North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will give way twice more, as I said, and then I will conclude my speech.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. As the hon. Lady knows, we have a long-standing position on this. We look to Israel to permit the further opening of Gaza so that all Palestinian people can see a pathway to a better future, living side by side with a secure Israel. It is vital that Israel takes that action. We also call on Israel to reverse its decision to withhold tax revenues from the Palestinian Authority. In addition, we have condemned, and I think the whole House is united in condemning, settlement activity that is wrong, illegal and deeply counter-productive. We are very clear about that.

[Nick Boles]

I apologise in advance if I am becoming somewhat repetitive on this subject, but did the Foreign Secretary see the piece in The Times by Tzipi Livni shortly after his last statement? I believe that most people in this House, of all points of view, would consider her to be a proper partner for peace. She made the point, which I have tried to make, that until we deal with the threat posed by Iran and specifically by the Iranian regime, the chance of much progress in any kind of peace process between Israel and Palestine is very slim.

[Mr Hague]

Apologising for being repetitive is a novel approach in this House which no one has ever adopted before. My hon. Friend need not apologise, because this is an important consideration. I would state the point the other way around. I had a very good discussion with Mrs Livni when she was here in October and we agreed on many points. I think that the multiplicity of threats to Israel and its growing international isolation underline the need for progress on a two-state solution and for it to make a more decisive offer to the Palestinians if negotiations take place. I see it that way around, as I think would most in the House.

In summary, our approach in the coming months will be to continue to expand our diplomatic activity in the middle east, north Africa, the Sahel and the horn of Africa; to show leadership in addressing pervasive challenges, such as the crisis in Somalia and terrorism in the Maghreb; to provide tangible support to the democratic transitions in countries from Tunisia to Yemen; to stand by the people of Syria; to meet the challenge of Iranian proliferation; and to support a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In all those areas, British policy benefits from a great deal of international support, from strong international alliances and from strong bipartisan support in this House for our objectives, which this Government will always seek to strengthen.

Middle East and North Africa

Nick Boles Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady’s point is related to the one I am making, which is that we should not encourage the idea that at this moment there is a substitute for negotiations that will bring about a Palestinian state, because realistically there is not. That is why we have taken this position. I think the Palestinians should be ready to re-enter negotiations without setting additional preconditions, but I also think that Israel has to enter negotiations with a readiness to make a much more decisive and—if I may describe it like this—generous offer to the Palestinians than it has been prepared to make for many years. Both things are necessary to bring about a successful negotiation.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the UN process is a distraction from the biggest obstacle to what we all want to see, which is an independent Palestine living alongside a secure state of Israel? That biggest obstacle is the unchecked nuclear ambition of Iran. It is simply inconceivable that the Israeli people will accept another state becoming a base for Iranian proxies in the way that south Lebanon and Syria have been until we sort out the problem of Iran.

[Mr Hague]

It is certainly true that the behaviour of Iran makes peace in the middle east a much more difficult goal to attain. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. However, I would say—and I do say—to Israeli leaders that the conduct of Iran makes it all the more important for them to settle their differences with the Palestinians and seek to arrive at a two-state solution. That is a very important aspect of the argument as well.

National Referendum on the European Union

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

I have listened with great attention to all of the speeches for the past five hours, with the occasional break to take in and then expel a little liquid. I can tell the House that the passion and the idealism, and even the personal courage, has all been on one side of the debate—the side of those who support the motion.

I agree with much that those hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House believe and want. I agree with them that Governments of all stripes have given too much power to the EU; that we need to renegotiate the terms of our membership, so that it focuses more on economic matters of trade and co-operation, and less on other issues that Europe was not set up to deal with; and that the British people should have the final say.

However, I will not vote with them tonight for the following reason. Although they have the passion, the idealism and the personal courage, I am afraid that they lack good sense. There will be only one time in the foreseeable future when we can hold a referendum on our membership of the EU—it has been 40 years since the last one, and we are likely to get only one shot in the next 40—and we must use it well. We must hold that referendum when it is most likely to assist us in getting the deal from Europe that we want.

[Andrew Percy]

I can predict exactly what will happen. If we propose a referendum at a time of economic growth, everyone will say, “Now is not the time to have a referendum, because everything is going so swimmingly.”

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend, but that was not my point. My point on timing is simply this: we need the promise—or, indeed, the threat—of that referendum to persuade our European partners to give us some of what we want in that negotiation.

[Richard Drax]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way again yet.

If an imminent referendum hangs over that negotiation, the Prime Minister has a hand to play. He can say, “If you don’t give me the concessions I need, and if you don’t meet the demands of the British people, I will not be able to win that referendum, and you will lose one of the biggest members of the EU for ever.” However, if we have the referendum now, we will entirely waste the whole exercise. If we have a referendum in the next three years, before we have completed that renegotiation, and on a muddled question with three options, we will entirely forfeit our best negotiating tool.

[Mark Pritchard]

I commend my hon. Friend for his consistency, and although I do not agree with him, I respect him for his convictions. Will he tell the House what timetable he envisages for a referendum? Would it be in this Parliament or the next one?

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, not least because he brings me to the conclusion that I probably would otherwise have forgotten. He asks exactly the right question, but I do not have news that will cheer up Conservative Members.

The first step before we start that renegotiation is, I am afraid, achieving a majority Conservative Government. We cannot start a renegotiation of our entire membership of the EU when the Government speak with two voices. We need a unified position, and we do not have it now, which I regret. I fought like all Conservatives for a majority Government, but we did not get it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will not be giving way again.

The second step is to start a renegotiation, which will probably take two or three years. We can promise that referendum in about year four of the next Parliament, after the Conservatives have won a majority. We might then get the Europe we want.

If we do what those brave hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen want us to do, we will waste our chance and get no clear answer to that referendum question. We might find ourselves in an unreformed and unreformable EU for the rest of my lifetime. I am not willing to risk that, which is why I will vote against the motion.

Palestine and the United Nations

Nick Boles Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Lady accurately characterises the difficulties and nuances in this situation. It may not be all about a resolution; it may be about a resolution with a Quartet statement dealing with parameters. All that is up for discussion. She is acutely aware of the subsidiary issues that would go alongside any resolution and which are being much discussed at present.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

I commend the calm and balanced approach set out by my hon. Friend—so unlike the wild and irresponsible statements by others on both sides of this House, whose long years have clearly not brought them wisdom. What matters—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw.”] No, I will not withdraw it; I believe it and I am happy to restate it for anyone who cares to hear it again. What matters in this situation is actual changes on the ground, in the feelings, thoughts and fears of Israeli people and Palestinian people. What does not matter is posturing in the House of Commons or the United Nations General Assembly by politicians trying to associate themselves with a cause and taking up a brave position, but not thinking about the people whose interests should be at the heart of it.

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—it is just my luck to have the axe fall as I rise.

[Mr Winnick]

It was nothing personal.

[Nick Boles]

I am not so sure about that. Nevertheless, it is fortuitous that I find myself following the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), whose speech I listened to with great interest, because I hope to shed some other light on the situation. I should start by declaring two interests. First, I do some work with the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre. Secondly, and perhaps more important, I very recently tied the knot with my Israeli partner.

I am afraid that it is with sadness, but not surprise, that I find myself speaking a day after another depressing turn in the wheel of futility and violence that characterises the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. All Members of the House—from the hon. Member for Islington North, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) to all Government Members—want to help them break out of this morbid cycle, but we will do so, as the hon. Member for Islington North said, only if we understand the fears and motivations of all parties in the dispute and grasp the way they perceive their situation, not how we perceive it.

Other hon. Members are more qualified than I am to shed light on the Palestinian point of view—the hon. Gentleman has done so, as I hope and trust will other hon. Members. I want to try to contribute a little understanding of the Israeli point of view. I will start by asking the House a question. Why is it that young Israeli men and women, such as my partner, are willing to do three years’ military service at a time when young men and women in Britain are working, studying, travelling and having fun? They are not compelled to do so, as they can choose a civilian form of service. It is not possible to say that Israel is some latter-day militaristic Prussia. Anyone who has been to Israel will have to testify to the fact that Israelis are a remarkably individualistic, even hedonistic, bunch of people. It is not even possible to say that somehow they are all brainwashed into thinking that this is something they must do. Israeli politics is one of the most disputatious and argumentative politics one can find, and there are many groups in Israeli politics preaching peace and arguing for a change in the pattern.

So why are they doing it? The reason is simple. There is nothing more important for my partner and people of his age, and for his parents and grandparents, than the security of the state of Israel because it is the first place in 2,000 years that Jews have been able to call home. The key to understanding Israel’s actions is this: what will it mean for their perceptions of their long-term security? In this place, such an obsession with security may seem overblown, but we are an island, we have water all around us, we have been here for thousands of years, and I remember that about 70 years ago we seemed to take threats to that security pretty seriously indeed.

[Mr Winnick]

The hon. Gentleman, although I disagree with him, is making the most interesting speech. I now understand the personal factor involved, but there is no criticism in what I have just said. Is not the best security for Israel—I have already indicated my support for Israel as a state, pre-1967 borders—to find and be willing to reach an accommodation with the Palestinian people, who are not going to go away?

[Nick Boles]

I am very grateful for that intervention, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman and share his analysis. The vast majority of Israeli people also think that a two-state solution is the long-term source of their security, but they will grasp it only if there are guarantees that that state will not threaten the long-term security of Israel.

It is not unreasonable to ask for that when only five years ago Israel withdrew from Gaza and Gaza immediately fell into the hands of an organisation that is directly sponsored by Iran and wants to wipe Israel from the map. It is not unreasonable when Lebanon’s Government have been brought down and the new Prime Minister has been put in place by an organisation whose leader only yesterday said that we need to drive Israel into the sea, and that no treaties, no borders, no agreements will stop that happening. It is not unreasonable for the Israeli people to have that expectation. I wish that they might be willing to make more of a risk, but my wishes, and our wishes, carry no weight.

We must provide guarantees of security, which means, first, that the Palestinian state cannot have a military force, because if it does there will be no agreement, ever, not in our lifetime, our children’s or our grandchildren’s; secondly, that the neighbours of Israel will have to agree to recognise the existence and legitimacy of the state of Israel; and thirdly, that we in Europe and America will have to provide the kind of security guarantees that we have provided each other over the past 60 years.

That, in my honest judgment, is the only way in which we will bring the Israeli people to a table where we will be asking them to make an enormous compromise for their security. It is a compromise that, I agree, is necessary and vital to the interests of the Palestinian people and the interests of justice, but if we want to achieve a result we have to recognise what it will take, and deal with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

When the tragedy of 11 September occurred, I was working for the United Nations mission in Kosovo. I was in the region of Mitrovica, which is divided by a bridge. Across the bridge, I could see Serbian Orthodox Christians burning American flags in jubilation at the events unfolding in America. On 2 May, I saw similar signs of jubilation in America after the death of Osama bin Laden. It is important not to confuse the desire for retribution with the desire to defeat an enemy. Because terrorism partakes of both crime and war, it is perfectly natural, and perhaps legitimate, to have both these attitudes towards Osama bin Laden—to think that we had to disable him, and to think that he deserved to die. However, Milosevic, who killed 100,000 Bosnians, was tried at The Hague.

His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams, has said:

“I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances”.

It is deeply troubling if we are moving to a global assassination policy for our enemies. Surely, the norm must be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest and trial. Such a trial would have had the benefit of laying out before the world the evil of terrorism. It would have peeled away the mystique of bin Laden and shown al-Qaeda to be banal and ridiculous.

In recent weeks, a blizzard of questions and fingers have been pointed at the legitimacy of Pakistan as an ally. I was disappointed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who seemed to suggest that more questions should be asked of Pakistan, although I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary mentioned Pakistan’s commitment to the international coalition against terrorism since 9/11. Pakistan has become the victim of an almost daily onslaught of suicide bombings in the very heart of its country. Just yesterday a suicide bomb killed 18 people. The US-led drone attacks continue to take civilian lives, resulting in a breeding ground for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Pakistan’s efforts since 2002 have cost it 30,000 civilian casualties, 5,000 security personnel casualties, and the devastation of property and infrastructure. Over the past nine years, its economy has borne the loss of more than $35 billion. The war on terror and the rehabilitation of internally displaced people has consumed a huge amount of the Government’s financial resources and halted economic growth. Unemployment is high, which is triggering other social problems and putting pressures on successive Governments.

The obligation to focus on security has contributed to a continuing failure to invest in key areas of public provision, such as education and health, and assisted the military and intelligence sectors in retaining power and influence in Pakistan’s political system. There may be some rogue elements in Inter-Services Intelligence, but to tarnish the whole of the ISI, the army and the Government of Pakistan by suggesting that they are not trustworthy is an insult to the people of Pakistan, including the civilian population, who suffer on a daily basis from atrocities that those of us sitting in this country cannot even imagine.

Many have mentioned the aid given to Pakistan over the past 12 years, which amounts to about $10 billion. However, the USA has spent $146 billion on this war on terror. In terms of loss—and, indeed, the near-destruction of Pakistan—$10 billion is chickenfeed. It does not even start to compensate Pakistan for the breadth of destruction that it has suffered. Let us remember that until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan—then we had 11 September—Pakistan had no quarrels or squabbles with Afghanistan. It got involved in the war in Afghanistan only because historically it was a US ally. Therefore, it is completely wrong for everyone to start pointing the finger at Pakistan, a country that is suffering the most.

[Nick Boles]

I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech so much that I want to give her a bit of injury time. Will she please continue?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

I was also a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove talked about Pakistan’s supposedly imagined problems with India. At the end of the day, each nation state is interested in its own interests. However, when two countries have gone to war on two occasions, as Pakistan and India have, when India supported the breakaway of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh, and when every year it releases flood waters from dams, causing flooding in Pakistan, it is naive to say that Pakistan’s perceived security problem is an apparition. Rather, it is real. Indeed, Bishop Nazir-Ali, who is not normally pro-Pakistan, touched on Pakistan’s security in an article last week.

In all these wars that are taking place across the world, we lost the plot in the graveyard of empires, turning the hunt for the now largely irrelevant inventor of global jihad into a war against tens of thousands of Taliban insurgents who have little interest in al-Qaeda, but much enthusiasm for driving western armies out of their country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is no longer in the Chamber, referred to the ferengi, and that is exactly what is going on. The fact is that we are interfering in Afghanistan, while Pakistan, as an ally of the west, is having to pay the price for our war on terror.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Before going any further, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on what I thought was an important and brave speech. I am going to touch briefly on the Israel-Palestine question, on Afghanistan and then, of course, Libya.

On the Israel-Palestine question, I cannot add much to what many others have said, but let me say this. I have heard Conservative Members say that we do not understand the Israelis’ wish for security. I was a Member of this House at the end of the ’80s, when an IRA bombing campaign on the mainland was still happening and I remember Mrs Thatcher being blown up in the Grand hotel in Brighton. I also heard the Canary Wharf bomb going off from my kitchen in the east end of London, so do not tell those of us who lived through that era that we do not take security issues seriously.

The proposition was put forward that Israel wants all these triple locks, guarantees and so forth before it will move forward. What triple lock guarantees did John Hume of the Social Democratic and Labour party have before he opened the first tentative negotiations with the IRA back in the ’80s? What triple lock guarantees did Nelson Mandela have when he was in prison and first opened overtures to the apartheid regime? The truth is that in the most bloody, difficult and seemingly intractable situations that we have seen in my lifetime, people have had to be prepared to go forward without the triple lock guarantees about which some Members have spoken, but with a will to bring about peace. As long as Israel believes that it has the unconditional support of the United States and Britain, it will continue to shelter behind the notion of triple lock guarantees.

[Nick Boles]

I accept what the hon. Lady says, but does she accept that there was no question in the Irish situation of the people of this country being driven out of this country by those in the IRA who were fighting us? They wanted us to get out of what they perceived as their country; they were not trying to deny our right to be here. The fundamental situation faced by Israel is that some, though not all, of its neighbours believe that Israel should not exist and that all its people should be driven into the sea. That poses a security risk of a quite different quality.

European Union Bill

Nick Boles Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is right that in drafting legislation, particularly on a matter as important as democratic representation, we make provision even for unlikely eventualities. If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a few seconds, I shall come to precisely the point that she identified.

When the returning officer has sent copies of the documents to the Secretary of State, the candidate will be confirmed and will be free to take up their seat as soon as the transitional protocol has entered into force. That depends on ratification having taken place in every member state.

Here I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). Schedule 2 also provides that, in the event that none of the candidates on the relevant 2009 list was available or willing to be returned as an MEP, as a last resort a by-election would be held to fill the seat.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether these provisions are to apply only once, in one particular case at one particular time? Is it not the case that we know perfectly well who would be most likely to benefit from the provisions? Is it not also the case that we know that she is alive and wants to be a Member of the European Parliament? Would it not be quicker just to elect Anthea McIntyre as a Member of the European Parliament for the west midlands and move on to the next clause?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend, as always, reminds us of practicalities and of the real world. As I said to our hon. Friend the Member for St Albans, the legislation for democratic representation must make provision for all conceivable eventualities, even if they seem highly improbable to us.

European Union Bill

Nick Boles Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We will not give a commitment about specific dates for referendums that are not going to be held before 2015 at the earliest. There are advantages and disadvantages to holding referendums on the same days as other elections, and it is certainly considerably less expensive to the taxpayer if a referendum can be combined with a ballot for other purposes.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

In the United States, where much more use is made of local referendums in states such as California, do not such votes almost always take place on the same day as gubernatorial, mayoral or House of Representatives elections? What America understands, which we somehow fail to understand, is that people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between different questions and quite like being asked to go to the polls only once.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I suspect that a number of Members of all parties can recall occasions when both a general election and a local government election of some kind have been held on the same day in the same place. We have found that our electors have been perfectly capable of deciding to split the ticket if that is what they wish to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Although one can never guarantee against the utterly implausible happening, the scenario that my hon. Friend describes would require a commitment of political energy on the part of every EU member state, because the decisions subject to a referendum require unanimity among member state Governments. Furthermore, he assumes that the UK Government of the time would be prepared to accept and recommend to the people three different treaty changes, or the implementation of three different passerelle clauses, or some combination of those on a single occasion. That is unlikely in the extreme.

A more plausible scenario—although I do not think, from talking to my colleagues on the Council of Ministers, that people have any appetite for this at the moment—if European countries wanted an ambitious treaty change covering a number of different competences, would be to seek treaty amendment through the ordinary revision procedure. That is the instrument available to the EU for an ambitious, wide-ranging treaty change along the pattern of Lisbon, Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht. In those circumstances, the total proposal for a treaty amendment—regardless of which city it was named after—would be the subject of a single referendum question. It is most unlikely, therefore, that there would be a multiplicity of narrowly focused referendum questions, given the availability of that instrument.

[Nick Boles]

On a related point, it is dangerous ever to underestimate the deviousness of those who wish to build the grand European project—of course, they are entirely honourable in this, because they believe that their aims are honourable. However, would it not be conceivable that a Government—a future Labour Government, probably—who wanted, for example to set up a set of common European defence forces to replace our national defence forces, might agree a treaty in which they also agreed to repeal the common fisheries policy, which Conservative Members would strongly support? Would we then have a single vote on a single treaty that combined some elements that this country would strongly support and other elements that it would find very difficult? Or would the Government still be able to separate the different elements of the treaty and ask separate questions?

[Mr Lidington]

No, in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes, in which an omnibus treaty amendment is delivered under the ordinary revision procedure, there would be a single question. It would be ridiculous for the Government to present that to the people as a number of different questions, because the Government, on behalf of the United Kingdom, would have to ratify the entire package en bloc, or refuse to ratify it en bloc. The negotiation would have resulted in a compromise among member states on something to which they all felt able to give their assent, and they would all have to be accountable to their respective electorates for that overall decision.

European Union Bill

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We must take all those things into account when we make our decisions, but we make those decisions and stand by them, which I like to think I have done. I have regretted one or two things, but the hon. Gentleman is right. In defence of two-party Government—or our party system—I do not believe that we are elected as individual anarchists. We are here to represent a philosophy and interests in society. I am not by nature an anarchist; I am a collective democrat. That is where I stand.

The most important aspect of amendment 11, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Hertsmere, is that it would have an impact on the EU, which the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) mentioned. If the EU wants to push something through that it suspects will be unpopular in this Parliament, it might not proceed if the provision in the amendment were in force, whereas if it thinks it must win over only the Minister, the Prime Minister or the Executive, it might think it will get away with it. If it knows that its proposals are likely to go to a referendum and that their significance will be voted on by the House, it will be a little more careful.

That impact on the EU is more significant than giving decisions to ourselves because we like to make decisions. The EU will be much more careful about its proposals if it thinks that they might be subject to a referendum in Britain, because it knows very well that the justifiably strong degree of Euroscepticism will come to the fore, that there could be a problem, and that it might not win. If the EU thinks that there is a chance of not winning a referendum, it will not risk it. A referendum is much more likely to be risked if a decision is made in this House rather than by the Minister. That is the way of things.

Finally, I want to draw a parallel. I mentioned the excessive centralisation of power in British politics, particularly in No. 10 Downing street, the Prime Minister and his little entourage, but the other thing that is wrong is secrecy. I was a strong supporter of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. When it was going through Parliament, the Government proposed an amendment to the effect that we could have freedom of information except when the Minister says no. My good friend Tony Wright, the former Member for Cannock Chase and Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration, led a rebellion. We did not win, but we made our point. He was very much a politician of the moderate left who would go along, by and large, with the leadership—he was not as critical as I was. He was an architect of that Act, and quite strongly in favour of it, but he was quite shocked when that qualification was proposed. Ministers are fine people who do a great job, but in the end, this House must make serious decisions about things, not just Ministers. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere presses amendment 11 to a Division, and I certainly wish to vote for it.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

I should like to share with hon. Members why I think the Bill is the most significant thing that the Government will do in this Parliament. The House knows that I am a strong, enthusiastic supporter of the Government. I cheerfully look forward to voting for the Localism Bill, the education Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill, and many others that we will debate in next few years, but I do not exaggerate it when I say that this is most significant thing that we will do, because it is the “Thus far and no further” Bill.

Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said that this Bill will start a debate on Europe in the country, but they are wrong. The country has had its debate on Europe. It made up its mind a very long time ago, and said, “Thus far and no further.” Unfortunately, Parliament and previous Governments did not listen to the country and did not understand that that is the country’s decision. They continued to try to evade the will of the people by ratifying treaties of which the people wanted nothing.

The Bill is the Bill that says, “We have finally listened. We finally understand, and we will not put through any treaty, or any change or shift in sovereignty and power, that you, the people, do not want.” That is why I believe —only somewhat mischievously—that the Bill should be viewed as a tribute to the indefatigable efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who sadly is no longer in his place. Although he and I disagree on many things—I will go on to say why I disagree with his amendments—it is clear that his achievement in the Bill is greater than the achievement of almost any Back Bencher I can remember, and probably greater than almost any Minister any of us can remember. For nearly 30 years, he has led the campaign to say, “Thus far and no further!” Tonight and on future nights when we debate the Bill, he will get his way, and he will have given to the British people what they want and what he has always wanted to give them—the right to say, “Thus far and no further!” Were he not quite so hale and hearty and not quite so obviously going to survive and outlive me—he will still be here long after I leave this place—I would even go so far as to suggest that the Bill be called the William Cash memorial Bill.

Having made that case, I want to say why I believe that the Opposition amendments are damaging in so many ways. Their amendment 85 is a poison pill—a poison pill coated in the sweet chocolate of parliamentary sovereignty and power, but a poison pill nevertheless. By moving the amendment, they are trying to seduce the great defenders of parliamentary sovereignty on the Government Benches into creating the possibility for them in the future to undo and reverse the effects of the Bill. They know that if they refer a decision to this committee of theirs, there is a chance—they cannot absolutely be certain who will be on it or how it will vote—that they can control it, whereas they know for a fact that there is no chance of controlling the British people. That is why their amendment is pernicious and insidious. That shows the view the Labour party has of the views of the British people on this great issue. It is that approach that informed its entirely insincere promise of a referendum on the European constitution—happily just before an election—and the attitude that led it to scuttle around, to persuade its European partners to take out a couple of things, to rename it a “treaty” and then to declare that there would be no referendum after all.

Government Members, as well as Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is so brave and forthright on this issue, should not be fooled by the amendment. I know that we are not allowed to call amendments “wrecking” amendments, but this amendment surely is designed to undermine the entire purpose of the Bill.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is exactly this sort of parliamentary fancy footwork that has undermined the public’s trust in this place to deal with European matters?

[Nick Boles]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Indeed, one of the most important things about the Bill—this has been eloquently addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and others—is that it is an important step in rebuilding the trust of the people in Parliament to do, broadly speaking, what the people want, especially on great questions of independence and the constitution. It is vital that we do this. That is why it is so important that the Bill sets out in such painstaking detail exactly which changes will lead to a referendum. Frankly, we cannot ask people to trust us on this anymore. We, as a class—not just a party—cannot ask people to take our word for it when we say that there will be a referendum on anything. If they are to believe us, we need to put it into law, take it through both Houses of Parliament and make it very difficult to go back on.

UK Policy on the Middle East

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I, too, welcome you to the Chair? You look very fine in it.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his post, which I know he will undertake as well as he has undertaken every other post in which I have worked with him in the past. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), on his excellent maiden speech. The whole House knows that the finest things come in small packages.

In this first debate of the new Parliament on the middle east, and the first debate in which I have had a chance to take part, I did not want to get lost in the thicket of the detail of the current negotiation and the rights and wrongs of every issue. I wanted to take a little time to step back and tell the House why, ultimately, I count myself a friend of Israel, first and foremost, in the middle east. That is because I think of some fundamental truths.

In my maiden speech last week, I talked of the achievements of the Labour Government in establishing full equality for all people in the United Kingdom. Let us look at the middle east and ask ourselves, where in the middle east is it best to be a woman, or where in the middle east is it best to be gay? In Egypt, personal status laws discriminate harshly against women on marriage, custody of children and inheritance. In Jordan, a country which I consider to be a positive force and one where the current ruler is trying to take it forward, more than 20 women per annum, according to Amnesty International, are killed for breaking social taboos. Israel had a female Prime Minister before any party in Britain had even thought of it, and it nearly had another one last year—I rather wish it had—in Tzipi Livni.

Think about a gay person in the middle east. In Syria, it is not so bad—three years in prison. In Iran, a gay person would get the death penalty. In Israel, a gay person can rise to be a general in the armed forces, and just last Friday 100,000 people marched in Tel Aviv to celebrate the equality of gay people in Israel.

So then I ask myself, where in the middle east is it best to criticise the Government in public? In Syria, it is simply not possible, because the state controls every single aspect of the media. Reporters Without Borders calls Iran,

“the Middle East’s biggest prison for journalists”,

but it ranks Israel higher than the United States as a place for press freedom—44th in the world and first in the middle east.

Finally, I ask myself, where is it best in the middle east to belong to a religious or ethnic minority? In Syria, Kurds and Jews are not allowed to take any part at all in political life. In Iran, one cannot even go to university without passing an exam on Islamic ideology, and one cannot get a senior post in any organisation unless one belongs to the majority Shi’a group. In Israel, Israeli Arabs have always had all rights—the same as Israeli Jews—except for one: they do not have to serve in the armed forces, because the state of Israel recognises that it would be unfair to set them against their Arab brothers. However, they can vote and be elected, and many have been. There is even an Arab-Israeli serving on the supreme court in Israel.

So let us be clear: for all its errors and excesses, which I and the whole House see, Israel is an oasis in a desert—an oasis of freedom, democracy and human rights in the middle east. We therefore have to ask ourselves, why does Israel do those things that shock, pain and worry us all? Why does it feel driven to inflict on the people of Gaza what we all recognise, whether in law or not, as seemingly like collective punishment? The answer is very simple: it is not just faced but encircled by an enemy that wishes to destroy it.

So before the House pulls on its breeches and starts saddling up the high horse, let us remind ourselves of how we—this place, this ancient democracy, this ancient birthplace of freedom—reacted when we faced an existential threat. We interned or deported long-time residents of German and Italian origin and refugees from Nazi Germany—to our everlasting shame. However, we did it, and with the approval of this House. The Americans did the same with Japanese Americans and German Americans, so we should be very careful before we start lecturing a nation that was built by the survivors of a genocide, which took less than five years to kill more than the current population of Jews in Israel.

Rather than lecturing and sitting on that high horse, we should ask ourselves, what practical things can we do instead of the huffing, the puffing and the futile outrage? I, too, welcome the role of Tony Blair in the middle east and in Palestine at the moment, so, first, we should do everything that we can to support the Palestinian Authority in the west bank and, in particular, Prime Minister Fayyad, so that Palestinian people can see an alternative to Hamas which delivers security, jobs and a normal life. That is all that they want. Secondly, we must do everything we can to encourage Turkey to remain aligned with Europe and the west, and not to feel that we do not want it in the European Union or as part of the western alliance. Turkey is key to us and to Israel, and we must ensure that Turkey knows it.

Finally, we must confront Iran. I am very glad that the Government played such a pivotal role in achieving the sanctions that the UN agreed last week. The middle east is a terrible area of the world, with so many problems, but in ending I share the optimism that some Members have expressed. Yes, the situation seems full of despair, but let us look at the progress that has been made. There is a peace treaty with Egypt, and I should point out that Israel has never attacked a nation with which it has a full peace treaty. There is a peace treaty also with Jordan, and across the Israeli political system it is commonly accepted that a two-state solution with an independent state for Palestinians is the right solution. I feel that progress is being made, and further progress can be made if we quit the lectures and just get down to supporting our friends and helping them to come to an agreement.