NATO Summit

Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Understandably, there is much interest, but there is also pressure on time, so economy, both in questions and answers, is vital if we are to make some progress.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

While we can warmly welcome the NATO-Russia agreement to co-operate on ballistic missile defence, is it not disappointing that NATO and Russia have not yet decided to begin talks on the multilateral disarmament of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe? Does the Prime Minister recollect that it was the previous Conservative Government who abolished British tactical nuclear weapons on the grounds that they had become militarily useless? Is it not now time for NATO and Russia to look at that at the European level?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that is possible. The problem has been, as my right hon. and learned Friend well knows—he has great expertise in this—that relations between NATO and Russia have been extremely strained in recent years. At the weekend, I observed a proper thawing of that situation, with President Medvedev happy to sit down and discuss what NATO and Russia could do together. I think his view is very much that this should be an expansive agenda whereby we can look at more and more areas that we can discuss.

European Council

Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that, for the first time, the European Council’s conclusions set out the new principle that increases or changes to the EU budget should reflect what we are doing in our nation states. That has never been put in place before, which is why the Commission opposed it so much. The principle is that what is happening across Europe must be reflected in the EU budget; that is the key. I will be pressing for the best possible outcome in 2012 and 2013, and as Britain is a net contributor the best possible outcome for us is that we do not make these increases in our net contribution.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the experience of the Labour Government in respect of the European budget was a failure to reconcile net income with gross habits, and will he also confirm that his success in putting together this blocking coalition will save the British taxpayer half a billion pounds?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Every percentage increase we save is equivalent to well over £100 million. The failure there has been—for a long time, frankly—over this issue is twofold: a failure to take the budget issue seriously enough and, secondly, a failure to have transparency and therefore to have the information about the EU budget out there so that citizens in Europe can really complain about the inflated salaries and allowances. Let me give just one example: civil servants who have been in Brussels for 30 years are still paid generous expatriate allowances. That is the sort of excess that we have got to deal with.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman a novel idea? Why do we not start looking at what we get out of public spending rather than what we put in? He will see in the strategy that we are actually ensuring that we get the things we need for our Army, Navy and Air Force. We are going to get greater efficiencies, even in vital bodies such as the intelligence services—that is what we have to do at a time when we have such large deficits and debts—but he can see the priority that this Government give to defence and national security in the decisions that we have taken.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

With such a thankless task because of the economic background, may I commend the Prime Minister and his colleagues for ensuring that even though reductions in defence capability are inescapable at the moment, we will be able to reverse many of them if our economy improves and resources increase? May I also suggest that the whole House ought to welcome the prospect of saving £700 million on Trident without interfering with continuous at-sea deterrence? Is he satisfied that the technical evidence that he has been given supports that conclusion?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. As a lifelong supporter of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent and someone who wants us to have a full service replacement, I wanted to make absolutely sure that we would have continuous at-sea deterrence and that there would be no break between the Vanguard submarines and what will follow. I am satisfied from all the evidence I have seen that that is what we will get. The reason that we have been able to do that is that the Vanguard submarines have been operating for longer. We now know about their life extension and what is possible. It is possible to continue with the independent nuclear deterrent and its replacement without a break in capability.

Afghanistan

Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The role of Pakistan in this is vital. What is encouraging is that in all the conversations I have had with President Karzai across the past five years I have never heard him as positive about his relationship with Pakistan as now. Clearly, a stable Pakistan and a stable Afghanistan are two sides of the same coin. The encouraging thing right now is that the Pakistan Government and the Pakistan military are pursuing al-Qaeda in South Waziristan and other parts of the tribal areas, and that is making a difference. But of course we have to convince both the Pakistan Government and the Afghanistan Government that we are there for the long term—not the long term with troops, but the long term with support, aid, diplomacy and development—so that they do not think that we will leave them in the lurch once again.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

May I commend the Prime Minister for confirming that our only justification for being in Afghanistan is not corruption or the poppy trade but national security? On that basis, will he also confirm that the decision when we start to withdraw our troops should be based not simply on the Afghan army having increased in size or training, but when we are satisfied that it has reached the level of training and ability to ensure that al-Qaeda cannot return?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right. It should be a focus on national security and when we can safely leave the job of securing Afghanistan to Afghan forces. That is not about numbers; it is about capability and he is right to measure it in that way.

Election of Speaker

Malcolm Rifkind Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

I beg to move, That John Bercow do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

First, Sir Peter, may I have the pleasure of congratulating you on your elevation to Father of the House? You first entered this Chamber in 1959, when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister. Since then, you have established your reputation as a Member who speaks on matters with the greatest of clarity and with the deepest of passion; that has been your trademark. Indeed, it has been said that when Sir Peter Tapsell rises—[Laughter.] Ambiguity is always very dangerous. It has been said that when Sir Peter arises, he does so not to speak, but to intone superbly. We give you our affectionate congratulations on your position.

My purpose today is not to intone superbly or otherwise, but to recommend the right hon. Member for Buckingham. I am conscious that, as he has said, this is not an occasion for long speeches, and therefore I will emulate King Henry VIII, who is reputed to have said to each of his six wives, “Please don’t worry. I don’t intend to keep you long.”

The right hon. Gentleman was elected by secret ballot last June, and I must make a revelation: on that occasion, I did not vote for him. I voted for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whom I congratulate on the position that he occupies today. The fact that I did not vote for the right hon. Member for Buckingham in a sense provided an opportunity, because I, like many others, have had the chance, with an open mind, to see him act as Speaker over the past 11 months, and I have been impressed.

I first entered this House in 1974, when Selwyn Lloyd was the Speaker, and I have seen six Speakers in operation. They all had very great strengths, and most of them had personal characteristics as well. I want, in the time available, to draw attention very briefly to three aspects that I think the House should consider in deciding whether the right hon. Gentleman should continue as Speaker.

First, one of the requirements is that the Speaker must be absolutely fair between individual Members. That goes without saying—it is standard to our procedures—and I do not think that anyone would dispute that the right hon. Gentleman has operated in that way.

The second requirement is, of course, that while a Speaker has great power and great authority, when the House is in turmoil or threatening to descend into turmoil, he must use his power not only with flexibility but, on occasion, with humour as well, in order to reduce the temperature that might otherwise rise. The greatest exponent of that was Speaker George Thomas, and I remember vividly one glorious evening when there was a real disruption in the House. A Scottish nationalist Member was speaking with a very strong Scottish accent and was speaking very fast, and some hon. Members from south of the border could not entirely follow what was being said. An English Labour Member got up on a point of order and said, “Mr Speaker, we English Members cannot understand a word that is being said. May we please have simultaneous translation?” There was immediate turmoil in the House and Speaker Thomas, known as one who spoke with a great Welsh lilt, said, “Order, order. There are many accents in this place. I sometimes wish I had one myself.” Immediately, the trauma was over. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has those qualities, and has already shown them in abundance.

The third and final talent that is required is the recognition that the Speaker is of course the champion of the Back Benchers against not just those on the Government Front Bench but those on the Opposition Front Bench, too. I may say, having served on the Front Bench for more than 20 years, that I have come more to that point of view in recent years. It is crucial. Of course, the Speaker was originally the protector of this House against the Crown, but the threat today is not so much from the Crown and Her Majesty but from Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has already shown himself to be splendidly robust at intervening on both Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition if they are going on too long and interrupting the smooth business of the House.

One final point, Sir Peter, before I sit down. We have had in the past 11 months a modern Speaker for a modern age. The comment was made some months ago that perhaps he was too young to be on the Speaker’s Chair. I do not think that that argument can be used very easily now. He is, I understand, 47, which makes him four years older than both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and eight years older than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House can be reassured that if it chooses him today, we will have some experience and gravitas in the Speaker’s Chair. I commend him to the House.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 1A), That John Bercow do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

Question agreed to.

Sir Peter Tapsell left the Chair, and John Bercow was conducted to the Chair by Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Joan Walley.

Mr Speaker-Elect (standing on the upper step): Before I take the Chair as Speaker-Elect, I wish first to thank the House for the honour that it has again bestowed upon me. I am aware that it is the greatest honour it can give to any of its Members. I pray that I shall justify its continuing confidence and I propose to do all within my power to preserve and to cherish its best traditions.

The Speaker-Elect sat down in the Chair and the Mace was placed upon the Table.