European Council
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Syria and answer his questions specifically. On the special envoy, we are helping Kofi Annan. Indeed, we are funding part of his mission. The right hon. Gentleman asked about sanctions. We are on round 12 of the EU sanctions against the Syrian regime. We will continue to ratchet up the pressure in every way that we can, with sanctions, asset freezes, travel bans and the like.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Russia and China. We will make it very clear, as we have already, that their veto was completely wrong. Their reputations are suffering as a result in the Arab world. I will be speaking to President Putin later today and will say that it is important that we have a unified UN Security Council resolution about humanitarian aid and access that puts a stop to the appalling killing that is taking place. I know that there is all-party support for that.
Turning to the EU Council, the right hon. Gentleman said that the communiqué did not change between the arrival of the countries at the EU Council and its conclusion on Friday. If he had done his homework properly—he was working very closely on his gags, and they are getting better—he would have noticed that there was no mention of deepening the single market in services in the original communiqué, but that we now have a clear commitment to that; that there was no mention of tackling regulated professions and properly opening up the single market, but that that is now clearly in the communiqué; and that there was no reference to deregulation, but that we now we have, for the first time, sector-by-sector analysis so that we can see the cost of regulations. When Labour used to go along to EU summit after EU summit, it never got half of that sort of thing.
On the issue of the treaty, there is one big problem in the right hon. Gentleman’s position, which is that he has got to make up his mind—would he have signed it or not? Why does he not just nod for a yes or shake for a no? I think I know the cause of the confusion. It is that there is a slight division between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor about whether they want to join the euro. The shadow Chancellor has said that it will not happen in his lifetime, whereas the Leader of the Opposition, when asked whether he would join the euro, said that it depended on how long he was Prime Minister. I agree with the shadow Chancellor—clearly, the Leader of the Opposition should not be Prime Minister in our lifetime.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
May I welcome the European Council’s decision to prepare further targeted sanctions against Syria? If Russia continues to refuse to accept its responsibilities, should not the Arab League and Turkey, on their own incentive but with full support from the United States and Europe, close their land borders and airspace to all exports destined for Syria? If that were combined with a United States-led naval brigade, would it not prevent further armed supplies from being delivered to the Assad regime, thereby possibly saving the lives of tens of thousands of Syrian people?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend, with all his experience, makes an intriguing suggestion for further steps that the Arab League could take. Indeed, it has shown great leadership in putting pressure on Syria. However, if we want to turn the pressure up on the regime, a United Nations Security Council resolution that could be unanimously agreed and that was tough about humanitarian access and the unacceptability of what is happening should be part of the picture.
EU Council
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
As I said in my statement, the eurozone members wanted to create a new treaty within the EU, which has all sorts of dangers. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the letter that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy sent, he will see that they specifically wanted the 17 to look at issues such as financial services and the market within that treaty. Without safeguards, a treaty within a treaty would have been far more dangerous than a treaty outside the EU.
Let me repeat this point: a treaty outside the EU cannot do anything that cuts across European treaties or European legislation. Of course, that is not without its dangers, but my judgment was that without safeguards, an EU treaty was more dangerous.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
The leadership of the Prime Minister in Brussels compares favourably with the refusal of the Leader of the Opposition over three long days to indicate whether he would have supported the treaty. The public will come to their own conclusion.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the term “two-speed Europe” is inaccurate, because it implies a destination that all countries will reach except over a different period? Whereas, is it not the case that the UK and perhaps other countries will never find it possible to accept a destination that involves not only a single currency, but fiscal union, tax harmonisation and supranational control of budgets? Is it not necessary to have a fundamental debate about whether Europe can become a Europe à la carte in order to survive?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. This is not about the speed at which different organisations travel: it is about the fact that Europe already has different facets. Britain is not in the single currency or in the Schengen no-borders agreement, but we are a leading member of the single market and we play a huge role in foreign and defence policy throughout Europe and NATO. We should not be embarrassed about that, and we should do what is in our national interest—rather than thinking that the right thing to do is to sign up whether or not it suits us.
European Council
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them, but I remind the House that we have a very heavily subscribed debate to take place afterwards. Therefore, brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is of the essence.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
I agree with the Prime Minister’s view on the debate this afternoon. However, has he had drawn to his attention the terms of the third option in the motion, which is to
“re-negotiate…membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation”?
Is that not purely the situation of Norway and Switzerland, is that not incompatible with membership of the European Union, and should not anyone who is interested in renegotiation that will enable us to stay within the Union oppose this motion?
The Prime Minister
I think the vital interest for the UK is belonging to the single market—not just being able to trade in that single market but having a seat at the table where you can negotiate the rules of that single market, which of course countries like Norway are not able to do. One of the other problems with the motion—I completely understand the frustrations that many of my colleagues have about Europe—is that if you have a three-way choice, you could find that 34% of the country voting to get out of the European Union would be enough to deliver that or, indeed, that 34% voting for the status quo, which many of think is unacceptable, would be enough. [Interruption.] I think we have tried the alternative vote, and a pretty clear decision was made.
Public Disorder
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Metropolitan police officers have shown great courage and a high degree of determination over the past few days, but does the Prime Minister share my concern about reports that police officers on several occasions were instructed to stand and observe the rioting and looting? Does he agree that that cannot be acceptable behaviour, and that, if perhaps for understandable reasons because of the controversies after the G20 summit the police are concerned that they might be criticised for over-reacting, there is an urgent need for fresh guidelines so that there is no ambiguity and that it is the police, and not looters and rioters, who will control our streets?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, and obviously we will look again at the guidance. Let me be clear: there was no instruction to police officers to stand back, but as I have said, and I think police chiefs have been very frank about this, the balance between what is right for public order and what is right for stopping criminality—looting and thieving—was not got right to start with. They admit that, they accept that, but they were—to be fair to the police, who do a very difficult job on behalf of us all—facing a new set of circumstances. Yes, they have had riots before; yes, they have had looting before; and, yes, there has been violence and vandalism; but we have not in our country before had the same thing happening in different places with different people all doing it at the same time. That was a challenge for the police—a challenge that I believe they are now meeting excellently—but they did not get everything right to start with and they are the first to admit that.
Counter-terrorism
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for the way he has made it. He is absolutely right to praise the police and security services, particularly those in the security services who never get public recognition for the work that they do to keep people in our country safe.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk as strongly as he has about 9/11 and the memories people have of it. I am sure that everyone in the House remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing on that day, and how they felt, and he is right that we should use this moment to try to heal many of the divisions in our world.
On the specific questions, the right hon. Gentleman asks about Pakistan and the question, which I think will come up a lot, about who knew what and what we will do to find out who knew what. What matters most of all, as I said, is to back the democratic leaders of Pakistan, to work with them and those involved in security and military matters and to try to hold discussions with them together, which is what I did on my last visit to Pakistan.
On Afghanistan, the right hon. Gentleman asks how we can increase the urgency of a political settlement. That is absolutely the right thing to do, and again part of the answer lies in Pakistan and the discussions we can have with it to encourage all those involved to give up violence, to accept the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution and, critically, to renounce any link with al-Qaeda.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what more can be done to deepen the democratic process in Egypt and Tunisia. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Egypt yesterday. One of the key ways of doing this is through the European Union, and Britain, along with others, is pushing very hard for a total update of Europe’s relations with its neighbourhood to make them more attractive and something that has proper conditions attached to them.
On Syria, the right hon. Gentleman asked what more can be done to step up the pressure. I agree that what is happening in Syria is unacceptable. We are leading a process in Europe of setting about applying proper pressure—an arms embargo and taking the association agreement off the table—and we are looking at further steps, including travel bans and asset freezes, and other things we can do to show that what is happening in Syria is unacceptable.
On Libya, the right hon. Gentleman asks whether we will stick to UN resolution 1973. Yes, we will. What I would say, though, is that this does not mean just sticking with the existing set of things we are doing. All the time, we should be asking what more we can do to raise the diplomatic, military and sanctions pressure; and within all necessary measures to protect civilian life, I believe that there are many more things we can do and should do to keep the pressure up.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that Hamas’s reaction is very regrettable. I do believe, though, that the middle east peace process is, if you like, the third leg of the strategy to fundamentally defeat al-Qaeda. The first leg is the attack on the terrorist network—the blow so successfully dealt yesterday—and the second leg is democracy and progress in the middle east, in north Africa and in Muslim countries, but the third leg is a middle east peace process that works. I am seeing Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow evening, and we will do everything we can in our power to encourage both sides to recognise the historic times that we are living in and the historic chance there is to forge a deal that will last.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
The Prime Minister has rightly paid tribute to the United States special forces who carried out yesterday’s remarkable operation. Will he make a similar tribute to the United States intelligence agencies, without whose patience and professionalism the actual location of bin Laden would never have been achieved?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. Clearly, this was a painstaking operation—if you like, a painstaking piece of detective work—that went on for many, many months. I can tell from speaking to President Obama that this was not some chance opportunity that came up but a piece of very careful work put in place over months and an operation clearly carried out with great professionalism and skill.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Nothing could demonstrate more eloquently the difference between the ill-conceived Iraq war and this operation than the overwhelming agreement on both sides of the Chamber, including the very eloquent and moving speech by the Leader of the Opposition. We now have a no-fly zone, the effect of which has been to neutralise the Libyan air force and take it out of the conflict. There is a naval blockade on Libya, which means that none of the coastal towns can be subject to bombardment. However, Gaddafi’s army remains, and it is legitimate to ask how the objectives of the Security Council resolution can be met, given those circumstances.
As the Prime Minister and others have pointed out, the Security Council resolution allowed us to do that because “all necessary measures” is a very well-known term. I was puzzled when Mr Amr Moussa expressed confusion on behalf of the Arab League about the action being taken, given that Lebanon, a member of the league, was a sponsor of the resolution. He must have known what it was intended to lead to, and I am relieved that he has moved on from that.
What we have seen already is the use of military power—the UN is entitled to do this—to attack artillery, heavy weapons and tanks on the roads of Libya where they might threaten civilian populations, but that is also relevant to the difficult question asked by one of my hon. Friends: what about Libyan regime forces that might have penetrated the towns and cities, where direct attack might be very dangerous? The need to protect civilians is of course paramount, but I believe that that matter will be addressed, because even the regime troops that have penetrated the towns and cities will need to have supplies of fuel and food renewed and other equipment provided, and that can now be blocked because any attempt to provide such reinforcements from outside the towns and cities can now be subject to the most precise destruction by coalition forces. That aspect of the resolution is very welcome.
There is another aspect to consider. Although we talk about a no-fly zone, the areas where civilian lives might be endangered or threatened have in fact become a no-combat zone. It is worth considering that the Security Council resolution stipulates not only “all necessary measures”, but
“all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970”,
which is the resolution that imposed the arms embargo. That must mean that it is now appropriate under the terms of the resolution to supply the insurgents in Libya with military supplies in order to protect the civilian populations in which those insurgents are to be found. I hope that the Foreign Secretary or whoever will be winding up the debate will confirm that.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
We have such limited time that my hon. Friend will have to forgive me for not giving way.
The third factor, which is very significant, is the statement made by President Obama on behalf of all members of the coalition in which he said that this is not simply a question of a ceasefire, but that the Gaddafi authorities are required to withdraw from the various towns and cities they have been threatening. If they do not do so, under the cover of darkness or at some future moment we could face the same problem again. Those are the components available to the coalition and authorised by the United Nations, and I believe that that cannot be seriously disputed.
The second part of my remarks relates to the endgame. What will happen if Gaddafi not only announces a ceasefire, but is forced to respect it, as is likely in the next few days? Does that mean it is all over? I do not think that that would be an appropriate interpretation of the resolution. Even if he introduces a ceasefire that seems genuine for a few days or a couple of weeks, we would have to be satisfied that he was not going to break it as soon as a no-fly zone resolution is withdrawn, because it would be incredibly difficult to have it reinserted again. We would have to be satisfied that the Gaddafi regime, if it remained in power, would continue to be sincere about a ceasefire resolution. It might mean that bombing by coalition forces or raids that damage or destroy elements of the Libyan army are not required, but we would certainly be required to maintain the resolution in force so that it could be re-enacted with all severity, even if it appears that a real ceasefire has be conceded in a few days’ time.
What does that mean for the future of Libya? Well, we just do not know. We cannot pretend to predict what will happen, because so much could and ought to depend on the actions of the Libyans themselves. There might be an uprising in Tripoli, and there might need to be civilian protection in that area—in the capital city—as well. Gaddafi’s own cronies—his own generals and Ministers—might defect as they were doing just a few weeks ago when they realised the game was up, but the most important consideration, if we are to get rid of the Gaddafi regime, is for the Libyan people to liberate themselves.
If air power has now been removed from the Gaddafi regime, if the blockade prevents use of the Libyan navy, and if it is possible, as I have suggested, in certain circumstances for military supplies to be made available to some of the insurgents for the protection of civilians, then that provides an opportunity whereby, if the Libyan people themselves overwhelmingly, as they seem to, want to get rid of that noxious regime, they will have the military means, the support of the international community and the well wishes of the Arab League to do so. In that way, we can all be satisfied that a job will be truly well done.
UN Security Council Resolution (Libya)
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and for the way in which he put that support in his questions. Let me try to answer all the questions he put.
In terms of the time scale and potential military action, the issue is this: the Security Council resolution is absolutely clear in its first paragraph that there should be a ceasefire and that Gaddafi should stop his attacks on his people. But, if that does not happen, then, yes, consequences and “all necessary measures”, as the Security Council resolution puts it, will follow; and we are able to do that on a time scale that I believe will be effective.
In terms of our broader strategy, what we believe we need in Libya is a transition towards a more open society and towards a better democracy, but we have to be clear about our aims. The UN Security Council resolution is absolutely clear that this is about saving lives and about protecting people. It is not about choosing the Government of Libya; that is an issue for the Libyan people.
Mercenaries are included in the UN Security Council resolution, which is welcome. The right hon. Gentleman’s point about the International Criminal Court was covered by the earlier resolution, which of course is still in force.
In terms of consultations with the Arab League and with Arab countries, there will be a meeting in Paris tomorrow, which President Sarkozy has called. I will attend, and there will also be representatives from across the Arab world to bring together the coalition to help to achieve the goals that the UN Security Council has so rightly voted for.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we must be vigilant elsewhere with all the challenging problems in our world today, and he mentioned Bahrain. That is absolutely right, and the Government are keeping their travel advice and their work helping British nationals in Bahrain, Yemen and elsewhere permanently under review, meeting regularly to try to make sure that we do everything we can to help people as necessary.
In terms of Arab League participation, what we seek is the active participation of some Arab League countries. I believe that we will get that, and from the calls that I have made I have had some reassurances.
In terms of the military chain of command, to be clear, to begin with this is going to be a joint operation, if necessary, carried out by Britain, America and France, with Arab and other participation, and it will be co-ordinated in that way.
In terms of British nationals, as we have announced before in the House, almost all those who want to leave have left. There are some who remain. We have our relationship with the Turkish embassy, which is working with us and for us in Tripoli, and we also have an active consular figure in Benghazi. But obviously, part of the aim of what we are trying to do—to stop Gaddafi entering Benghazi—will be in the interest of those British nationals in Benghazi.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about humanitarian aid. Clearly, a very big aim of the UN Security Council is to make sure humanitarian aid can get through.
Above all, as the right hon. Gentleman said, any decision to put the men and women of our armed forces into harm’s way should be taken only when absolutely necessary, but I believe, as he said, that we cannot stand back and let a dictator whose people have rejected him kill his people indiscriminately. To do so would send a chilling signal to others.
I believe also that we should be clear about where our interests lie. In this country, in particular, we know what Colonel Gaddafi is capable of, and we should not forget his support for the biggest terrorist atrocity on British soil. We simply cannot have a situation where a failed pariah state festers on Europe’s southern border, and that is why we are backing today our words with action.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the superb leadership that he and the Foreign Secretary have given both at home and at the United Nations in securing this resolution, without which the people of Benghazi and of Libya would face a humanitarian disaster?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the UN resolution, which, as he has indicated, refers to
“all necessary measures…to protect…civilian populated areas”,
will enable our forces to be used not simply to intercept Libyan aircraft but if necessary to attack heavy artillery, tanks and other military units on the ground that might be threatening civilian populated areas?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his support, and I agree that time is now crucial. It is vital that we have now got this UN Security Council resolution, and that we make very clear the ultimatum to Colonel Gaddafi so that we secure that ceasefire and stop his operations.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what the Security Council permits us to do. Paragraph 4 refers, crucially, to “all necessary measures” to protect people—“to protect civilians”—and, indeed, specifically mentions Benghazi. The Attorney-General’s advice, which we may discuss in more detail later, makes it very clear that that means we can take measures that will help those things to be achieved. It is very important for us to understand that.
Japan and the Middle East
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, and I particularly welcome what he said about Japan and the common ground there. On nuclear, he is absolutely right that we should not rush to judgment, but we should, as we have done, ask our experts where there are lessons to learn.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a range of questions about Libya, and let me try to take all of them. On the issue of no-fly zones, he said what support the Arab League had given, but the Secretary-General of the Arab League said very clearly:
“It is for the Security Council to take decisions as it sees fit. What we did in the Arab League is make an official request to impose a no-fly zone on military activities against the Libyan people.”
I think that that is a significant step forward. The right hon. Gentleman asked what work has been done. Obviously, work has been done in the UK to look at options on how that could be done but, crucially, the work is now being done in NATO, which is right. He asked a question about what it would involve. I am afraid that the answer is that that would depend on exactly how large the no-fly zone was, whether it was operating round the clock, which parts of the country it covered and so forth. However, it is perfectly practical and deliverable. Obviously, if it were to happen, if it is judged to have passed the milestones that we have set, it would be best if it were as widely supported as possible. It is something that no one country can do alone.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why some EU countries were more sceptical than others, and why they opposed the proposal. As he knows, 21 of the 27 are members of the NATO, which made it clear that this should be looked at. Many in Europe, as elsewhere, have made it clear that we must make sure that we learn lessons from Iraq. My argument is that no two situations are the same. We can listen to any number of experts who will warn about what happened in different places in different times, but what we are seeing in Libya is different. It is an uprising of a people against a leader, and it is quite different. No one is talking about invasions, boots on the ground and the rest of it. When a resolution should be put forward will depend on the support that can be guaranteed for such a resolution in the UN, but what has happened with the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council is very encouraging.
On the question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the former Foreign Secretary, about arming the rebels, I repeat what the Foreign Secretary said this morning. We should not exclude various possibilities, and there is an argument to be made, but there are important legal, practical and other issues that would have to be resolved, including the UN arms embargo. We should also be clear that there is no single answer to speeding up the process of removing Gaddafi. That is why we should urgently be pursuing a broad range of options through the UN.
On the other actions that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—the International Criminal Court—I will certainly look at the idea of contacting the court directly. It seems most important to me that we make the point publicly over and over again to all those people around Gaddafi, working for Gaddafi, and in his army, that they are being watched by the International Criminal Court. That is a message that we should do everything we can to get across.
DFID has responded very quickly, both bilaterally and multilaterally. We should be proud of the fact that it was Britain which flew so many Egyptians on the Tunisian border back to Egypt and helped many hundreds of Bangladeshis as well.
On the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the middle east peace process, that was discussed by the EU Council. We have made strong representations to other EU countries and also to the US that we must get that back on track. As the right hon. Gentleman said, both of us met the Palestinian President when he came to London recently. I was struck by something that one of his advisers said—that if we really want great progress and victory in combating terrorism and Islamic extremism, growth of democracy in the middle east, plus a solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict, would be the two things that could bring that victory together.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that the Gaddafi regime has already internationalised the conflict in Libya by bringing in many hundreds of mercenaries, which is helping to put pressure on the insurgents? Against that background, is it not imperative that the international community should be able to provide military supplies to the insurgents? Of course, we must recognise the legality of the arms embargo, but does the Prime Minister agree also that the terms of the arms embargo resolution prevent arms from being supplied to what is called the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya—in other words, to the Gaddafi regime—and that it is perfectly possible to supply arms or other equipment to those who are fighting that regime, especially as the resolution itself, through the appointment of a sanctions committee, allows that sanctions committee to provide arms sales to other groups in Libya if it thinks that appropriate?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend made a strong and persuasive argument in his newspaper article this morning. I make three points. First, on the issue of mercenaries, what is happening is unacceptable. We should be sending the clearest possible message to those in Mali, Chad and elsewhere who are thinking of volunteering as mercenaries, and we should put into the next UN resolution the strongest possible language about mercenaries. Secondly, the same should apply to policing the arms embargo against the Gaddafi regime, because there are signs that he is seeking additional armaments right now. Thirdly, I hear clearly the argument —it is an ingenious argument that only a lawyer of my right hon. and learned Friend’s brilliance could make—about the specific way the arms embargo was termed towards the country that Gaddafi effectively renamed, but I am not sure it is an opinion that is shared by all other lawyers.
Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on what she has said today. This is an historic moment. West Worcestershire has taken up the cudgels on the West Lothian question, and I very much welcome her comments. I have taken an interest in these issues for a long time. I first entered the House in 1974, and when Margaret Thatcher became leader of our party, she was kind enough to appoint me as a junior spokesman on devolution. I have therefore had to take some views on these matters. I am now the Member for Kensington, but my primary home remains in Scotland, outside Edinburgh in East Lothian. Later, I will offer what might immodestly be referred to as an East Lothian answer to the West Lothian question.
I have no doubt that the consequences of devolution represent unfinished business. Over the past 12 years, we have witnessed the single biggest constitutional change in the United Kingdom since the Act of Union in 1707—
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
It was far more important than what happened in 1801, which turned out to be a blip in the constitutional history of the UK. What we are seeing now is a permanent change. It has not destroyed the United Kingdom, but it has undoubtedly created a new kind of United Kingdom. That has constitutional implications, as well as implications for fairness. I suspect that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would suggest that, since Stormont, we have lived with the fact of Members from Northern Ireland being able to vote on all the measures in this House despite the fact that their own constituencies might not be affected by them. There is a de minimis issue that we can sometimes live with, but we now have something quite different, particularly if the Welsh approve an extension of the legislative powers of their Assembly in their referendum.
We will have a situation in which not 11 but approximately 100 Members of this House from three of the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom will be able to vote on issues that do not affect their own constituents. There will be only one part of the UK that does not have that right. Rather curiously, having dominated the United Kingdom, by numbers, since the Act of Union in 1707, England will become the one part of the UK whose elected representatives do not, by themselves, have the final say on matters that affect purely their constituents. That will no longer be the case for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but paradoxically it will have become so for England. Talking about 100 Members, rather than 11, is not a minimal side issue; it goes to the very heart not only of constitutional propriety but of fairness. My remarks today will be about fairness rather than constitutions, because that is the fundamental principle of our political system, and the implications of these arrangements are significant.
We must not get this out of proportion, however. I do not believe that it is right to imply that, as a consequence of devolution, this place has effectively become an English Chamber because the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish have very little continuing involvement here as a result of the big areas that have been devolved to their own Parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. That is a gross exaggeration. If we look at the whole scope of government, we see that the UK Government and Parliament still have either sole or predominant responsibility for massive swaths of policy. The most important issues facing any Government are those of taxation. At this moment, virtually all tax powers reside with the United Kingdom Parliament, and all Members of Parliament from every part of the kingdom have an equal interest in and responsibility for those matters. The largest budget of the British Government is the social security budget, and that is a United Kingdom budget. It does not differentiate in any material way between north and south of the border.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned, and very old, Friend for giving way—[Laughter.] I mean “old” in the sense of time. We are both of a certain age.
Bob Stewart
He is no longer my friend. I always used to respect him. Does he think that there will be increased pressure to give more tax-raising powers not only to Scotland in the Scotland Bill but to the Welsh Assembly and to Stormont?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Such proposals are under deliberation and likely to go forward. That could mean a reduction in the block grant to Scotland, if it were to raise a proportionate sum through its own decisions. This is an evolving situation, a dynamic constitutional process. I cannot predict, any more than anyone else, where that process might lead, but for the foreseeable future the UK Government will retain responsibility for virtually all tax responsibilities, as well as for the social security budget, all foreign affairs, all defence policy, all European Union issues, all trade policy, all electoral matters such as those we discussed yesterday, and a whole host of other issues. So we must not imply that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members have a diminished interest in the affairs of this Parliament.
It is sometimes suggested that it is quite improper, in this post-devolution situation, for a Member from Scotland, Wales or wherever to be appointed as a Minister in a Department whose responsibilities cover only England. Criticisms were made of John Reid when he became Health Secretary in the previous Government because he represented a Scottish constituency. We should not think of that as a constitutional issue, but it might be politically stupid to make such an appointment because of the controversy that it will give rise to, enabling criticism to be made. There is no lack of precedent for such decisions being made in other contexts, however. During the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, every Secretary of State for Wales represented an English constituency. There has never been a Northern Ireland Secretary who comes from Northern Ireland, for obvious reasons with which we are all familiar. Let us not suggest that that is a constitutional problem. It is a political problem, and Prime Ministers have to decide whether it is sensible to appoint Ministers from constituencies that are not affected by the decisions of the Department of which they will be in charge. It is against that background that we are considering the question of voting in this Parliament.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have institutionalised a sense of resentment and unfairness by not giving greater fiscal autonomy and tax-raising powers to the devolved Governments? That sense of unfairness does not exist in other devolved systems, such as the federal system in the United States, in which each state can raise its own taxes, and there is no feeling of resentment towards the central Government.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I return to my point that this should be seen as an evolving situation. We speak of devolution to the three other parts of the United Kingdom, but the devolution is different in each case. We have a power-sharing institutionalised system in Northern Ireland, which does not exist anywhere else. We have a Scottish Parliament that is an Executive with full legislative powers over devolved matters. Wales does not have a Parliament; it has an Assembly that does not yet have legislative powers. In each case, the arrangements will change, but they will change in response to experience and to what are perceived to be the political wishes of the people in the territories concerned. That is the history of the United Kingdom. We are blessed with an unwritten constitution that we can evolve and adapt over the generations in a way that goes no further than necessary but that responds to the aspirations of the peoples in the various parts of the kingdom in a sensible and coherent way.
I shall turn now to the consequences of those arrangements for voting in this Parliament. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire so eloquently said, a range of options has been proposed to deal with what has become known as the West Lothian question. Some of them are completely understandable, including the proposal that, if there is a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Parliament, there should be an English one. That sounds completely logical, but I was once warned that logic was the art of going wrong with confidence. It is, in fact, absurd to contemplate the co-existence of an English Parliament with this Palace of Westminster, for several reasons.
First of all, to state an emotional and political fact—I say this with some caution—the vast majority of people in England think that there is already an English Parliament and that it is called the House of Commons, largely because of the history of this place and its origins many centuries ago. When such an option is occasionally raised, we are not talking only about two Parliaments. In practice, there would have to be two Governments; there would have to be an English Government just as there is a Scottish Government. The idea that that is a sensible way of dealing with these matters is foolish. It would be a sledgehammer to crack an important but nevertheless modest nut—foolish, as I say.
The second option—one of the bad options—was attractive to many of my hon. Friends during the previous Parliament. It is the idea that Scottish Members—and, one assumes, Welsh and Northern Ireland Members either now or in due course—would be vetoed or prevented from voting on issues that applied only to England. I have always thought that that is a very dangerous and unwise approach. It would manifestly create two classes of Member of Parliament for the very first time since the Act of Union in 1707, and therefore I can only describe it as a nationalist solution to a Unionist problem. I have no doubt that it would be welcomed by the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, because it would provide a constant opportunity for them to emphasise the increasing irrelevance of the Union, as they would see it, and to go much further than the vast majority of people throughout the United Kingdom would currently want. It is not sensible to contemplate having two classes of Member, although not because it could not work. Here I disagree with the hon. Member for Rhondda: it is not a matter of the technical problems, although I can come on to those in moment if he wants me to; rather, I believe that it would be hugely dangerous and, in any event, it is unnecessary.
If those options are unattractive, is there an alternative route to resolve these matters and to deal with the issue of fairness? We do not need a solution that is absolutely perfect in every constitutional respect that fits seamlessly into some web of other issues; we need something that resolves the problem and removes a sense of unfairness.
At one stage, I argued for having an English Grand Committee, to which English-only Bills would be sent. It could be a Committee of all English Members sitting in this Chamber, but only those on such a Committee would be able to vote, just as members of Select Committees are the only people able to vote on them. That would not, in itself, be constitutionally improper. I acknowledge, however, that that would be quite a complicated innovation, which would take a complex series of thoughts to resolve and could take years in practice to implement.
In any event, there is a much simpler alternative—one that has not thus far been mentioned—and I shall put it forward. I would strongly argue that the most simple and straightforward solution relates to when a Bill is certified by the Speaker, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire indicates, as applying only to England. Doing that, incidentally, is not difficult. Many Bills currently affect England and Scotland or England, Scotland and Wales, because there is no reason at the moment for the draftsmen not to draft them in that way, if it suits their drafting objectives. If the rules change and the draftsmen are required to restrict any Bill to that part of the kingdom to which it overwhelmingly applies, they can draft accordingly if instructed to do so.
Where a Bill applies only to England, the right way to resolve matters would be to say that before it can be approved on Second and Third Reading, it must achieve not only the majority of votes of the whole House but, subsumed within that, a majority of Members representing English constituencies. In other words, a double majority is required: a majority of the House as a whole and a majority of those representing English constituencies. If it does not meet that target, it cannot be deemed to have been approved on Second Reading. The attraction is that no hon. Member is prevented from speaking in the debate or from voting in the Division Lobby for or against the measure, but the question of whether an England-only Bill goes forward and is given a Second Reading will have been determined by the House to be dependent on a majority of Members from English constituencies voting for it.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and also for sharing his enormous wisdom on this topic with the House. Does he agree that the Scotland legislation of the 1970s included a provision made by the Lords for a 14-day waiting period, in which something like what he is describing would apply? What does he think of that particular approach?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Yes, that is indeed one approach. We are always reminding ourselves that this country has a sovereign Parliament. The idea that a sovereign Parliament cannot determine that certain classes of legislation will not go through unless there is a double majority of the kind that I have described is absurd. Of course it can do that if it wishes; it is entirely within its power. It is simply a political judgment as to whether that is the right way forward.
I shall not speak for much longer, but I want to address one fundamental challenge that will be made—it has already been made—to any of the solutions that have been described. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Rhondda will raise this suggestion. It is constantly said that the problem with all these approaches is that if a Government were denied the use of all the votes of their supporters that would usually give them a majority, the whole business of government would become unworkable and the Government would be unable to get their programme through, which would create some sort of constitutional crisis. To be fair, that argument is not made only by Labour Members. Mr Vernon Bogdanor, for example, who we are often told is a great constitutional expert, has constantly opined that that is a fundamental flaw in any such approach. Although I can understand why the Labour party adopts that view, because there is a political interest in putting forward such an argument, I find it very difficult to understand why such a learned gentleman has come to this conclusion—and I hope that he reads this speech.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. and learned Gentleman might like to know that Mr Bogdanor was the tutor of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I have no doubt that he was. Eric Anderson was the headmaster who taught Tony Blair, but I do not think that either could be held responsible for the other; each must come to their own judgments on these matters.
I come to the central point about the accusation that government would become unworkable. It is not just my view, my opinion or my theory that that is nonsense. We know from our own history that it is a ludicrous argument; it is exactly what happens every time we have a hung Parliament. When there is such a Parliament, as there was between 1974 and 1979, there will be many occasions when Governments cannot get their legislation through. It does not necessarily mean the collapse of the Government unless it is on some fundamental issue of confidence. What happens is that Governments either have to withdraw the proposal or discuss it with their opponents and table amendments to make it more acceptable. That is also exactly what happens between the House of Commons and the House of Lords from time to time. It is what happens in the United States all the time. The current President of the US does not have a majority in Congress, so he can never be certain of getting any legislation through. The argument that a British Government would somehow find themselves in an unworkable and unacceptable situation because not all but some of their English-only legislation was so controversial that a majority of English Members could not be persuaded to vote for it and that that would create chaos in the workings of government is manifestly ludicrous. That argument cannot be put forward in any credible way.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I suspect that my hon. Friend’s intervention has guaranteed that that will not happen. In any event, I would rather give evidence to the committee than serve on it. We will have to wait and see.
Finally, it is the essence of a parliamentary system of government that Governments must not assume that they can always get their business through. They will occasionally be defeated and, if they believe that the issue is fundamental, they can ask for a motion of confidence to enable them to survive. It is not a barrier to the kind of change that I and others have recommended to say that a Government might from time to time have to amend or withdraw their proposals because they lacked parliamentary consent. The parliamentary consent is what matters, not the Government’s wishes.
Andrew Bridgen
May I drag my right hon. and learned Friend back to a point he made earlier in his eloquent speech? He said that he did not wish to create two classes of MP. Indeed, there is only one class of MP in this place. However, do we not already have two classes of MPs in our constituencies, because the work load of English MPs is far higher than that of Members in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) makes a sedentary comment, but if the work load of MPs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is not less than that of English MPs, what are the devolved Governments doing and what is their purpose?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I know the point my hon. Friend is making, and it has some validity, but he takes the argument too far. Certainly, the constituency correspondence with which a Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland Member deals must be substantially less, as many issues that the rest of us have drawn to our attention would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly. Nature abhors a vacuum, however, and none of us has enough time to do all the things that we would like to do in this Parliament. Although many of our Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish colleagues might not have as much work of that kind, I assume that that gives them more time, if they so wish, to take part in debates on wider, national issues and on matters that affect their constituents. It is not as if they sit around wondering, “How should I spend my day?” The naturally indolent may be in that position and enjoying every moment, and that is for our constituents to come to a judgment on, but a good Member of Parliament never has a shortage of legitimate matters, affecting constituents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to occupy their time.
I conclude more or less where I began: let us not get too involved in constitutional proprieties. The essence of the British constitution is its flexibility and ability to evolve to meet changing circumstances. When, for the first time since the Act of Union, three of the four component parts of the kingdom have their own Parliament or Assembly, the principle of fairness is paramount. The approach that I have suggested would meet that requirement in a fairly simple and straightforward way. There may be other solutions, but it is important to recognise that a solution is needed, and the quicker we achieve it the better.
Chris Bryant
I think “Sceptical” might be the hon. Gentleman’s middle name. I see he is smiling—I have managed to get a smile out of him; that must be a first. He is now trying not to smile. Now he is laughing.
The only point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that there is no academic evidence, and probably never will be. All that we have is anecdotal evidence. I merely offer my own evidence—I have not seen my work load diminish compared with that of my predecessor, who did not have a Welsh Assembly to contend with. The hon. Gentleman is right that a constituency with a smaller number of people might mean that the Member concerned has fewer people contacting them, but it might also mean that access to the Member for constituents is more difficult and that it involves considerable travelling around the constituency. Anyway, that is a matter for a different debate.
The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington referred to the issue of whether there should be an English Parliament. He is right to argue that there is a danger that we would end up with two Governments. Who would take possession of Downing street? Presumably, we would have a set of English Ministers, in addition to British Ministers, and so on. I am not sure that is the direction in which British voters want to go. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire referred to the fact that on the one occasion when we had a referendum on whether there should be devolved responsibilities within the English regions, people decided, largely because they did not want more politicians, not to go down that route.
In parenthesis, let me say briefly that I hear regularly, not from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington but from others, that this is the mother of Parliaments. I again say that John Bright meant that England was the mother of Parliaments and that it was a very difficult and complicated birth. The effortless English superiority that sometimes arises in these debates is unfortunate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Wales, and I was reminded of a story, which may not be apocryphal, of Charlotte Church singing before George W. Bush when he was President—a meeting of two great minds, obviously.
When Charlotte Church was introduced to the President, he asked, “Where are you from?” She said, “Wales.” He asked, “What state is that in?” , and she said “Terrible.” Discussions about issues such as this are not always informed by great intelligence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the possibility of an English Grand Committee. It has been suggested in the past that such a Committee should sit in the Chamber, because it would obviously have a significant number of members. During the last Parliament we discussed the possibility of regional Grand Committees and arguments were presented both for and against the idea, but it has fallen by the wayside.
I am not convinced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument in favour of a requirement for a double majority. Neither House has ever operated a system of secondary mandates.
Chris Bryant
It is true that innovation is sometimes a good thing, but I think that it would lead to confusion in this instance.
I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the right hon. and learned Gentleman now. He expected me to argue that a Government who lost a piece of legislation would fall, but I am not going to argue that at all. In fact, the danger is that as we move towards an elected second Chamber—and over the past few weeks we have seen both sides of the second Chamber behaving almost exactly like an elected Chamber—we will reach a point at which there will be absolutely no check on the power of the Executive. There will be no check by virtue of the time that the second Chamber can take to delay legislation, and no check in this House because, by definition, the Government have a majority. We may have to address that problem through the way in which we interpret the Standing Orders of the House.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to say that he does not think that a double-majority requirement would create an unworkable situation for the Government. The only argument—in fact, it is not even an argument, but just a word—that he has used to indicate his reason for opposing such a requirement is that it would cause “confusion”. What does he mean by that?
Chris Bryant
I shall deal later with an issue that relates directly to the point of the Bill, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will then understand why I believe there is a problem. [Interruption.] He is now confused, but I hope that I shall be able to rescue him from his confusion in a moment or two.
As I said to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, this is an age-old issue. There is a meretricious argument, which the hon. Lady steered away from today—although she dangled it in front of us a little bit—that it is patently absurd for Members whose constituents will not be affected by an individual piece of legislation to be able to vote on it. That is, at any rate, a paraphrase of something that she said. My response is “All that glisters is not gold.”
If we decide that Members can vote only on matters that affect their constituents directly—or even indirectly, I suppose—we end up with the question of who runs the country. At any one moment, on any one piece of legislation, there is uncertainty, and in the case of Finance Bills in particular there is a real problem. The issue is not just what the Government propose, but what Members can or cannot amend. Some money Bills have effect only in England, but the danger is that a money Bill could be amended in a way that caused it to have an implication elsewhere.
EU Council and North Africa
Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
As the then Secretary of State for Scotland, I had to visit Lockerbie on the night of that disaster, when I saw the terrible consequences that flowed from it. I have always been appalled by the release of the convicted murderer. The Prime Minister has drawn attention to the Cabinet Secretary’s conclusion, in which the Cabinet Secretary states that the previous Government wished to do all within their power to facilitate the release of Mr Megrahi. Do not the documents released today show that, in pursuit of that objective, a Foreign Office Minister met his Libyan ministerial counterpart, offered to send details of how release on compassionate grounds might be obtained and wrote to his ministerial colleague on 18 October 2008? Does that not confirm that the previous Government were up to their neck in this shoddy business, that they were desperate to see the release of Mr Megrahi and that they must therefore share responsibility with the Scottish Government for one of the most foolish and shameful decisions of recent years?
The Prime Minister
As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend brings a mixture of experience and precision to this issue. We were told by the previous Government what they did not want, which was the death of al-Megrahi in a Scottish prison, but we were not told by the previous Government what they did want, which was the facilitation of his release. That comes over, time and again. The most powerful point that my right hon. and learned Friend makes is this: in the end, that man was convicted of the largest mass murder in British history, which should have been the thought coursing through ministerial veins and brains when Ministers wrote those memos and made those speeches.