G20

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be absolutely clear about this. There are two sorts of money that the UK provides to the IMF: money through our quota, which is effectively through our shareholding, and money through loans and other arrangements. There have been three votes in this House in the last three years on all the elements of the IMF money. As I have said, if it comes to giving extra support for the IMF, we want to do that within the headroom that has been set.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Are we not really dealing with a sophisticated form of Russian roulette, in which the Prime Minister tells us on the one hand that he does not think that it is right for eurozone countries to have their funding from the IMF cut off, but says on the other hand that at this stage there should be no additional money from the IMF? When will the stage be right for that additional IMF money?

[The Prime Minister]

There are 53 IMF programmes around the world, only three of which are in the eurozone, so in part it is a judgment for the IMF about when it needs to replenish its resources. Let me be clear about what needs to happen in the eurozone countries. They have to sort out the problems of the euro: they need that firewall, and it is Europe that effectively has to provide it. They need that recapitalisation and the demonstrable and clear write-down of Greek debts. Those are the things that they have responsibility for. We have responsibility, as an IMF shareholder, for bulking up the IMF finances at the right moment. I do not see that as Russian roulette; it is just very sensible economics and politics.

European Council

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

How would the Prime Minister characterise his relations with President Sarkozy?

[The Prime Minister]

If you have a good relationship with someone, you can have frank discussions with them. I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happened at the European Council yesterday. On the issue of Libya, Britain and France have worked together probably more closely than we have worked together at any time in the last 40 years, and on defence co-operation, we will continue to do that. I do not for one minute resile from the need sometimes to speak clearly and frankly on behalf of Britain and to stand up for the British national interest. It is in our national interest that the eurozone deals with its problems, and it is right that we make that clear.

Public Disorder

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I can say that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) will, from his office, be giving one-stop-shop advice to all Members of Parliament who have affected businesses that want to see that money flow quickly. It is very important not just to set up those schemes, but to make sure that the money is paid rapidly.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are 1 million 11 to 19- year-olds in London. The Prime Minister has said a lot about children and young people, but he has not in an hour and a half said anything positive. Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that the vast majority of young people are decent, law-abiding, good people and they are appalled by their stigmatisation by the media. They are appalled, they are afraid. They are not criminals. They are just in fear at this time.

[The Prime Minister]

To be fair, in my statement I said that what had happened was in no way representative of the brilliant young people we have in our country. As I understand it, tomorrow there will be a meeting of people, I think in Westminster, saying very specifically that this was not done in their name. I applaud that and all the other initiatives by people who have stood up and said, “This was not done for me or has anything to do with me.”

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have to be frank. The previous Government were not on this at all and, frankly, the previous Opposition—us—should have done more. However, the previous Government have to take some responsibility for repeatedly ignoring repeated warnings. I could not have been more frank today about the responsibility I take. Every time I mention this I talk about the failings of the previous Opposition in doing their job, but just once in a while it would be nice to hear a little bat squeak of responsibility from the Labour party.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister has said that Neil Wallis was never employed by the Conservative party. Will he confirm that neither Mr Wallis nor any of these companies received any payment from individuals or organisations working on behalf of the Conservative party?

[The Prime Minister]

What I have said very clearly is that the Conservative party did not employ him, have a contract with him or pay him. As I understand it, he did some informal work for Andy Coulson, but the reason why we know that is that we announced it before the House of Commons went into recess—we wanted to get the information out. When we get to the bottom of the work that he did—this is unlike the complete lack of transparency that we sometimes get from the Labour party—we will make the detail available.

Afghanistan

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Let me make two points. First, this must be an Afghan-led process. This is about the Afghans trying to bring together in their country all the elements that should form a part of its future. Clearly, if the Taliban separate themselves from al-Qaeda, and if they are prepared to give up violence and accept the basic tenets of the Afghan constitutions, those are end conditions. If they can do that, there is the potential for a political process that can speed the end of this conflict. Clearly, we must go ahead on the basis that we are building the Afghan army and continuing with very tough operations to take out Taliban insurgents, but that there is also the opportunity for a political integration process at the low level, and a reconciliation process at the high level, that can speed the end of the conflict, and we can end up with a more stable and peaceful Afghanistan.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister referred to the recent attacks on the hotel in Kabul, which is well inside several security rings. Are there not worrying indications that the Taliban are infiltrating parts of Afghanistan where they previously had not been? How confident can we be that the Afghan authorities and President Karzai will be a in a position of complete control over the internal security of Afghanistan by the end of 2014?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the capacity of the Afghan Government and the scale of the Afghan security forces, which is improving all the time. The point I would make is that there has been rather unfair press about the hotel. In fact, the Afghan security forces were able to clear it of insurgents rapidly. There was of course a regrettable loss of life, but the operation was fast and effective. They drove the insurgents on to the roof, where they were effectively taken out with the assistance of NATO. We saw a similar attack on a hotel in Mumbai, and we have seen suicide attacks in other countries. All I can say is that people who are pretty tough nuts, such as General Petraeus and Lieutenant-General Rodriguez, were very impressed by what the Afghan security forces did. We should be talking that up, not talking it down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q11. The United States Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, has said that the NATO operation in Libya has exposed serious capability gaps. The First Sea Lord, Admiral—[Interruption.] The First Sea Lord, Admiral Mark Stanhope, has said that the operations in Libya cannot be sustained for longer than three months without serious cuts elsewhere. Given those problems—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No help from Government Back Benchers is required. A quick sentence from the hon. Gentleman.

[Mike Gapes]

Is it not time that the Prime Minister reopened the defence review and did yet another U-turn on his failed policies?

[The Prime Minister]

He is called Mark Stanhope, if that helps.

I had a meeting with the First Sea Lord yesterday at which he agreed that we can sustain the mission for as long as we need to, and those were exactly the words that the Chief of the Defence Staff used yesterday, because we are doing the right thing. I want one simple message to go out from every part of the Government, and indeed from every part of the House of Commons: time is on our side. We have NATO, the United Nations and the Arab League. We have right on our side. The pressure is building militarily, diplomatically and politically, and time is running out for Gaddafi.

On the defence review, I would simply say that for 10 years the Labour party did not have a defence review, but now it wants two in a row. At the end of the review we have the fourth highest defence budget of any country in the world. We have superb armed forces who are superbly equipped, and they are doing a great job in the skies above Libya.

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Those powers of the European Parliament were ultimately changed because of a negotiation between it and national Governments. The conclusion we have reached, and which several other committees and cross-party commissions that have looked at this in the past have also reached, is that the way to avoid opening that Pandora’s box is simply by asserting that the balance of power will remain as it is and as reflected in the Parliament Acts. That is exactly what we are proposing.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has clearly had a difficult few weeks. May I give him some advice? I suggest that when he leaves the House today he speeds to the airport and gets a plane first to Sweden and then to New Zealand so that he can see how effective unicameral Parliaments work, and then he can come back with a different proposal.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should come forward with a proposal to abolish the other place altogether.

[Mike Gapes]

indicated assent.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That would probably meet an even more noisy reception than the balanced package that we have put forward today.

Counter-terrorism

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We think that that is unacceptable, and that, as well as implementing resolutions 1970 and 1973, there are opportunities to tighten sanctions—on oil and oil products, for example—to ensure that the regime comes to its senses and realises that it cannot go on terrorising its own people. In the coming days, we will look at ways of stepping up the action that we are taking, as well as encourage others to enforce measures already in place.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister has referred several times to the need to combat the global jihadist Islamist ideology. In that context, will he have urgent discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and ask it not only to reverse the reductions in the BBC’s Arabic language services, but to implement an idea that has been talked about for quite a while—namely, to introduce a BBC Urdu channel to broadcast in Pakistan?

[The Prime Minister]

I heard the Foreign Secretary dealing with that matter extensively during questions. Many of the budget reductions being made are regrettable, but they are all part of ensuring that government is affordable and that we deal with the deficit that we inherited. I am quite clear that the settlement for the BBC is fair and that the BBC has to ensure that that money goes further in providing many of the excellent services that it does.

Libya/European Council

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly will attempt to do that, but as my hon. Friend knows, one of the issues is that the only organisation that has the right of initiative in the European Union is the Commission, so the key is to work with the Commission and to persuade the Commission that what is needed right now in Europe is deregulation, market reforms and completing the single market. I think President Barroso sees the world like that. There is no fiscal stimulus left to European countries; they have all run out of money. There is not much monetary stimulus left, with interest rates as low as they are. What we need is the stimulus that comes from making it easier to do business, and I think President Barroso gets that.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister referred to the need for maximum political and diplomatic unity. In that context, will he clarify the position as regards attendance at the conference tomorrow? Will all the members of the UN Security Council be there? What is the position of the British Government with regard to the remarks being made from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

More than 40 Foreign Ministers will be attending tomorrow’s meeting, and it is a meeting of Foreign Ministers, rather than Government Heads and Prime Ministers. In terms of who is coming, it is those countries that are active in the coalition, so there will be strong European representation, but we have also secured, as I said in my statement, strong Arab representation. Countries such as Iraq, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar will be there and the Arab League will be represented. I have also heard that the African Union Secretary-General will be there, which is hugely to be welcomed. Not every permanent member of the Security Council will be represented, but crucially Ban Ki-moon will be there, so I think that it is a good opportunity to bring the alliance together to show its strength and depth and to work out the next moves forward, both militarily and politically and diplomatically. It is about showing that the world is still united around UN Security Council resolution 1973 and that there is a group of countries that are determined to implement it in the interests of the world.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I found it touching that the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) and others expressed trepidation about entering a debate when we are sending troops into battle. I have been in the House for 14 years now, and I have done that on four occasions. I can tell them that it gets no easier. The more I have experience of conflicts and the more I understand the human suffering involved, the more I am committed to peace and conflict resolution, and the more I oppose such military interventions.

There comes a time in all such conflicts when the collateral damage—a disgraceful term—is reported to us, and evidence comes to light of families and children who get killed and maimed as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When coffins draped in the Union flag come back, all hon. Members will ask, “Did we do enough to avoid the conflict? Did we do enough to ensure peace?” That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I tabled an amendment today. I appreciate that it was not selected for debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but because it has been referred to, I should like to refer to it as well.

The amendment sought to demonstrate that we are using every means possible—straining every sinew—to gain peace, and not, as the Prime Minister set out, just doing that before the conflict. Often, the most successful peace talks are those that take place when military action has already been undertaken.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend says that we should do everything we can to avoid conflict, but the conflict has already happened. The people of Benghazi are under attack, and the people of Tripoli are suffering from the Gaddafi regime’s repression. In that sense, standing out of the conflict is also taking a position.

[John McDonnell]

I am saying that we should secure peace now that the conflict has started. I oppose Britain’s involvement in the middle east because we have a century and a half of involvement—in pursuit of the region’s mineral wealth—that is steeped in blood, murder and maiming. We do not have the credibility to intervene constructively.

Nevertheless, the conflict has started, and our role is to secure peace as quickly as possible. That is why the amendment seeks to secure peace through negotiations. Already, there have been offers of mediation, in particular through the ALBA group of Latin American nations. We should take that offer. The amendment also states—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), because he gave what I thought was his version of Tony Blair’s Chicago speech of 1999. Where Tony Blair had five criteria, the hon. Gentleman seems to have four, but the consequence would still be the interventionist view that I know he has held for many years.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be so pessimistic about the consequences of what is happening in Libya. None of us can predict what will happen. He is quite right that the Gaddafi regime may persist for some time, in some form or other. He is also possibly right about the alternative outcome of partition, which other hon. Members have mentioned. Another view is that we could be moving towards what might be described as “Somalia with oil”, which would be the worst possible outcome. Therefore, we in Europe should be particularly concerned about what is happening in Libya, because it is geographically on the borders of the European Union. Libya is not remote or a long way away; it is of vital, direct, national and European interest to us.

In that context, I want to praise the work of our diplomats in the UN, who have worked hand in glove with French diplomats in the UN to get the Security Council resolution. What has been done through co-operation between Britain and France, as the two European permanent members of the Security Council, is vital. Unfortunately, the Defence Secretary has left his place, but at least the Foreign Secretary is here. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary will know that I have given him his correct designation today, unlike when he appeared before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs last week.

I wanted to ask the Defence Secretary about co-operation between the UK and France on the defence front, because clearly there is a new understanding and agreement. If, as is expected, the lead of the operation is transferred from the United States, there will be interesting questions about where it should go. Turkey appears to be blocking any development of a NATO-based command. What will happen then? Is an alternative arrangement possible? Clearly the European Union is not capable of performing that role and, given Germany’s position, would not be likely to do so. What will happen to control of the forces that are brought together? There will be a continuing US role, even though it wants to step back, and those forces will include other European states, the Qataris and others who will enter the coalition. Britain and France will be working at the core of that coalition, but we need to know how that will work in practice. Perhaps we could have an indication of that in the winding-up speeches.

In the time left to me, I want to concentrate on what the development of the Security Council resolution means for the future of international co-operation. There were four groups among the 15 members of the Security Council. There was Britain and France, which clearly saw early that an intervention had to be made to stop the massacres and the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Libya. Then there was the United States, which clearly saw the same thing but, because of internal, institutional problems—and, I suspect, because the Obama Administration rightly want to take a multilateral approach to international politics, in contrast to the predecessor, Bush Administration—did not want to play the lead role.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Given the previous US regime’s role, does my hon. Friend accept that if the US President had been involved, that might have hindered our ability to get a resolution?

[Mike Gapes]

I do accept that, but I think the US Administration left it pretty late before finally making up their mind to move. It would have been helpful if the prevarication had not gone on for quite so long, but in principle I agree with my hon. Friend.

Then there was a third group, made up of countries in the Security Council that supported the action, even though many of the countries in their region were unhappy. Three African member states—South Africa, Gabon and Nigeria—voted for action, despite the fact that the African Union collectively has not taken the same position. That is significant. There was also Lebanon, representing the only Arab voice in the Security Council.

Then we have the fourth group, made up of China and Russia—traditionally, one of them would have vetoed the resolution, but they chose not to—and Germany, which, as we all know, has its own national view and history. Germany does not wish to put its forces in harm’s way and has always been reluctant to take a role in any international involvement. Indeed, I remember the angst in the SPD—the German Social Democratic party—even when it debated sending people to peacekeeping missions outside Europe. Then there are Brazil and India, which take a more traditionalist view about non-intervention, which is similar to that of China and Russia.

My point is that, because of the responsibility to protect, which was agreed in 2005 and 2006, and because of the way this debate has been framed, the UN has passed a watershed. The interventions to defend the Kurds in Iraq in 1991 and 1992 were made without a Security Council resolution. The intervention in Kosovo was also made without one, as was the intervention in Iraq, but today we have a new approach, and I hope that it is a model for the future.