Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My reading of the US Congress is that it probably does not need much encouragement to instinctively be very sceptical about the process of dialogue with Iran on the nuclear dossier. However, some small progress is being made there, and I would very much regret any attempts to destabilise or derail that process. On the wider question, settling the Israel-Palestine issue is the big roadblock to a more enduring peace in the middle east.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary think that peace will not be forthcoming until Hamas renounces violence and can speak with a single voice? In Israel, we have seen the emergence of a moderate centre ground. Does he think that either condition is going to happen?

[Mr Hammond]

I am going to be slightly careful about the second part of my right hon. Friend’s question because Israel is two weeks away from a general election, so I do not want to speculate about different parts of the political spectrum. What is clear is that there needs to be a broad-based movement within Israel that seeks peace, understands that trade-offs are required in order to achieve peace, and places the greatest premium on getting an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to live inside peaceful pre-’67 borders in perpetuity.

Yemen

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, with his personal connections to the country, for the expertise he brings to the House and for his leadership as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. I appreciate the urgency of the question, but we were not going to make a statement because the situation continues to be fluid. What we say today could well be outdated by tomorrow. The Prime Minister is under house arrest, the President has moved to the south and the leader of the Houthis made a 75-minute statement on television yesterday but did not declare that he was now the leader of Yemen. The situation remains extremely fluid.

The right hon. Gentleman sums up the situation accurately and I agree with him. Strategically, Yemen is an important country for Britain. We have historical connections with it and we have devoted much work to it. I am pleased that he has had the opportunity to speak to my counterpart in DFID about the work we are doing to provide political stability and economic direction as well as improvements to security. He mentions the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and that is a reminder to all countries—not just those in the region but those further off, including Britain—of how terrorism and extremism can leave a region and move much closer to home. We heed his words very carefully.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the United States embassy. It is located in a different part of the city from ours and has its own evacuation programme. Each embassy must make its own judgment on what is necessary. The number of Britons operating in Yemen is extremely low and there are good connections between the embassy and those who choose to go against the travel advice I mentioned earlier.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Friends of Yemen. Let me elaborate on that. That is the organisation run through the United Nations that is co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and Britain. It comprises more than 40 countries and the past couple of years up to $8 billion has been granted to Yemen to help with political, economic and security reform. We must obviously assess the changes that have taken place, but the peace and national partnership agreement is critical. That is a document that has been signed by the President and agreed by the Houthis and given the sentiment expressed in the 75-minute speech I mentioned, we hope that all parties can come around the table and work towards a peaceful solution.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is a spoiler and an example of extremism. The worry about the Ma’rib region, which the Houthis are now pushing into, is that there are pockets of al-Qaeda and there will be a conflict of extremism there unless there is an agreement. That is what we are now working towards.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I welcome the question of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and agree with the sentiment contained in it, as well as with the Minister’s response. I welcome his tone. The Minister says that our embassy remains open, but can he assure me that if the situation deteriorates measures will be taken to get our staff out and to protect them? Finally, there are media reports about a connection between the Charlie Hebdo attack and the situation in Yemen. Is the Minister in a position to comment further on that?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for his question and the manner in which he asks it. He asks at what point we should evacuate the embassy. I will speak to the ambassador later today and evacuation plan is already in place, but it has not yet been activated. I will speak to the ambassador and ensure that the House is updated if the situation changes. He asked about the connections between al-Qaeda and the Charlie Hebdo attacks. It has been reported that there is a link and that the individuals were trained in Yemen. The French authorities are working on that and we are working closely with them to provide support in their endeavours.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We regularly raise human rights concerns, including freedom of the media, with Turkish officials, and Ministers and will continue to do so. I believe that the EU accession process provides the best mechanism through which to press and encourage Turkey to move further in the right direction.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

On the last point, is the Minister aware that Turkey has had more cases referred to the European Court of Human Rights than Putin’s Russia? Also, if Turkey wishes to be taken seriously, it must become a more reliable ally. Will he press Turkey to make its bases available to coalition aircraft and to control its border with Syria much more tightly than it is at the moment?

Gibraltar

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Gibraltar: Time to get off the fence, HC 461, and the Government response, Cm 8917; endorses the Committee’s position that the behaviour of the current Spanish government towards Gibraltar is unacceptable; regrets that trilateral dialogue between the UK, Gibraltar and Spain remains suspended; believes that the time has come for more concerted action; and invites the Government to review its policy towards Spain on Gibraltar.

This motion stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). It invites the Government to review their policy towards Spain and their dispute with Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a key strategic asset for Britain and its allies. It has provided employment and prosperity to the region for decades. It is steeped in history and is a notable tourist centre.

Gibraltar has, by extension, been a part of the European Union since the UK joined in 1973. Its membership is accepted in international law, and it is represented in the European Parliament by MEPs from the south-west region. Last year, its football team played its first European football match.

Gibraltar has inevitably been a source of controversy, but it faces a crisis that we all thought was behind us when Spain joined the EU in 1989. The fact is that Spain, a fellow member of the EU and a partner in NATO, is deliberately as a matter of policy undermining the economy of Gibraltar—a British overseas territory. Its hostile behaviour cannot be ignored any longer. Spain’s chosen method is aviation policy and random, unnecessary and superfluous searches of people and vehicles on the border causing, at times, delays of up to six hours or more.

Ironically, the impact is felt on both sides of the border. Up to 10,000 Spanish workers cross the border each day to work in Gibraltar. If someone is running a business and does not know whether the staff will turn up at 9 am or at lunch time, that business suffers. All this has a profound effect on the territory. Visitor numbers have dropped significantly in the last couple of years, with an estimated loss of almost £40 million in tourist expenditure. Interestingly, some of the strongest evidence the Select Committee received was from a Spanish workers’ organisation that was concerned about high unemployment and poverty on the Spanish side of the border. This is an unacceptable situation.

The UK has the responsibility of safeguarding Gibraltar’s territorial waters and ensuring that it is both treated and respected as a member of the EU. Last July, the Foreign Affairs Committee expressed the view that the Government should take a tougher line. In particular, we recommended that if there were no improvement within six months, the Government should invoke article 259 of the EU treaty for violation of EU obligations on the free movement of people. Six months have elapsed since then, and there are still incidents of long and unnecessary delays on the border—despite the personal intervention of the Prime Minister in conversations with the Spanish Prime Minister at the height of the crisis in 2013.

In what I can describe, regrettably, only as a weak response to our report, the Government said that they had not ruled out an article 259 action but would rather leave it to the European Commission to resolve the situation. I hope that the Minister will understand if that response causes some mirthless merriment on these Benches. It could be a long wait. Even worse, the Commission concluded in 2013 that, although the intensity of Spain’s checks was unjustified and it had serious concerns about it, there was no violation of EU law. So in his response to the debate, will the Minister set a deadline for the commencement of action under article 259?

The dispute has a 300-year history, but in the last three years, the Partido Popular Government in Spain have taken a more hard-line approach. They have significantly increased pressure on Gibraltar and its people, and the Gibraltarians have suffered. Apart from the border delays, they have had to put up with aggressive maritime incursions, calculated pressure at the EU and the UN and inflammatory rhetoric from Spanish Ministers about Gibraltar’s sovereignty and its economic affairs.

The difficulties faced by the current UK Government are, in part, a legacy of regrettable decisions made in 2001 to allow joint sovereignty discussions, which raised expectations on the Spanish side. After protests in Gibraltar and an overwhelming referendum supporting continued membership as a British overseas territory, the discussions were dropped.

Since 2004, the Government have sought to maintain a consistent message—first that no discussions will take place without the consent of the people of Gibraltar, and secondly, sovereignty will not be transferred against their wishes. This is the correct approach, and it should be consistently reaffirmed. This double lock has provided Gibraltar with security following a difficult period, and this guarantee of self-determination should never be abandoned again.

Also since 2004, consultations have taken place through a trilateral forum with Spain and Gibraltar. In 2006, the meeting held in Cordoba resulted in agreement on a number of issues—in particular on air movements, recognition of Gibraltarian dialling codes and improved flows at the border. It was also agreed that the UK could pay pensions to Spanish workers affected by Franco’s closure of the border from 1969 to 1982. This is projected to cost the UK taxpayer £73 million.

Following the election of Prime Minister Rajoy in November 2011, however, the trilateral talks have been summarily ended by Spain and some of the terms of the Cordoba agreement have been broken, although the UK, I am proud to say, is keeping its side of the bargain and meeting the agreed pension arrangements. Efforts have been made to hold ad hoc talks, but none have taken place. If a date has still not been fixed, I invite the Minister to assess whether we are being taken for a ride here and whether this might be telling him something—that Spain thinks we are a soft touch.

Meanwhile, the illegal incursions into Gibraltar’s territorial waters continue. These incursions are outside the right of safe passage and now number hundreds since their escalation in 2012. The Spanish vessels making the incursions, which include police vessels, refuse to recognise the authority of the Royal Gibraltar police or, more seriously, the Royal Navy. The aggressive tactics used, resulting in collisions and a danger of serious injury, make it difficult, if not impossible, for the police and the Royal Navy to enforce their authority and British sovereignty.

At worst, there is a danger of a potentially serious incident at sea. Are we going to respond, or are we just a soft touch? Has the Minister considered arresting a Spanish vessel? The Royal Navy has two patrol boats—quite ageing, but they are still working—and three ribs under the commander of British forces in Gibraltar. Will the Minister confirm in his response—this is important to many people—that there will be no reduction in this deployment? We welcome the increased number of warships transiting via Gibraltar, but we believe that there should be a more robust approach to defending Gibraltar’s territorial waters.

The Foreign Office rightly makes diplomatic protests about each incursion, but we were dismayed to discover that they are lodged sometimes weeks after the event. I welcome the Government’s confirmation that a maximum of seven days is now the norm and that an immediate summons of the ambassador applies in serious cases. The Government describe summoning as a

“very serious form of diplomatic protest”

and rightly summoned the ambassador to protest over traffic delays at the border. To digress for a second, that is in stark contrast to the Foreign Office’s refusal to summons the Chinese ambassador when the Foreign Affairs Committee was banned from entering Hong Kong. I am not sure what that tells us about the Foreign Office’s attitude towards the House.

Spain is now engaged in a full-on diplomatic offensive, using international institutions to manifest its hostility to Gibraltar’s sovereignty. In the EU, it has broken terms of the Cordoba agreement and is seeking to exclude Gibraltar from EU aviation legislation.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I salute the work that my right hon. Friend and his Select Committee have done on this issue and the robust line it has taken. He mentions aviation. Will he confirm what our noble Friend Lord Astor said in the other place—that the Spanish will not apparently allow Royal Air Force aircraft to overfly Spanish airspace on their way to and from Gibraltar? The cost of that to the British taxpayer is an additional £5,000 to £10,000 for each flight. Is that not disgraceful behaviour from a NATO ally?

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, not just United Kingdom aircraft but all NATO aircraft are prevented from overflying Spain if they have taken off from Gibraltar. I shall say more about that later.

As I was saying, in the European Union, Spain has broken key terms of the Cordoba agreement and is seeking to exclude Gibraltar from EU aviation legislation. That is damaging the economy: I have heard reports of businesses relocating because of poor flight connections. As for Spain’s behaviour at December’s EU Transport Council, it amounted to nothing less than open hostility. Spain persuaded both the presidency and the Commission to amend the draft single European sky legislation on air traffic control to exclude Gibraltar.

I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is present, and I was also pleased to hear that he had walked out of that meeting in protest. I am not sure that we would expect Foreign Office Ministers to walk out of meetings in protest—it is not quite their style—but I hope that the strong way in which my hon. Friend made his protest will have been noted. I should add that it is to the Government’s credit that they have threatened to veto the proposed EU-Ukraine aviation agreement if Gibraltar is excluded from it. However, the real issue, and what is of real concern, is why the Commission has come down on the side of Spain. So much for leaving the Commission to decide on the rights and wrongs of this dispute.

In the United Nations, Spain continues to lobby against the removal of Gibraltar from the list of non-self-governing territories. As it is obviously not such a territory, it should not be on the list. In May last year, Minister Joe Bassano told a UN special committee that Spain was running a campaign to deprive Gibraltar of its right to self-determination, using the arguments of Franco’s fascist Government. The response was, in the words of Gibraltar’s First Minister—who I am pleased to see is with us today—“a deafening silence”. All that is clear evidence of Spain’s politically motivated campaign. I invite the Minister to update us on developments in all those institutions, and, more important, on what the Government’s response will be—or are we just another soft touch?

In an increasingly troubled world, Spain’s behaviour as an ally is becoming increasingly unreliable. While refuelling Russian warships in its sovereign enclave of Ceuta, it continues to posture inside NATO, at a time when Russia is invading Ukraine and flexing its muscles in the Baltic and the northern approaches. Moreover—this brings me to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth)—Spain’s ban on NATO forces moving directly between Spain and Gibraltar is immature and to the detriment of western security. If they are landing on or taking off from Gibraltar, the military aircraft of any NATO member are not allowed to overfly Spain.

In the event of trouble, Spain would quickly turn to NATO and the United Kingdom for military help, and would get it. Perhaps, at the moment, it does indeed think that we are a soft touch. In his evidence, the Minister told the Committee that, in the absence of any diplomatic initiative, the UK’s forces simply work around it. That is completely unacceptable. Will the Government review the issue and enlist the support of other NATO countries in ensuring that this strategically illiterate ban is lifted?

To date, the Government have sought to de-escalate tensions. That cautious approach is not producing dividends. The Government fear that a more muscular approach will only make things worse, but at times things must get worse before they can get better. If Gibraltar is prepared to accept the consequences of a more robust approach, we should embark on it. In our report, we said that the Government were “sitting on the fence”; in their response, they peevishly said they had

“never been on the fence”

in the first place. To be fair, however, the Government are continuing the policy that they inherited from the last Government, and the First Minister has acknowledged that the language now is more robust than it has been for 30 years.

Spain is a key partner for the United Kingdom, both bilaterally and in the EU and NATO. It is testimony to the importance that both states ascribe to the bilateral relationship that it remains strong, despite our differences. However, Spain should not be able to pursue aggressive policies towards Gibraltar without consequences for its relationship with the UK. The UK Government have shown restraint in response to provocation by Spain. The hard truth is that the UK’s approach of consistently trying to de-escalate tensions in the face of mounting provocation has had little discernible effect, apart from giving Gibraltarians the impression that not enough is being done. It is now time to end the policy of restraint and to think hard about what measures can be taken to discourage Spain from exerting pressure on Gibraltar in the future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. We have seen a great deal of solidarity with the people of France in the last 24 hours against the appalling acts of yesterday. When these things happen, and when democracies are faced with the ideology of those who would kill and attack pluralism and free speech, we do not seek a chain of other issues to connect to them. We do it because we defend our own values, which are under attack from the ideology that led to the bombings in Madrid, which has led to action in this country and drove those responsible for the terrible events in Paris yesterday. On these international issues, will the Minister say what efforts the UK Government are making to make it clear to the international community that Gibraltar’s status must not be used in this way?

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

The right hon. Gentleman has set out a very sensible, rational analysis of the situation, and analysed our report very accurately. However, does he agree with the central conclusion that a tougher line needs to be taken with Madrid?

[Mr McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. Through the Cordoba agreement, we had good co-operation on a number of day-to-day issues to make the relationship between Gibraltar and Spain work. It is not down to any change in the UK’s position that that co-operation has been eroded. We need to take the action necessary to get back to that situation.

A few years ago, we had constructive dialogue, and my message today is that we cannot continue with the current situation. The report says that the people of Gibraltar feel “under siege” by the repeated border delays and transgressions of territorial waters. This has not happened by accident, or because of a change in policy by us. It has happened because of a change in policy by Spain. It is hurting Gibraltar, but it is also hurting the people of Spain. It is in the interests of the United Kingdom, of Gibraltar and of Spain to try to get back to the kind of co-operation that we had a few years ago. With good will, that can happen.

I shall end where I began, by saying that we two countries are allies with much in common. We in the UK do not seek to raise tensions with Spain, and that is why restraint has been shown, but it cannot be right for such undue pressure to continue to be placed on Gibraltar. We must get back to the situation that we had a few years ago, because that is in everyone’s interests. The cornerstone of our policy is the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, and that cornerstone remains firmly in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

One traditionally at the end of these debates politely says what a great debate it has been. I thank all my colleagues for their contributions because it has been an excellent debate, but I have to confess that I am left with a feeling of disappointment about where we have got to with the debate. Concerns have been expressed about aviation, maritime activities and incursions, and border delays, and while we have been sitting here I hear reports of a delay on the border this afternoon. The Minister was asked whether he would rule out a reduction in the defence force, and while he said he did not rule out an increase, he did not say whether he ruled out a reduction. He was asked by Members on the Government Benches and on the Opposition Front Bench whether he would implement article 259, and he fundamentally said no, he did not accept this. The main reason was the delays, yet we have waited years to reach this point. If the process had started some years ago, perhaps that judgment would now have been reaching a conclusion.

There have been no fewer than nine speeches from the Back Benches today, every one of them calling for more robust action. This debate is taking place on a substantive motion that invites the Government to review their policy towards Gibraltar. I assume that unless the massed ranks turn up, the Government have accepted the motion. I have not heard whether my right hon. Friend intends to review the policy. I have the impression that there is no such review. He is concerned, he is frustrated, he feels thwarted, but there is to be no fundamental review. Hence, I feel that the debate has ended with a degree of disappointment.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Gibraltar: Time to get off the fence, HC 461, and the Government response, Cm 8917; endorses the Committee’s position that the behaviour of the current Spanish Government towards Gibraltar is unacceptable; regrets that trilateral dialogue between the UK, Gibraltar and Spain remains suspended; believes that the time has come for more concerted action; and invites the Government to review its policy towards Spain on Gibraltar.

Ukraine (UK Relations with Russia)

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I apologise for not being able to stay for the winding-up speeches; I mean no disrespect to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the Minister.

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) has said. The alarm bells are ringing here. Of all the international hot spots at the moment, this is probably the most dangerous and possibly the one that threatens the UK the most.

It is interesting that Ukraine is helping to flag up Russia’s direction of travel. Much as the Chinese attitude towards Hong Kong flags up China’s current direction of travel, what is happening in Ukraine flags up where Russia is going. My main concern is that unless there is a breakthrough—it does not seem very likely at the moment—this will become a frozen conflict, which we will have to live with for a long time.

Since the ceasefire was agreed on 5 September, more than 1,000 people have been killed. New talks were meant to start yesterday, but I believe that they will start tomorrow. Let us hope that we can then have a real ceasefire. The Russians are clearly breaking the old one. They are clearly sending in troops. They deny that, pointing to private militias over which they say they have no control, which is absolute piffle. Let me pick up a point that was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). It is feared that Mariupol will be the next target, so that the Russians can build a land corridor to Crimea along the south coast.

The economic situation in Ukraine is dire. The country is in recession, there have been serious outflows of cash and there is a drain on the reserves. The manufacturing part of the country is in the disputed areas in the east, and it is beginning to look as though the Russian tactic is to target that aspect of the economy and bring about an economic meltdown that will destabilise Kiev. In May, the International Monetary Fund pledged $17 billion; $10 billion, in one form or another, was pledged by others, but is proving much harder to collect. Despite those funds, however, the situation is deteriorating. It is estimated that at least another $12 billion to $15 billion will be needed, and there is a big question mark over where it will come from and who will supply it. Moreover, it is clear that much more money is needed to pay for the defence of the country.

All this is causing political tensions. Elections took place in October, and I think we were all pretty relieved about that, but the coalition is already beginning to look a little shaky. The House should send the message that coalitions can indeed be shaky, but together people can actually achieve something. I urge the members of the coalition to stay together and swallow their differences, because if the coalition were to fall apart now, it would be absolutely disastrous. It would send the wrong message, and would dampen the enthusiasm of those of us who are committed to supporting the country.

The other piece of political advice that I would give the Ukrainians is that they must stay close to the European Union. Throughout all this—through thick and thin—it has always been the European Union that has stood by them. The EU is the only body that has been able to stand up to Russia. It was EU mediation that sorted out the gas supplies, it is the EU that is brokering the next ceasefire talks, and it is the EU that is imposing sanctions and maintaining them. As I look around the Chamber and see some of my more Eurosceptic colleagues, I feel that I should point out that the EU sometimes has its advantages and its values.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will my right hon. Friend give way? [Laughter.]

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I would not object to being drawn on a lot of points, but I do not want to become involved in an argument with him about that particular issue. I do not think that the EU can be blamed for all this. There is much more to it in the history. Indeed, my hon. Friend has talked about the history himself.

I believe that sanctions are the only action that Russia will understand. When they were first imposed, they were described as “pathetic” , but—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon—they are working and proving effective, and they may yet be what brings Russia to the negotiating table.

After the unexpected visit of Mr Hollande, the President of France, to meet President Putin at the airport—which rather surprised us all—Putin told reporters, “We need to resolve” the conflict, and said that Russia respected Ukraine’s territorial integrity and wanted to see it restored. Good for Mr Hollande, I say, but can we believe it, and do we think it will happen? I suppose, in Mr Putin’s mind, such matters often depend on whether it is the morning or the afternoon, such are his mood swings. The House will be interested to know that they also appeared to resolve the helicopter carriers dispute, with Mr Putin saying that France can keep them providing it returns the money, which is an interesting straw in the wind, and it remains to be seen whether France does return the money.

More significant is the intervention of Angela Merkel who has made sweeping criticisms of Russia, and accused the Russians point-blank of creating problems. It is important to remember her background, as someone who comes from eastern Germany and who understands what it is like to be under Soviet occupation. After the G20 summit in Brisbane she warned that Russia’s ambitions stretched beyond Ukraine, which is a very serious accusation to make. She said that it is trying to make some Baltic states “economically and politically dependent.” She then went on to remind us all that article 5 of the NATO treaty applies to all allies, which is probably the most significant part of this, and reflects the concern being felt in Berlin at the moment about the developing situation. Of course, Ukraine wants to be a member of NATO so it has the umbrella of article 5, and the question for all of us is whether we could possibly defend Ukraine, and I am not sure we could, frankly, so I think we have to be very careful before we get too drawn into that debate.

The Baltics have to be our priority. I think the Baltics are a red line for us all, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister has more than once confirmed from the Dispatch Box that that is the position of the British Government. I also welcome the deployment that has taken place there, and I am sure that if the situation in the Baltics deteriorates further, provisional plans are in place.

Over recent months we have seen 40 unusual aircraft intrusions into the region. The Russians are clearly testing response times, and they have been probing UK airspace, too, and I understand that right now the Royal Navy is keeping an eye on Russian warships doing exercises in the channel. The big question for us all now is whether we should be doing more on the defence side. That is something we will have to keep a close eye on.

My fear is that the situation will get worse before it gets better. No less a person than former President Gorbachev said in an interview with Tass, the state-owned news agency:

“Now there are once again signs of a cold war.”

This process can, and must, be stopped. After all, we did it in the ’80s: we opted for de-escalation and the reunification of Germany, and back then the situation was a lot tougher than now, so we could do it again.

This reflects the fact that there are serious tensions inside the Kremlin at the moment, and one often speculates about what on earth is going on there. There are clearly two camps. There is what is known as the Siloviki, those who have a background in security and/or the military, and there are the economic liberals who are concerned about the economic situation in Russia.

That dispute inside the Kremlin will intensify with western isolation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon pointed out, the Russian economy is now in freefall: the rouble is plummeting and the oil price is wreaking havoc with the Russian economy. What President Gorbachev did not say in his interview is that that is exactly what happened last time, and it may be that that brings Russia to the negotiating table—maybe Mr Putin’s conversation with President Hollande was not just a flippant remark, and maybe second thoughts are going on.

Russia is clearly now flailing around. It is resorting to the old tactic of unpredictable testing of EU reactions by cancelling the South Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Europe, which I suspect is more cover for economic weakness. That may force the EU to look more urgently for alternative gas supplies, which I think we would all welcome, even though it may well cause division inside the EU.

We have to keep our resolve. We have to keep united and stand by Ukraine both in NATO and the European Union.

Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the ban by China on the Foreign Affairs Committee visit to Hong Kong.

As one who travels more than most, I have become only too aware of the high regard that the world has for the United Kingdom—for what this iconic building stands for, what the Chamber stands for, and what those who sit in it stand for. It is, in a phrase, freedom and democracy: a respect for human rights around the world, and an abhorrence of tyranny. The decision by the Government of China to ban the Foreign Affairs Committee’s visit to Hong Kong is a mistake. It is an attack on the men and women of the free world.

It is nearly five years since the House did me the great honour of electing me Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. During that time, I have been ably supported by my colleagues. We have visited some of the most troubled parts of the world—places where democracy is all but non-existent, or an illusion—but in none has anyone ever sought to deny us access, or accused us of

“meddling in the internal affairs of another country”,

as the Chinese ambassador did during a meeting with me on 15 August. That is an accusation unsupported by any evidence.

Between the end of the first opium war with China in 1842 and withdrawal in 1997, the Union flag flew over the island of Hong Kong. In 1898, the Chinese authorities granted a 99-year lease of the new territories on the mainland. The looming expiration of that lease began to exercise diplomats in the 1970s and 1980s. The Chinese made it clear that they wanted the return of the new territories, without which Hong Kong was not a viable entity. A course of action and a handover were carefully planned, and the Sino-British joint declaration was agreed. The declaration was signed in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on 19 December 1984 by Margaret Thatcher and the Chinese premier, Zhao Ziyang. It was deposited with the United Nations a few months later.

I am afraid to say that I am old enough to have been a member of the House of Commons at the time of the signing. The reaction then was that this was not a bad deal at all. It was as good as we were going to get, and it was either this or no deal at all. At its heart was a commitment to a “one country, two system” style of government, and a pledge that the socialist system of China would not be practised in Hong Kong, that Hong Kong would retain its status as an international finance centre, and that its previous capitalist system, its rights, its freedoms and its way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years. The joint declaration provides that those undertakings shall be set out in the Hong Kong Basic Law, and—critically—stipulates that the Chief Executive may be elected. Article 45 of the Basic Law states:

“The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”

The flashpoint for the current protests in Hong Kong was the publication in August of a decision by the standing committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing on procedures for the election of the Chief Executive in 2017. Aware of the forthcoming decision, two key pro-democracy campaigners, Anson Chan and Martin Lee, told our Committee in July that their main concern was that the “broadly representative nominating committee”, which approves candidates for the post of Chief Executive, would be “dominated” by Beijing loyalists. Martin Lee said that anyone who was not trusted by Beijing would be

“screened out ...even though they were trusted by the Hong Kong people”.

That is the problem that has given rise to unrest, and to the peaceful protests that have received global attention.

Let me clarify for the record, and for those who are not familiar with the workings of the British constitution and the House, that a Select Committee is not part of the United Kingdom Government. On the contrary, the job of the Foreign Affairs Committee is to exercise oversight of the Foreign Office and its policies, and we operate totally independently.

Since the handover in 1997, the Foreign Office has published a report to Parliament on Hong Kong every six months. In its report of 12 July this year, it said of the growing constitutional arguments:

“the important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and feel that they have a real stake in the outcome.”

It continued:

“But it is clear that there is still some way to go for consensus to be reached.”

Given the hundreds of thousands of protesters who were on the streets, that was a wonderful British understatement by the then Foreign Secretary, who I am pleased to see is in the Chamber today.

In response to growing concern here and abroad, the Foreign Affairs Committee decided to conduct an inquiry into the strength, accuracy and veracity of the Foreign Office reports. Our terms of reference are simple: to investigate not just the six-monthly reports and the political and constitutional issues that are raised, but the bilateral relationship in terms of trade, business and culture, and the work of the British Council. The most important point is that we embarked upon our report with an open mind. We have no preconceived conclusions, and we invited all interested parties to give evidence, including the Hong Kong and Chinese Governments.

However, shortly after we announced our inquiry, the Chinese ambassador to London wrote to me on 14 July stating that

“The affairs of Hong Kong SAR”—

Special Administrative Region—

“are purely China's internal affairs”,

and that he was

“firmly opposed to any interference in Hong Kong…by any foreign country and by any means.”

He concluded with the advice that the Committee should not make its planned visit to Hong Kong in December. We rejected that advice, because we believed that it would be an abrogation of our responsibilities to the House if we accepted it.

In a letter to me dated 22 November, Mr Song Zhe, China's commissioner to Hong Kong—that is, its representative in Hong Kong—went further, saying that our visit would be viewed as

“support to ‘Occupy Central’ and other illegal activities”.

Occupy Central is the name of the protesters’ campaign on the streets of Hong Kong. In response to the letter, the Committee simply stated it was still our intention to visit. As a result, the deputy ambassador to the Chinese Embassy came to see me in the House on Friday afternoon, and informed me that the Committee would not be allowed entry into Hong Kong for the purposes of our inquiry. The meeting took place in a Committee Room on the Upper Committee Corridor. Fortunately, for the purpose of greater accuracy, I invited the editor of Hansard to attend to ensure that there would be a verbatim record of the conversation. I am grateful to her for her efforts.

At the heart of the Chinese argument, conveyed to me at the meeting, is that the joint declaration signed by China and the United Kingdom is now void and only covered the period from the signing in 1984 until the handover in 1997. Given that the Chinese Government gave an undertaking that the policies enshrined in the agreement would remain unchanged for 50 years, this is a manifestly irresponsible and incorrect position to take. It is a live agreement, which is why the Foreign Office rightly continues to produce its six-monthly reports on Hong Kong. Britain is a party to over 18,000 international treaties and agreements. To suggest that we have no right to assess the performance of our counter-parties to such agreements is ridiculous.

The second point made is the old Aunt Sally—which was made not once, but twice—that we are not a colonial power any more and must not behave like one. I only mention this to enable the House to assess the mindset inside the Chinese Government.

I believe that the decision to ban the Committee is wrong and will have a profound impact. First, decisions on entry to Hong Kong are devolved under the Basic Law and are clearly a matter for the Hong Kong Administration, not the Chinese Government. This sends a clear signal that the pledge that Hong Kong would

“enjoy a high degree of autonomy”,

as set out in paragraph 3(2) of the joint agreement, is now under threat. That the ban on the Committee clearly came from the Chinese Government brings into question whether the key principle of “one country, two systems” still has any meaning.

Secondly, we are China’s partners, not a distant third party. This decision will do nothing but damage Anglo-Chinese relations, something I regret. China is a fellow member of the G20. We have a free flow of parliamentarians, officials, businessmen and those involved in cultural exchanges. I say to China, “If you want to be a member of the G20, you have to behave like a member of the G20.” We have Chinese delegations here all the time. It should not be a one-way street. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), is, in fact, due to visit Hong Kong in a few weeks’ time; are they going to ban him, too?

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I fully support what the right hon. Gentleman has said today. He has put his case in a very measured and eloquent way and I am sure the whole House supports the position taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee, which of course has implications for other Select Committees, should they wish to visit other countries.

Of course, Select Committees are separate from the Government, but were any representations made by the Government to the Chinese Government about the refusal to grant a visa and allow the FAC to go to China?

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

As a fellow Select Committee Chairman, I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support and he will fully understand the position the Committee finds itself in. If he does not mind, I will leave it to the Minister to answer his question, perhaps when he winds up, but I would say that the Foreign Office has been nothing but supportive of the Committee throughout this unhappy episode.

Thirdly, and most importantly, this decision points to China’s direction of travel. If there is a commitment to democracy in Hong Kong, one first has to understand democracy. Democracy embraces criticism, and constructive criticism is the most valuable thing democracy can provide. If China blatantly blocks well-wishers like this Parliament, that raises big, unanswered questions which will alarm the people of Hong Kong and the region. This decision will not go unnoticed in Taiwan.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

May I say that it is a pleasure to serve on the FAC under my right hon. Friend’s chairmanship? Does he agree that the Chinese Government have already concluded that they know what our report will say, which is unwise, and they have forfeited the opportunity to put their case to the Committee?

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I value his support on the Committee. We have approached this inquiry with an open mind, and I think the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong authorities are missing a real opportunity by declining to give evidence to us. Indeed they do not even recognise the Committee as they continue to call this a “so-called inquiry.”

Finally, Hong Kong is the largest stock market in China and its main financial services hub, supporting a fifth of the world’s population. It currently has free flows of money, goods and services. What sort of message does this send to future investors? This arbitrary action can only harm China’s reputation and financial interests in an increasingly global world. In Asia, a stable Singapore looks a much better place to do business at the moment.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I have been listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, which I think is absolutely spot-on. Does he agree that the Chinese are looking at this in the following way: “Well, there was all that fuss about Tibet and we just got on with it, and there was all that fuss about our appalling human rights record but we have just got on with it. So over time, this too, will all go away and we’ll continue to trade and be able to sell our goods around the world and nobody will take a blind bit of notice”?

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. After the spat over the Dalai Lama, Anglo-Chinese relations were on the right trajectory, and I think this is a very serious hiccup now, which will give a lot of people reason to pause and reflect.

We will continue with our inquiry, but this decision cannot go unchallenged. As Members of this House are well aware, as we enter this Chamber we pass under the archway which has been deliberately left with the damage inflicted by a bomb in the second world war. It is a reminder of the damage that can ultimately be caused by the enemies of freedom. The anchor in our world today is freedom. It gives us our sense of direction. It is how we decide between right and wrong. I invite the Government to condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Roy]

Absolutely. Think of the uproar there would be if we suddenly said to Chinese parliamentarians, “You are not coming to this country. You are not coming into this building.” It does not take a huge brain to work out the uproar that would result from such a ban if it were the other way around.

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that it is my understanding that a delegation from China is coming to Parliament this week.

[Mr Roy]

If they are coming this week, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in saying that they are most welcome to attend Parliament and to have a full and frank discussion on any subject they wish to raise with any politician.

I was talking about areas that we have visited where one would imagine that there could have been problems. Several Members recently returned from the Kurdistan region of Iraq, which we visited in connection with our current inquiry into Kurdistan. Like Hong Kong, it is a sub-region within a sovereign country. Kurdistan is constitutionally very sensitive for the Iraqi Government, but the Iraqis were welcoming and helpful. They understood that we were travelling there not to build on discord or to start a row, but to do a job on behalf of the people we represent and ultimately, we hope, to make more people understand the problems that there are in Iraq and Kurdistan.

The Prime Minister’s spokesperson said yesterday that the Prime Minister believed that the decision was mistaken. He said that it served only to

“amplify concerns about the situation in Hong Kong, rather than diminish them.”

As the Chairman of the Select Committee said so eloquently, China’s decision to deny us entry sends a worrying signal about its direction of travel regarding Hong Kong. It is also a worrying signal for the people of Taiwan and the Government of Taipei. We must be under no illusion: the people of Taiwan and the Government of Taipei will be watching this situation and asking, “Is this where we could go? Is this what could happen to us?” Who could blame them if they did?

I will be grateful if the Minister answers five questions when he sums up. First, how do the Government intend to respond to this unprecedented ban? Secondly, what meetings and conversations have Ministers sought or held with their counterparts in China in the past five days to discuss this issue? Thirdly, has the FCO called in the ambassador? Fourthly, has the United Kingdom’s embassy in China protested formally to the Chinese Government about the ban, and if not, why not? Lastly, what does the Minister think the ban says about China’s approach to the United Kingdom and the work of democratically elected parliamentarians?

The decision to ban our Select Committee is wrong and totally undemocratic. It must not go unchallenged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

I am grateful to the House for the debate. Four things have emerged from it. First, the joint declaration is still alive and well, and this Parliament will continue to take an interest in it. Secondly, it is the view of Parliament that China is the loser in this situation, from both a commercial and a strategic point of view. Thirdly, although bilateral relations will suffer in the short term, we are quite capable of rebuilding them; the question for the Chinese is, are they? The Foreign Affairs Committee remains willing to visit Hong Kong if agreement can be reached. Fourthly, the hon. Member Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) posed a number of questions in his speech, and we should be grateful if the Minister could give us answers to them in writing.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I thank you for your unfailing support for this process. The winner in it is Parliament, and the quality of the debate has justified your decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the ban by China on the Foreign Affairs Committee visit to Hong Kong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s point about producers in Northern Ireland. As she knows, some EU compensation arrangements are available, but she has put her finger on the really important point. My colleagues in DEFRA and UK Trade & Investment want to work with producers in Northern Ireland and elsewhere both to access the EU funds available for getting into alternative markets and to promote the excellent produce from Northern Ireland in third markets worldwide.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Given that Russia’s food import problems are due to the financial sanctions imposed on it by the EU because of Russia’s illegal behaviour in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and given that yesterday the rouble had its worst day since the 1990s, does the Minister agree that financial sanctions will bring Russia to the negotiating table, and will he continue with them?

[Mr Lidington]

Russia has certainly suffered heavily as a result of the imposition of sanctions in the way that my right hon. Friend describes. We have seen a flight of capital out of Russia, as well as the precipitate fall in the value of the rouble. I hope that the Russian leadership will accept that it is in the interests of the Russian people to implement the Minsk agreement with Ukraine in full and, in particular, to return to Ukraine control of her sovereign borders.

Iran (Nuclear Talks)

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We regularly raise consular issues with the Iranians, and we were of course pleased to see the news that Ghoncheh Ghavami has been released on bail pending her appeal. The right hon. Gentleman referred to her as a British citizen. Part of the problem is that she is a dual British-Iranian citizen, and the Iranian constitution does not recognise duality of citizenship, so the Iranians regard her as simply an Iranian citizen. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), met her fiancé this morning; the Prime Minister raised the case with President Rouhani when he met him at the UN General Assembly; I have raised the case with Foreign Minister Zarif, and we will continue to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the absence of Iranian aggression, and I am happy to agree with that as a matter of historical fact. He will know, however, that there are many in the middle east who see the hand of Iranian asymmetric engagement in their internal affairs and would very much urge the Iranians not to intervene in a way that destabilises the situation in various countries around the Gulf. I can tell him that the Israeli Government are well aware of our position, and equally we are well aware of their position.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his statement and on the fact that the talks are still live. He says that there are significant differences, but from where I am standing it looks more like an unbridgeable gap, and I would be grateful if he could tell us how he intends to bridge that gap. Can he tell us a bit more about what is going on in Tehran? On the one hand, we have President Rouhani, who clearly wants to move towards a negotiated settlement; on the other, the vibes from the supreme leader’s office are that Iran’s priority is the removal of sanctions but with no retreat from the nuclear programme. Will not those divisions make progress impossible?

[Mr Hammond]

One of the characteristics of the negotiations is that the two key protagonists—on one side the Iranians, and on the other the United States—have complex and non-homogeneous internal political audiences, in which different parts of the system may have very different views. We are quite familiar with dealing with that situation in our own environment, and we have to recognise that it sometimes exists in other countries as well.

I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that there is an unbridgeable gap. If we thought that, we would have called a spade a spade and, if I can mix my metaphors, pulled stumps and gone home on Monday—I am not sure whether the Iranians play cricket. We do not believe that there is an unbridgeable gap; we believe that there is a substantial gap. It is a lot smaller now than it was a month ago, and there was a genuine sense of momentum in the room in Vienna over the weekend. The fact is that the Iranians clearly want to do a deal, and we want to do a deal, but we have to make sure that it is a deal that addresses our absolute and unshakeable conviction that Iran must not obtain the capability to build a nuclear weapon.

Iran (UK Foreign Policy)

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) for securing this debate. I was delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have disagreed over the years, although I have the highest regard for his intellect and his tone and approach to foreign affairs, started with the context in which we have to look at Iran, because that is incredibly important.

In a way, I see Iran almost as two nations, which are sometimes contradictory. Iranians are sophisticated and proud people—they do not want to be humiliated—and it is important to remember that they are Persians, not Arabs. Yet there is quite a strong liberal streak inside Iranian society. One very good example of that is the widespread acceptance of family planning. Iran has the most effective family planning regime in the world. In 1979, Khomeini wanted to expand the population of Iran to fight Iraq, but was told he did not have the infrastructure to support an expanding population. So a complete U-turn was done and Iran has stabilised its population growth, without any of the draconian methods that China, for example, has had to impose. Tehran university has more female undergraduates than male undergraduates at the moment, so there are indications that a young, youthful, well-educated society is on the way up, which may yet change the face of Iran. I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister was able to meet President Rouhani at the United Nations the other day and supported the conventional thinking that we need to keep the dialogue going. On the other hand, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn has said, Iran has the most appalling human rights record, with child executions, political prisoners, the presidential candidates from 2009 still under house arrest and almost non-existent press freedom.

Iran is a foreign policy nightmare: its support for President Assad in Syria, through Hezbollah funding and the positioning of the revolutionary guard in Syria, is causing immense difficulties; it is undermining the Government of Bahrain by support for the Shi’a minority there; it openly supports, and is funding, Hamas in its criticism of and aggression towards Israel; it is running a complex network of weapons-smuggling routes into Gaza, through Egypt, with the sole intention of attacking Israel—it is in defiance of four UN Security Council resolutions on that; it has engaged in the funding of and support for attacks on Israeli diplomats around the world; and its antipathy towards Saudi Arabia is legendary, although this goes both ways. I will return to that point in a minute.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions have serious implications for a number of different factions and groupings around the country. For the EU and the west, there is an impact on our security if the Iranians have a nuclear capability. There will also be economic consequences, with a loss of stability in the middle east. Israel is rightly concerned about Iran’s ambitions. The regional consequences are also serious, with Saudi Arabia now developing its own nuclear research programmes, as is Jordan—surprisingly. That just shows the nervousness in the region.

Iran has a complex and cumbersome structure of government, and one often asks oneself, “Who is actually running the show?” The ultimate power lies with the Supreme Leader, who does not exercise his power in an authoritative, dictatorial way, but does so in a more consultative way, with occasional nudging, sometimes aggressively, as we have seen in the nuclear negotiations. Just to add to the complications, the Supreme Leader at the moment is ailing and, as he has to make difficult decisions about the negotiations, that is not helpful. On the other hand, we have the President, who is more the chief executive, but a strong one, and he is the head of the nuclear negotiations.

When President Rouhani was elected to office—to the surprise of many as he was the most moderate candidate—we all said that he was a man with whom we could do business. He is a moderate who suits the situation. But we must judge him by his actions, not his words, and reining in a few hotheads in the revolutionary guard is about all we have seen, and we are still waiting for the beef.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend also aware that Ban Ki-moon’s annual report to the General Assembly in October highlighted the fact that President Rouhani was expected to be a very moderate leader, but in fact the number of executions, especially of juveniles, has increased? The expectation has not been borne out in his actions in the country.

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

Yes, I am aware of that comment. However, the interpretation that my hon. Friend puts on it may be slightly unfair to Rouhani who does not necessarily control the judicial system or the sentences that are being handed down. The question is: can we trust him?

[Mr Baron]

I am listening with intent and interest to my right hon. Friend’s good speech. May I suggest to him that we should not look at this relationship just through the prism of executions and human rights? There are many of our allies in the region that have a similarly poor record, and yet that has not stopped us from calling them allies.

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

I have great regard for my hon. Friend’s views, but there are not many countries in the region that have a human rights record quite as bad as Iran’s. None the less, he makes a valid point, and it has to be taken into account. The question I was asking was: can we trust President Rouhani? The right hon. Member for Blackburn, who has known him for many years, suggests that we can, and I hope that he is right. The question is: what if he is wrong? That is the challenge we all face.

Rather worryingly, the Supreme Leader has been interfering in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with his call for industrial levels of centrifuges and nuclear material production, which caught the negotiators by surprise. When President Obama suggested enriching nuclear rods in the United States in 2009, the Supreme Leader pulled the rug from under that issue as well.

At the UN, President Rouhani suggested there should be a link between helping the west deal with the situation in Iraq and concessions in the nuclear negotiations. I have only one response to that, which is no, no, no. That cannot be the basis on which we proceed. To have a few more enrichment centrifuges for a bit of co-operation is exactly the wrong sort of deal.

Looking at the negotiations—the deadline is fast approaching—a number of deals have been suggested. Any settlement must have two main features. One is the break-out time. The Foreign Affairs Committee proposed a minimum of at least six months. The second is a verification programme that must be as robust as possible. That must be supported by a rigid inspections regime. It is critical that the International Atomic Energy Agency stays involved throughout the whole process and brings its professionalism to any verification and inspection. There is, in any settlement, a trade-off between reduction in capacity and the relaxation of trade sanctions as an incentive to encourage progress.

There is much talk about the number of centrifuges that can be used for peaceful production. I have been advised that the figure is somewhere in the region of 2,000 to 4,000, against the 18,000 currently in use. Obviously, the fewer centrifuges there are, the greater the time for break-out, and that has to be right at the centre of any negotiation settlement.

We also need to be satisfied that the objectives of the base at Arak, which is the home to the heavy water reactor, are peaceful. Iranians have yet to come up with a good explanation of those objectives. They argue that the facility is being used for medical research, but there is far too much capacity there for that, and no economic reason has been forthcoming.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am listening with interest to my right hon. Friend’s hugely impressive speech, particularly to the bit about the lack of inspections. I believe that the Arak facility was last visited in August 2011 and, despite repeated requests from the IAEA, no further visits have been allowed since.

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that goes to this question of trust. If visits are prevented, how can we trust people when they say what is going on there?

As we approach the deadline, there is little sign of a deal. There is still prevarication. The Foreign Office should be prepared to sign up to an extension of the deadline if that is what is needed. The time is on the west’s side at the moment: the sanctions have had an impact, even though they are a crude weapon; the oil price is falling; and the Iranian economy is shrinking fairly significantly. This is the right time to do the deal, but the window is narrow, as the situation has become more complicated by the mid-term election results in the United States. An increasingly confident Republican-controlled Congress is set to make life more and more difficult for President Obama as he reaches the end of his presidency. Rouhani’s time is also limited, as he is trying to fight off the hardliners. If there is no deal, Rouhani will be weakened, the hardliners will be back and they cannot wait for this deal to fail, and the hostility to the west will grow.

If Iran gets a bomb, the middle east arms race will accelerate, and the security situation will get worse. Russia has a role to play. There were reports yesterday that some processing may be done in Russia, which is a great idea if it is possible and achievable. As has been said about Ukraine over recent months, we must keep the lines of communication open with Russia, mainly because they are a key player in settling the deal in Iran.

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

Does my right hon. Friend agree —I tried to make this point to the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) —that, in the wider sense, the key to all this is confidence? In doing this transaction with the Russians, which is both sensible and welcome, we must ensure that, for the success of future negotiations, there is proper verification at all times and at every stage.

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Trust and verification go hand in hand. Without good verification and trust, there will be no basis for a settlement.

I have spoken for far too long. We should not compromise on this matter because, at the end of the day, no deal is better than a bad deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and she will not be surprised to learn that I heard a very similar message when I was in Irbil a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister has appointed Lieutenant General Sir Simon Mayall as his security envoy to the Kurdistan Regional Government. Part of his task is to assess the needs of the peshmerga, and their abilities as well—there is no point giving them weapons they cannot maintain or use effectively. We have supplied them with some heavy calibre machine guns, which they are now deploying to good effect, but we are constantly open to suggestions from the peshmerga about any additional requirements they may have.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The point has just been made that the peshmerga are defending hundreds of miles of frontier with just rifles, and what they desperately need is equipment, equipment and equipment. To what extent is the Foreign Office liaising with our allies to make sure there is not a duplication of equipment and to enable us to supply the very important equipment the Peshmerga need?

[Mr Hammond]

There is co-ordination with allies. Part of the point of the US appointing General John Allen to act as a co-ordinator for the coalition is to ensure that we do these things efficiently and effectively. My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that the peshmerga are defending 1,000 km of frontier in what is effectively ISIL-controlled territory. They are doing that extraordinarily bravely, but there are still significant deficiencies in their weaponry, and we must look collectively at those and address them as rapidly as we can.