UK-EU Renegotiation

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I argue that the red card proposal for national Parliaments is something new—it did not previously exist. Of course, it will take a lot of co-ordination between Parliaments, but where I think it is so much more powerful than the previous proposals, of yellow cards and what have you, is that it would be an absolute block. If we could get the right number of Parliaments together over an issue, the Council and the Commission would not go ahead with it. I think it goes alongside the subsidiarity test that takes place every year, getting Britain out of ever closer union, and reaffirming the sovereignty of Parliament as we have done and will do again. It is one more measure that demonstrates we believe in national Parliaments.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

There is a much broader case for continued UK membership of the EU beyond the four items in the Prime Minister’s negotiation based on jobs, our economic interest, our collective security and our place in the world. Does the Prime Minister accept that if we voted to leave the European Union but then found ourselves still having to accept all the rules of the single market, that would be to swap our position as a rule maker for that of being a rule taker? That is not control and that is not the right future for a great country such as the United Kingdom.

[The Prime Minister]

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman speaks very clearly and powerfully. Of course he is right. Much bigger arguments are going to take place over the coming months and I am not over-claiming about the four areas where we have made progress. I merely say that they relate to four of the things that most concern the British people about Europe and that we are some way down the road of fixing them. The point he makes about being a rule maker not a rule taker is absolutely vital. Britain is a major industrial economy with a huge car industry, a huge aerospace industry and a very important financial services industry. We need to make sure we are around the table making the rules, otherwise there is a danger that we are not just a rule taker but that the rules are made against us. That is what we need to avoid.

ISIL in Syria

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

There are two issues at the heart of this debate: the first is how we view the terrorist threat we face, and the second is the specific proposal before us tonight. I will take each in turn. There is a view that the Islamist terrorist threat we face is a product of what we have done or a reaction to it. According to this view, although the activities of terrorists are of course condemned, the real source of the problem is seen as the actions we have taken in the past, and the kind of action proposed in the motion. This was the view that saw the killings in Paris as “reaping the whirlwind” of the action that France, or perhaps the west more generally, has taken.

The danger of this view is that it infantilises terrorism and absolves it of full responsibility for its actions. That view, at heart, separates the world into adults and children, or perpetrators and victims, with the west as perpetrator and others as victims. But life is not that simple. The world is not, in foreign policy terms, split up into adults and children. The terrorists are adults, motivated by their own ideology, which justifies the killing of innocent people from France to Mali, Iraq and Syria. They are fully, not partially, responsible for what they do. No one forces anyone to sell women into sexual slavery. No one forces anyone to behead innocent aid workers. No one forces anyone to bomb the London underground or kill innocent Parisians at a pop concert.

The problem with this argument is that it not only misunderstands what we are up against, but implies that if we lie low they will leave us alone. They will not. If we disarm ourselves against the threat we face, we cannot confront or overcome it. This argument is also too timid in defending our own values. Our society is not perfect, but we strive for a society in which women and men are equal, and where we have freedom of association, freedom of religion, democracy and diversity, and those things are worth defending.

Let me turn to the specific proposition before us tonight. Too much of the debate in recent days has discussed it as though it is an entirely new military intervention, but it is not; it is an extension of the military intervention against ISIS in Iraq that we have been engaged in for 15 months, which has had some effect. Why is it right to take action against ISIS in Iraq but not in Syria?

Several things have happened since we took that decision. First, we have had more terrorism, on the beaches in Tunisia, in Paris, in Mali, on a Russian passenger jet and elsewhere. Secondly, we have had a United Nations resolution calling on us to take all necessary measures to eradicate the safe haven that ISIS/Daesh has across both Iraq and Syria. That call from the international community, backed up by calls from a socialist Government in France, from Jordan and from other allies, should mean something to us.

As I said to the Prime Minister the other day, if we take this action we extend not only our involvement, but our responsibility. If we do this, he has a personal responsibility, and the Government as a whole have a responsibility, not just to take military action as a response to Paris and then move on; it is a big moral responsibility to use every means that we have, diplomatically with our soft power, and politically through the Vienna process, to get people around the table, including many who see one another as enemies or opponents, to try to carve out a better future for Syria. The use of hard power and soft power go hand in hand.

Similarly, if we are concerned about the flight of refugees, and the human desperation implied in that flight, then we have a duty to do something about its causes. That means both tackling Daesh/ISIS and trying to shape a better future for Syria—a future where people can live in that country rather than seeing it as place from which to flee.

Syria

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Iran plays a large role in Syria. We have many differences with Iran’s policies and approach. As the first British Prime Minister to meet an Iranian President for 35 years, I have always been clear about what those differences are. I think across the House we can agree on the importance of Iran taking part in this political process. It is crucial that it is around the table for the Vienna process. We need the regional players to buy into the future of Syria.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is, of course, critical we learn the lessons from the past, but it is also critical we escape the trap that sees ISIL and their affiliates as always being a reaction to what we do. They are not children. They are adults who are fully and entirely responsible for what they do.

If we take the decision the Prime Minister is going to put before the House, it will not just extend our involvement, but extend our responsibility. What more can he say to convince the House and the country of his and his Government’s staying power on the diplomatic and political front, particularly at a time when big questions are being asked about Britain’s role in the world and how we see our place in the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I have said before that I think the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great clarity about this issue: about ISIL, the threat it poses and its own responsibility for its actions, rather than believing it is somehow a reaction to what we do. On what Britain can bring in terms of statecraft and resources, he will have seen the decision we have taken about our Foreign and Commonwealth Office and aid budgets. I think we have the ability to bring countries together, to play a big role in what is needed diplomatically, and to have a large wallet at the end of the process not just to look after refugees, vital though that is, but to help to rebuild the country once the war is over.

National Security and Defence

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend, with his considerable experience, is absolutely right to say this. We can talk about all the equipment in the world, but at the heart of it are men and women who are prepared to serve and put their lives on the line for us, and they should be looked after. I think when he looks through this SDSR, he will see we are committed to doing that. Indeed, what we have done with the military covenant—putting it on a legal footing, passing it into law, improving its terms every year—means there will be help for people for the rest of their lives.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is obviously right that our armed forces have both the equipment and personnel needed to protect our country and our people, but hard power and soft power go together, so may I press the Prime Minister further on the decision he is shortly to bring before the House about military action in Syria? Will he ensure that this is not just a decision for the House to say yes or no to the use of hard power—although, of course, it will be that—but that it is also a decision to use every diplomatic means we have, not to negotiate with ISIS but to forge a sustainable future for Syria thereafter?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely want to give that assurance. There is obviously the diplomatic work that is being done through the Vienna process to bring about a transition and political change in Syria. There is also the humanitarian side—Britain is the second largest aid donor in the world on a bilateral basis—to help Syrian refugees, and we will continue with that work. I very much see all these things as part of an overall strategy. There is not simply a plan to extend military action; there is a plan to step up in all of these areas.

G20 and Paris Attacks

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We keep talking with Security Council partners about potential resolutions that we could put forward on any number of issues to do with this overall problem of ISIL, Iraq and Syria. However, something to back the sort of military action we have spoken about in this House has not been possible up to now, because of the potential Russian veto. It is important for us to understand that it is possible to act within, and with the full backing of, international law without a Security Council resolution. Obviously, it is better in many ways to have a Security Council resolution as well, but we cannot outsource our national security to a Russian veto or, indeed, a veto by anybody else.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

May I ask the Prime Minister to reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the west do? Does he agree that such an approach risks infantilising the terrorists and treating them like children, when the truth is that they are adults who are entirely responsible for what they do? No one forces them to kill innocent people in Paris or Beirut. Unless we are clear about that, we will fail even to understand the threat we face, let alone confront it and ultimately overcome it.

[The Prime Minister]

It is that sort of moral and intellectual clarity that is necessary in dealing with terrorists. I know there is something deep in all of us that wants to try to find an excuse, an explanation or an understanding, but sometimes the answer is staring us in the face. With ISIL, that is absolutely the case.

European Council

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There is only one thing that would be better than that, and that would be if Mrs Bone were holding the pen. I think it is safe to say that I will keep hold of the pen myself.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Further to that question, may I ask the Prime Minister a bit more about this letter? Up until now, he has not wanted to write down his negotiating agenda precisely because he knows that he cannot satisfy many of those sitting behind him. Has not this enforced change of tactics been dragged out of him by European allies who are increasingly frustrated by the vagueness of his demands and increasingly irritated by the narrowness of his focus while they are trying to cope with the day-to-day reality of the eurozone crisis and the urgency of the refugee crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not recognise that picture at all. I want to set out our approach in a letter to the European Council, and Council President Donald Tusk is particularly keen to receive that letter because the Council wants to know that we are looking for change in the four areas we have raised and that that is the breadth of the negotiation. I think the right hon. Gentlemen, like some others, has been reading too many newspapers and reports that want to hype all this up into a great row with people being angry or dissatisfied. If there was a meeting like that, it was not the one I attended.

G20

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister mentioned the need for new anti-terror laws. Does he regret watering down the ones we had in the first place?

[The Prime Minister]

I think we have done the right thing in terms of listening to the security and intelligence services and listening to the independent reviewer of terrorism, who said he thinks the steps we have taken have been the right ones. Of course, we will announce the full range of measures we will be taking in the anti-terrorism Bill. The Bill will come before the House, I believe, before the end of the month.

Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The immediate decision before us in this debate is about military action, but behind that, this is about values. This is not a war against Islam. Islam is one of the great world religions, which is practised freely, without any harm to anyone, by millions of people in this country and around the world. This is not about Islam, but about co-existence.

Co-existence is absolutely fundamental to our society—the ability to elect Governments who are freely chosen by the people, equality of rights between men and women, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are fundamental—but ISIS rejects every tenet of it. That is why ISIS kills, with impunity, fellow Muslims, Christians and Yazidis; engages in sexual exploitation of, and the trade in, women; and cares nothing for anyone who does not sign up to its single truth. This is not about Islam, but about co-existence.

The shadow of past decisions—particularly the 2003 decision to invade Iraq—is a long one in debates such as this one. That is because there is a live debate about the degree to which we are responsible for creating or fomenting violent jihadism. It is important to be clear about that. I accept that past decisions have angered jihadists and perhaps encouraged some people to join them, but it is a fundamental mistake to think that we are responsible for violent jihadism. Let us not forget that the bombing of the World Trade Centre on 11 September took place two years before the invasion of Iraq. Syria, until recent days, has been a byword for non-intervention by the west; yet it is now the headquarters of the global jihad.

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

Is it not also the case that there was a plot against the World Trade Centre in the 1990s, that the bombing of USS Cole was in 1998 and that al-Qaeda carried out plots and activities of a similar kind well before the intervention in Iraq?

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth stressing that the United States Administration’s policy for the past five or six years has been absolutely to resist intervention, but we still have violent Islamic jihadism and ISIS.

[Mr MacNeil]

I just want to query the hon. Gentleman’s history. What is the connection between the twin towers attack and Iraq?

[Mr McFadden]

The point I am making is that violent Islamic jihadism was around long before the decision in 2003.

Beneath the argument that this is really our fault lies a new imperialism—an imperialist conceit that, in foreign policy terms, seeks to divide the world into adults and children. The United States, the United Kingdom and other countries are defined as adults, and movements elsewhere, including the jihadists, are defined almost as children who react only in response to what we do or do not do. That is not the case: they are responsible for their own actions and their own ideology.

No one has forced anyone to behead innocent journalists and aid workers on the internet. No one has forced anyone to go from this country to join a group that carries out such acts. No one has forced anyone to carry out the terrorist acts that we have seen on our own streets. We cannot say this loudly and clearly enough: those who carry out these actions and foment this ideology are adults who are responsible for their own actions.

That brings me to the motion, which sets out a plan for military action in Iraq. I will vote for it, but I have to ask, as other hon. Members have asked, why it is right to carry out such actions against ISIS in Iraq, but not in Syria. The Government have welcomed the action carried out by the United States and Arab countries in Syria in recent days. If it is welcome and right for others to do so, why is it not welcome and right for us? If the Government’s position is that it would be illegal or wrong to act in that way in Syria, why is it not illegal or wrong for the United States and the countries taking part in the action? Militarily, we must ask what the point is of chasing ISIS from Iraq through a barely existing border to Syria. Morally, we must ask why it is right to come to the aid of the victims of ISIS who live under a democracy in Iraq, but not those who live under a dictatorship in Syria.

Is not the motion a reflection of where the country stands right now—somewhat limited in its confidence, overburdened by past events, and looking too much in the rear-view mirror? I would say that “Out, damn’d spot” is no basis for taking crucial foreign policy decisions. Instead, we should learn from the past, ally our soft power with hard power, follow through on our decisions to intervene so that we achieve our objectives, and not just define the struggle as a generational one and begin military action, but actually will the means to complete the job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

It was in February 2003 that I went on the famous march in London, alongside—it is estimated—millions of people around the world. My now wife came on her first ever political protest. I was proud to be part of that movement, and I am proud now that so many in this House have acknowledged that my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches were right to have opposed war then.

However, this situation could not be more different. A democratic sovereign state has asked us for help to deal with one of the most unpleasant terrorist forces that we have ever seen. There is a clear legal case for action, and there is an overwhelming moral case not simply to sit and watch the appalling scenes on television. As a nation—I am pleased that many hon. Members have acknowledged this—we now accept that we have a responsibility precisely because of the mistake of going into Iraq in the first place.

[Mr McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman says that we have a moral obligation because Iraq is a democratic state. Can he tell the House why it is a democratic state?

[Greg Mulholland]

This is a very strange time to be seeking to make points about the mistaken invasion of Iraq. The right hon. Gentleman should instead accept some responsibility for his vote, which was so mistaken.

I am also pleased that the House is taking so seriously its most profound responsibility—to vote on whether to send our brave servicemen and women to war. I take that as seriously as anyone, having been up to nearly 20,000 feet with three very brave former and current servicemen who have served and been injured fighting for our country. I have seen at first hand the reality of what that means through the incredible work of the Royal British Legion Battle Back Centre. We are right to take this seriously.

It would be a further tragedy of the disaster of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 if we felt we were unable ever again to intervene as part of an international force, which is what is proposed. This is not simply following America’s coat tails; this is part of a genuine international coalition, and we must do this. We simply cannot turn a blind eye to genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the most appalling sorts of religious persecution we have seen since, frankly, the concentration camps. Then it was an attempt to wipe out the Jewish people and the Jewish faith, as well as Poles, Catholics, socialists and Gypsies. Now, Christians, Muslims, both Sunni and Shi’a, Yazidis and people of all faiths and none are being slaughtered, murdered and tortured. The BBC has reported that 3,000 women and children have been sold into the sex trade by people who claim to be doing so on behalf of religion. I understand that we all have anxieties, and we should have them, but I have heard nothing today from those who are voting no or telling us to vote no about the alternative. We cannot negotiate with an evil, maniacal force such as Islamic State, and we should not do so. We must stop that and then we will be assisting a further opportunity for the middle east to go forward again.

Like everyone else, I will be taking this vote seriously and voting with a heavy heart, but as an internationalist and a Liberal, and as someone who believes that this country should not turn its back on what is happening, I believe that this country must take a part in this international coalition, so I will be voting in support of the motion.

NATO Summit

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

A number of people raised their concerns about the referendum. The overwhelming view of people who wish our country well is to say that of course it is a decision for people in Scotland but they hope that we stay together. I would absolutely echo that. Two visions of Scotland’s future are being put forward. The vision I believe in, and I believe the majority of Scots believe in, is, yes, of a proud and strong Scotland with strong institutions and a powerful place in the world that is in part secured by its membership of the United Kingdom. The alternative vision of separation involves such uncertainty about all these organisations—not knowing whether they would have a place in the European Union, or indeed a place in NATO, or indeed what currency they would use. These are real problems of uncertainty. I believe that the patriotic choice for Scotland is a strong, proud Scotland but within the United Kingdom.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

May I echo the Prime Minister’s words about Jim Dobbin? I sat beside him at the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party that we had on Friday, and we both discussed the Scottish situation. His death has come as a great shock to us all.

President Obama will set out his strategy for dealing with ISIS on Wednesday. If, as seems likely, military action is part of that strategy and if the UK Government decide to join in that military action, even if that decision is restricted to action in the air and not forces on the ground, does the Prime Minister believe that that would require a vote in this House?

[The Prime Minister]

The short answer is yes, but we are not at that stage yet. As I said on Friday, we should be building this comprehensive strategy. We are already helping the Kurds, delivering arms to them. I said that we should step up to arming them directly and to training Kurdish peshmerga battalions, and increasing all the elements of the strategy. I have always believed, in this role and as leader of a Government, that you should consult the House of Commons as regularly as you can and the House of Commons should have an opportunity to vote. The point I always make, though, and this is not to run away from the right hon. Gentleman’s particular scenario in any way, is that it is important that a Prime Minister and a Government reserve the right to act swiftly without consulting the Commons in advance in some specific circumstances—for instance, if we had to prevent an immediate humanitarian catastrophe or, indeed, secure a really important, unique British interest. But other than that I believe it is right, as he said, to consult the House of Commons.

EU Council, Security and Middle East

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. Friend, for this reason: we have had to make difficult decisions in order to deal with the deficit, but no one can describe a £33 billion defence budget—one of the top five budgets anywhere in the world—as a small stick. Because we have taken difficult decisions, we have got a new aircraft carrier, with another to follow, the Type 45 destroyers, the Astute submarines, the best-equipped Army that I think we have had for many years and, of course, a whole new range of aircraft for the RAF. You can only have that size and sort of stick if you take the difficult decisions elsewhere in your budgets.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The decision to water down control orders was the wrong policy taken for the wrong reasons, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s at least partial U-turn today on the relocation element.

On the international dimension, it is right to learn the lessons from the past, but it is wrong to be imprisoned by the past, particularly by the decision on the Iraq war or last year’s decision on military intervention in Syria. In the light of what has happened in recent months, will the Prime Minister consider seeking a new mandate from Parliament which begins not by ruling options out or by looking over our shoulders, but by exercising leadership and confronting the threat we face here and now?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we of course need to learn the lessons of the past but must not be imprisoned by decisions that were taken in the past. I think the whole tone of the debate today is that, yes, it is for those in the region—principally the Iraqi Government and the Kurds and neighbours—to lead the charge against squeezing this appalling organisation ISIL, but Britain, America, France and others should use all the tools in our toolkit to help them to do that. We have to make a judgment about how we best help those on the ground, and to date that judgment has been to provide aid and political support and to help with certain military aspects. The Americans have gone further and provided air strikes. I think that is the right way to approach this problem.

On the issue of control orders, let me quote again what the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation said:

“There is no need to put the clock back. The majority of changes introduced by the TPIMs Act have civilised the control order system without making it less effective.”

We have to understand that control orders were permanently being run ragged in the courts. We needed a new system and now we can improve it.