Britain in the World

Steve Baker Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am setting out for the right hon. Gentleman what the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is, and I know he takes a different view, but a decision about the defence of the nation is not a matter for any one part of the United Kingdom: it is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom and for this House.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to make a little more progress as there are many who wish to speak.

The crisis in Ukraine, which the Foreign Secretary referred to, has demonstrated how an aggressive Russia can threaten its neighbours and reminds us of the importance of NATO and of the EU in standing up to external threats in Europe’s eastern and southern neighbourhoods. As he said, the Minsk agreement represents the best hope of progress, but it needs to be implemented.

We support the action the Government have taken to participate in the high readiness NATO force in eastern Europe, including sending four RAF Typhoon jets to be part of the Baltic air policing mission, because that is a clear demonstration of the UK’s commitment to collective security.

The threat from al-Qaeda and the growth of ISIL and other Islamic jihadist groups not just in the middle east but in Somalia with al-Shabaab and in Nigeria with Boko Haram, represent a considerable threat to global and domestic security. The flow of young British men and women into Syria via Turkey, some of their own volition and others having been groomed, is as inexplicable to their parents as it is alarming to this House. Recent advances by ISIL in Iraq, in particular the seizure of Ramadi, reveal the continuing weakness of Iraqi forces and of the Baghdad Government’s capacity to deal with this threat, despite the aerial support the Foreign Secretary referred to. Sectarianism has caused great suffering to the people of Iraq and only an inclusive politics can overcome it. Back in October the Foreign Secretary told the House that, while there would be tactical ebb and flow in Iraq, the coalition air campaign had “stabilised the strategic picture”. Is that still his view given that what is being done at the moment does not seem to have halted ISIL’s advance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

May I just refresh the hon. Gentleman’s memory? It was the Serbian people who removed President Miloševic in an election. The lesson I would learn from that particular episode is the extreme folly of pursing military action without a United Nations mandate. Unfortunately, that lesson was not learned, which is why we have the present nightmare in Iraq.

On the European convention on human rights, those of us who were in the Chamber last Thursday afternoon were treated to a remarkable cock-crowing three times for the Justice Secretary. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) questioned him three times about withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, and she got three different answers. First, he said:

“The right hon. Lady is getting ever so slightly ahead of herself.”

Secondly, in the same column in Hansard, he said that she was

“evasive when asked about immigration numbers”.

Thirdly, when asked,

“One simple question: European convention—in or out?”,

he said:

“We are in the European convention at the moment.”—[Official Report, 28 May 2015; Vol. 596, c. 291-292.]

That lack of clarity from the Justice Secretary contrasts with the statement we heard from the Foreign Secretary earlier today, in which he seemed to suggest that the option of withdrawing from the European convention was not on the table. That makes it all the more puzzling to see the headline on the front page of today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper that I will not cite too often in these debates—it lives in a parallel universe as far as Scotland is concerned, but no one can doubt that it has sources deep in the heart of Conservative party. It suggested today that both the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary were lifting the flag of rebellion and telling the Prime Minister that withdrawal from the European convention was absolutely necessary for fulfilling the objectives of the Conservative party and repatriating the powers of the judiciary. Having heard the Justice Secretary refuse three times to give the answer that the Foreign Secretary gave today, I am interested in how deep these divisions run in the Conservative party.

I have known the Justice Secretary for many years, since he was a striking young journalist on The Press and Journal. I am not talking about his copy; he was literally on strike at the time, on a picket line. I remember the occasion well. It was 1989 and he was clutching a copy of the Socialist Worker, or perhaps is was “Das Kapital”—it could have been any one of a range of publications. What I do remember is that on that occasion he was eloquently in favour of both human and workers’ rights.

I must declare an interest, as I now write a column for The Press and Journal. I have encountered no bullying behaviour by management there in recent years, but that was not the case for the Justice Secretary. I recently came across an article from The Guardian on 5 October 2012, in which the then father of the chapel, Iain Campbell, wrote very favourably about the Justice Secretary. He wrote:

“We knew he was a Tory, and our concern was to have a united front. So we spoke to Michael, and he was happy to come on board. He wasn’t a typical striker by any means, but he was very articulate, so we asked Michael to come to the European parliament in Strasbourg to lobby MEPs.”

I accept that the Justice Secretary was a young man at the time, but it is pretty clear that back then he was asserting for himself human and workers’ rights that as Justice Secretary, as regards the European convention and his attitude to trade union legislation, he now seems intent on denying to others. It is therefore reasonable to ask to have clarified in early course whether the Conservative party and the Government stand behind the Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary, or whether the more loyal expression of Europeanism we heard from the Foreign Secretary carries the Cabinet at the present moment.

The implications of withdrawing from the European convention or revoking the Human Rights Act are of course serious. There is no majority in this House for withdrawal and no majority in the House of Lords for withdrawal. There is absolute opposition in the Scottish Parliament, where the European convention—the Human Rights Act—is embedded into the devolution legislation. There is little support for it in Northern Ireland, where the European convention is part and parcel of the Good Friday and St Andrews agreements. With all that clearly impinging on the Government’s abilities, then surely it is time to abandon this nonsense of reneging on these obligations to human rights.

I am not certain that many Members will know this, but there is in the Strasbourg Court a framed copy of the Declaration of Arbroath. There are also, if I remember correctly, plaques to Ernest Bevin and to Winston Churchill in the walkway to the Strasbourg Court. It is at least arguable that many of the justices in the Strasbourg Court know rather more about the Scottish legal system than many Members of this House. There would be huge implications for how our legal system, our Parliament and our society relate to the European convention, even if the rather sleekit option were pursued of revoking the Act as opposed to withdrawing from the convention.

I want to turn to the European issue. In the past few days, the Prime Minister embarked on a grand tour of Europe, although as far as I can make out only four European capitals were visited over the weekend. However, I did see a favourable release on his activities saying that he had breakfasted in one capital, lunched in a second and dined in a third. Never have so many menus been translated for any single Prime Minister in history. It was considered a success that the German Chancellor seemed to indicate that it was not impossible that a treaty change could be effected. Therefore, in fairness, on the conclusion of this debate, we should be told by the Government whether a treaty change is the objective of the negotiations. What is the treaty change that the Government want to see effected? I would rather hope that it is a treaty change to substantially change the common fisheries policy. I would support that treaty change, but I have not seen the Prime Minister mentioning the common fisheries recently in any of his utterances. We should be clear what is the treaty change that the Government seek and the German Chancellor seemed to indicate might, under some circumstances, be possible.

What is the Government’s negotiating position? We are told that negotiations have started, with the whirlwind tour of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister of European capitals, but what is the negotiating position? Are we going to be told the negotiating position after the negotiations have taken place? If my memory does not betray me, in the 18th century there was launched in the South sea bubble a company whose purposes were to be hereafter determined. The Prime Minister seems to have launched a negotiation whose purposes will be hereafter determined. The endgame in the South sea bubble was that it burst, and I think that the Prime Minister’s European negotiations will burst as well.

[Mr Baker]

It may help the right hon. Gentleman to know that Business for Britain has very helpfully laid out 10 points of the Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy and anyone can read that.

[Alex Salmond]

Now we have it! Business for Britain is now the European Secretary of the Conservative party in government. When we want to ask questions in the House, we do not ask the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister—we summon Business for Britain to tell us how on earth they are going to effect a European strategy. I know the Conservative party is interested in subcontracting and contracting out, but I have never heard of an entire policy being subcontracted out to Business for Britain. If I may say so, unless we are going to create a new Ministry, I think that instead of Business for Britain, it would be better to have a rather more accountable organisation, if Members of Parliament are to question policy.

Talking of questions, I notice that in the referendum question—we have the question before we know the negotiation strategy, never mind the results of the strategy—there is no actual mention of negotiation. Is that not to be in the question? When the Electoral Commission looks at the question, will that be debated?

I learned earlier, in an interesting exchange, that the Labour party in Westminster, as opposed to the Labour party in Scotland, does not believe that the 100,000-plus European citizens in Scotland should be entitled to vote in a European referendum. Christian Allard is a Member of the Scottish Parliament—he is a regional Member for the north-east of Scotland—and a French citizen. He has been in Scotland for the better part of quarter of a century, paying his taxes and working hard, but he is to be deprived of his vote in a European referendum while Members of the House of Lords are to be given the vote. I know the Conservative party, in terms of its attitude to the European convention, is very wary of prisoners being given the vote, but now ex-prisoners in the House of Lords are to be given the vote in a European referendum while Christian Allard will have his taken away.

I say to Labour Front Benchers that the whole purpose of giving European citizens and citizens of other countries resident in Scotland the vote in the Scottish referendum was to say that such matters should be taken civically—not according to nationality or ethnicity—by communities of the nation.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) managed, in the course of one speech, to disagree with the acting leader of the Labour party in Scotland on the issue of who should vote in the referendum, and with the one remaining Labour MP from Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is opposed—he confirmed this to me by nodding only last Thursday—to the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. I have heard of splits in political parties, but for the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of a single speech, to open up a division between the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, who has not even been elected yet, and his colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh South—a member of the shadow Cabinet—on the issue of the renewal of the Trident system is a remarkable achievement by a party that is trying to bind up the wounds of a divided election campaign. On the issue of Europe, there are important questions that require to be answered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

The answer is yes, and the hon. Gentleman has saved me from uttering the sentence I was going to utter next, but the point about that review, of course, is that although it was truly strategic, it was not properly funded. Ours went to the other extreme of being properly funded but not truly strategic. We have to try to get a balance between those two methods.

[Mr Baker]

I would just observe that, having conducted their review, the Labour Government went on to overstretch our armed forces in conflicts that did not comply with the review itself, and not only that, but they seem to have put in place at least the precursor military operations to the mess we now have. They seem to have been a thoroughgoing failure.

[Dr Lewis]

While not disagreeing with my hon. Friend, I am trying to explain to the House the means of conducting the review. That is the point I am interested in—not the way in which Labour may afterwards have carried out its defence and foreign policies, about which I would have a large measure of agreement with my hon. Friend. The fact is, it is one thing to fail to live up to a good plan, but it is another not to have a good plan in the first place; and if we want to have a good plan, we need to take our time over the strategic defence and security review, and not rush it, and not simply say, “You’ve got X amount of money; how much defence can you give us for that sum?”

I want to say a quick word about NATO and deterrence. We have heard a lot about the 2% and I do not intend to waste the House’s time by reiterating the arguments we have all heard many times, but I would just make one point on the subject: the 2% is not a target, it is a minimum, and therefore there should be no question of our failing to meet the minimum. The question is how much above that minimum we can safely manage to use as the basis for the future shape and size of our armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I love you too, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) on her excellent maiden speech, and other hon. Members on the excellent speeches we have heard in the House today. It is a real pleasure to participate in this debate. Many subjects have been covered, but to meet the three-and-a-half minute deadline I have been set, I wish to raise an issue that so far has not been covered—the loss of expertise within our foreign policy-making process because of successive budget cuts under different Governments.

That issue is perhaps best illustrated by our recent military interventions. There can be no doubt that we went to war in Iraq on a false premise, and that in Afghanistan post-2006 we allowed ourselves to lose sight of the bigger picture and let the mission morph from one initially of combating al-Qaeda, which we did successfully, to one of nation building, which caused problems and which we under-resourced. Then there was Libya, which has turned into absolute chaos and civil war.

Such interventions have ushered in a host of unintended consequences with which we are still contending, but I suggest that they have also distracted us from the greater threat to Britain’s security both at home and abroad—potentially hostile nation states that are not just rearming, but reasserting force. Russia and China particularly come to mind. As an ex-soldier, I am not saying that military interventions are never warranted. There have been successful and appropriate interventions—the first Gulf war, Afghanistan in 2001, Sierra Leone and the Falklands—but our most recent interventions seem to suggest we are incorrectly assessing when and how best to use the military instrument. To counter this, we need greater investment in our policy-making process. It is important that our policy makers have the resources.

[Mr Baker]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even when our armed forces perform superbly, as in Libya, the politics can still fail afterwards?

[Mr Baron]

I agree. This is not the fault of soldiers on the front line; it is, in many respects, the fault of the military, diplomatic and political leadership.

We need to fund better our Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the policy-making process generally. Continual budget cuts have resulted in a hollowing out of staff with specialist regional knowledge, specialist expertise and language capability. That has eroded our ability to understand what is happening on the ground, and it must be put right. Our unconvincing response to recent Russian aggression and the Arab spring is not unconnected to the fact that we had no Crimea experts in the FCO at the time and we had too few Arabists in place, to such an extent that we had to recall retired diplomats into service. It is therefore no surprise that Parliament has raised the bar before consenting to intervention.

However, I suggest to the House that being better informed is of little use if policy options are restricted. Britain is not spending enough on defence and is cutting back on key defence capabilities. I suggest that strong armed forces are an essential component of foreign policy and often underpin a successful diplomatic strategy. In addition to spending more on defence, I believe we should increase our spending on our soft power capabilities. In this information age, winning the story will be just as important as winning the battle. Our soft power assets, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, tend to be excellent value, out of all proportion to their positive effect; yet, they are under-resourced.

In conclusion, cutting the FCO and soft-power budgets is a false economy. Diplomacy and soft power can pay for themselves many times over, especially when we are trying to increase our understanding of what is happening on the ground and to avoid conflict. Without strong and capable armed forces, diplomacy and soft power can achieve only so much in the face of potentially hostile and powerful countries, and a step change in defence spending is required, as is the political will to sustain it. However, we also need to better understand the forces at work on the international stage: more than ever, we need a well-resourced foreign policy apparatus so that we can face the challenges in this increasingly uncertain world.