Syria

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Did not this House on 29 August beneficially influence world opinion and reduce substantially the threat to the world from both chemical and nuclear weapons? Will the Foreign Secretary continue to resist the cries to give war a chance, and insist on the most likely path to peace which is through diplomacy, not through military intervention?

[Mr Hague]

I hope the hon. Gentleman heard the statement I gave a moment ago because I do not know how he could have got any impression that it was about anything other than diplomatic success and, through diplomacy, making sure the crisis is addressed as best we can. On the chemical weapons, I think we have had this disagreement before. There was a very important change of policy by Russia and by Damascus on chemical weapons in September, but I believe the origin of that was the fact that military action was being considered and debated in the United States, so sometimes diplomacy benefits from the soft power having some hard power behind it.

Iran

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. On a day of tributes—we must not have too many tributes because I think there are many troubles ahead—I pay tribute to work done by my right hon. Friend on these issues in the Foreign Office over the past three and half years. He is right about all those things. This wealth of detail, as he put it, must be implemented in detail. It will also be helpful in the debates that take place in this country and the world over the next few days for that wealth of detail to be examined in detail by everybody who comments on it, and I hope they will take the trouble to do that. The extent to which the agreement means a change in any of Iran’s other policies, such as that on Syria, remains to be determined. Of course, we also encourage Iran to play a more responsible role more broadly in world affairs.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The European Union, the Government and the United States are to be congratulated on this brave and bold step towards reducing tension in the middle east. Would it be right for the Government now to approach Israel and ask for a reciprocal gesture and for it to open its nuclear facilities to international inspection, in order to denuclearise the whole middle east?

[Mr Hague]

Politics is the art of the possible, as I think we all know in this House, and it has turned out that this agreement is possible. The hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me into something that it would probably not be possible for us to obtain.

Greenpeace Activists in the Russian Federation

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing the debate. He spoke very eloquently, as have other hon. Members, about the seizure of the boat, the charge of piracy and the issue of proportionality. I very much support those comments, and those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw).

I want to say a few words in support of Anthony Perrett from Newport, whom I share with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). He is one of the Greenpeace activists detained in Russia, and his family live in my constituency. May I say to the Minister that we are grateful for the very helpful and practical meeting with hon. Members the week before last, and the subsequent meeting with the families, although the Minister was not able to be at that one? The family have certainly requested a meeting with the Minister in person as soon as possible. Greenpeace’s constructive engagement in the case is also heartening, not least its steps to give daily updates to the families, including Anthony’s family and partner, about what is happening.

Anthony Perrett is a tree surgeon, a former member of Caldicot town council in my constituency and a volunteer for the Severn Area Rescue Association. He undoubtedly has strong and passionate views about the environment, and campaigns proactively. He would probably have been aware of what the consequences of his actions might be, but being charged with piracy is clearly excessive, given that the maximum sentence is 15 years. More than a month on, the Russian authorities have sent a loud and clear message to Greenpeace—the point has been made—but we all hope that reason prevails, and that Anthony and his fellow protesters can be set free and reunited with their families as soon as possible.

The debate has touched on what is happening to those detained in a Russian prison, and on our not having enough information on the circumstances in which they are detained. I want to speak about the stress placed on the family and Anthony’s partner, Zaharah, who have to watch and wait while events in Russia unfold. They are struggling to cope with the impact of his detention on their lives at home in Newport. Zaharah is obviously unable to talk to Anthony. She is unsure about how the Russian legal process works and how long it will take, and about when this trauma will end. She is obviously concerned about his welfare, and wants to know more about the conditions in which he is detained, so it would be helpful to know more about that.

The speed at which the protesters have been charged with piracy is clearly an immense shock, especially given President Putin’s remark about the Greenpeace protesters on 25 September that

“it’s completely obvious they aren’t pirates.”

On a practical level, Zaharah has told me that she would like to send Anthony some personal items at the jail where he is held, but that has so far proved impossible. Parcel couriers have not been able to get help, and people are still trying to find a way to get parcels through. She is asking the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to look at that practical matter and help to find a resolution, which would be a small comfort for my constituent’s family and friends.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that it is worth reminding our Russian friends that Newport is probably unique in commemorating the role of the merchant navy—it lost more of its representatives in warfare than any other service—with a special memorial and a special commemoration every year, and that it is worth saying that many of those who died were on the route to Murmansk, under terrible conditions of weather and danger? Can we build on the solidarity and comradeship that existed during the war to ensure that the Russians respond generously now?

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that worthy intervention, which is timely given the commemoration that is about to take place in Newport. His point was well made. It would be helpful if we could look at some of the practical issues, including the provision of more information on visits. Such help would make a really big difference on a day-to-day basis to both those detained and their families.

As we do not have much time and other Members wish to speak, may I thank the Government for the representations that they have made so far? We look forward to hearing from them about what more can be done. I just ask that they do all they can to secure the release of the Greenpeace activists and to urge the Russian authorities to think again.

Syria

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is a big task, and my hon. Friend is quite right to point to it. There are no reliable or precise estimates of the quantities—some estimates have suggested 1,000 tonnes—and these chemical stocks are likely to be held in very different states. Some may be completely mixed and ready for use, while others may be precursors that could be mixed at a later stage, so it is a very complex matter. There is considerable expertise in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons—expertise does exist in the world—but he is quite right that this would be a big exercise, involving a lot of people. That is why, as I have suggested, there are many difficulties in our way, but we are determined to test to the full whether this can work.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary’s capacity for self-delusion seems almost infinite. Is he not proud that we, this House, led the world—including American popular opinion—in our decision to take not the easy course of an instant military strike, but the difficult and painstaking course of diplomacy and peace building? Did not Iraq and Helmand teach us that thoughtlessly taking the military course leads to great suffering and the loss of soldiers’ and civilian lives?

[Mr Hague]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he was opposing an immediate military strike when he voted against the Government’s motion, he is deluding himself to the most extraordinary extent. That motion called for a second vote, for the House to await the findings of the United Nations inspectors, and for an attempt to be made to raise the matter strongly at the United Nations Security Council. I think that the self-delusion lies with him.

Arms to Syria

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Democracy was born in Greece some 2,000 years ago and has come to these islands in stages. In most sophisticated democratic states, they would regard it as astonishing that we are discussing whether the elected Parliament has the right to declare war. That is taken as obvious in most states. We have begun to debate whether we should go to war rather than who should take the decision, but that is what we should be talking about today.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even those people who believe that we should arm the rebels ought to vote aye for this motion, given what the Foreign Secretary and others have said from the Government Front Bench?

[Paul Flynn]

I absolutely agree. The assumption is being made that Governments decide whether we go to war, but even that is not true. The decision to go to war rests with the monarch under the royal prerogative. That is a key point, particularly as we might well have a change of monarch in the foreseeable future—although it is a long way off, we all hope. The change of monarch would not strengthen the case for continuing the status quo when we know that the future likely monarch has written letters that we are not allowed to see because it might endanger his status and his future prospects as the Head of State. A decision was taken by the Government, after a freedom of information inquiry and a decision by a High Court judge that anyone who lobbies Parliament should have the contents of their lobbying letters published, to censor that correspondence. That person will be in a key position on any decision about going to war. We might say that that does not matter, but it does.

The same issue came up in a little-known practical example published by the former MP for Cambridge, Robert Rhodes James, who wrote of the fear in the Conservative party, when it decided to get rid of Mrs Thatcher, that she might call a general election. At that time, she was much more popular in the country than she was in her own party and she could well have come back. No one could have stopped her in Government, in the Cabinet or in Parliament, but one person could have stopped her calling a general election if that person had said that Mrs Thatcher was a Prime Minister who was acting in her own interests and not in the country’s. I think we all know that the present Queen had the strength of character to ensure that Mrs Thatcher did not act in her own interests.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was diverted —or allowed himself to be diverted—by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), but I know that he will now return specifically to the subject of a parliamentary vote on Syria.

[Paul Flynn]

The reason we need Parliament to be supreme, and not the Government acting under royal prerogative, is the bitter experience we have had. In 2003, this House was bribed, bullied and bamboozled into voting for the war in Iraq.

[Mike Gapes]

I am very sorry, but some of us voted the way we did because we believed that it was right to protect the Kurds in Iraq and for the Iraqi people to be liberated from fascism. I do not feel that I was bamboozled or bribed and I hope that my hon. Friend is not impugning my integrity.

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is referring to Parliament and the majority here: 139 Labour Members voted against. Nearly 50 Labour Members who had already signed motions against the war and who were already opposed, were pressurised into changing their minds and abstaining or voting for the war. That is the truth of what happened then. It was on the basis of what was probably a lie or a misunderstanding. It was certainly untrue. We went there to defend our country against non-existent weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by Saddam Hussein. We proceeded to the second greatest error that we have made in recent times. That was in 2006 when we went into Helmand province, as has been said. The hope was that not a shot would be fired and we would be out in three years, having cleared up the drug trade. We now know what happened. At that time only two British soldiers had been killed in combat. The number is now 444. What were they doing in Helmand province? Defending the country against a non-existent Taliban terrorist threat to this country.

Around 52 terrorists have been convicted for actions within the United Kingdom. Not one of them is from Afghanistan. They are mostly people who were born and brought up in this country. So we have had two wars on which we embarked on a false premise, and it is right that we should ensure that the decisions are taken by the House on the best information that is available. While people are rehearsing what the argument should be in the future, we have to escape from the influences on this House. There are many influences, including the influences on politicians.

We know what happens to those in Government of all parties when the prospect of war is heard—with the drumbeats banging away, they adopt a Napoleonic posture, dig out the Churchillian language and try to write their page in history. We know the pressure from people in the arms industry. Frederick and Kimberly Kagan were at the side of General Petraeus in Afghanistan. They were at every secret meeting. They wrote part of his report to the Secretary of State in America and they constantly put pressure on to keep the war going and to discourage any peace initiatives. The Kagans were not employed by Petraeus. They were not employed by the American Government or the military. They were employed by the arms contractors in America.

There is a pressure for perpetual war. We know that millions were made in Iraq by the firms there after the Iraq war. We know that they will have contracts in the Syrian conflict. After those two great errors, pressure is on us now to prepare ourselves for war in Iran to protect ourselves from non-existent long-range Iranian missiles carrying non-existent Iranian nuclear bombs. We have to look to all these pressures, which have sent 623 of our brave soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those decisions are made here. We take them, we should be responsible, and there certainly should not be any Government pressure that settles those decisions. We should do it in future in free debate.

There should be alterations to our constitution. We have conventions now—the one going back to 2003. That should be our model for the way we face every armed conflict in which our troops might be employed.

Points of Order

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I thank him for it. We will leave that there for today.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In spite of your valiant and heroic efforts to improve the conduct in the Chamber and the standing of Parliament outside this place, we hit a new low today. Prime Minister’s Question Time was an unedifying spectacle of distortion, evasion and obfuscation. May I again suggest that you hold a seminar, especially for the Prime Minister, in order to explain the precise meaning of the words “question” and “answer”, and the need for a link between the two?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Today, it will suffice for me to say that I thought it was a very unedifying spectacle. It was as noisy as, if not more noisy than, I have ever known it. I ask right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, as I have done many times over the years, to give some thought to the way in which our proceedings are regarded by the people outside this House whose support we seek and whom we are here to represent. Frankly, the behaviour of a very large number of people was poor, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. Rather than dwelling on it further today, let us aspire, and take steps at all levels, to ensure that it improves in subsequent weeks. That is a responsibility of every right hon. and hon. Member, from the person most recently arrived to the longest serving Member, and from those who serve in a Back-Bench capacity to those who serve at the highest level, either in government or in opposition.

Iran

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. In addition to my other remarks about the human rights record, I deplore the persecution of Christians and the long string of anti-Semitic remarks made by the incumbent President. I think that people across the world will be hoping that these things will change.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Could we not prove our even-handedness and reduce tensions if we appealed to the only known nuclear state in the region to end its 20-year breach of international agreements and invite the inspectors in? Would it not be best for Israel to declare its own nuclear stockpile in order to persuade Iran to follow suit?

[Mr Hague]

We urge Israel to join the non-proliferation treaty—that is the long-established position of the United Kingdom. However, those who ask Israel to address nuclear issues have to recognise that one way that would make it impossible for it to ever do that would be for Iran to develop a nuclear capability. That would be the end of any hope for a middle east free of nuclear weapons. The settling of this Iranian nuclear issue is very important to going on to any other issues.

Lethal Autonomous Robotics

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me this debate to bring to the House’s attention the issue of lethal autonomous robotics, or LARs, which are sometimes referred to as “killer robots”. I have the privilege of being the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on weapons and the protection of civilians, and I wish to raise the issue of what plans the Government have to engage in international talks to try to limit, through means such as international regulation, the development and proliferation of such weapons. I believe that the UK has a key role to play in international talks and that without concerted international agreement and pressure it is unrealistic to anticipate that many individual states will pause in their drive for ever-increasing technological advantage.

This debate is timely because just over a fortnight ago, on 29 May, Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, presented a report on lethal autonomous robotics to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The following day, 24 states took part in discussions on the report, and with the exception of the UK, they all agreed on the need for further debate. Germany and the United States were among those who expressed a particular willingness for further international discussions. Brazil and France urged the need for an arms control forum, and suggested using the convention on certain conventional weapons. That is a framework convention with protocols on specific issues. It is the mechanism that was used to make an international legal agreement to ban the use of blinding lasers before they were ever deployed.

Before returning to the need for international dialogue, I want briefly to explain what we mean by lethal autonomous robotics and why we need to take action now. I also want to highlight some of the concerns raised in the UN special rapporteur’s report. The term LARs refers to

“robotic weapons systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator”.

The key element is that the robot has the power to “choose” a target independently and to “decide” to use lethal force against that target. That element of full autonomy means that LARs represent more than just a game-changing development in weapons technology. They represent a revolution.

LARs have sometimes been grouped with modern unstaffed weapons systems, such as remotely piloted aircraft systems, sometimes called unmanned aerial vehicles but most are more commonly known as drones. However, they go a considerable step further than drones. LARs are fully autonomous weapons systems which, once activated, can select and use lethal force against targets without further human intervention. The key departure from existing military technology—the factor that differentiates LARs from unmanned weapons systems such as drones—is the absence of human intervention once a fully autonomous weapons system has been activated. A robot would be able to make the decision to kill a human being, which has never been the case before. For that reason, LARs would constitute not an upgrade of the weapons that are currently in our arsenals, but a fundamental change in the nature of war. LARs explode our legal and moral codes that assume that the decision-making power of life and death will be the responsibility of a human being, never a machine.

It is the natural horror of a scenario in which a robot could decide to kill a human that has led to the description of LARs as “killer robots”. They are also sometimes described as “fully autonomous weapons”. Whatever the label, no lethal, fully autonomous weapons system has yet been deployed, but we need urgent action now, before further technological development and investment make a race toward killer robots impossible to stop. Make no mistake: technological know-how is widespread, and it is estimated that more than 70 countries have military robotics programmes. The United Kingdom is a leader in the field of sophisticated high-tech military industries, and is therefore at the forefront of development of the types of technology that could be used in LARs.

Inevitably, much of the development of LARs worldwide is shrouded in secrecy, including development in the UK. What we do know is that weapons technology is developing at an ever-increasing pace, and it is therefore very difficult to determine how close we are to the production of LARs that are ready to be used. Weapons systems with various degrees of autonomy and lethality are already being developed. One is the UK’s Taranis system, a jet-propelled combat drone prototype that can search for, identify and locate enemies autonomously, and can defend itself against enemy aircraft without human intervention. It is clear that LARs are not a fantasy of science fiction, or a technology belonging to the distant future; they are a real possibility for our time.

The considered, comprehensive and balanced report by Christof Heyns, which was published on 9 April, raised a plethora of concerns about LARs. First, it drew attention to the moral dilemmas presented by them.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the gravest danger posed by these weapons is their perpetuation of the philosophy that might is right? Is it not the case that, while the use of sophisticated technology in certain countries against other, unsophisticated countries may secure victories in the short term, huge resentments will be built up because of that difference in technology, and will leave a legacy of continuing conflict?

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend is right. There will be a huge imbalance between countries that have these technologies and the potential to use them, and countries that do not.

LARs increase the distance, physical and emotional, between weapons users and the lethal force that they inflict. Drones already offer the states that deploy them the military advantage of being able to carry out operations without endangering their own military personnel, and thus distance the operators from the action. LARs would take that a crucial step further by lessening the weight of responsibility felt by humans when they make the decision to kill. They could lead to a vacuum of moral responsibility for such decisions.

Secondly, LARs give rise to legal issues. Given that they would be activated by a human being but no human being would make the specific decision to deploy lethal force, it is fundamentally unclear who would bear legal responsibility for the actions performed by them. If the legal issues are not tackled, an accountability vacuum could be created, granting impunity for all LARs users. Furthermore, robots may never be able to meet the requirements of international humanitarian law, as its rules of distinction and proportionality require the distinctively human ability to understand context and to make subjective estimates of value. The open-endedness of the rule of proportionality in particular, combined with complex circumstances on a battlefield, could result in undesired and unexpected behaviour by LARs. It is clear that existing law was not written to deal with LARs.

Thirdly comes a multitude of terrifying practical concerns. The lowered human cost of war to states with LARs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, could lead to the “normalisation” of armed conflict. A state with LARs could choose to pit deadly robots against human soldiers on foot, presenting the ultimate asymmetrical situation. States could be faced with the temptation of using LARs outside of armed conflict, finding themselves able to eliminate perceived “troublemakers” anywhere in the world at the touch of a button. LARs could be hacked or appropriated, possibly for use against the state, and they could malfunction, with deadly consequences.

This report corroborates the revolutionary difference between LARs and any previous weapons system, and proves the following: that our current understanding of the nature of war cannot support them; that our existing legislation cannot regulate them; and that we cannot predict the effects that they may have on our future world.

What is called for worldwide in response is both an urgent course of action, and a mutual commitment to inaction: immediate action to ensure transparency, accountability and the rule of law are maintained; and agreement to inaction in the form of a global moratorium on the testing, production, assembly, transfer, acquisition, deployment and use of LARs until an international consensus on appropriate regulations can be reached.

Will the Minister explain the Government’s position on the recommendations in the UN report. It calls on all states to do the following: put in place a national moratorium on lethal autonomous robotics; participate in international debate on lethal autonomous robotics, and in particular to co-operate with a proposed high level panel to be convened by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; commit to being transparent about internal weapons review processes; and declare a commitment to abide by international humanitarian law and international human rights law in all activities surrounding robotic weapons.

At the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, a large number of states expressed the need to ensure legal accountability for LARs and pledged support for a moratorium. The UK was the only state to oppose a moratorium. Did the UK really consider existing law to be sufficient to deal with fully autonomous weapons, and was it completely dismissing the idea of national moratoriums on the development and deployment of LARs? What evaluation of the recommendations for an international moratorium, for transparency over weapons review processes, for discussion of the limits of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and for engagement in international dialogue did the Government carry out in advance of the debate in Geneva two weeks ago? I believe the UK should take a leading role in limiting the use of LARs, and use our considerable standing on the world stage to bring nations together to negotiate.

The UN report recommended a “collective pause”—time to reflect and examine the situation with open eyes, before the demands of an arms race, and of heavy investment in the technology, make such a pause impossible. Only with multilateral co-operation can an effective moratorium be achieved. As Christof Heyns observes, if nothing is done,

“the matter will, quite literally, be taken out of human hands.”

Turning to the UK’s own policy, in answers given by Lord Astor in the other place and a Ministry of Defence note, the UK has stated that

“the operation of weapons systems will always—always—be under human control”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 960.]

and that

“no planned offensive systems are to have the capability to prosecute targets without involving a human.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. WA411.]

This could form the positive basis of a strong policy, but further clarification and explanation are urgently required, and there has been no mention of a moratorium.

In November 2012 the USA outlined its policy and committed itself to a five-year moratorium. In a Department of Defence directive, the United States embarked on an important process of self-regulation regarding LARs, recognising the need for domestic control of their production and deployment, and imposing a form of moratorium. The directive provides that autonomous weapons

“shall be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgement over the use of force.”

Specific levels of official approval for the development and fielding of different forms of robots are identified. In particular, the directive bans the development and fielding of LARs unless certain procedures are followed. The UN report notes that this important initiative by a major potential LARs producer should be commended and that it may open up opportunities for mobilising international support for national moratoriums.

During a Westminster Hall debate on l1 December 2012, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the Opposition Defence spokesman, expressed support for the move by the United States to codify the use of UAVs. He suggested that the UK examines whether it should, in addition to existing law, have a code covering: the contexts and limitations of usage; the process for internal Government oversight of deployments; command and control structures; and acceptable levels of automation. The Minister who responded to the debate rejected that suggestion on the grounds of operational security—this may be one of the big stumbling blocks.

However, now that we are talking about the development of LARs, we do need greater clarity, both in respect of UK policy and on the international stage. Existing international humanitarian law and international human rights law never envisaged weapons making autonomous decisions to kill. Deciding what to do about LARs is not like simply banning a chemical agent—it is far more complex than that. We are talking about technological know-how that can be used in so many different ways, so we need to sit down with other countries to look at the limitations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

The basis of the Government’s argument, made by me and by my noble Friend in the other place, is that the system of law and conventions that govern the development of weapons would prevent anyone from developing the weapon in such a manner as the hon. Member for Llanelli has suggested. It would not fit export criteria, so I do not think that we are at odds on that. The issue is whether the legal framework is sufficiently robust to prevent that. The United Kingdom, having made its own decision that it is not developing these weapons, believes that the basis of the legal system on weaponry is such as to prevent that development.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the Minister explain the distinction that he makes? In a meeting held in this place, one of the noble Lords with great experience in the Navy gave an example of a weapon that is used now which, once the parameters have been set, would work entirely automatically without any human intervention. What is the difference between that and the prospect of fully autonomous weapons?

[Alistair Burt]

My understanding, having discussed this with officials, is that it is the setting of the parameters that is the human element. For example, once the parameters were set of some existing weapons system that would seek to identify and defend itself against missiles coming at one of our ships in a situation of conflict, plainly an operator would not be needed to press the button each second to fire off the missiles—the system will do that automatically. That is an automatic system where the parameters have been set. What is envisaged through lethal autonomous robotics is a step beyond that, which no one has reached. To use the definition that the hon. Member for Llanelli gave right at the beginning and which I cited, that would be weapons systems which, once activated, could select and engage targets without any further human intervention. Those are not drones; it is a step beyond.

The hon. Lady has rightly observed that this is a complicated area, where further international discussion would help to clarify the legal and political implications of the possible future development of this technology. Like others, we think that the Human Rights Council is not the right forum for the discussion, but we stand ready to participate in the international debate and we agree that the convention on certain conventional weapons seems the right place for this important issue.

The hon. Lady asked why the UK was the only country to resist the call for a moratorium. I have set out our willingness to adopt a more restrictive policy than the legal freedom afforded, and our commitment to uphold international humanitarian law and to encourage others to do the same. I do not believe that our approach is so different from that of the United States and our European allies.

We did not interpret the discussion in Geneva in quite the same way as the hon. Lady. We believe that French and US attitudes are very similar to our own. Although some states spoke in favour of some sort of regulation or control, many did not, and we should not take that as universal support for a moratorium, given the number of states that did not express a view. Our sense is that support for a moratorium is far less than indicated by the hon. Lady. That does not in any way negate the concerns, but we are not quite sure that people are where she suggests they are in relation to a moratorium.

The law of armed conflict already addresses the ethical and moral aspects of these weapons systems to ensure adherence to principles of discrimination, proportionality, military necessity and humanity to protect people from unnecessary suffering. The selection and prosecution of all targets is always based on rigorous scrutiny which complies with international humanitarian law, UK rules of engagement and targeting policy.

The hon. Lady also asked me to elaborate on what the Government mean by human control and what level of human control they believe is sufficient, which is also the point behind the question asked by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). Targets will always be positively identified as legitimate military objectives with an appropriate level of command authority and control in their selection and prosecution. The UK is legally obliged to ensure that all weapons and associated equipment that it obtains or plans to acquire or develop comply with the UK’s treaty and other obligations in accordance with international humanitarian law. We do this through legal weapons review. For equipment to be procured, it must satisfy those key legal principles. The policy on the necessity, responsibility and conduct of article 36 reviews will be placed in the Library of the House.

International humanitarian law was designed to withstand future changes in technology. Although we have been discussing matters that are still far beyond the present technology, we believe that the legal system has in mind such future developments. We encourage all states to meet their obligations under international humanitarian law. We believe that the development and use of weapons should always be fully compliant with international law, including the Geneva conventions. We are working closely with the Government of Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross on an initiative to strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law, and one of our primary objectives for the arms trade treaty was that it should put compliance with international humanitarian law at the heart of Governments’ decisions about the legitimate arms trade. We have voiced, and will continue to voice, our concerns with those states that do not live up to their obligations.

As I mentioned earlier, the United Kingdom does not have fully autonomous weapon systems, and the Ministry of Defence’s science and technology programme does not fund research into fully autonomous weapons. No planned offensive systems are to have the capability to prosecute targets without involving a human in the decision-making process.

There are a number of areas where United Kingdom policy is currently more restrictive than the legal freedoms allowed. We consider that to be entirely prudent. However, we cannot predict the future; we cannot know now how this technology will develop. Given the challenging situations in which we expect our armed forces personnel to operate now and in the future, it would be wrong to deny them legitimate and effective capabilities that can help them to achieve their objectives as quickly and safely as possible. We have a responsibility to the people who protect us, and must therefore reserve the right to develop and use technology as it evolves in accordance with established international law. Our current position on the development of these weapons is very clear, and I thank the hon. Member for Llanelli for giving me this opportunity to explain that to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for his intervention. Obviously, he has a great deal of information from that time.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady also acknowledge that there was a huge amount of foresight on the part of people who were opposed to the war, not entirely on the existence of weapons? Many nations have weapons of mass destruction. What was totally implausible was the suggestion that Saddam Hussein would use those weapons against America and against the United Kingdom in a way that would be suicidal and guarantee own defeat. We know what the reasons for the war were, and they were in the mind of George Bush.

[Caroline Lucas]

I welcome that intervention. We need to recognise that a threat is made up of the capability to use weapons and also the intention to use them. What Hans Blix made very clear at that point was that there was not, as far as he could see, any intention to use them. What he wanted to find out was what else there was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the plight of refugees and displaced people. He will be aware of the significant contribution that the Department for International Development makes to support displaced people’s camps. The only long-term solution is to create stability and security in the middle east to enable people to return to the countries from which they originated.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Simmonds]

If I may move on, I want to make a few comments about the Chilcot inquiry because it has been one of the consistent themes in the speeches of Members so far and I am sure that other Members will comment on it as well. It is vital that we learn the lessons of the conflict. That, of course, is the fundamental and primary remit of Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

Let me be clear with the hon. Gentleman. The debate about the private correspondence between Tony Blair and George Bush, and the Cabinet minutes from the time, concerns their public publication. The Chilcot inquiry has seen both sets of documents, which I hope goes some way to assuage the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[Paul Flynn]

The inquiry is already two years late given the date it originally promised to report and, as the Minister says, it is an important report. Had the United Kingdom not joined the war, Saddam would still have been removed and the war would have gone on because our support was not needed. The crucial point— I do not know whether the Minister has confirmed this—seems to be what Bush and Blair cooked up in 2002, because the decision to take the United Kingdom into the war was probably taken then. That is the essential point—not why the war took place, but why the United Kingdom was dragged into it by Tony Blair.

[Mark Simmonds]

That is part of Sir John Chilcot’s remit, and we must wait for the report to come out before the UK Government will comment on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend makes the same intervention as five minutes ago. It may be that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) wants to contribute to the debate and address that point, but I am not going to.

[Paul Flynn]

rose—

[Mark Simmonds]

I will make a little progress but I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later if he still insists.

My point is that the challenges Iraq faces are not the whole story. Although the level of violence is unacceptably high, it is noticeably lower than at its peak during the very dark days of 2006-07. Life across much of Iraq, particularly in the south and the Kurdistan region, is peaceful for most people most of the time. Three democratic national elections have been held since 2005 with another due next year, and in April, 8,000 candidates contested provincial elections across most of the country. Two further provinces will vote next week, and the rest in September.

Iraq’s economy has been transformed. According to the World Bank, its GDP has increased from approximately $19 billion in 2002 to roughly $116 billion in 2011. It is now forecast by the IMF to grow by 8% in each of the next five years. That growth will hopefully turn Iraq into one of the success stories of the next decade, and mean that people no longer see it as a post-conflict state, but as a key emerging economy.

The International Energy Agency world economic outlook predicts that Iraq will be responsible for nearly half the increase in global oil production over the coming decades, and its production could double by 2020. The hydrocarbons potential represents a huge opportunity to drive economic growth for the good of the maximum number of Iraqi people, if used responsibly and properly.

[Paul Flynn]

We went to Iraq to defend ourselves against non-existent weapons of mass destruction. We are now being prepared to go to war in Iran to protect ourselves against non-existent Iranian long-range missiles carrying non-existent Iranian nuclear bombs. The Minister cannot postpone the Government’s responsibility and say that we must wait for the Chilcot report, which will be produced this year, next year, some time or never. They must take a decision on Iran, possibly in the near future. Should we not be informed of the truth of what we did in 2003?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman has beaten me to my next paragraph—I was about to mention my position in respect of the March 2003 vote, which I remember very well indeed. The Minister said that little else was in the minds of Members of Parliament at the time, and there was certainly little else in my mind. I made the decision to cast my vote against the Labour Government, the first of only two occasions when I have done that—I was right the other time, too—and I will explain why.

In 2003, I sat through the entire debate on the Back Benches, but was not called. It was only in 2006 that I had the opportunity to speak and explain why I had made my decision. I had an advantage then, because the weapons inspector Hans Blix had spoken following the end of the Iraq war. He said—this is very important—that in March 2003 his belief was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. I believed, and still believe, that the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, also believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was on that basis that those who voted in favour of the war made their decision.

My decision was not made on the basis that I opposed any intervention, but that the weapons inspectors needed more time. I looked at all the evidence, thought long and hard, and decided that it was right and appropriate for me to vote against the war. I do not regret that decision and I never have. It is important to recognise that 139 Labour MPs made the same decision. Some suggestions that MPs were sent down the wrong path by representations made at the time could be put in a misleading way. Many of us made the decision on the basis of all the evidence we had at the time, and we made the correct decision.

[Paul Flynn]

I recall those days of great turmoil well. Does my hon. Friend think it is a matter of regret for this House that the three Committees we had to oversee these matters—the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee —were cheerleaders for the war and did not act with the kind of independent scrutiny that they perhaps should have?

[Ian Lucas]

I cannot pass judgment on the work of the Committees, because I have not looked in great detail at the position they took at the time. I am sure that the vast proportion of hon. Members will have made their decision honestly and in the way that they thought was right.

We know that the decision was important not just to Members of this House, but to an enormous number of people outside. It had a profound impact on British politics. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the war led to a fundamental loss of trust in the Labour party, and it is right that the Labour party should acknowledge that. Those who knocked on doors in the subsequent general election were made well aware of that, which is one of the great qualities of our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas]

I think that votes on important matters in this House always have consequences. This vote had consequences for those MPs who did not support the Government on that particular occasion.

[Paul Flynn]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Lucas]

May I make a little progress? I think I am getting stuck.

Regardless of individual positions taken by Members across the House at the time of the invasion, all of us agree that 10 years on we need to reflect on the consequences of the conflict and on the procedures that led to the vote, and to draw important lessons for the future.

As I touched on earlier, the Iraq war casts a long shadow over the House, setting the context for debates on foreign policy and, in particular, current debates on the middle east. Ten years on, the effect of the intervention on Iraq itself is that the negatives still outweigh the positives. There has been a protracted period of internal conflict within Iraq. As the Minister said, terrorist attacks continue, with people killed in Baghdad only this week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has been able to secure today’s debate. It is timely, obviously, and it is important that we should have plenty of time to talk about this issue, even 10 years down the line. She made a fine and impassioned speech and set the tone for the debate.

I do not always see eye to eye with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who speaks for the Labour party, but I must say that he made a very fine speech. It was a balanced speech, it came from the heart and it was refreshing to hear such a speech from the Front Bench. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who speaks with great knowledge about things diplomatic and military. They are things that I know very little about—I will place that on the record now, lest it becomes too obvious later on.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the right hon. Gentleman follow the significant point made by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) about the unimportance of being right on these decisions? Those who sided with error saw their careers flourish, while those who were right and objected to their Ministries saw their careers wither.

[Mr Llwyd]

That is absolutely right, obviously. That is a feature of the system that we are all embroiled in at the moment, imperfect—greatly imperfect—as it is.

I want to start by quoting something that was said recently:

“I let Parliament have the final say on me decision to go to war. I made statements, answered questions, took part in debates. But in the end there was a decision that had to be made: on the basis of the information available, to decide whether to join the US coalition and remove Saddam; or to stay out. I decided we should be in. The job of the Prime Minister is to make such decisions based on what he believes is in the interests of the country.”

Those words are taken from the end of former Prime Minister Blair’s statement to the Chilcot inquiry—an inquiry that, as we have heard, has so far failed to report, despite almost exactly four years having passed since it was first announced in this place by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). As I shall briefly outline today, I have reservations about the Chilcot inquiry, which I suspect was as flawed and compromised from the outset as the then Government’s decision to go to war.

Let me nail one other myth. The Liberal Democrats are very pleased to go around saying that they were the only party to vote against. We voted against, the Scottish National party voted against and many Members of other parties voted against. We were described as jellyheads and all kinds of things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

To take up the final point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) about honouring the 179 dead, I have in the past read out their names. I am sure it would make a deeper impression today if I read them out again, but unfortunately that is forbidden by the rules of the House.

That is part of the feeling we have—the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made this point—and our reluctance to face the truth. Only the future is certain; the past is always changing. We have heard today so many attempts to fictionalise what happened and we refuse to face our failures. The hon. Gentleman made a marvellous speech on which I would like to base my remarks. He said that what characterises this Parliament is the unimportance of being right and the rewards for failure and the punishment for the truth. I am afraid that that is the abiding culture of this place.

I have received a message during the debate from someone expressing, in very strong language, incredulity at the suggestion that there was not a strong Whip on that day in March. I have been here for 26 years and it was the strongest Whip I have ever encountered. Many of those who were opposed to the war—about 30 or 40 of them—who had signed motions and early-day motions against it were bribed, bullied and bamboozled into changing their minds to either abstain or vote in favour of it. Almost all of them regret that bitterly. It was the most important vote of our careers and it is not true to say that it was easy to make our minds up. It was not. The threat was there that we would lose our seats and that the Prime Minister would resign. Members who were in any doubt were called in to see Ministers to be persuaded. Members of the Committees who had knowledge that we did not have, such as the Intelligence and Security Committee, went around cajoling Back Benchers saying, “If you knew what we know, you’d vote for war, but we can’t tell you because it’s all secret.” They were being fed nonsense and exaggerations as well.

Our reluctance to accept the truth seems extraordinary to me. It would be flattering to describe today’s speech from the Government Front Bench as vacuous. Even now, the Government cannot admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction. It is little short of insanity to suggest that anyone still believes that there were such weapons.

Members have questioned whether anyone foresaw what would happen. A great many people foresaw it at the time. To suggest otherwise is another attempt to rewrite history. I have dug out a letter that I sent to the then Prime Minister in March 2003 to point out what the consequences of the invasion would be. I see with nausea that Tony Blair is now explaining that the inherent nature of the Islamic religion was responsible for the terrible event that took place in Woolwich a few weeks ago. It was not. That event was a reaction to what happened in 2003. My letter stated:

“Our involvement in Bush’s war will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Attacking a Muslim state without achieving a fair settlement of the Palestine-Israeli situation is an affront to Muslims, from our local mosques to the far-flung corners of the world.”

That is when it started and it continued in Afghanistan. The only decision that has been taken without a vote that is comparable to the decision to join Bush’s war in Iraq is the decision to go into Helmand province. There were two dead UK soldiers at that time. The figure is now 441. Nothing has been achieved in Helmand province. Indeed, conditions are worse than in 2006 when we went in.

This House was deceived. We failed. The organs that should have defended us and given us the truth—the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee—were all part of the hallelujah chorus of praise for the messiah, Tony Blair, who thought that he could walk on water. He had been successful in Kosovo. He had been successful in Sierra Leone. Although there were people who opposed him, he thought that he was infallible and was determined to go on.

Tony Blair was asked about the crucial decision in a splendid television programme that was aired recently on BBC2. The decision was not about whether we should stop the war. We could never have stopped the war, because Bush was determined to go in. Saddam would have been removed anyway. The decision that we had to make in Parliament was whether our soldiers should be involved in that. Tony Blair admitted to the shoulder-to-shoulder comment. He almost certainly made his decision in 2002, when he shook hands with Bush and said, “I’ll be with you.” They then invented the facts in order to present this House with a false agenda. If he had not persuaded 40 or so Labour Members to vote the other way, we would not have gone to war.

Tony Blair was asked in the programme why he did not pull out. His comment was:

“I thought it was the right thing to do, I wanted my country to be a part of it. I admit what I said about standing shoulder to shoulder with the US and I would prefer to have gone and left as Prime Minister than to have backed out on the basis that it was too politically difficult.”

There are a large number of “I”s in that statement, but 179 British dead is a hell of a price to pay for one man’s vanity, which I believe was the situation.

Tony Blair did persuade the House; he was very persuasive and used his great talents. He thought it was a special day; it is the only time, I believe, that he invited his family up to the Public Gallery to watch his performance. He saw this; he was the great actor-manager of politics and he gave a splendid performance in the Chamber. There was the invention of the 45-minute claim, and the sexing-up of the introduction to the dossier. Because of that, we sent those young men to their deaths.

The awful thing is that those families who saw their loved ones die have constructed their own justification by saying, “Well, they died in a noble cause; they did not die in vain. Iraq will be a better place because of it.” Slowly, tragically, they must come to terms with a different reality that their loved ones died because of the ego of one man who used his position to send them into an avoidable war.

We must consider all the other wars we are faced with, and the extent of the deceptions. We went into Iraq to defend ourselves against non-existent weapons of mass destruction; we went into Helmand province to defend ourselves against a non-existent Taliban terrorist threat to the United Kingdom. We are now being told that we should perhaps go into Iran to defend ourselves against non-existent Iranian long-range missiles carrying non-existent Iranian nuclear bombs.

One issue that has come to light but received very little publicity is the activity of people such as the Kagans. Kimberly and Frederick Kagan are a married couple who were at Petraeus’s right hand. They were privy to all the private conversations, went to every secret meeting, and wrote Petraeus’s report to the Defence Secretary on what was happening in Afghanistan. Each time, they wanted a more hard-edged approach to military activities and more aggression, and each time, they tried to sabotage the peace initiatives. The Kagans were not employed by the military or by Petraeus—their paymasters were the defence industry and contractors. There was a strong element of that in Iraq and certainly in Afghanistan, and we must look to such things and to the revolving door that means that wars go on. We are at a stage where we are being told to go into perpetual wars. When one is over, we are softened up for the next one, and on and on it goes.

It gets worse. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) spoke about the error of saying that might is right. That works on the day and we win victories, but we store up huge resentment—just as we are doing now with the use of our vastly superior technology in drones and robot weapons. The price must be paid in the end, and we are paying it with the division between the western, Christian part of the world, and the Muslim side. Those divisions are deep and we did a great deal to cause them through our errors in the past.

I will conclude with a poem that was read the other day about the start of the first world war, because it is something we could apply to the former Prime Minister. It is a poem by Kipling, who spent his life celebrating and glorifying war. He managed to get his son, who was almost blind, into the war by pulling a few strings, but he was then tormented because his son died in the war as a result of his efforts. That changed his view, and if any poem will apply to Tony Blair when he becomes—this is the title of the poem—“A dead statesman”, it is this:

“I could not dig: I dared not rob:

Therefore I lied to please the mob.

Now all my lies are proved untrue

And I must face the men I slew.

What tale shall serve me here among

Mine angry and defrauded young?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

As the Minister said, there have been a number of successes of which we can be proud, so we should not be too dismayed: the referendum has led to a new constitution, there has been a series of elections and to some extent all-out civil war has been avoided, but there remains huge sectarian violence and a number of challenges ahead.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who spoke very articulately and has huge experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, said that Iraq was not Britain’s finest hour. This was there with the Suez crisis and our invasion of Afghanistan in 1839. There was no conflict plan. The decision to disband the army and de-Ba’athify Iraq in one fell swoop was bizarre and ignored the fact that teachers, nurses and others were forced to be part of the Ba’ath party. As soon as we made it illegal and those who were part of it unable to work, we lost the mindset of support from an important swathe of the middle-class population.

The timeline makes for grievous reading. In summer 2007, we failed to do any development and reconstruction. Our military were forced to withdraw from the city centre, as it became untenable to stay there, and relocate to the airport. The Prime Minister, Mr Maliki, said:

“Basra has been left to the mercy of the militia men”.

In the absence of anything happening, a vacuum developed. Gangs formed, which turned into militia, which then ran the city. In 2008, it was not the British who liberated the city; it was the Iraqi army. Maliki came down to Basra and decided the situation needed to come to an end and that the Mahdi army needed to be pushed out. In spring 2009, our military interest in Iraq came to an end. We did not hand the base over to the Iraqi army; we handed it over to the Americans.

[Paul Flynn]

Is it not true that Maliki—who is hardly an ideal figure—was holed up in Basra, surrounded by the militia and about to be killed, when the American army came in and rescued him?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. The details are that Maliki was surrounded and the Americans came in. Once the Mahdi army was removed and the militia brought under control, that was the first occasion when, finally, governance was possible and a mayor of Basra could be put in place to move the city forward.

In my view, after any invasion or intervention, we have a window of three to six months to get things right before the enemy can regroup and the locals then decide, “Actually, life is no better under the new regime than it was under the old.” We missed that window of opportunity, which cost Britain lives—as it did others in the international community—because of our reluctance to do what was required. My concern is this. We sit at the international top table. We are a power with nuclear weapons, we have a place on the Security Council and we have centuries of serious war fighting experience, and we could not even hold a medium-sized conurbation. The armed forces were under immense strain during this period. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, this was tied in with, and happened at the same time as, our decision to make an even grander commitment in Afghanistan, with two air bridges operating, to the point that our armed forces were almost unable to cope.

The Minister talked about some of the success stories. Many of us have visited Iraq many times. I recently went to Irbil. It is very pleasing indeed to see how much the region has moved forward from the atrocities it endured under Saddam Hussein. I only hope that such success can be emulated in the rest of the country. Unfortunately, Iraq is not in the headlines anymore, because our troops are not there, but as hon. Members across the House have mentioned, there were as many deaths in this last month as there were in 2008. The scale of continuing atrocities is quite shocking.

In conclusion, there are serious questions about our decision to go to war in the first place, about how Parliament debates these matters and about our ability to do post-conflict reconstruction. This House regularly pays tribute to our armed forces for their commitment and professionalism and the sacrifice they make for our country, but in the long history of British military engagements, Iraq was far from our finest hour. That was no fault of theirs, I should say, but falls totally on the shoulders of the Government of the day, who failed to plan for peace. I am pleased that the Prime Minister, in looking at other interventions, which have also been mentioned in this debate, has introduced three conditions for this House to approve any intervention. First, is there a legal basis for intervention? Secondly, is there regional support? Thirdly, is there an international commitment to the cause? I hope that, as we look for solutions in Syria and the Sahel, the Prime Minister’s conditions will not be forgotten.

GCHQ

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I go a certain way with my hon. Friend on this. There is a need to explain to the public in this country more than we have done for decades about the role of secret intelligence, its purpose and what it achieves. However, I do not think that will mean that we are able to describe in detail how our co-operation with other countries works on operational matters, for many obvious reasons. It would make it more difficult for us to protect this country if other people knew the exact techniques that we used. Also, other countries would be less willing to share their intelligence with the UK if they thought that we were not good at keeping it to ourselves. But we certainly need to raise public awareness of the need for what we do, and I started to do that in my speech on this subject in 2011. Perhaps today’s statement will also have that effect.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Cathy Massiter case proved that, 50 years after the last war, intensive surveillance of peace activists, trade unionists and left-wing parties had failed to turn up a single spy, but it was discovered that in that same period, more than 20 members of the Secret Intelligence Service were spying for the Soviet Union. Since then, we have had untruths on weapons of mass destruction and a Government cover-up to this House on the handing over of prisoners to oppressive regimes to be tortured. Is the Foreign Secretary telling us today that the only people now under surveillance are the guilty? How does he manage that?