26th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is ironic that we are in the closing minutes of a Friday sitting and we have so little time to discuss possibly the most momentous decision that we are going to have to take in the coming years. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) on raising this issue. I hope he will forgive me for not discussing at length the merits or otherwise of our membership of the European Union—there simply is not time to do so. This is too complex and important an issue to be left to just a 20-minute debate.

I wish to make one point: whatever one’s views on the EU—whether one is strongly in favour, whether one is agnostic or whether, like my hon. Friend, one has severe doubts about it—surely everyone must now accept that on this issue there is a democratic deficit. Why is it that every 16-year-old in Scotland is going to be allowed to vote on whether or not Scotland should remain in the Union, but no Briton under the age of 55—that includes most people in this Chamber and most people watching this debate—has ever been given the chance to vote on whether we should remain in the European Union? That is a severe democratic deficit, and either this Government, in this Parliament, or a future Government will have to address it. The issue is becoming increasingly important and increasingly urgent.

The Government argue that the only way to resolve the crisis in the euro is for its members—the states that subscribe to it—to create full fiscal and monetary union. Let us be under no illusion: if that takes place—and our own Government are encouraging the process—it would have a dramatic effect on our relationship with the European Union, and on our whole trading and political position. I doubt that the process will be easy, but apparently the Government want it to take place. Whether one is fiercely in favour of our membership of the European Union or sceptical of it, nobody doubts that if full fiscal and monetary union were to take place, enormous pressures would be put on our Government, particularly in terms of financial regulation, and the oversight of the City of London and of our industries. I do not want to get involved in these arguments, but nobody denies that that would have a dramatic effect. I therefore believe that a referendum must take place. The Government must announce their decision to move towards a referendum.

What is going to be the nature of the referendum question? There is no doubt that the Government would like to have some sort of negotiation. I do not believe that the members of the European Union, or the fiscal and monetary union, will be able or willing, given that 27 nations are involved in this whole process, to allow a great return of powers. Ultimately the issue will boil down to a simple question: do you want to be part of the European Union—do you want to be a fully subscribing, enthusiastic member of the European Union who ultimately wants to join fiscal and monetary union; there may be many arguments in favour of that—or do you want to be part of a customs union?

A number of us had a meeting this week with an expert in this field, and I personally have come to the conclusion that loose talk of a free trade area simply will not do and that there is a future for this country as part of a customs union, which would be popular with the people and reassure opinion both in the City of London and in our industries. It is perfectly possible for us to regain our freedom—to regain the freedom to make our own laws—but to remain within a customs union. That is precisely what happens in other countries. Switzerland is a successful example.

This is a clear and simple issue—should we be in the European Union, or should we be part of a customs union?—and it could be put to the British people, and there would be a fair, honest and open debate, but I do not think the Government can simply sit on this issue for ever. There will be a fair amount of cynicism if the Government say some time in the next 18 months that it is their intention, perhaps after the next election, to hold a referendum without any clear indication of what the question will be and what will be negotiated. There is a huge amount of cynicism among the British people. They have been promised referendums in the past—they have had promises from the former Government; they have had them from this Government—so this is the most important issue of our times.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to promises of referendums and says that Governments have not delivered on them. Does he acknowledge that one Government promised a referendum and gave a referendum? They were the Labour Government under Harold Wilson.

[Mr Leigh]

That was a very long time ago, and the right hon. Gentleman and I, who are perhaps in a similar age group, were lucky enough to be given that choice, but our colleagues sitting in the Chamber are all younger than we are and they have never had a chance. Should they not be given one? Yes, I pay tribute to Harold Wilson and the then Labour Government; they actually gave the British people a chance. All I ask is that, once again, the British people are allowed to decide, yes or no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Clearly, the friends of the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) are trying to talk out his Bill and leave very little time for the Minister. I shall take less time, as I shall make merely two brief points.

First, as I said earlier, only Labour has given the people of this country a say. Not John Major, not Margaret Thatcher—only a Labour Government consulted the people. Secondly, this Bill does not consult the people. It intends to take a decision over their heads and is therefore quite inconsistent with the comments made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). However, as we want to hear from the Minister, rather than intrude any longer on this private quarrel on the Government Benches I shall now allow him to speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

If we were to pull our troops out of combat prematurely and cease many of the other efforts we are making in Afghanistan, the position would be much more difficult, because through this period, when our and other forces are present, and when we are working closely with the Afghan Government, the prospects for women’s rights are improving. I am sure the timetable we have set is right—our troops will cease to be in combat after the end of 2014—but I hope the concepts of women’s rights are becoming more entrenched in Afghan society and politics all the time.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that women’s rights in Afghanistan are a fundamental part of the security agenda, and that they must be protected in any settlement? That will require the involvement of women in peace and transition talks, to protect the gains made over recent years. Does he therefore recognise that time is rapidly moving on in those discussions? What will he do to try to inject some urgency into the process?

[Mr Hague]

This country makes a constant effort to ensure that urgency is part of the process. I was in both Pakistan and Afghanistan last week, talking to the Governments of both countries about reconciliation and their relations with each other in promoting a political settlement and reconciliation in Afghanistan. Of course, we will continue with all those efforts, bearing it in mind that the process must be Afghan led, and that Afghans must determine their own future. We are trying to support that process rather than dictate to them the future terms of their settlement.

Piracy (Somalia)

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Ottaway]

Thank you for addressing the point, Mr Sheridan.

The tenth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee is about piracy off the coast of Somalia, a major problem that costs industry and the world economy billions of dollars and threatens lives. The Indian ocean has become a no-go area for small vessels and is dangerous for large ones. The causes of the problem are many. First, at the heart of it is the fact that, despite the introduction of military forces and private armed guards, still the majority of vessels are unarmed. Secondly, there is a willingness to pay ransoms—a controversial point to which I will return. Thirdly, there are too few naval forces. Fourthly, the pirates are able to operate with relative impunity inside Somalia.

The United Kingdom Government are well aware of the problem and are taking a leading role and, although the Committee makes constructive criticisms of that role, we congratulate them on the steps that they are taking. Concerted international action is needed. The number of prosecutions has increased, but 90% of those detained are released. There is greater use of armed guards and we have regulation and guidance for armed guards. Vessels have been following best management practices. There are issues to do with tracing financial flows: the Committee’s opinion is that financial flows can be tracked—some of the most sophisticated equipment for that purpose is available in this country—and that more can be done in this regard. The Committee believes that there should be at least one UK vessel permanently on station. Of course, we have to support development in Somalia. I shall deal with those points in turn.

The UK is a big player in the world shipping industry, and our part of it is based just a mile or two up the road from here. Shipping and its management comprises 1.8% of gross domestic product. Piracy poses a threat to the UK’s economy and the security of British assets transiting through the area. Some 40% of world trade moves through the region of the Indian ocean, around the horn of Africa, into the Red sea. The danger zone now stretches over to the coast of the Indian ocean. Much of the cargo is insured here in the UK. The total cost of addressing the threat to Britain, the assets and the industry is believed to be in the region of $8 billion to $12 billion per annum.

Attacks on vessels in the Indian ocean have decreased in the last quarter. In the first quarter of 2011 there were 102 attacks, 16 of them successful, whereas this year there were only 43 attacks and only nine were successful. That downward trend is welcome. To give an idea of the sums involved, in 2011, ransoms amounted to $135 million. The opinion of some observers and witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee was that some of that money is going to al-Shabaab, which it is believed has connections with al-Qaeda.

Since piracy started in the region, some 3,500 crew members and officers have been taken captive and been held, and in the last four years 62 have been killed. Currently, 12 vessels are held and 178 hostages are still in captivity. That the figure is lower than it was reflects a welcome trend, but it is important to state that the level of detention remains unacceptable. It must not be believed that we have been successful and this situation must not become the status quo.

The peak from which we are coming down was reached in autumn 2011. I think the reason why the trend is now downward is that the self-defence mechanisms are beginning to make progress. The implementation of best management practices is clearly having a serious effect. It is too soon to see if this is a long-term trend, but it is promising. For the benefit of the House, I should say that best management practices involve self-protecting measures, including careful manoeuvring of ships, having safe rooms on ships and using detection equipment. I commend the industry on the implementation of these practices, as does the Committee, and on the results that this is achieving.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Does not this highlight a further problem, which is that it is not so much the cargo or the vessel but the crew that is the main financial inducement? All the measures the hon. Gentleman has mentioned apply to the large multinational, well organised modern fleets, but many smaller operators with smaller vessels are becoming more vulnerable. Those measures, welcome though they are, can therefore only be regarded as part of a package, because they deal with only part of the problem.

[Richard Ottaway]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. For small vessels the region is, in truth, a complete no-go area. For the piracy of the 17th and 18th centuries, the prize was the cargo, and the crew walked the plank or went over the sides, but that has changed; now, the crew are equally valuable. That attitude of the pirates is causing the problem. That is not to say that the cargo is not still important—shipowners are paying substantial sums to get their cargo out—but as we see particularly when yacht crews are held, in international terms the yacht is worth nothing while the owners still have a high value.

The Government initially resisted the establishment of private armed security guards on board British vessels. When the Minister gave evidence to us during our inquiry, the Government’s position was that armed guards would not be welcome. However, the Prime Minister announced in October or November last year that we will now put armed security guards on board British vessels, and that view is echoed by the International Maritime Organisation. The Committee welcomes the U-turn.

The operation of a private armed guard on board a British vessel is subject to British law—the law of the flag applies on board any vessel. The Government published interim guidance, at the heart of which was a policy based on the Crown Prosecution Service policy of lawful self-defence. We were critical of that, because the CPS guidance was not written with piracy in mind. Indeed, it states:

“If a…firearm…was used…this may tip the balance in favour of prosecution.”

To me and to the Committee, that seemed to be off-loading responsibility for the use of armed guards on to shipowners. The simple question we posed in our report was: if armed guards on board a ship see an armed skiff approaching, can they open fire? That is the test. The initial interim guidance contained little to help make a judgment on the use of force.

In the Government response, as I pointed out in my point of order, clarification was promised by April 2012, which then became May, then June. I have no idea why there was a delay, but I like to think that it was because international co-ordination and consultation with the IMO were necessary. Indeed, earlier this year, at the invitation of the Department for Transport, I attended a particularly constructive piracy conference at the IMO. What is important, however, is that the UK plays a leading role in the establishment of any guidance, and that is why I regret the new guidance not being available for us to see, because we cannot really comment. We are in limbo—the guidance is out but we are unable to comment on it today. The UK should be playing a leading role, but the issue is current. I want to ask the Government whether they have been happy with the use of armed guards on ships from implementation up to now. How many applications have been received to establish armed guards on board a ship?

The House might be interested to know about the Italian ship Enrique Lexie, which was carrying two Italian marines on board. Though the facts are in dispute, there was an exchange of armed fire with small vessels and two fishermen were killed. For reasons that are not clear, the Italian vessel then went into an Indian port and the marines were arrested amid a dispute about whether the incident took place in international or territorial waters. The matter is unresolved, but the incident highlights the importance of the need for clear guidance and international agreement on the use of force.

We can see how easily diplomatic incidents can occur in the absence of proper guidance or internationally agreed standards. That is mainly because so many factors are involved in international waters, such as a British ship with a foreign crew going into another country’s waters; several jurisdictions are in play. I was interested to read that the IMO has called for an international standard for the use of armed guards, so I shall read the newly published guidance with interest to see whether such a standard has been established. I hope that a Minister might be able to summarise the guidance when he makes his contribution to the debate.

[Richard Ottaway]

That is very helpful, Mr Sheridan, and I am grateful to all those involved in expediting the availability of the guidance.

To conclude on armed guards, I hope that UK rules can influence the international debate, to the benefit of everyone concerned.

Another issue that we identified is that there are no regulations on the movement of weapons, and in that part of the world, a lot of weapons are moving around. We clearly need to have a regime for such movements, and I welcome the UK’s introduction of a revised licensing regime in February this year, although that does not tackle the difficulty of floating armouries. Believe it or not, some ships out there will lend guns to ships that enter the danger zone and get them back when they leave. All that is outside the control of any organisation, and an international approach to that difficulty would be appropriate.

The naval response has been better than expected—possibly damned with faint praise—but the truth of the matter is that the Indian ocean is not safe, and to have a 30-minute response throughout the ocean would require the deployment of 80 warships at any given moment, which will clearly not happen. The strategic defence review under way in this country can only heighten the impact on the availability of British ships for deployment, but the UK could have a role to play in providing leadership in operations—we have a good record—perhaps with other countries supplying the ships. As reported by the Ministry of Defence, however, last month HMS Westminster foiled three attacks. Can one of the Ministers present tell us what happened to the suspects from those incidents? Were they detained, released or fended off with no detentions? As I understand it, there have certainly been no prosecutions.

What is needed is international co-ordination. We have the successful UN contact group on piracy and recently—established in February this year—the Regional Anti-Piracy Prosecutions Intelligence Co-ordination Centre in the Seychelles. The centre has to be welcome. It will co-ordinate information on ransoms and target the kingpins in the piracy world.

On the naval response, one of the unexpected side effects is how the international operations have been getting on quite well with one another. We considered a recommendation on whether they should be co-ordinated by a single organisation, but we reached the conclusion that there were bigger fish to fry, rather than having that sort of upheaval at the moment. We have Russian, Chinese, Indian, British and NATO ships there, and given the lack of a big umbrella organisation, the close co-ordination is very welcome.

Turning to convictions, it is difficult to obtain evidence in such situations. Our Committee recommended that more effort should be made, perhaps with the use of video links for witnesses. There are difficulties with various national laws because piracy is a crime in some countries but not others. Implementing such proposals can be expensive for poorer countries.

To date, no suspect has been brought back to the UK for prosecution. We have transfer agreements with Kenya and the Seychelles, and I welcome the new agreement with Mauritius, as I hope that it will result in more prosecutions of suspects. Will the Minister who responds on the memorandum of understanding with Mauritius indicate the conditions that suspects are held in and whether that is monitored. I wish the Government well with implementation of the memorandum of understanding, which sounds to our Committee to be a pragmatic solution. However, if it fails, I hope that the Minister involved will note that the French are now engaged in their second trial of suspects.

[Mr Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman, and later a Minister, clarify the position on bringing captured pirates back to the UK for trial, given the real risk of applications for leave to remain? Is it not better—this is why the Mauritius agreement is so welcome—to support efforts in the region?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and his colleagues on their report. The detailed work that has been undertaken and the drawing together of a number of difficult issues show the value of Select Committees. One does not necessarily have to agree with every line of the conclusion. We just need to see the thread of the work that enables a debate to take place, and I am pleased that it was acknowledged in the Government response.

Would you indulge me for a minute, Mr Sheridan, so that I can pay tribute to Lord Peter Archer of Sandwell who died today? He was my predecessor in the Warley constituency. He served for some 26 years in the House of Commons and 20 years in the House of Lords and made a considerable contribution to both Houses and to his own constituency. If there was anyone to whom the phrase, “A fine Christian gentleman” applied, it was Peter Archer. He was a man of formidable intellect. His father was a toolmaker in Tipton. Peter rose to high levels in the law, but never forgot his roots. He always served his constituency well. In some ways, he was a hard act to follow; his reputation as a Member of Parliament in the constituency stood very high, and I only hope that I have matched up to his standards in that regard. I am sure that the feelings of Members here who knew him will go to his wife and family.

I am pleased to see two Ministers here today. Let me briefly damage their careers by saying that they have played a proactive role in dealing with this issue. If some other Departments had been as forward leaning, we would have made progress, and today’s problems are an indication of that. I hope that we will improve the rate of our response to this evolving situation.

As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) mentioned, the problem began off the Somali coast. Then we saw it moving along the coast of Aden. Indian Ministers are extremely concerned about how close the problem is getting to India. We have seen the movement from skiffs to mother-ships, the involvement of spotters in ports and allegations of intelligence gathering elsewhere. We are now seeing imitation tactics in the Gulf of Guinea, and I have heard reports, which I have not validated, of similar problems off the coast of South America. We have seen changes in the levels and manner of response.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) talked about Britain taking a lead, which is absolutely appropriate. A major part of our naval doctrine is to secure the world’s sea lanes not only for British vessels but for the world’s vessels. Maintaining free passage of vessels throughout the world is an important contribution and is core to our basic philosophy and our national interest. [Interruption.] I was wondering how long I would have to speak before the documents arrived. One hears a distant trumpet blowing over the horizon as the cavalry appears. I hope that the Minister will indicate whether that basic philosophy is still a doctrinal priority for the Ministry of Defence, our armed forces and the British Government.

Secondly, we have talked quite extensively about the impact on world trade, the amount of money that is being paid, the impact on the willingness of seafarers to go through these routes, the rise in insurance premiums and the potential risk to supply chain management for many countries. The effects of the tsunami in Japan and the floods in Thailand were felt right across Europe. Much of the British car industry and other industries experienced disruption in the supply of component parts because of those particular events. If the passage into the Suez canal became too unsafe for seafarers to risk using it, the additional journey would cause not only extra costs but considerable disruption for British industry.

We should not underestimate the impact of piracy on the countries in-region. I remember talking to the Kenyan Government about cruises. Cruise terminals are big business, providing a considerable amount of employment in many parts of the world. Up to about the middle of last year, the number of cruise ships visiting Kenya went down from about 60 to one—interestingly that one was from Saga, which shows the redoubtable spirit of British pensioners. We can imagine the impact on many workers in Mombasa and indeed on the tourist industry there. In the future, therefore, cruise liners and the yachting business will be affected, which will have a considerable impact. We have talked about development, but such an impact creates the conditions for further instability. That should concern us greatly.

It is fair to say that throughout the current epidemic of Somali coast piracy the Government have tended towards finding the right solutions but they have not necessarily always moved at the requisite pace. One of the images that we must get away from is that of the Somali pirates as mindless hooligans. I am not talking about the expendables who, for an extra few per cent, will want to be the first ones on to the vessel. I am talking about the people who are behind them—the people who organise the schemes and who are involved in the organisation of the money. The amount of money that we are talking about requires considerably sophisticated organisation, including the spotting of targets. We have seen the evolution of tactics; as we have managed to move, so too the pirates’ tactics have changed. That is not surprising.

What we need to see is Departments working together and not just individually. We were discussing the issue of armed guards and what are sometimes the problems of Government co-ordination, including in real time, as well as the other work we have to do. I fully understand the frustrations that sometimes arise from working through the IMO. We must also co-operate with other countries, and I join colleagues in paying tribute to the naval patrol; it is a very good example of international co-operation. We must get partners to work together and we have to recognise that time is of the essence. We cannot always be playing catch-up. I am not saying that military solutions are the sole solution; they are not. However, we must see a step change in operational tempo.

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

In some cases, the response reminds me very much of when we were dealing with the foot and mouth epidemic in 2001. The civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were working extremely hard to deal with it, but it was only when we changed the operational tempo, by bringing in the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, that we managed to deal with the spread of a virus that was outrunning our ability to handle it. The ability to focus on the outcome rather than the process is crucial. It is very important that we get that message across. Indeed, the Committee alludes to it in paragraph 63 of its report, which says that the Government must

“respond flexibly to changes in the pirates’ tactics.”

That is extremely important in this context.

The Government should also look much further at the issue of the pirate bases on land. The Minister and indeed other colleagues who have spoken to those of our forces that have been involved in dealing with the pirates, particularly the Royal Marines, know of their frustration at the restrictions they face when they see the pirates at the start of the piracy season—when the sea conditions become more favourable—assembling all their equipment on the beach, ready to launch an operation. Our forces are hugely frustrated at their inability to go in and destroy that equipment and disrupt the pirates’ operations. Would that solve piracy entirely? No. Would it change the balance of trade and disrupt the pirates’ operations? Absolutely certainly. It appears that there has been some evolution of doctrine in that regard; I merely say that it demonstrates the point, because it took far too long and therefore enabled the cycle of piracy to continue.

I realise that the Minister will be under some constraints in this regard, but can he give some indication as to how we could evolve our approach with international partners, for example on developing air surveillance? I appreciate that the area is very substantial, but I also appreciate that, for instance, the US is developing considerable military resources in the region, particularly in Djibouti and Yemen. Can the Minister say to what extent we will be able to utilise those resources to get a better picture of the pirates’ operations in the area?

I now come to the very thorny issue of ransoms. There has been a spirited debate between colleagues today and I fully understand why—it is inevitable. A number of us will have received representations from the shipping industry, and indeed from the trade union representing seafarers. Very properly—I do not say that in any disparaging way—they have outlined their duty of care to their members, including seafarers. However, I wonder if there is any doctrinal difference between paying ransoms for seafarers, kidnapping and hostage-taking. The same broad strand runs all the way through, namely that a company—absolutely understandably and rightly—is most importantly concerned with its duty of care to the welfare of its employees, the seafarers; there are some commercial aspects, but that is the most important consideration.

However, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly said—my praising a Liberal Democrat makes this a historic day—the problem is that when someone pays a ransom, they put at risk the next vessel that goes through that region. Is it easy? Of course it is not. A Government that have traditionally taken a very hard line on hostage-taking—the Government of Israel—recently came to an agreement regarding an exchange of hostages for prisoners in Israeli jails. I do not underestimate the difficulty of the issue. Rarely do I regret losing office, and I must say that I do not envy Ministers involved in these sorts of decisions, when there is no self-evidently right decision to make.

Nevertheless, there needs to be a consistent level of policy. Regarding hostages and kidnappings, British Governments of all parties have had a long-standing consistent policy of not paying ransoms, for the reasons that I have outlined. We have done that even though the Governments of some other countries have taken a different stance. I recognise the difficulty; it is not a completely open and shut case. Equally, however, we have to recognise the good faith of those who have to make those decisions.

There is still considerable truth in the Kipling line that the problem with paying the Dane-geld is that you never stop paying the Dane. I fully acknowledge those who say, “Look, if a member of my family was involved or taken hostage, I would want to pay, or I would want the Government to make the concession.” But Governments have to look at the issue in a different light.

I therefore very much welcome the report, Mr Sheridan— [Interruption.] Sorry; Mr Brady. What more would one expect from the chairman of the 1922 Committee than the ability seamlessly to slip into the situation? The report is very welcome, because it provides a proper balance. As I have said, I congratulate the Ministers on their work on different aspects of this subject. My main point is that we need to ensure that we react to the changes—there will be further changes in tactics and problems—to improve the operational tempo and to speed up the pace of decision making. That might even mean that colleagues have the chance to read one or two words of the new guidance. I am sure that the Ministers will convey back the concerns raised in the debate.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and also for allowing me early sight of it, which was a clear indication of his natural courtesy. As he said, it has been plain to all but the most obdurate that it is the will of the Falkland Islanders to remain a self-governing British overseas territory, especially as the economic picture for the Falklands is improving, with both fishing and oil exploration prominent. He rightly highlighted the outrageous aggressive actions of the Argentine Government. Will he tell the House what action we are taking in international bodies to overcome them?

As the Minister said, the Argentine Government still quite wrongly claim that the islanders would be happy to live under Argentine rule. A referendum with international observers would put that claim to rest once and for all. Will the Minister reassure us on the clear legal authority under which the referendum will be held, and can he assure us that the conduct and the question will meet appropriate standards so that there is a clear and unequivocal outcome?

Today we also need to send a clear message of reassurance to the Falkland Islanders, and a warning to the Argentine authorities that our resolve in support of the Falkland Islands remains as firm as it was 30 years ago. Then, we faced an unprincipled and cowardly attack by the vicious Argentine military junta, an action that ultimately and fortunately led to the end of that regime. Our military responded heroically and successfully, and it is in honour of their memory as well that the House, on behalf of the country, should signal our continuing resolve. We welcome the assistance given by the Ministry of Defence to enabling veterans to attend the ceremonies in the Falklands. However, that resolve must also be backed by capability. The Minister rightly spoke of

“maintaining a defensive military posture on the islands”,

but can he reassure us that the cuts in the armed forces have not undermined our ability to deter any rash and irresponsible action? Aircraft carriers without aircraft do not send the right signal.

We greatly fear that the stepping up of the aggressive rhetoric and actions of the Argentines which the Minister described is part of a wider campaign by an Administration who face considerable domestic problems. That pattern, unfortunately, is not unprecedented in a country blessed with great resources, fine people and, too often, dysfunctional politics.

It will be no consolation to the Falkland Islanders to know that they are not alone in facing this attack. Spain is incensed by the forcible nationalisation of the Spanish stake in the oil company Repsol. We welcome the robust response from not only the Spanish Government but—as the Minister will be well aware form his portfolio—the EU foreign policy representative, Baroness Ashton, who rightly said that this created

“legal insecurity for all European Union and foreign firms in the country.”

She also said that the EU was considering “All possible options”.

Can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with Spain and our other EU partners on how they will ensure that the Argentine authorities uphold their international commitments and obligations? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Baroness Ashton about the co-ordination of the European response across international forums? Although Repsol has indicated that it plans to take its case to the World Bank arbitrations court, it is reported that Spain may also raise the issue at the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies. What support will we be giving it in those bodies? In that context, we welcome the crucial support for Spain’s case from the United States and urge the Foreign Secretary to work closely with Secretary of State Clinton to bring this sorry episode to a successful conclusion. This issue is crucially linked to the Falklands question, because those who show cavalier disregard for the norms of international behaviour in one area will behave badly elsewhere. What will the Foreign Office be doing to make clear the link between these issues?

In conclusion, as I have said, the Minister for Europe is a thoroughly likeable and decent Minister, but the future of the Falklands is of huge concern not only to the Falkland Islanders but to this country and, frankly, this statement should have been made by the Foreign Secretary, or by the Minister with responsibility for south America, who on this important occasion is actually—and properly—in the Falklands, along with the Opposition spokesman on south America. Surely it would have been better to await his return to give a report from the ground, or to have the Foreign Secretary give the strategic overview?

[Mr Lidington]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his broad overall support for the statement and the Government’s policy on the Falklands and the Falkland Islanders. Thirty years ago the official position of the Labour party was to support Margaret Thatcher and her Government in standing up to Argentine aggression, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman personally represents the best of the Labour party’s patriotic tradition today. I shall chide him slightly for his final remarks, however. As I said in my statement, the timing of the announcement and the decision to hold a referendum were the responsibility of the Falklands Islands Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is on an important visit concerning vital British security interests abroad. He would have liked to have given this statement in person, but we felt—and he felt—that the correct thing to do was for Parliament to be informed as soon as possible after the Falkland Islands Government had made their announcement about the referendum that they have decided to hold. I make no apology for the fact that I have come to the House today. I fear the Opposition would have criticised the Government had we held off a statement on the referendum.

Let me try to respond to some of the more detailed points the right hon. Gentleman raised. Yes, we are confident in the legal authority of the Falkland Islands Government to carry out the referendum. We want it to be conducted to the highest possible standards, and we will be encouraging the Falkland Islands Government to look at things like our own Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in order to see what best practice can offer. As I said in my statement, the Falklands Government, with our support, intend to invite independent foreign observers to ensure that the world can see that this election is being carried out to those high standards.

In regard to military capability, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that all our analysis tells us that we have the right mix of military assets in the Falklands and the surrounding area and, critically, that they can if necessary be reinforced rapidly. The state of our military preparedness was reviewed by senior Ministers earlier this year, and their conclusion was that the right things are being done to ensure we can defend the Falklands in the way the House would expect.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Spain and the Repsol case. We have made our position very clear to Spain; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so when he met Spanish Foreign Minister Garcia-Margallo a couple of weeks ago. We support its stance in protesting against Argentina’s action against Repsol, and we will continue to give Spain diplomatic support both bilaterally and in the appropriate international forums.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what representations we have made and what actions we have taken on behalf of the Falkland Islands through international bodies and more generally. We have made, and we will continue to make, all appropriate representations. For example, at the time of the controversy over access to ports in the region, we talked to Governments of other countries, particularly Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, which have all continued to allow into their ports vessels flying the red ensign. Trade is continuing normally, and countries in the region have made it clear to us that they have no wish to take part in any kind of trade boycott or blockade of the Falkland Islands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

That is a key part of the capacity building of the Independent Election Commission, which has already improved the percentage of those registered. There is clearly a close correlation between ensuring proper registration and preventing fraud, and the commission is very conscious of that correlation and of the need to continue to do more. That work is ongoing, and we are confident that it will be improved further from the elections of 2009 and 2010.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The capacity of the Afghan authorities and their ability to hold free and fair elections will be crucially affected by the summit at Chicago, as the Foreign Secretary said, so we welcome his remarks about the involvement of neighbouring powers—a course of action we have urged on him for some time. Surely, however, this should also include India, Russia and Iran. Equally important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) stressed, the voice of Afghan women must be heard at the negotiating table. We must ensure that women’s rights are protected under the settlement. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that?

[Alistair Burt]

Of course the Bonn conference is part of the ongoing relationship of the international community with Afghanistan, and it has women represented on it. We made it an important part of our representation, and our own Minister with responsibility for dealing with violence against women—the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone)—was present. We do indeed work to make sure that women’s representation is there. I come back to the point that much of this is in the hands of Afghan women themselves, who are very active and have made it clear that they do not wish to see the gains of recent years reversed. It is difficult, and no one should pretend otherwise, as it is not easily dealt with. We are confident that the opportunities will be there, that the determination of the international community will be there and that Afghanistan will be a stronger society because of the participation—political and otherwise—of women.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is psychic, because that was the very point I wanted to come on to. It is ridiculous that we are not having such debates and it is even more ridiculous to suggest that they should be scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee. Everyone knows that the Backbench Business Committee is supposed to get 35 days a year, but that has not happened in this double Session of Parliament. I am very pleased to see the Leader of the House pay close attention to the debate and it would help the House enormously if the Committee had the days marked in advance. If that were the case, perhaps the Backbench Business Committee could put on such debates, because we would at least know in advance that we had the days. We did not have a day before the summit on which we could have scheduled this debate. That is not the issue, however. This debate should not be put on by the Backbench Business Committee but by the Government, and it should be on an amendable motion rather than a “take note” motion. I agree entirely with that point.

Let me briefly mention the veto. The Prime Minister rightly vetoed the EU treaty, and no one can pretend that this is an EU treaty—it clearly is not, because we vetoed it. It is also clear that the Prime Minister and the Government believed that the EU institutions could not be used.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

I shall give way in a moment. As on any other occasion when the EU is defeated, the EU has ignored that and carried on as if the rules were not there.

[Mr Spellar]

I think that the hon. Gentleman might just have answered my question. He was stridently asserting that the Prime Minister had asserted his veto, and I wanted to know what he had vetoed and what effect it had had.

[Mr Bone]

I do not honestly believe that the right hon. Gentleman, who has sat all through this debate, could possibly not understand what the veto is about. The Prime Minister quite clearly vetoed the treaty so it could not be an EU treaty. That is what happened. That is why the British people were 100% behind the Prime Minister and why coalition Members—or at least the Conservative coalition Members—were wholly supportive of him. He had a better reception for that veto than for any other of the very good things he has done as Prime Minister.

The next issue is whether the treaty will work. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not in his place, but he made a very good point when he said that there were two ways of looking at this matter. One was that we could create this European political and economic union dominated by Germany and that the euro would work. I do not think there is any chance of that system working and it would actually result in the greatest political unrest in Europe since the second world war.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

It is a source of regret to us that the many fruitful negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina in the 1990s on this topic were effectively suspended in 2007, when the Argentines withdrew their co-operation. We want to work closely, co-operatively and in a friendly spirit with Argentina on a range of issues, including this one. It is a source of regret to us that that has not been possible in recent years.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The whole House and, indeed, the country will be outraged at reports that two British cruise liners, the Adonia and the Star Princess, were refused entry to a port in southern Argentina. What representations have the Government made to the Argentine authorities and to the international maritime authorities about this completely unjustified action?

EU Sanctions (Iran)

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who pointed out at the beginning of his contribution that there are many grounds for quarrels with the Iranian Government, although I stress that this is not a quarrel with the Iranian people. The human rights record and much of the international behaviour of the Iranian Government, such as the recent plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington—in addition to the nuclear programme—give grave cause for concern to the international community. But it is because there is a very serious danger of the wider proliferation of nuclear weapons across the middle east if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons capability, that this issue must be confronted and that we and our European partners, and so many other allies, take the strong stance that we do. I stress that we do so very much in the interests of avoiding conflict; this set of actions is not designed to lead to conflict, but to lead us away from it by increasing the pressure for a peaceful settlement of these disputes.

I say to my hon. Friend that we have contingency plans for many contingencies—including, as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary said at our press conference this morning, for sending any further naval forces to that area. But we are not planning to take military action in the Gulf. We call on Iran to return to the negotiations that are, at all times, available to it.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

May we welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments? I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, who is in Brussels today. We also welcome the extensive international engagement in this policy—not only from our European partners but, as the Foreign Secretary said, from our long-standing friends and allies from Australia, whose Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, and Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, are in town today to show their support.

Will the Foreign Secretary outline the reaction from the main oil consuming countries in Asia, which have a higher dependence on Iranian oil, to the policy of a ban on crude oil imports from Iran and, equally importantly, on the export of refined products back to Iran? Given the effect that these necessary sanctions will have on already vulnerable economies in southern Europe, will he indicate what measures are being taken to protect those economies?

In the wider context, will the Foreign Secretary outline how much support this policy has managed to garner at international level—particularly from Russia, China, India and Japan? The ban by Russia and China on supplying military equipment, as well as training and maintenance, is most welcome, but what assurances are they giving that that will be continued and what influence are they exerting on Tehran to ensure a more responsible attitude from the regime?

In that context, on the diplomatic front we have seen reports that, at a meeting in Moscow on 18 January, Russian officials presented the Iranians with a proposed framework for negotiations with the P5 plus one, possibly based on Russian proposals made in August. Will the Foreign Secretary report to us any feedback that he has had from the Russians?

The right hon. Gentleman rightly stressed that we have no quarrel with the Iranian people. Before the Arab spring, there was the green movement in Iran, where we saw huge numbers on the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities seeking reform. Although it was barbarically repressed, it showed the very considerable public alienation from the regime. What assessment has he made of the state of public opinion in Iran and of divisions in the political elite?

What weight do the Government give to the threat by Iran to attempt to close the strait of Hormuz? Do they intend to participate in any international naval taskforce to keep the strait open? Given the defence cuts, can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that vessels could be made available? What agreement have the Government obtained from other P5 countries for such action, as well as from those in the Gulf?

Finally, although we support the steps being taken to bring pressure to bear on the Iranian regime, all of us recognise the fragility of growth in the European economy at the moment. Given the importance of oil imports to that growth, will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the economic impact of the steps taken have been discussed with the Chancellor and that contingency plans are in place?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his supportive remarks and welcome for the broader international engagement and endorsement of our policy. He is right to draw attention to the visit of the Australian Foreign and Defence Ministers, which, as in so many ways, has been very helpful in this regard.

I shall not necessarily take the right hon. Gentleman’s questions in the order in which he asked them. On the question about the political situation in Iran, of course that can sometimes be difficult to interpret from the outside. There are many reports of deep divisions within the Iranian Administration—sometimes, of such divisions between the supreme leader and the President, although not necessarily about this issue. As the right hon. Gentleman said, at the time of the last presidential elections in Iran, we saw signs of deep discontent among the ordinary people of Iran. Sadly, such is the repression and the appalling human rights record of the Iranian Government that the people of Iran do not have much opportunity to voice their discontent. The principal opposition leaders are under house arrest. Iran, alongside China, conducts one of the largest numbers of executions in the world, with 50 executions already so far this year. It is an appalling human rights record that does not help anybody in giving voice to their real opinions.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Asian countries. Japan has indicated over the past few weeks that it would not increase its oil imports from Iran and has mirrored some of the sanctions that the European Union has taken before. China has expressed its concern about recent developments within Iran, including during Premier Wen’s visit to the Gulf in recent days. In Qatar, he particularly remarked on China’s growing concern when he said that it

“adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons.”

Indeed, last month China approximately halved its oil imports from Iran, although I must point out that that is not because China necessarily agrees with this approach. Moreover, given its dispute with Iran about credit terms, it is expected to continue its halving of oil imports through February. In general, the demand for Iranian oil from the main Asian economies is down over recent weeks and is not replacing revenue that Iran will lose from the European Union.

On vulnerable economies, it is largely because of Greek concerns and Greece’s importation of large quantities of oil that we are phasing in this embargo, which will come into full effect on 1 July. We and many other countries would have preferred an earlier date, but we were happy to settle for that to give Greece time to adjust. If there are any difficulties for Greece and its energy supplies after that, we will of course all try to assist.

Russia has been promoting what it calls a “step-by-step” approach to negotiation. It is true that it has been pushing Iran hard to return to talks. Like the rest of the E3 plus 3 countries, Russia wants a diplomatic breakthrough. In discussion with us—also one of the E3 plus 3—it has not been able to confirm that Iran is serious about negotiations, but I am sure that Russia and China will continue to press Iran, in a different way from us, to return to negotiations. In the meantime, we, like so many nations of Europe, the United States and, as I have pointed out, many other parts of the world will increase the pressure on Iran to do so.