Julian Lewis
Main Page: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a privilege to take part in this debate on the Gracious Speech, and it is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett).
In view of recent events relating to the Government side of the House, I think I should make it abundantly clear that I intend to vote for the Queen’s Speech, that I will support the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and that I will vote against any amendment, tabled or selected. The face that I should feel the need to make such an assertion at the outset will underpin some of the observations I shall make.
I continue to support the restoration of economic stability. That was the raison d’être of the coalition and it remains its overarching objective. To fulfil that commitment, I, like others, have had to subordinate my views on other subjects to that objective. I felt it necessary to do so because of the economic circumstances we have inherited and because of the very obvious difficulties that exist in resolving them. Some of the decisions that have been made have been very painful—to me and to others—but I believe them to have been necessary.
We continue to make progress towards the objective. We have reduced the deficit; we have maintained low interest rates; there has been no run on the pound—and although it is a volatile measurement, it is worth observing that the stock market, often seen as a barometer of confidence, has in recent days returned to its levels of five years ago. Between now and 2015, nothing should be allowed to distract the Government from that objective. It is impossible in the present context to ignore possible distractions.
Thankfully, the internal management of the Conservative party is nothing to do with me, but speaking as someone who was a not entirely dispassionate observer of the Major Government between 1992 and 1997, I say that there are surprising echoes of that period in the current turmoil of the Conservative party. It is worth remembering that that Government had very substantial economic achievements—to such an extent that the incoming Labour Government, with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) as Chancellor of the Exchequer, accepted the public spending proposals of the outgoing Government.
If we undermine the authority of our Prime Minister, we will undermine the credibility of our Government. If we undermine the credibility of our Government, we will undermine the economic objectives of that Government. This is all the more the case when the coalition agreement contains a perfectly rational mechanism for a referendum if constitutional change is made. Is it rational to spend the next two years on a fractious and divisive debate over Europe when so much remains to be done? I simply cite the example of Scotland, in respect of which every decision, every policy and every political statement has for some time—and it will continue for some time—had to be seen through the prism of the referendum fixed for September next year.
If these events are a reaction to UKIP, let me offer a sporting metaphor. Teams that chase the game are rarely successful. That applied, of course, to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath when he sought to outbid the current Chancellor on the question of inheritance tax, and as it did when he declined to call a further general election. Concessions rarely satisfy dissidents, who have the ghost of Oliver Twist among them.
Another issue—that of Syria—should not allow us to be distracted from these economic goals. I retain my previously expressed reservations about the proposals to arm the rebels. President Obama’s resistance to that is sometimes related to an inactivity—whether or not that is right is neither here nor there, but in my view his resistance is well founded. The objections are many, including the emergence of Islamist Jabhat al-Nusra as an increasingly influential part of the rebel forces, which raises the question of who would inherit any arms that we might deliver. The risk of a proxy war between the United States and Russia is another example, with each matching each other in armaments supply. Once we depart from non-lethal supplies, where would we stop?
Sir Menzies Campbell
I am about to finish.
Some have suggested a no-fly zone, but if we have one, we must be ready to shoot down the aircraft that intrude into it and accept the risk of the aircraft enforcing it being shot down. We must also be ready to suppress the air defences, many of which have in an entirely deliberate but cowardly way been situated among the civilian population.
I finish by noting that as Russia and the United States tentatively explore the possibility of a joint approach on Syria, this is no time to encourage the rebels to believe that they need not subscribe to any political settlement in the hope of outright victory.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It was kind of you, Mr. Speaker, to allow a segment of today’s debate to those of us who were concerned about the Opposition’s decision not to choose foreign affairs, defence or, indeed, Europe as the subject of one of the themed days of debate on the Queen’s Speech, so that we could refer to some of those matters. I suppose that I ought to get the words “cost of living” into my speech from time to time, and I shall endeavour to do so, but I hope that if I fail, they will be taken as read.
Although the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and I serve closely together on the Intelligence and Security Committee, we are not best known for agreeing on issues such as the future of the European Union or that of the Trident nuclear deterrent. On one issue, however, we find ourselves in close agreement, and that is the question of whether or not we should arm the rebels in Syria, or become militarily involved in the civil war in other ways.
Dr Lewis
I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend’s view is quite widely shared on the Back Benches, at least on this side of the House, and, I suspect, on the other side as well.
It is not a matter of wanting to do something less than we might in terms of humanitarian intervention. I certainly supported humanitarian military intervention in Sierra Leone, and I was one of the first to call for military intervention to topple Miloševic. I have supported military action in other theatres, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and I even supported such action—albeit with considerable reluctance—in the case of Libya, given Gaddafi’s explicit threat to the citizens of Benghazi. We must, however, consider two aspects when thinking about undertaking military intervention. One is the humanitarian consideration, but the other is the question of who will take over if that military intervention is successful. What concerns me is the possibility that the people who take over will become dominated by a group allied to al-Qaeda who are even worse than the Assad regime—and that is saying something.
My mind goes back to the speech made by Tony Blair as Prime Minister in the run-up to the Iraq war. What did he say that so swayed the House in favour of intervention? He said that his nightmare was the prospect of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. We now know that either there were no weapons of mass destruction, or, if there were chemical or biological weapons, they were not there by the time the allied forces went in.
In this case, however, we know that there are weapons of mass destruction—chemical weapons; a big stockpile of nerve gas—in Syria. What the Foreign Secretary has admitted at the Dispatch Box, repeatedly, is that there are, to use his own estimate, several thousand al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting alongside the Syrian opposition. I have raised the question at least five times since last September, and I have had five answers, none of which has satisfied me on the point. The point is this: how do we prevent that stock of deadly chemical weapons, which in the hands of Assad and his regime poses no threat to the west, from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda-linked militants, who would undoubtedly use them against the west, with terribly adverse effects on our cost of living and on our being able to stay alive?
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Carla del Ponte may be right, because it certainly does not make sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons—the one thing that would cause the west to intervene and overthrow him. If he did use them, why use them in such small quantities that they could not have a decisive effect? If the intent was to intimidate the opposition, why deny vehemently, as the Assad regime does, that it has used them? It does not make sense.
Alec Shelbrooke
What would be the direct effect on the cost of living in this country if an al-Qaeda-led Government in Syria got together with the Shi’a-led Government in Iran and took a direct look at the democracy in Iraq, which is diametrically opposed to their beliefs?
Dr Lewis
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in his implication that there would have to be a huge uplift in public expenditure on all forms of counter-terrorist techniques, and there would undoubtedly be a deleterious effect on the freedoms of peoples in this country, which would have to be restricted considerably if we found ourselves under attack from deadly chemical weapons in the hands of an extremist group allied to our enemies.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) quoted Marx, without attributing the words to him, when he said that the spectre of communism is haunting Europe. I am put in mind of a quotation attributed to Lenin:
“The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
We would have to be out of our minds to assist in the overthrow of one shocking regime and the coming into place instead of a regime that was equally shocking and atrocious but hostile to us and armed with chemical weapons.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sympathetic to much of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but a humanitarian crisis in Syria has to be addressed. Given the difficulties between the Russians, ourselves and the Americans in relation to an international conference, how do we move a political settlement forward?
Dr Lewis
I am extremely grateful for that intervention, as it leads me to my final point. Whenever we talk to our Government spokesmen about this, they say that the answer is a peaceful transition. It is abundantly clear that either there will be something peaceful and no transition, or if there is a transition, it will not be peaceful. If our concern is, above all, to stop the killing, we ought to be working with the Russians not for a transition but for a cease fire. We ought to aim to freeze the situation, the effect of which would be to stop the killing but not to result in the transfer of the chemical weapons stocks to the hands of an opponent of western civilisation that is even more deadly than the people who currently hold them.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I rise to support the Gracious Speech.
Without any shadow of a doubt, we live in a global economy. We have heard many speeches about the cost of living based on the domestic policies that are set nationally, and there is indeed an important debate to be had about that. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I regret the fact that we will not discuss international affairs during the debate on the Gracious Speech.
An escalation of issues in the middle east would have a very detrimental effect on the cost of living in this country. Many hon. Members have talked about the cost of energy—oil and gas—in this country and the increase in fuel poverty. The stark truth is that that could increase only if we were to move towards a more militarised conflict across the middle east. There are serious concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but that does not mean that we should take a unilateral decision, or a decision with any other nation, to take military action against that country. The mere suggestion of moving forward there could result in oil price rises across the world that would have a deep impact on the people of this nation, without a single bullet being fired.
We do not get any oil from Iran; we got only 2% before the EU embargo came in. However, a vast majority of the oil coming into this country comes through the Straits of Hormuz, and if the oil traders believe that there is a threat to those shipping lanes, oil prices will inexorably rise. We must remember that oil is bought three months in advance of when it is sold. If the oil traders believe that there may be difficulty in getting that oil out of the Gulf and into our country, oil prices will increase, and that will affect every aspect of the cost of living in this country. It is not just about the straightforward issue of fuel prices. If we are on a bus we have to get a bus ticket, or if we are on a train the electricity has to be generated to run it. The price of oil affects the price of food in our shops, which has to be transported there using fossil fuels. That shows why we should have discussed the effects of international affairs on this nation during our debates on the Gracious Speech.
I do not think I am the only Government Member who seriously questions the wisdom of relaxing the EU arms agreement on Syria. If history has taught us anything over the past 10 years, it is that picking a side and arming it will rarely lead to a useful outcome for world stability. If we side with the opposition in Syria, who are we actually siding with? Many companies in this country that employ many people are now banking with Israeli banks, and that has a direct influence on their strategic fiscal capability. Do we seriously want to empower an opposition that has some, let us say, interesting people on the Islamic fundamentalist side who are right next door to a country that the vast majority of Arab countries would like to see removed from the face of the map? That instability, linked with Iran talking to Hezbollah and a change in the dynamic in Syria, could have a direct consequence on the ability of companies to operate in this country.
Dr Julian Lewis
Would my hon. Friend also like to make an observation on whether the task of humanitarian intervention has been made that much more difficult by the way we went about it in Libya? We said that it would be a very limited, no-fly-zone-type intervention, but we ended up intervening much more directly on one side, and in a strictly military way, in a civil war?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. That is a recent example of a country that we helped to liberate, but it led to issues for our embassy and that of the US. That paints a picture. However good the intentions to solve a crisis may be, the question is: what comes next?
That is not to say that we should shirk our responsibilities towards humanitarian aid. More than 1 million refugees are flooding out of Syria into Jordan alone, a country that is ill-equipped to deal with that number. We will eventually be called upon to help with that humanitarian crisis and it is important that we will, again, be there for our fellow man. I come back to the point that, when we debate the cost of living in this country and the Government’s programme over the next year, we should also discuss international issues, because, importantly, they are interlinked with everything we do.
In 1983, when I was a child of just six or seven years of age, the film “Threads” was made. I watched it recently and am sure that a number of other Members have also seen it. It is set in Sheffield in the 1980s in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. It is a sobering film and it should be watched. What struck me about it is that those who made the decisions that caused the wars to take place did not feature in the film. Indeed, given that it was set in Sheffield, the decisions were being made 190 miles away in London and elsewhere in the world. That is the point I am trying to make: we have to take notice of the innocent people on the ground and of the impact of our decisions.
We live in a highly volatile world and have to be very careful about how we move forward, and it is regrettable that the debate on the Gracious Speech has not given us the opportunity to address these issues, which could have such a fundamental impact on our cost of living.