Russian Membership of the Council of Europe

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I think this is the first time I have had that privilege and I fear that it might be the last, because of your impending retirement.

This is a great opportunity to discuss the importance of the Council of Europe and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am delighted to see a number of my colleagues from the Parliamentary Assembly here today, along with the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), who was a long-serving member of the Assembly until he retired at the beginning of this year after some 18 years’ service.

The statute of the Council of Europe was agreed in London on 5 May 1949. There were 10 founding members. Today, 47 countries belong to it, and Russia is one of those, having joined in 1996. All have signed up to the aims of the Council as set out in chapter I, article 1(a), which provides:

“The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals… which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.”

Article 3 of the statute provides:

“Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.”

If one recites the text of article 3 and sets that against the recent actions of the Russian Federation, the question immediately arises of what sanctions there are against members that are in breach or violation of article 3. The answer is contained in article 8:

“Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously violated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of representation and requested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw under Article 7. If such member does not comply with this request, the Committee may decide that it has ceased to be a member of the Council as from such date as the Committee may determine.”

My first question for my right hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am delighted to see is responding to the debate, is, has the Russian Federation seriously violated article 3 of the statute? My view is that it certainly has, which I think is a view shared by all 18 members of the UK delegation and the 18 substitute members.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

What the hon. Gentleman is describing could have been the case on at least five previous occasions, but it would appear that this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, certainly as far as the UK delegation is concerned. We could have had this over South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, the human rights issues relating to the death penalty and so on. All those have come up one time after another, so why now?

[Mr Chope]

I will go on to explain exactly why. It is not just the view of all the UK delegation’s members that the Russian Federation has seriously violated article 3; it is also the view of a substantial majority of the Parliamentary Assembly, as evidenced by the decision in January this year to impose sanctions against representatives of Russia, and of the European Conservatives group in the Assembly, which I have the privilege of chairing. It also must be the opinion of the Committee of Ministers, which has made various declarations calling on the Russian Federation to do this, that and the other, all of which have been ignored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

There may be parallels. I defer to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of what happens in the Commonwealth. However, if we and the other founding members of the Council of Europe do not stand up for our belief in the principles of the Council of Europe, we make things much more difficult for other countries, particularly those that were formerly in eastern Europe and part of the Soviet bloc. It is much more difficult for them to try to comply with the principles of the Council of Europe if they can see that the bully boy next-door to them is being treated with impunity, which is exactly what is happening with Russia at the moment. We could send a very strong message if we took effective action and used sanctions against Russia. We would be sending a message to those other countries that we were on their side and would help them to stand up against their bully-boy neighbour.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I am curious to know why the Conservative group stayed in the same group as the Russians for so long if it felt so strongly about Russian abuses that have gone on for the past 18 years or so.

[Mr Chope]

The answer to that is that the abuses that I have been describing have not been going on for the last 18 years or so. What has happened is that things have got very much worse within the last year. That is why the European Democrat group, as it then was, decided to take sanctions against the Russians, as members of that group, for being in manifest breach of the Council of Europe. What was the straw that broke the camel’s back in that respect? It was the motion, passed in the Russian Duma by elected members of the Parliamentary Assembly from Russia, supporting the illegal annexation of Crimea. It was not a situation, as sometimes happens in the Parliamentary Assembly—this has happened with the hon. Gentleman and to an extent with myself—in which we as elected members say that we are not necessarily four-square supporting our Government but are standing up for the values of the Council of Europe against our Government. What happened in that case was that the members of the Russian Federation delegation and members in the European Democrat group were actively undermining the principles of the Council of Europe and actively engaged in supporting the illegal annexation of Crimea and were thereby breaching the principle that the Council of Europe stands for the territorial integrity of all its member countries. That is the short history.

[Mr Hancock]

But not Georgia.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman takes us back to what happened in relation to Georgia. He may recall that at that time there was a Labour Government in this country and one of the first international statesmen who spoke out in support of Georgia was none other than our present Prime Minister, so I do not think that we can be criticised for being slopy-shouldered in relation to what happened in Georgia. That was part of a continuing scenario. When it comes down to it, we have to face the fact that in Mr Putin we are dealing with a dictator and a tyrant. That is the scenario. In the same way, we have been dealing with a dictator and a tyrant in Zimbabwe. Eventually, patience ran out and Zimbabwe was expelled from the Commonwealth. It was not expelled immediately, because everyone was using the same arguments as are now being used in relation to Russia: “Isn’t jaw-jaw better than any alternative?” However, there comes a time when, if someone continues to be in complete defiance of the principles, we need to take, in my view, the only sanction that is available under the rules.

We are already in danger of being accused of double standards. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) chaired the Joint Committee on the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muiznieks, wrote to him on 10 October 2013:

“Thus, my message is clear: the Court’s judgments”—

Mr Muiznieks was referring to the European Court of Human Rights—

“have to be executed and the automatic and indiscriminate ban on voting rights for prisoners should be repealed. If the Court system is to continue to provide protection, there is no alternative to this for member states, other than leaving the system itself.”

He goes on to say:

“I think that any member state should withdraw from the Council of Europe rather than defy the Court by not executing judgments.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on bringing this challenge, which we have to face up to, to the House today. We should all be mindful of his words, but, like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I think there is another side to the issue.

We ought to look at what the Council of Europe is about. We know that its main three pillars—its raison d’être—are human rights, the rule of law and democratic processes. However, all of us who have been in the Council of Europe for any length of time know that it also has two negative pillars, which it embraces with great enthusiasm: double standards and the lowest common denominator when it comes to getting something through the Council of Europe. Often, it is not the best argument that wins, but the one that the political bosses of the various parties decide they can carry in the Chamber.

A good example of the Council of Europe’s double standards is the situation in Ukraine. When was the last time we had a debate in the Council of Europe about the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus? I cannot remember one in my 18 years there. When did we have a debate in the Council of Europe about the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, which is an idea I support? When was the last time we criticised Armenia for occupying a third of the land mass of Azerbaijan? We have not had those debates. Why not? Because we would have to take positive action against those countries. Do we really want to say that to Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia? I think not. We know that will not happen.

The Library produced a very interesting document, which states:

“A group of Conservative MPs led by”

the then leader

“led a charge to suspend Russia fully from the assembly. His amendment was defeated”.

It was defeated because those people were taking a step too far, as far as the Assembly was concerned. I have long held the view that we have to have a debate on whether we want Russia in or out. There cannot be any half measures. Suspending the voting rights of the delegation is totally irrelevant. It causes a bit of panic in the Hemicycle for the hour or so after the vote is taken, when the Russian press are there and the media are trying to get a quote from everyone and anyone. I am sure I have seen some of the cameramen giving quotes about the issue to other television stations because there were no politicians around to do it.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe had the pleasure of having Boris Nemtsov at its meetings on several occasions. I had the pleasure of meeting him, having dinner with him and talking to him. The question I asked him at our group meeting was, “Do you think we should expel Russia from the Council of Europe?” His words were, “Most definitely not.” He then spoke for about half an hour about why he thought that was not the case. During his half-hour response, he made a number of points that a lot of us thought gave conclusive evidence that Russia should not be in the Council of Europe. Nevertheless, he said no.

Over the years, the biggest problem has been the way we have looked at Russia since it joined in 1996. I joined the Council of Europe in 1997. Since then, the Council of Europe has not taken action against Russia on at least five occasions. One was when we had the long, drawn-out debates over Chechnya, which went on for the best part of four years. I went to Chechnya twice. One of our former members, Lord Judd, was one of the leading players on that issue. He came close to recommending that Russia be suspended and then expelled, but he drew back from that. He would say that he drew back because he was put under pressure.

There was the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Once again, are we really saying that it was okay for Georgia’s land to be occupied and for two free states to emerge in a Council of Europe country? What action did we take on that issue? We are still having a debate. We have rapporteurs looking at the Russia-Georgia issue, but we have not made a decision, although it occurred in 2008. Six years on, the Council of Europe has done nothing. Why? Because, once again, it aims for the lowest common denominator to keep everyone in the tent.

Human rights in Russia was another issue on which the Russians flatly refused, until 2012, to agree to the very principles that they had signed up for. The abolition of the death penalty—

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying very carefully. Does he not agree that in diplomacy it is important to have some messages that can be sent and some sanctions that can be imposed, in an escalating fashion, to make one’s point? Taking away voting rights in the Council of Europe, which annoys the Russians a good deal, is a measure that one can use, and it is wrong to say that it is all or nothing. Those escalating sanctions are useful.

[Mr Hancock]

But there comes a time when the credibility of the Council of Europe is at stake. That is the issue, is it not? Sooner or later, we come to a line in the sand and say, “Is it really worth belonging to this organisation?”

I do not want Russia to leave the Council of Europe, but I want to call the bluff of those who agitate time and again to nitpick—not “nitpick”, as that is the wrong expression—and to take voting rights away. Who gets cheesed off about having their voting rights taken away? Probably the wives of the Duma Members, who can no longer go to Paris and Strasbourg for sittings. I do not believe the politicians are particularly bothered that they do not have their voting rights. They know that in January next year there will be a vote and they will have their voting rights back. I am sure of that.

How can that be the case? The hon. Members who intervened on the hon. Member for Christchurch—the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger)—raised a point about Russia, saying, “Oh, well, if they agree to a certain line in the sand over Ukraine, that is okay.” Is it okay? Russia will never give up Crimea now, so where does the Council of Europe stand on the issue of Crimea? Forget eastern Ukraine; where does the Council of Europe stand on the issue of Crimea? I have friends who live in Crimea. They are Russian by ethnicity, have absolute faith that they are now back where they belong and are committed to staying there, and will fight very hard to do so.

[Mr Chope]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that people can be in a parliamentary assembly and have their rights suspended while they still remain members of the Council of Europe itself, because if someone’s country is still in the Council of Europe there is an argument for saying that their parliamentarians should be in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That is why I am arguing that Russia should be suspended from the Council of Europe itself.

[Mr Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he presented his case extraordinarily well. I have no doubt about the merits of that case, but there is this other argument, which other Members have alluded to, that it is better to have people inside the organisation.

Would the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe have the same facilities offered to them in Russia if Russia was out of the Assembly? I think not. Would people in Russia, who make up nearly two thirds of all the applicants to the European Court of Human Rights, have any access to redress if Russia was out of the Assembly? I think not. If the £24 million that the Russians put in, as a grand payer along with the UK, was removed from the Council of Europe, what would that do for the Court in Strasbourg?

[Sir Alan Meale]

The hon. Gentleman said that the members of the Russian delegation to the Assembly do not really care whether they have voting rights, so why do they continually campaign to get the votes back and why do they threaten in discussions in the Duma that, if they do not get their votes back, they will seek to leave the Council of Europe? Surely, voting rights are important and, as the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said, the strength of the push towards getting the negotiation to the Council of Ministers, or to the UN or wherever, is the important factor here.

[Mr Hancock]

The simple answer to that is that the Council of Europe needs Russia more than Russia needs the Council of Europe. That is the real issue for the Russian Duma Members and I have read with interest some of the comments they have made in the Russian press since the issue in January; they make interesting reading. Those Duma Members genuinely believe that the threat to suspend Russia is a bluff, because they know that the track record of the Council of Europe on taking forceful action is pretty abysmal and they have a lot of evidence to support that line.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) raised the issue of Latvia. Interestingly, the 300,000 ethnic Russians in Latvia are classed as non-citizens. If the Council of Europe believes in anything to do with human rights, how can it allow that situation to persist? It is ridiculous.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is pretty intolerable that a country that is a member of the EU and the Council of Europe is effectively denying citizenship to people, and the right for them to sit in Parliament and all the rest of it, unless they learn Latvian. Imagine if the boot was on the other foot and there were large numbers of people here who could not speak English, or they were Urdu speakers or whatever, and we said, “You can’t stand for Parliament and all that sort of stuff because you have to vote in English.” There is a real problem here. I am not defending the Russian position, but we have to recognise that that is what the Russians think.

[Mr Hancock]

Some people might suggest that we are getting pretty close to that in the UK regarding the ability of people to speak English, but how can people be classed as non-citizens in an EU state—or, more importantly from our point of view, in a member state of the Council of Europe—and nothing is done or said about it, except by those of us who believe passionately that everyone living in a country should be classed as a citizen of that country?

What do we do? We have a debate here. I am not sure whether the suspension of voting rights for the Russians will do much at all. Expelling Russia from the Council of Europe would undoubtedly harm the organisation; it would diminish the Council of Europe’s credibility for being able to speak on behalf of the 700 million people who inhabit the 46 member states in the Council of Europe, so it would be a mistake to do it.

We must continue to work with Russia. It is quite interesting to see who the rapporteurs on Russia have been over the years. In most instances, they have been leaders of the political groups, or senior members of those groups who have taken on that responsibility. None of them has ever recommended anything like the suspension or removal of Russia from the Council of Europe. Why? Because they believed that their efforts brought some reward for the citizens in Russia.

The best message we can send out today is that we do not like what the Russians are doing and that we will do everything we can to achieve a peaceful settlement to the issues of eastern Ukraine, but that situation will not be solved and the people involved will not be saved from further harm by expelling Russia from the Council of Europe. We should take a positive step today to say that we hope to see in January a different attitude from the Russian side and from the Council of Europe side.

More importantly, however, for those Members who are lucky enough to be on the delegation to the Council of Europe after the general election, I suggest that they need to get rid of the two things that undermine the Council of Europe time and again: double standards and the continual striving to find the lowest common denominator, instead of finding the right answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman puts the point well, and one could add other items to that list.

We face not only a crisis over Ukraine, but an issue of principle. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the international community, including the Russian Federation, recognised the republics that then became independent states as sovereign and entitled to determine their own future. The question now is whether we believe that that is an important principle that should be upheld for both legal and political reasons, or that Russia is justified in trying to exert some kind of informal imperium over those countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid I will not. I have just over five minutes left and want to respond to the points made in the debate.

Today, we mark the 25th anniversary of Lithuania’s recovery of its independence after half a century of occupation. We would be foolish if we thought that simply acquiescing in a breach of the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states would have consequences that could be confined even to Europe. Countries throughout the world are watching the crisis in Ukraine and drawing conclusions about how the international community might or might not react in other circumstances.

We welcome the Minsk implementation plan for Ukraine. It is not perfect, but it is the best hope we have of turning a fragile and incomplete ceasefire into an effective truce and then, I hope, into a peacemaking process. I am advised that the latest situation is that the ceasefire has led to significant reductions in fighting, but there are still localised outbreaks of violence, especially around hot spots such as Donetsk airport and Debaltseve. Heavy weapons withdrawal has begun on both sides. On Monday, President Poroshenko said that Ukraine has withdrawn the lion’s share of its rocket and heavy artillery systems and that the Russian-backed fighters have also withdrawn a significant amount.

On verification, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is still not being granted full and unhindered access to the crisis zone. It seems to me that letting OSCE monitors through to see what is going on is a key test of Russia’s seriousness of purpose about whether it will try to turn the Minsk agreement into something meaningful on the ground.

As is clear from the debate, the issue is not only Ukraine. We must look at the full range of tools of international diplomacy to influence Russia’s behaviour and hold it to account for its actions. Organisations such as the Council of Europe offer opportunities for doing that. It is an organisation within which Russia itself has signed up to exacting standards in the field of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked a straight question: do the Government think that Russia is in breach of article 3? During the debate, I reminded myself of the text of article 3; I am no lawyer, but my political judgment is that I would feel pretty hard-pressed to argue that Russia is currently compliant with it. Nevertheless, it is a separate political judgment to decide what, if anything, should be done after that. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government’s judgment is that, on balance, despite its actions, it is currently better to have Russia inside the Council of Europe, where it can be held to account, than either suspended or expelled.

The European Court of Human Rights is a crucial mechanism for the protection of human rights against the most egregious abuses. The cases of disappearances and other serious abuses in Chechnya are important examples of where the Court must focus its attention. The majority of human rights NGOs and defenders in Russia tell us that the Court is the only chance they have of receiving some form of redress, which is why they value Russia’s continued membership of the Council of Europe. My hon. Friend mentioned the plight of Nadiya Savchenko: the Government strongly support the Committee of Ministers’ call for her immediate release on humanitarian grounds.

The Council of Europe has an important role in supporting Ukraine, not least through the advice of the Venice Commission on constitutional reform issues. I agree that we should not allow Russia free passes; it should be held to account. Depending on what Russia does in practice, I do not rule out the need to review and reconsider the Government’s current position. We do see a sharply deteriorating situation in Russia in respect of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

We will continue to work in the Council of Europe, the UN, the OSCE and other international organisations to uphold our rules and values, and we will strive to bind Russia more closely to them. However, we should not do that at any cost. If Russia continues to flout those rules and undermine our values, that will bring further isolation, economic damage and hardship for the Russian people themselves. I very much hope that Russia will not choose that path. It is in her own long-term interests to embed the high standards in the fields of human rights, democracy and the rule of law to which the Russian Government have committed themselves through their membership of the Council of Europe.

Palestine

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

The purpose of this debate is to identify some of the obstacles to moving forward to a just and equitable solution. It seems as if many of the obstacles that I and other Members have mentioned in relation to child prisoners, the demolition of Bedouin villages, settler violence and illegal settlements, are a consequence of the occupying power’s actions. We must address those obstacles and help to defuse the tensions and growing violence in the west bank—particularly in Jerusalem—before we can move forward. I hope to develop that argument.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

In the early part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman rightly made the point that the failure is that successive Israeli Governments have always been content to manage the problem, rather than find a solution. If we are to move forward, how do we break the mindset in Israel that simply says, “Let’s manage the problem and let the west get on with it”?

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, because the status quo is not acceptable to anyone other than the Israeli Government, who are able to achieve their ends, deepen their occupation and continue their annexation unhindered, largely protected by a diplomatic shield. We need to make the Israeli Government aware that that is no longer acceptable.

If the truth is stretched thin enough, people start to see through it. A consequence of the recent incursion into Gaza, where there was a dreadful loss of life and wholesale destruction of property, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, clinics and the only power station, is that people are now perhaps starting to see through the veil of propaganda that the Israelis put out about their seeking a just settlement. That certainly seems not to be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). Everyone who has spoken today has expressed a real concern that we must start to find a mechanism to move the situation forward. The petition simply asks us to do just that; it asks us to take some action, recognising the issues before us.

The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), who spoke with such eloquence about the situation in Gaza, used words that even the deafest of Israeli politicians could not fail to have heard. He spoke not only for himself and for the many of us who share his views, but for the vast majority of people who believe that it is unreasonable to continue with the current process. It is unacceptable for our Government and others across the world not to make every possible effort to put pressure on Israel to change its mind.

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) introduced the debate, and I congratulate him on his speech. As he said early in his remarks, successive Israeli Governments have simply decided that it is better to manage the issue, but managing the issue only makes it worse for Israel in the long term. How on earth can the Israeli people ever believe that there will be a settlement giving them the peace that they crave when their Government humiliate the Palestinian people day after day? They are taking the lives of innocent children, and putting children on trial and imprisoning them for sometimes minor crimes. They do things that most of us would think not only unreasonable, but completely repugnant.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that international humanitarian law and its enforcement would be a good step forward?

[Mr Hancock]

If only somebody would enforce international humanitarian law! I agree entirely. The failure is that no one is prepared to take the next step. It is no good saying that there is a great resolution from the UN; I was at the UN last week and listened carefully to the words of the Secretary-General about the situation. Unfortunately, he knows that he is a political eunuch when it comes to providing anything that will really lead to Israel responding positively, creatively and helpfully.

The overwhelming majority of Palestinian people want peace. They were told that they would get justice on several occasions throughout several different presidential Administrations in the United States, but the United States, which still has the most clout, has failed to deliver the powerful pressure on Israel that would force it to look again. It is manifestly unfair for our Government to continue not to apply as much pressure as possible. If that means preventing our industry from selling weapons and other goods to Israel, so be it. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, the one thing that wakes up the Israeli public and Israeli politicians is when they are hit with financial implications, which is something that we must explore.

If anything is to be learned from today’s debate, let the real expression of concern in this House be included in Hansard so that others can read it. All of us have concerns about rockets being fired and about people being killed by tanks mowing them down on the streets where they live. The situation is horrific and everyone condemns it, but that is not good enough, is it? Condemning something does not change anything.

What we need is a positive, hard punch that says that Israel needs to change. If not, it will become a pariah, similar to South Africa during the days of apartheid. Only when there was concerted effort against South Africa did it know that its time had run out. The Israelis have to be careful that they do not run out of time, because sooner or later the Palestinians will say, “There is no future for us here. We have no alternative but to continue what we have been doing.” That cannot be right, and it is not the solution that we want.

What we need is pressure from all the Governments who say that they want to support a two-state solution. Some 128 of them have now signed up, but what have they done since then to say that they would recognise a two-state solution? Very little—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Unless something changes, things stay the same. In an attempt to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, two routes have been tried—one is violence, the other is negotiations. The violent route will not work. Israel has tried that route and the route of suppression, with attempts at ethnic cleansing, for nigh on 70 years, and that has not worked. That has been matched by violence by the Palestinians on the other side, which has usually resulted in their suffering even more. That has not worked for them, but it has not broken their will. Violence will not work.

The negotiations have proved unsuccessful: why? Negotiations usually require both sides in a dispute to concede something. What more, really, could the Palestinians concede? In Gaza they have given up the air, the sea, the land and indeed the water, as they have done in many other places. There is not much more they can give. Agreement can only really be arrived at when both sides in the dispute believe that the cost of not reaching an agreement is higher than the cost of continuing the dispute.

The Israeli Government have certainly suffered from the insecurity that they have brought on their citizens through the continuing dispute, but the cost of that insecurity has been overwhelmingly outweighed by the territorial gains that they have made and continue to make daily. Why should they engage in meaningful negotiations when they gain so much from the conflict?

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that they think that is a price worth paying?

[Mr Ward]

I believe that they do. I believe that the gains they have made as part of the grand design have proved successful for them, and they have considered the price worth paying. That could not of course have continued without the support of many countries, including our own, but most of all the United States. Our Prime Minister recently confirmed his deep commitment to Israel and said:

“When we look across the region and at the indexes of freedom, we see that Israel is one of the few countries that tick the boxes for freedom”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 915.]

However, Martin Linton has supplied the information that in the 2014 index of economic freedom, Israel is placed 44th, behind Macedonia, Latvia, Armenia and Jordan. Are those really the countries with which we should be comparing Israel, rather than France, Sweden or Italy? Is it possible to think of another democracy that flouts UN resolutions on a daily basis and remains a fully fledged member of the international community?

What can change? I was privileged to listen to Rebecca Vilkomerson two weeks ago when she spoke to a small group here in Westminster. Rebecca is the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, the fastest-growing Jewish organisation in the United States. It grew rapidly during the attack on Gaza. She suggested some changes as ways to bring about something different. The first was using boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. The cost to Israel of not negotiating seriously must be greater. I have an online petition with 80,000 names on it calling for the use of BDS as a peaceful means of applying economic pressure. At the very least that should apply to settlement goods, but I argue that it should go beyond that.

Rebecca also mentioned the increasing change among the Jewish diaspora around the world. Many members of the Jewish community are growing tired of Israel and are embarrassed by it and somewhat ashamed of it. The JVP is growing rapidly and adds a powerful voice.

The final area to be mentioned is public opinion, which has been referred to before. I am accused of pandering to Muslims. That is an insult to me—but I can take that. However, it is also an insult to Muslims and to the many non-Muslims who are sick and tired of Israel’s behaviour.

Iran (UK Foreign Policy)

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

I have seen that quotation before. One of the truths about the Iranians is that they have a history of sticking to the letter of what is agreed while trying to make that agreement as accommodating to themselves as possible. They are not the only country to do that. However, it was Hassan Rouhani—now President Rouhani—sitting across the table and leading the negotiations, and I believed that he was a man with whom we could do a deal. I am glad that the present British Government self-evidently still think that; otherwise, they would not be sitting across the table from his representatives now. There is no evidence one way or the other that what was being installed at Isfahan was related to the weaponisation of the nuclear programme. I have seen no such evidence whatever, and Iran has a right to a nuclear power programme in the same way as any non-nuclear weapons state does.

My plea to the British Government is that they do not make the best the enemy of the good in these negotiations. Just as the world changed 25 years ago with the collapse of the Berlin wall, so it is changing again before our eyes, especially in the middle east. With chaos in Iraq and in Syria, many now see the potential of Iran to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. A deal that is good for both sides would have other benefits, not least for human rights. There cannot be anyone in the House who does not share the profound concern about aspects of Iran’s human rights record, including the recent incarcerations and executions.

One of the truths about Iran’s complex and opaque system of government is that the elected Government do not control the judiciary. There are other unacceptable elements of the regime. The more we are able to do a deal—of course on acceptable terms—the more it will empower the elected Government and the better able we will be to secure a resolution of the other concerns, including those on human rights. The reverse is also true.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

Has there been any evidence from the right hon. Gentleman’s past negotiations with Iran, or prior to that point, that any “give” on the part of the west has done anything to improve the lot of the people in that country? In my view, there is little or no evidence of any movement in relation to Iran’s human rights record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

It is pleasure to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) about his constituent. Obviously, all of us in this House hope that the case can be resolved in a satisfactory way as soon as possible.

I have been hugely impressed by all the speeches I have been privileged to hear in the debate so far. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) and for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham). I am sure we will hear an excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) in due course.

What we have not heard, explicitly, is anyone saying that it would be completely unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. That is the position that I stand by. I think it would be unacceptable to this country, and to the world, for a dangerous regime such as that in Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I do not particularly want to cast aspersions, but I suspect that some Members of this House would actually be content for Iran to have a nuclear weapon; indeed, I have heard Members say that. That is a perfectly defensible position, but I have not heard it put forward today.

What we have also not heard today is the Israeli perspective. Iran, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn said, is a country of 77 million people, second only in the middle east to Egypt’s 85 million. If we stack that up against the Israeli state, with 8 million people, we can see that from the Israeli perspective Iran is the biggest bully in the playground.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex said, it all comes down to a question of trust. Why should we trust Iran? I very much respect the judgment of Members of this House who know far more about this subject than I do, especially former Foreign Secretaries and hon. Members who have been to Iran and know some of these individuals. However, if I were a citizen of Tel Aviv, despite the huge respect I would have for the right hon. Member for Blackburn, I would say to myself, “Well, this gentleman obviously speaks with a huge amount of experience, and he has spoken to Hassan Rouhani and others, but what if he is wrong? What if the regime in Tehran is mad enough and bad enough to want a nuclear weapon and to use it?”

We had a similar debate when China was developing nuclear weapons and Mao Tse-tung said, “What does it matter if we lose several million Chinese people? We can take out our enemies in one go.” It would be possible to take out most of Israel with one nuclear weapon. The holocaust was not really that long ago in strategic terms. Half the Jewish population of the world was wiped out in Europe, supposedly under the safety of a Christian civilisation, so if I were an Israeli citizen, although I might respect the right hon. Gentleman’s wise words, I would be saying to myself, “What if he’s wrong? Where’s my insurance?”

That is why this House has to wake up, smell the coffee and realise that there is simply no way on earth that Israel is going to allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb. It represents an existential threat to half the Jewish population of the world. It does not really matter what we in this Chamber think about that; Israel, quite rightly, will say, “We are not going to accept this.”

The Iranians are going about things in all the wrong ways. We have heard that there are cultural aspects to that. We are told, for example, that the Iranian way of approaching the world is different from that of the west; that there are complications of language and history; that the only rules they want to stick to are those that suit them; and that we should look at this through a diplomatic prism. At the end of the day, however, we are talking about 8 million Israeli citizens who fear for their lives. They fear that Iran will get enough nuclear material to stuff into one of its Fajr-5 rockets and launch it at Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Iran is going about the negotiations in all the wrong ways, because it is doing all the bad things that none of us like. Iran is a major exporter of terror, not just to the middle east, but around the world. If it really wants to do a deal with the west, why has it not backed off from supporting Hamas or from stocking up an arsenal of 100,000 rockets in southern Lebanon? Another Israeli fear, of course, is not just nuclear weapons, but Hezbollah launching 100,000 rockets all in one go at the Israeli population. It does not matter how sophisticated Iron Dome is—it is not possible to take out 100,000 rockets launched in one go.

The exporter of this terror—its funder—is Tehran. These are not nice people. They might have gone to English universities and they might have an understanding with very senior Members of this House, but this regime is extremely unpleasant, not only to its own people, but to others in the region and further afield.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important things the right hon. Member for Blackburn said was that we should be careful what we wish for? I think that some people sometimes wish for something that cannot be delivered. I strongly support the line taken by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman and I both hope that the right hon. Member for Blackburn is right, but what if he is not? That would put Israel in a really serious situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

Like the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I believe that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a very difficult thing for most of western Europe and the United States. Most importantly, most of the middle east would also be horrified by it, and all of us should be wary of that.

I draw Members’ attention to the helpful briefing we have been sent, which makes it clear that a recent report by the UN special rapporteur for human rights in Iran noted a worsening of the situation regarding attacks against women. Those who have not seen the photographs of women disfigured by acid being thrown at them cannot believe for one minute that the Iranian authorities, in some way or other, were not involved in that treatment of those women. I would also like to congratulate and thank Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the Iranian Resistance, which continues to keep the deplorable human rights record of Iran in the forefront of our minds and the minds of others around the world.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) wrote a very interesting article in The Telegraph. He repeated a number of very important points today and the House listened very carefully. He said—I raised this point in an intervention—that we should be careful what we wish for when it comes to Iran. It is clear that the most active and supportive western-facing President and Foreign Secretary in Iran are not, at the end of the day, the people who will make any final decision. The Supreme Leader is coming to the end of his term of office, if we take the speculation about his health to be true, and will be replaced. Two of his potential replacements are extremely hard line and would make it extraordinarily difficult for anyone to take seriously whatever a President of Iran says about whatever deal is to be done, whether on the production of nuclear material for peaceful purposes, or the complete suspension of a nuclear programme. As other Members have said, the country is sitting on so many assets it does not really need nuclear power, but who are we to deny them that? As the right hon. Member for Blackburn said, every country has the right to it. However, we should be extraordinarily wary.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to two of my constituents. One was in Iran as recently as eight months ago. She is a young woman who was a professor at university in Tehran. She was subjected to the most appalling sexual attacks by the regime’s security officers in the university. Why was she subjected to that? She tried to prevent some of her young women students from being put through the sexual harassment and other related activities that the security system within the university was perpetrating against staff. When she spoke out, she was attacked. Luckily, she is now in this country, but there is no guarantee she will be granted the asylum she seeks. Anyone who speaks to somebody who has lived in Iran recently cannot help but be very concerned.

The second constituent was a young man who travelled halfway across Europe in the back of a lorry and came into the UK illegally, pleading for asylum. He was given temporary leave to make his application, but then detained. He was gay and had become a Christian, so he was under enormous pressure in Iran, and his life would have undoubtedly been taken had he been returned there or not left in the first place.

Those two experiences are of young, educated people living in Iran recently; they are not politicians such as those whom Members meet, but ordinary people whose lives have been dramatically and dangerously disrupted because they have chosen to speak out or to be different. It is an inexcusable situation. We are considering making friends with a regime that continues to execute people—the number is unknown because many are not announced by the Government—including children. Are we seriously saying that the UK is prepared to do business with these people and not take seriously their ongoing abuses of their own people? It will be a sad day, if and when the UK goes down that road. If we stand for anything, surely it is for protecting the human rights of people in countries that do not give the protection they deserve.

Palestine and Israel

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on introducing this motion. Like other Members, I was very disappointed at the Minister’s response, because he did not say anything about what might be wrong with the motion; he did not say anything that would harm the interests of Israel; and he did not actually say anything that would benefit the people of Palestine. This motion and the amendment offer that light at the end of the tunnel.

When we speak to Palestinians—whether President Abbas here in Parliament or Palestinians on the street in the west bank or elsewhere in Palestine—we see and hear at first hand how the voice from the UK Parliament is very important to them. The message that we send out tonight is a message of hope for them: that we in this Parliament recognise the right of their struggle and their right of self-determination. Those who would oppose this motion, or who speak as if it would harm Israel, have not put forward a single sustainable argument; not one iota of what has been put forward by them would stand close examination.

We have an opportunity to say to the people of Gaza, who have had their homes systematically bombed and destroyed and where, in Gaza alone, something like £5 billion-worth of infrastructure damage has been done, that that has to be put right.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason for that dreadful bombing is Hamas’s launching of rockets on Israeli civilians and the building of terror tunnels?

[Mr Hancock]

I do not believe for one minute that the Israelis’ attitude and the sort of punishment they dished out was in any way the right thing for them to do; it was not in their best interests and it certainly was not in the best interests of the people of Palestine. “The Gatekeepers”, a “Newsnight” special, has been mentioned. In it, five of the past six heads of the top security agency in Israel say that successive Prime Ministers had not wanted to solve the problem with Palestine, and five out of the six say that that was a mistake and that Israel had to change its policy. These were the people who were leading the defence of Israel, but they recognise—obviously far too late, because they did not do this when they were in office—that something has to give in Israel.

Let us return to the initial point of this debate. If we give this motion our blessing, there is not a single thing that will harm Israel, but it will send a powerful message which is crying out to be heard for the people of Palestine, whether they are in the refugee camps—where four generations have now lived—or in Gaza, the west bank, Lebanon, or wherever. The people of Palestine have waited 65 years to get the justice they deserved. We did not listen then: when we could have given a two-state solution in ’48, we chose not to do it. People made that biggest mistake.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am sorry to correct the hon. Gentleman on a historical point, but my understanding is that the UN did vote for a two-state solution and five Arab armies then invaded Israeli territory, so it is not quite as he suggests, I think.

[Mr Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman will recollect that those five Arab states were seeking more of a reassurance that their borders would also be safeguarded, so it was a two-edged sword, I am afraid. We therefore have to be very careful when we talk about that situation.

I want to end by saying, please—for goodness’ sake—let us all send out a positive message to the people of Palestine and give them the hope and the light at the end of the tunnel that they deserve to see coming their way.

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I have taken careful note of my hon. Friend’s interest in participating and will ensure that the participation of members of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly is properly considered. I will make sure that I consider it myself.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

The real problem with the backlog is that reforms to the Court cannot restructure the backlog or effectively fillet out any of the cases that might prove to be inadmissible. One of the prime objectives of our chairmanship must be to find a unified view that would facilitate that filleting process, and thus allow the backlog to be handled properly.

[Mr Lidington]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend.

The second reason also explains why the backlog has been allowed to develop. The Court has at times been too ready to substitute its own judgment for that of national courts and Parliaments. The European Court of Human Rights was never intended by its founders to be an additional tier of appeal for routine domestic judgments. No court could ever hope to offer redress on all matters to 800 million people. National courts are best placed to understand national problems and traditions of human rights. Enforcing rights in situations where the drafters of the convention never intended them to be is the wrong direction of travel for the Court, and that situation is getting worse and is undermining the Court’s authority and efficiency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I am a great supporter of gender equality, but the selection process needs to be improved.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

For those of us who have had the privilege of being in the Council of Europe for any length of time, it is clear that it is not the process of selection by the Council of Europe that affects the calibre of judges but the pathetic selection process that goes on in member states after people have put their names forward. On most occasions, that leaves the Council of Europe having to pick the least worst of a bad bunch.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am sure that the Europe Minister has noted the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Any reform of the Court must begin by addressing the crippling backlog of cases before it; I understand that there are 150,000 cases and that number is increasing at a rate of 20,000 a year. I hope that at the end of the six months in which our Government have the chairmanship, the Opposition will be in a position to give them credit for pushing forward with these reforms. Indeed, the test of success for the Government is not only what they do in the six months when they are in charge, but whether they are able to inspire successive chairmanships of the Court and the Council to take on and continue their reforms.

Until now, I have been fairly consensual, but I am about to embark on a section of my speech that is perhaps not so consensual.

Africa and the Middle East

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We have other plans to get further assistance into Misrata, although of course, I cannot be specific about them in advance—we do not want to give notice of our plans to the Gaddafi regime. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a good deal of our military effort has been designed to protect the people of Misrata. Many of the strikes against battle tanks and mobile artillery units of the Libyan armed forces have been made in the vicinity of Misrata. That is difficult because some of those forces are in built-up areas, and our concern to avoid civilian casualties overrides our desire to attack individual units in such areas. However, a great deal of the NATO effort is now going into trying to relieve the pressure on the most unfortunate citizens of Misrata.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

While I can accept that Musa Kusa’s circumstances have changed, the one thing that has not changed is his antecedence—he gave weapons to the IRA and was alleged to be involved in the Lockerbie plot. If we do not have enough evidence to detain him and bring charges against him, what on earth have our intelligence services been doing for the last 20 years?

[Mr Hague]

As I have said, any action must be based on evidence. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that things have been alleged, but the evidence must be presented. The authorities can proceed only on the basis of such evidence.

Foreign Affairs and Defence

Mike Hancock Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ann Clwyd]

I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. Obviously, I have been involved with the Kurds for longer than I have been involved with the rest of Iraq, because it was possible to travel to Kurdistan in 2001, and as far back as 1998, when it was not possible to go to the rest of the Iraq. The Kurds are now semi-autonomous within Iraq, and have elections and an active Kurdish regional government. Everybody who compares Kurdistan now with how it was will realise that the Kurds have made enormous economic, political and democratic progress.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

I am interested in the right hon. Lady’s comments on the Kurds. If everything is so good now in Kurdistan, why do so many of the Kurds who have settled in Britain totally refuse even to consider going back?

[Ann Clwyd]

Some of them believe that they are still open to persecution. Obviously, there is an ongoing dialogue between Departments and some of those who represent the Kurds in this country. Representatives of the Kurdish regional government and two of the Kurdish political parties recently had talks with the Foreign Office on that, but there is an ongoing dialogue. If the hon. Gentleman would like to meet some of the Kurds, I would be happy to arrange it. I think they will answer his question.

Not everything is perfect in Iraq; I should not like to pretend that for one moment. During my last visit to Baghdad, which was at the end of 2009, I continued to press the Iraqi Government on their human rights commitments and to provide support to the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights. I hope that the Foreign Office will continue to press those points, because after 35 years of persecution it takes a long time for people to realise aspects of human rights that we take for granted. Again, that is ongoing, and I hope that the new Government will continue to press on such matters.

I am concerned about the rights of those who are detained in Iraq, their treatment while in detention and the speed at which prisoners are either released or face trial. I raised that with the Minister for Human Rights, the Prime Minister of the Kurdish region and the chief judge of the Iraqi central criminal court. Those discussions took place when I was last there. I also discussed trade union rights, because those are important in pushing forward secular ideas in Iraq, and scrutinised the new trade union legislation. Of course, I have also spoken on several occasions with religious and political leaders about the rights of women.

A close eye needs to be kept on freedom of expression and the media, because unfortunately, some journalists are persecuted and find it difficult to do the kind of work that they want to do, both in Iraq as a whole and within the Kurdish region.

I will continue to work through parliamentary institutions such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I commend the IPU to new Members. It is important in promoting constructive inter-parliamentary relations, particularly through bilateral discussions with our parliamentary counterparts from all over the world. In such discussions, we can raise and explore a number of sensitive issues. An important part of the IPU’s work is done in Geneva by its committee on the human rights of parliamentarians. On many occasions, the committee has been able to get fair trials for people through its pressure. In some cases, we have been able to get political leaders released.

As UK parliamentarians, we sometimes take things for granted. We can express our views on the Floor of the House, in the media and with our colleagues without the fear of persecution, harassment, torture or death. Tragically, that is not so for many of our colleagues. As parliamentarians, we therefore have a duty to stand up for those who do not enjoy the privileges that we enjoy.

Finally, we need to use every opportunity to raise the cases of those parliamentarians whose rights have been abused and whose mandates are not respected. Burmese parliamentarians, for example, who have never been able to take their seats in Parliament following their success in elections, have instead been killed, disappeared, imprisoned or hounded out of the country. The IPU committee on the human rights of parliamentarians has been lobbying on their behalf and meeting exiles to discuss their plight and that of their fellow countrymen.

Parliamentarians are often just the tip of the iceberg. If they are subject to abuse, it is more likely that the people whom they are supposed to represent suffer even more. By lobbying for those parliamentarians we are often able to address the plight of the wider community, such as opposition activists and journalists, human rights and anti-corruption campaigners, and poor, marginalised and oppressed ethnic communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to see you, Hugh Bayley, sitting in the Chair as Deputy Speaker? My only regret is that you will not be one of the candidates who will occupy it on a long-term basis; that is the House’s loss.

I point out to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who has just spoken, that there is one Liberal Democrat who knows exactly where he stands. I am totally opposed to the replacement of Trident and the continued holding of nuclear weapons by this country. There is no ambiguity there.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his speech and the Secretary of State for Defence on the interventions that he made; they were helpful. It is regrettable that there is not a single former Defence Minister on the Labour Benches at the moment. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who has left the Chamber, on his contribution as the current Chair of the Defence Committee. He has shown honesty in chairing the Committee and owning up to every mistake made by the Governments in whom he served when it came to defence. The first thing he did at the Defence Committee was to apologise for all the mistakes for which he was responsible—and even for some for which he was not responsible. However, we have heard no similar apologies or comments from the current batch of former Defence Ministers from the Labour party.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on two excellent maiden speeches; the House will look forward to further contributions of equal class and style from them both. The hon. Member for Beckenham raised a very important point that other Members have talked about—the critical role of how we treat our veterans and their families when those veterans return from conflict suffering sometimes grievous injuries. Many have suffered, and continue to suffer, long-term effects, particularly relating to mental health. It is interesting to note the serious concerns that are now being expressed about the long-term psychological wounds that many of our servicemen and women have suffered over the past few years and will, sadly, suffer well into the next phase of their lives.

Coming from Portsmouth—I am sure that I can also speak on behalf of the recently elected hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt)—it would be wrong of me not to say that we are very concerned about the future role of the Royal Navy, particularly the naval base in Portsmouth. It is not helpful when leaks from the Ministry of Defence suggest that, once again, the future of the naval base and its 17,000 jobs are very much on the front-line agenda. I was delighted to hear that in fact no such proposition has been on Ministers’ desks, and I hope that it will not be. Such leaks and comments are not helpful when people’s livelihoods are put at risk time and again. They sap not only the loyalty of the staff and service personnel who work on the naval base but the long-term potential to protect those critical jobs. Long may the carriers be part of the defence of this country, long may they be based in Portsmouth, and long may there be no big question mark hanging over the future of the naval base.

One ship that currently resides in Portsmouth dockyard is HMS Endurance, which has not been to sea since it was returned on the back of another ship after its unfortunate flooding in South America last year. A decision on the future role of HMS Endurance is long overdue, and I hope that one of the first things that the Defence Secretary does is to come clean and make a proper statement to this House about that. Is it going to be refitted, scrapped, or replaced by a bought-in trawler, as has happened in the past, or is there no longer any need for us to have a ship of that nature going regularly to the Antarctic? One thing is for sure: we need answers to those questions.

On Afghanistan and Pakistan, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) talked about the possibility of our taking responsibility for Kandahar. I sat on the Defence Committee when we were told by the then Secretary of State for Defence, John Reid, that all the intelligence that he had received just prior to going into Helmand led him to believe that hardly a shot would be fired, and he certainly did not envisage any casualties. How wrong those words were, but how wrong it was that the intelligence services had got it so wrong about Helmand province. The former Minister who spoke earlier rightly stressed that we should not take on another commitment in Afghanistan unless we are absolutely sure that the intelligence we are getting about Kandahar will materialise and that we will get the support of others in the fight against insurgency and the remnants of the Taliban there. If Helmand was difficult, Kandahar would be twice as difficult because of its historical links and the strong power base that the Taliban and al-Qaeda had there in the past. I urge a lot of caution on that proposal.

On the role of the Royal Navy and other navies off the coast of Africa, the big problem is the rules of engagement that naval captains in the Royal Navy, the American navy and others have as regards what they can and cannot do about stopping ships, boarding ships or even sinking ships that might be engaged in piracy. One of the big drawbacks that allows the problem to continue is the failure to get common agreement on rules of engagement that would allow naval captains in the area to act on their own initiative in difficult circumstances and be sure that they would be supported after the event. I urge the Secretary of State to consider carefully the rules of engagement that are given to our naval personnel engaged in that work.

I wish to raise the issue of the scrutiny of defence and security as a European concept. Under the Lisbon treaty, many matters will cease to be the responsibility of the old Western European Union, which will cease to exist. There will be no national Parliament monitoring of European defence and security, and I suspect that many in the Chamber would not welcome the European Parliament taking on that role.

[Mr Cash]

It is quite possible.

[Mr Hancock]

It is, and the European Parliament would grasp the opportunity willingly, but we have to have a proper way of ensuring that there is national parliamentary scrutiny of what is happening in Europe when it comes to defence and security. If we do not, we will be badly letting down the people of this country and our armed forces. I do not want more powers to go to Europe, and I certainly do not want defence and security powers to be scrutinised by the European Parliament with this Parliament having little or no say on them.

I wish also to make a point about EU integration and further countries entering the EU. I was disappointed that there was not a clearer approach in the past, particularly about Turkey, and I hope that in the coming weeks and months we will have a clear indication from the coalition Administration of what their policy is towards Turkey and greater expansion of the EU. I would very much welcome Turkey being in the EU, as well as Croatia and possibly one or two other countries, but the Government must sign up to a plan for how that can be done.

I echo the sentiments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) about the Chinook crash. One of the biggest disgraces during my second spell in Parliament was that in 1997, the Defence Committee refused to carry out an inquiry because of the lead that it was given by one of its advisers, a retired air chief marshal who took the Air Force line that the pilots had to be to blame. We refused to carry out an investigation, but our colleagues in another place grasped the initiative and carried out an inquiry. The results were different from what the RAF came up with. The two young men who flew the helicopter that day deserve to have their reputations returned to them, and that can be done only if there is a proper independent inquiry and all the facts and information relating to the crash are put on the table. Without that, it is a disgrace to the RAF, the Ministry of Defence and this Parliament that those two young men’s lives and careers were besmirched by the findings of the RAF board of inquiry, which in my opinion did not give the whole truth of what happened on that day.