Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

There is continuing debate about the matter. As long as we can be confident that a decision made in this House will not need to be taken off to the courts, for the judges, eventually, to decide whether we go to war—that would be entirely inappropriate—and as long as we can keep control of any such legislation so that it ensures that, where possible, the Government will come to Parliament and allow us to express our view, I think that that is right.

I understand that this is the system that we have at the moment, but I am concerned that although the convention continues to develop and strengthen as time goes on, it is still in the gift of the Executive to decide whether they will bring the matter to Parliament. There is an argument for putting the convention on a more formal footing, but there is the danger of court intervention. It is a moot point, and something that we must continue to look at.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s strategic lesson in the modern combat capability of Her Majesty’s armed forces. I was interested in her description of the use of special forces in almost-combat capability. Having served with various parts of Her Majesty’s forces in the past, I know that most foreign deployments are considered to be near to combat even if they are in a training role, because of the pressures on them. It is a very novel interpretation to suggest that hybrid warfare may not continue to exist.

We are getting into a rather bizarre discussion, if the hon. Lady will forgive me for saying so, on the strategy and use of the armed forces, when surely the focus should be on the legality and the appropriateness of the deployment. It might be best to stick to the areas that the House is qualified to talk about, rather than to dress up as armchair generals and pretend that we know what is going on in different areas.

[Emily Thornberry]

It is important that we look to tomorrow’s problems. Special forces are likely to be used increasingly. On the idea that we will send, for example, special forces into Libya in a training capacity, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about how that might end up a quasi-combat role. Presumably, if the training forces are in Libya, they will be in a camp. They may be in a part of Libya that is allegedly safe, but they will need to be guarded. Who will guard them? We can see how it is possible to slide down a slippery slope. At the moment, although it would be inappropriate in the case of a decision to send special forces or trainers into an area, if we can have parliamentary scrutiny of our secret service—if the behaviour of MI5 and MI6 is at least answerable to a Committee of this House—it is not beyond our wit to allow there to be similar accountability over special forces. I have written about this issue.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making that point. I do not expect special forces, before they are used, to have to go before a Committee of Parliament and get permission, but I do think that there should be some form of accountability and some explanation. It was embarrassing, and it demonstrated the democratic deficit in relation to hybrid warfare, to read in the papers that the King of Jordan was gossiping with Congressmen in America about our special forces, when nobody in this House had officially been told about it. That highlights the democratic deficit in this country. We should learn lessons from Chilcot. We should learn lessons about accountability and about not simply trusting the Executive to get a decision right. We should make sure that there is more accountability, and that we are on our toes. We must be prepared to modernise our structures as necessary to reflect the changing nature of warfare in the 21st century.

Let me go back to my speech. I talked about the development of hybrid warfare and new mechanisms for holding the Executive to account, and I believe that all parties should work together on that. Another point was raised about American-British relations. Chilcot made it clear that American-British relations would not have been harmed had the UK not joined the US-led coalition. Chilcot argues that that was not a basis for joining the invasion. In my view, that is another lesson that we have not learned. In 2013, pressure from the United States played a major role in the Government’s rush to intervene in Syria. It became obvious that the US Administration’s efforts to persuade Congress to back intervention hinged on the Prime Minister’s success in persuading Parliament to do so. Speaking after our House declined to support the action in Syria, the then Defence Secretary—now the Foreign Secretary—said that the vote would “certainly” damage the Anglo-American relationship. In my view, the relationship has endured. We have got over it without any adverse consequences, and it serves as a reminder that our alliance with the United States rests on stronger foundations than an expectation of unquestioning British compliance with American wishes.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady speaks of the special relationship, and I would be the first to acknowledge that the relationship with the United States goes much deeper than one incident or one vote, but is it not also valid to listen to the words of various American generals, including General Jim Mattis, who, as she knows, commanded Centcom? After the vote, he pointed to the damaging impact that it would have on the enduring commitment and understanding between the US and British militaries. Does she recognise that just as that special relationship is made up of many threads, undermining it thread by thread will weaken it?

[Emily Thornberry]

I am sure that some American generals were disappointed that Harold Wilson would not agree to British involvement in Vietnam, but we got over it and our relationship is strong enough to endure differences of opinion. If we are to be good friends, it is important to recognise that good friends trust each other enough to disagree at times. The 2013 Syria vote made it clear that Parliament understood that; it also suggested that the Government did not. That is why it is such a tragedy that cuts to the Foreign Office budget have weakened Whitehall’s institutional knowledge of the world. It is important for our leadership role in the world to have proper understanding of it, and for hundreds of years we have had an insight into the world that other countries have not had. We have a leadership role, and we can have a voice that is different from that of the Americans because we will have a different understanding. To have 16% cuts in the Foreign Office year on year, and a hollowing out of our institutional knowledge, has in my view been a tragedy.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Two months, says my right hon. Friend. They delayed the invasion to give the British more time to get through this convoluted legal stuff—I use sarcastic words of the kind the occasional impatient American used at the time—before they could join in. The problem was that the Americans, although they went to the UN and got resolution 1441 and all the rest of it, began to lose patience, seeing that this could go on forever, and it reached the stage where they were going to invade in March 2003. They could not wait any longer. The Blair Government—those who knew what was going on—had to speed the thing up a bit, realising that if they were not careful, they would fail to get there in time.

One thing that surprises me in the Chilcot report concerns the advice the Government got from the Joint Intelligence Committee, which eventually produced enough intelligence that was plausible and no doubt believed by those putting it in the reports for the Attorney General to be persuaded—obviously quite reluctantly—that there probably was a basis for going ahead. The urgent debates then took place in this House, the last one being about two days before the date when everyone knew the troops, already in battle positions in the middle east, were about to go ahead with the operation.

We should learn the political lessons from all that. One of the first lessons relates to the ever-increasing rush to get into the position of being able to invade lawfully, so that everybody wanted to be persuaded that various things were correct and that various steps had been taken. If they had submitted themselves to slower, more challenged and more careful consideration, however, it would have led to a different conclusion.

What, then, is the outline of the main political lessons to be learned from all this? First, the American alliance should not be entered into blindly. Let me say briefly that I am as passionate a believer as Tony Blair that our alliance with the United States is crucial to this country’s future security and role in the world. There is not a trace of anti-Americanism in what I am saying; our alliance is one of the most valuable features of our foreign policy. That does not mean, however, that we should allow ourselves to go along blindly and always—right or wrong—with what the American President of the day wishes to do. I take that no further, but we might have a President Trump, so it is a question worth bearing in mind. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that the American alliance will not be destroyed—it might be damaged for a month or two—if we do not absolutely go along with what the American President wants us to do.

Let me move on to something that is clear in Chilcot—though I have not made the point much myself—and was plain to see in how the Ministry of Defence behaved at the time. The advice of our defence chiefs is hugely important, and I share the support for and pride in them that keeps being expressed in these debates. Yet—subconsciously, I am sure—they always want to take part in any military activity that the Americans want them to join. It might be considered advice, but it always comes down to “We must ask the Americans to let us make as big a contribution as we can”. A trained military man is trained for the purpose of using military force in the national interest and further worthwhile objectives, and cannot help thinking, “This is our moment; this is the great action in which we must take part.”

It is the same with the intelligence services. They prize their relationship with the Americans above all other relationships they have with the outside world. They are dependent on co-operation in some ways, but they are anxious to please and to do what they think their American colleagues wish them to do. In this particular case, we had a Prime Minister and a Government who wanted to enter the war, so everybody was extremely anxious to find the facts, to be convinced of the situation and to enable the Prime Minister to go ahead and do what he wanted. That is an essential point, but it requires a simple politician like me to make it; it does not appear in the pages of the Chilcot report. When one is raising one’s eyebrows at what happened, I think that that answers a lot.

Particularly at the time we are talking about—and sometimes still today—there were not enough diplomats involved. There was not enough looking at the expertise of the Foreign Office. We had a lot of Arabists. The Americans had some, but they got rid of most of theirs and brought people in who had been involved in the Nicaraguan episode because they were seen as being ideologically more sound. Americans did not like the Arabists we had in the Foreign Office because they kept complicating things by talking about tribes and different sorts of Muslim, which the policy makers in Washington thought were irrelevant to the new era of western democracy in which they thought they were going to take the country.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I am sorry, but I do not have the time.

I shall not go on by adding more to the strictures about the Attorney General—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”]. The Attorney General was obviously giving the right advice. I am sitting alongside someone who was a very tough Attorney General—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—who would not give the advice that eager Prime Ministers sometimes want, and neither would Michael Havers or quite a few others I recall being in government with. As has been said, that is what the Attorney General is for. I know Lord Goldsmith and he is perfectly all right. He must have felt so exposed in the end that he gave into the temptation to say, “Well, it’s just about lawful; it is just about satisfactorily proved.”

I am sorry to have taken a little longer than I intended, but let me conclude with my main point. The big thing that matters—and it matters very much as we are having a change of Government today—is how the Cabinet and Government processes come into the equation. What about accountability to Parliament? It was obvious at the time, obvious if anyone listened to what the Foreign Secretary said publicly, obvious in what half the Labour party said and obvious from listening to officials that Cabinet Government was not working properly in Tony Blair’s Government. He went in for sofa government. Margaret Thatcher got keener and keener on sofa government towards the end of her time, but Tony Blair had taken it to an art form by the time he got into issues such as Iraq. It was the same with Parliament. There was a reluctance to come to Parliament. Both were essentially seen as hurdles to be surmounted. Once you had your policy, how were you going to get it through the Cabinet and how were you going to get it past Parliament?

My suggestion for the future is that we should all agree that that is not the mindset that people should have. They should set the proposition, and, of course, advocate it to the Cabinet, and then, with the benefit of proper information, they should listen to it being debated and examined by those who have time to do so. Similarly, Parliament should be consulted when it can be, and given proper information. One should not rely on clever timing of the debate and the work of the Whips to get it through and afterwards say that there is a democratic endorsement. I have no time to apply all my strong strictures to the circumstances of the time, but I think that, if read with my arguments in mind, the Chilcot report feeds the impression that I had then, as someone who participated in debates.

Military action is difficult. There is no point in politicians being lightheartedly irresponsible and saying, “We have got to be involved in every decision.” There will be occasions when that is not possible. There will be occasions when someone has just attacked a British interest, and we have to fight back. You can tell the Cabinet and you can tell Parliament afterwards, and any sensible Cabinet and any sensible Parliament will of course endorse it. But this was not an emergency. For two years our allies had told us that they were going to invade Iraq. It had been planned. It had been worked on. It had been discussed. The reason there was not full Cabinet discussion, and the reason there was not timely parliamentary debate, was that someone who did that might not get it by them. We did not start debating the issue until Parliament until February 2003, and the final, key vote took place when the troops were in the field. That put a lot of Conservatives off the idea of voting against it, when they might otherwise have done so. Our boys were about to go into action, the next day—which is what occurred.

Some of those matters have been addressed. The National Security Council is a hugely beneficial innovation introduced by my right hon. Friend the outgoing Prime Minister, who is probably already the ex-Prime Minister. Now is not the time to debate it, but it still needs to be improved. It has not covered everything, although it is a lot better than it was. As for Cabinet government, I think that my right hon. Friends should ask themselves— if they are still in office under the next Prime Minister—whether they can ensure that adequate time is given to discuss things, and adequate information is given in advance. Cabinet government does not mean moving quickly from item to item; people must have some papers beforehand so that they can consider the issues properly.

The National Security Council is very valuable, because it contains defence and intelligence people alongside the politicians. I genuinely congratulate the outgoing Prime Minister: some of the best discussions in which I participated took place in the National Security Council, with my total approval. However, although I may be too sensitive, I think that it could be improved sometimes. There are occasions when a fait accompli is brought there and explained to you, and the defence and intelligence people explain why you should agree, and off you go.

I think it right to look into why we might have avoided what happened in Libya. The whole history of the middle east and north Africa involves our removing fascist dictatorships of the most poisonous kind from country after country, and then being surprised when they have been replaced by a situation that is, in some instances, even worse than the one that we have removed. A continuing answer to that problem needs to be sought, although at present we may have to confront even bigger problems.

I began by saying that this was the biggest foreign policy disaster of my time. We all have to ask why the institutions of the United Kingdom failed even to develop a hint of that. It was not particularly courageous for the House to vote in favour. Opinion polls showed that 70% of the British public supported the invasion. For the first week or two it was extremely popular. Had we held a referendum, which is now the fashionable way of governing the country—compared with this old-fashioned parliamentary democracy—it would have sailed through with an enormous majority. The danger of following opinion polls is shown by the fact that a year later I could not find a member of the public who had ever met anybody who agreed with the invasion of Iraq, because in the light of better information people suddenly realised it had been a terrible error.

There are Members sitting here now who were here at that time. I remember the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) organising some of the opposition on the day I spoke in February. We voted against it, and we spoke against it. Needless to say, I have looked at my speech, and I am very sad to say that I think I predicted quite a lot of the consequences and what would happen. We all agree that, “Never again if we can avoid it,” but this is a big subject and it is no good reading the report and just saying we should have a look at the intelligence arrangements; we should have a look at other arrangements as well, such as the way our Government are run, the way this Parliament organises itself, and how we get sensible accountability to the House of Commons the next time the Government have to engage in such difficult decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I declare an interest in this report because I served in the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and along with many colleagues from all parties in the House—some of whom are not here today—I was proud to serve my country and to stand with many enormously honourable men and women who did their best in very difficult circumstances.

I will not fight over and again the battles being fought this afternoon about Tony Blair and his guilt or otherwise, because I would rather move forward and speak about the United Kingdom’s strategy and how on earth we got ourselves into a position that meant we were so clearly acting against our own national interests. We seem to have got into a position where the only answer was to be as close as possible to the United States, and to use force at a time when other options were available. The only answer seemed to be to follow the wishes of a Prime Minister who, although he sounded powerful at the time, was clearly too weak to invite challenge, even in his own private Cabinet. For me, those are the real worries—how could we have got to that stage? There are, of course, many reasons for that, and Chilcot lists them. Today, the question is how we get out of that.

The National Security Council, introduced by the previous Prime Minister, was an excellent invention, and I look forward to our current Prime Minister taking it forward, and introducing to the various Departments that contribute to the NSC the elements that feed into it. In my former Department—I mean that as an employee rather than as a Minister, although the Prime Minister may yet call; the evening is young—the Chiefs of Staff Committee established an impressive group by going back to an old idea.

In the period between the two wars, the Chiefs of Staff Committee invented a group constantly to challenge the Treasury, the Foreign Office, and other Departments, so that they could be prepared should the worst happen. That meant that, although those Departments were not as ready as we would have liked, at least in 1939 the 10-year rule that the Treasury had imposed was no longer in force, and we were re-arming and able to defend ourselves against Nazi aggression. That Committee was reformed in the Ministry of Defence under the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Richards. That is great, but other Departments have done less well. I will not run through them, but it seems incumbent on those who have the authority to command embassies, aid work and armies, also to be responsible for ensuring that the strategies they prepare and advise Ministers to follow are right for the United Kingdom, and not just expedient for a quick relationship with the US.

I very much welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said about the Truman doctrine. He is right, but the Truman doctrine should not be simply a reassertion of Westphalian principles. It must today be updated with the concept of the Responsibility to Protect that the UN has made so clear over the past few years. It is right that we avoid Iraq, but it is also right that we avoid Rwanda or Srebrenica. The great error of Iraq is that it did exactly the reverse of the right to protect: it put people in greater danger. This did not happen everywhere. The Kurdish communities were often better defended because they were armed. The reality, however, was the spread of insurgency and trouble. It is hard to argue that we improved the situation, although it is very difficult to know whether we made it worse.

As we move on from that period, it is incumbent on us to consider the legal aspect. We have been talking today about the legality of the war and holding the leader in contempt, but I would like to look closely at how we hold soldiers to account. The spread of lawfare into combat zones has changed the nature of command dramatically in the past 50 to 60 years. The concept of combat immunity has been increasingly eroded. Young lieutenants and young corporals, junior leaders in the armed forces who took decisions at the age of 19, 20 or 21 in the heat of battle, are being tried today, five or 10 years later, in the cool of the courtroom. They are being tried by people who do not and cannot understand the pressures on them at that time and at that moment. They are being held to account in a way that is not only unfair but immoral. It is we here in this place who hold the responsibility for war, not the young men we send.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I have one simple message as we approach the last week of the referendum campaign: people fought and died for the right to govern themselves; people fought and died for our democracy, and it is on democracy that everything else depends.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir William Cash]

In a minute, but not now.

People fought and died for the right to govern themselves, and everything else depends on that, including the economic arguments. I urge the British people to consider the consequences for future generations if we get this wrong and vote to stay in the European Union. As a result of successive leaderships since 1972, we have given away more and more of our powers to govern ourselves.

If I may say so, I predicted the consequences of that in a book in 1990, at the time of the Maastricht treaty. I said there would be protests and riots throughout Europe, and massive unemployment. I said there would be recession and waves of immigration. I said there would be breaches of the rule of law and the rise of the far right. I was concerned about those things then and I remain concerned about them now. The direction in which the European Union is being taken is putting the United Kingdom—our voters, our people—in the second tier of a two-tier Europe dominated increasingly, through the eurozone, by the excessive economic nationalism of the German system of economic government.

Members must bear in mind that the consequences of the single market are demonstrated by what I said earlier in an intervention: we run a trade deficit, or loss, with the other 27 member states of £67.8 billion a year. That has gone up by £10 billion in the past year alone. Our trade surplus with the rest of the world has gone up by about £10 billion in this year alone to £31 billion. European growth is going down—that is the trajectory of our capacity to have growth and jobs for the young people of this country. In Europe as a whole, youth unemployment in certain countries is as much as 60%. That is a complete disgrace.

In contrast, the German trade surplus with the same 27 member states is running at £81.8 billion and has gone up by as much as £18 billion in the past year alone. That trajectory is what the third-rate so-called economists are ignoring. They are the ones who got it wrong over and over and over again: they got it wrong over Maastricht, they got it wrong over the euro and they got it wrong over the exchange rate mechanism. I listened to the absolutely absurd nostalgic nonsense of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). It is evident that those who got it wrong are trying yet again to mislead people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I can say that I do know. I know because I look at the facts as they are now. The facts I have just given demonstrate that inside the single market we run a monumental trade deficit, while we have an enormous and growing trade surplus with the rest of the world. That surplus is the future. That is the vision. That is the means by which we will get jobs and ensure the future of our children and our grandchildren.

To conclude, it is very simple: this is about who governs us. If we get this wrong, we will not be able to organise and establish a democracy in this country, which is what people fought and died for in not just one world war but two.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir William Cash]

I will give way one last time.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I appreciate the loss that my hon. Friend’s family suffered in the second world war. My family suffered too, and I have had the privilege to wear the Queen’s uniform and fight for the peace we enjoy today. When I see the division and the spreading of hatred and virulent anti-foreign messages by some people in our country, I wonder whether they are really talking about peace or just stirring the pot.

[Sir William Cash]

I simply say to my hon. Friend that there is one person who has never, ever done that: me.

[Tom Tugendhat]

indicated assent.

[Sir William Cash]

I am glad my hon. Friend acknowledges that. I do believe in peace. I do believe in good relations. What really troubles me, however, is that the majority voting system and the decisions taken behind closed doors are so manifestly undemocratic that they are completely impossible to justify. It has become a kind of dictatorship behind closed doors. We in this House make our decisions based on speeches and votes that are made in public and reported. We are held accountable. That is not the case in the European Union. If we give that up on 23 June, I say to my hon. Friend and to all hon. Members that they will live to regret it. This is about democracy above all else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the next few days, we will make the final arguments on the question that will decide the future of not only our country, but our continent. We will be asking ourselves not only who we are, but what we wish to become. Whatever answer the people of the United Kingdom give us, it will be for us here in this House to apply that decision in the best interests of our whole nation. Like many on these Benches, I have made my views known. I have spoken out for what I believe in and for what I believe to be in the best interests of my community in west Kent and the whole nation. I have fought for this country and despite some of the comments I have heard, I will not be silenced when speaking in its interest.

I recognise that today, no matter what we say, it is no longer Parliament that is sovereign—it is the people, as it rightly should be. Whatever is decided in the ballot next week, that decision will be final—50% plus one vote will carry the day. To argue otherwise would be to threaten the fabric of our political settlement and undermine the legitimacy of this House. I urge all Members to remember that in the days after the referendum and not to question the integrity or intelligence of the British people in having expressed their opinion. What may follow is less certain, but, as we used to say, it will be our job to receive our orders, gain height, turn to the right and carry on.

Of course that does not mean we have to wait to be ready. On the contrary, we should be thinking, even now, about what an in vote or an out vote would mean for Britain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The EU’s bureaucracy and regulations have reduced the number of fishing boats in Portavogie in my constituency from 130 to 70. Six major processing factories have closed in Portavogie and jobs have been lost—young people are drifting away from the sea. The EU has devastated the fishing sector in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we want to ensure the re-emergence of the fishing sector in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we have to be out of the EU? For that to happen, we have to vote no and leave Europe.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman speaks well for his constituency, but the Member who represents Menai may talk about Menai Oysters and Mussels, which sells most of its catch to Europe and would probably wish to stay in the EU. Even in one industry, there is no single answer, and it is worth listening to the debate of the whole House and to all the people of this United Kingdom, rather than just one pressure group. Of course that does not mean that we have to wait to be ready. As I said earlier, we need to get ready.

The change in the stock market over the past few days has shown that Europe affects not only the fishing industry—for the better in some ways and for the worse in others—but investment in our entire island. Today, people are looking at us and wondering what the future holds.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

rose—

[Tom Tugendhat]

I wish to make some progress.

People are understandably concerned that the factors that led them to put money into our businesses may not last. The interconnected market, the skills base and the global trading agreements are not as permanent as they once thought; they are not even as permanent as they looked a few days ago. The implications and the consequences for us are very severe. Some have begun to doubt us, but they are wrong. Britain is a powerful and growing economy, and despite the undoubted hiatus that would follow a Brexit, we will recover. Indeed, for the markets, we will once again become a safe haven, but only by comparison with our neighbours. The implication that the Europe Union could disintegrate is worrying.

Let us be under no illusion as to why the option to leave the EU is bad for Britain. It is not, as some have sadly claimed, because Britain is too small. It is not because we cannot survive in a globalised world—it is clear that we are better connected and better integrated with the global economy than many other nations. No, it is because we are the economic leaders of a continent of more than 500 million people who are crying out for that very leadership and the very reforms that we offer.

[Oliver Colvile]

Will my hon. Friend give way.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will make a little progress if I may.

It is worth remembering that this House has shaped the leadership of Europe. We have already achieved two very significant reforms. First, Britain, under the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, steered the competing economies of Europe into a single market. She achieved that against pressure from many other member states. She did so to extend what Britain needed then and what it needs now: economic relationships that endure across the continent. The result was a huge boost to the economy. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is no longer in his place, for what he did as a member of the Cabinet that took us into the single market. I also recognise the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is also not in his place, as he helped us to achieve the lowest debt levels in a century.

Secondly, we have extended the boundaries of European co-operation to the borders of Russia. This may seem obvious now, but when I was growing up during the cold war, the challenge of uniting a continent seemed extraordinary. Now so obviously one nation and at peace with her neighbours, Germany was not always so, and many opposed the unity that was achieved. The inclusion of Estonia—I had the privilege of serving with Estonian troops in Afghanistan—Lithuania and Latvia shows what inclusion can achieve in the service of peace.

[Simon Hoare]

I know that my hon. Friend is a busy man, so I do not know whether he has seen General Smith’s comments in today’s media about the importance of and need for co-operation and partnership. It is a compelling case that underlines the point that my hon. Friend is making.

[Tom Tugendhat]

General Smith is one of the great strategists of our generation. His book “The Utility of Force” is well worth reading.

Britain played an essential role, but it did so not just for ourselves or for others. It did so because shared wealth is good for us all. We prosper when our partners prosper, we are strengthened when our friends are strong, and we achieve peace when our friends are at peace. Therefore, whether we stay or go, we must have a plan.

Our allies around the world—in the middle east, South America, the far east and the United States of America—have invested fortunes through our markets, billions in our industries, and decades in our friendship. They need to know that our promises count and mean something. They need to know that our agreements will endure. They need to know that if we vote out, we are not turning our back on the world, because it will look to them as though we are.

Whatever happens, I urge Her Majesty’s Government to commit to investing heavily in the Foreign Office over the next few years, because the trouble that we have caused our friends and allies in this very debate and the doubt that we have sown across the world are so serious that our markets are struggling, and we need messengers of hope and praise to go to our friends’ capitals to reassure them. Too often we have ignored our allies, and too often we have laughed at our friends. We must move on. I have heard many people talk about patriotism. Today, I say that I am a patriot, but this is my land here and it extends beyond the sea and beyond the cliffs. This is our continent and we must lead it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I enter the debate with a certain amount of trepidation, especially after the powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat).

The reason I will be voting to remain is that, frankly, I do not trust the Germans and the French to run Europe without us there to keep a close eye on them. Over the last 16 years—as the parliamentary candidate for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and, more recently, as its Member of Parliament—I have always sought to take a realistic Euro-view. I am not Euro-suicidal; we should make sure that this thing works for us and that we get as much as we can out of it. However, if there is a downturn in our economy, which appears likely should we come out, any action on the issue I have campaigned on for the last 16 years—the improvement of the railways and roads down to the south-west—will be put off for another 10 or 15 years, which would be a personal disaster.

The debate on our membership of the European Union is very similar to previous debates, such as those on the corn laws and imperial preference. Thank goodness our country eventually found a way through those issues, but it unfortunately had to get involved in a few world wars in the process. I am keen to ensure that that does not happen again, especially as my relatives have fought in every world war and probably every other war—we have been here for a long time.

Our job in Europe is to maintain the balance of power. That is utterly crucial. When we have walked away from Europe, we have had to pay with an enormous amount of blood and an enormous amount of treasure. I received a briefing the other day from one of the more renowned journalists in this country, who told me that America is now looking less at Europe—it sees Russia as a regional, rather than a world, issue—and that it is much more interested in the Pacific. If we come out of Europe, therefore, we will be Billy No Mates, and I do not want that to happen.

Earlier this year, during the recess, I spent a few days in Norway with the Royal Marines, seeing for myself some of the issues they have to deal with. I got involved in trying to build shelter, light a fire and kill a chicken—I did not do that—and it was all rather difficult. However, I also learned how important the Baltic states are for this country, and we must continue engaging in Europe because I am afraid that that issue is going to be very big. I would also add that the Americans are not interested in putting money into NATO; they are seeking to take it out, and the moment we decide to walk away from all of that, we will find ourselves having to spend more money.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Republican candidate for the United States presidency has declared NATO obsolete?

[Oliver Colvile]

Absolutely. I find that utterly stunning. That is why we want to remain.

Babcock, which runs the dockyard in my constituency and employs 5,000 people, has written a letter to The Times very firmly in support of remaining. I have a boat manufacturer that is very worried about what would happen should we come out, because it thinks that the French and the Greeks will seek to protect their own boat-building industries and that it will therefore have to pay a significant surcharge. We would end up seeing the university and students in my constituency very badly damaged. We have a global reputation for marine science engineering research, and I do not wish to jettison that.

The claimant count has come down to below 4% in an extremely deprived constituency. It is rather unique to have a Conservative Member of Parliament representing an inner-city seat that has an 11-year life expectancy difference between the northern and western parts and around Devonport. It is very important that we continue to be able to invest in changing these kinds of things.

The Prime Minister has done exactly the right thing in seeking to make sure that he got the best possible deal out of the Europeans. We have to remember that if by some chance it was decided that we should become much more integrated in the European Union, we would have another referendum. I hope that will horrify all Conservative Members, because we have had enough of all this.

This is about making sure that we have a strong position in Europe and that we deliver on the economy for the west country, but also that we do not get involved in any more world wars, or wars of any sort.

Europe, Human Rights and Keeping People Safe at Home and Abroad

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Of course we had a reputation for that, and I am not saying we did not, but having taken the steps of, first, helping to found the European convention at the end of the second world war and, secondly, putting the Human Rights Act on the statute book, so that people in this country can access those rights without having to make the long journey to the European Court of Human Rights, it is a profound mistake to argue that we should weaken our position. Indeed, there are those who express concern about our membership of the European convention itself, and it is depressing that there are those who argue that, to “offer leadership” to the world, we should resile from the commitments we freely entered into, as some Conservative Members seek to do. [Interruption.] The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), nods approvingly in my direction, and I pay tribute to those who are standing up against them.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way one last time and then bring my remarks to a close.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about human rights, but I stand with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this. Britain’s history of human rights goes back hundreds of years—to, indeed, Magna Carta. On the human rights act, we are arguing not about human rights as they are practised in England but about the stretch of the judiciary into areas that are correctly the role of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that human rights should be used to circumvent Parliament by using law to intervene in other areas.

[Hilary Benn]

I am not arguing that. Let us take the most famous case of all—voting rights for prisoners, a subject dear to the Home Secretary’s heart. How many years ago was that judgment handed down? [Interruption.] Not that they should have voting rights—let me say that for the avoidance of doubt. Do prisoners in Britain have voting rights? No, they do not, because the way in which we constructed the Human Rights Act allows Parliament, in the end, to take that decision. Methinks those who argue that we should take these steps protest too much. We should be proud of our reputation, our history, and the foundations on which we have built our continuing commitment to human rights, including the European convention and the Human Rights Act, which the last Labour Government put on the statute book.

As the United Kingdom, we have always been at our best when we have been an outward-looking and confident nation. We helped to build the institutions that have given the world the best chance to make progress: the United Nations, NATO, and of course the European Union, where we were latecomers. Let us look at the challenges that our children and grandchildren will face: fighting climate change; reducing poverty; dealing with conflict—people fighting over religion, as we see currently, and over water, land and energy—the rise of the politics of the right; and dealing with the consequences of large numbers of people moving around the globe. Mark my words: that will be the story of this century. The question we have to ask ourselves is: what will give us the best chance to manage those challenges and deal with the changes they will see in their lives, just as we have seen in ours?

When I was born, the world’s population was 2.7 billion, but by the time my grandchildren reach my age it will be about 10 billion. The British empire has gone and has been replaced by the Commonwealth. The Berlin wall has given way to the new democracies of Europe. We have seen the rise of terrorism, new global powers and the astonishing economic development of China. The old divide between the domestic and the foreign is increasingly eroding and becoming blurred because globalisation is transforming our world.

As a nation, in 30 days’ time we will be confronted with a choice about how we will deal with that transformation. For me, it is a choice between optimism and pessimism. It is a choice between outward-facing patriotism and inward-looking nationalism—the former built on playing a proud and leading role through co-operation in the very institutions we helped to fashion, and the latter seeking to lure us into turning our back on them. Those are the two competing visions of Britain’s future, and I hope that on 23 June the British people will vote for co-operation, because it represents the best hope we have for that future and for the lives of those who will come after us.

Syria: Russian Redeployment and the Peace Process

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I cannot give the hon. Lady the precise figures, but we have contributed over £1.1 billion of humanitarian aid to Syria and the neighbouring countries to support displaced persons and refugees. Our military operation, which has been running in Syria since the vote in this House a mere three months ago, has so far cost a tiny fraction of that. I do not want to mislead the House by giving a figure, but I am certain it will only be in double figures of millions.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Given Russia’s history over the past 30 years of changing horses at the last moment in order to seek a different outcome, would my right hon. Friend now be advising President Assad to double his bodyguard?

[Mr Hammond]

The relationship between President Assad and President Putin is a subject of great speculation among colleagues on the International Syria Support Group circuit, but I am clear that the situation is the same as it has always been. I have said this in the House before. President Putin could have ended all this years ago by a single phone call to President Assad, offering him some fraternal advice about his future health and wellbeing.

Syria

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The coalition does a lot of planning in order to establish the best mechanism to provide aid relief in any particular area. The RAF itself has not been involved in airdrops per se; the United States has been leading on that. As I have said, they have had a marginal effect. They are subject to weather conditions and to who is on the ground to receive the actual aid. It is then a matter of luck as to how that aid is distributed. Often it is unfairly distributed, because the strongest end up grabbing the kit and taking it away with them. That is why the preferred mechanism is to get permission to go through the various checkpoints and deliver the aid by truck.[Official Report, 9 March 2016, Vol. 607, c. 2MC.]

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), who has done a lot of work on this issue over the past few months—and, indeed, over many years in her previous incarnation—and to the Minister, who has done an awful lot of work in the region? We have spoken a lot about the pressures that the Russians have brought to bear on the legitimate opposition to the Assad regime. Could he also tell us about the pressures they have brought to bear on our allies in the region, and what he is doing, working with the Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Jordanians and, indeed, the Turks, to ensure that we deliver a peaceful solution for Syria, not a wasteland made by Russian bombs?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to mention the impact that the situation in Syria is having on its neighbours. We should all pay tribute to the generosity of countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, which have taken in so many refugees. The whole House will appreciate and support the fact that much of the funds we provide are going to those other countries as well.

One of the major changes that took place at the Syrian conference was that to employment opportunities for Syrian refugees so that they are not a burden on domestic employment situations. That happened partly because of the funding that is coming through and the opportunities being created by other countries. We are doing our best to make sure that Turkey plays its role—which is complicated, given its relationship with the Kurds—in moderating its actions and making sure that the cessation of hostilities lasts.

Yemen

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, which I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for organising, because Yemen is an important country to many of us.

Yemen is important to me personally because I studied my Arabic there some 20 years ago. Though I was not born in Khormaksar, as some of my hon. Friends were, and though I did not grow up overlooking Crater lake, as so many did, the country has marked itself on me. It has done so because it is a country of such wonderful contrasts. It is a very rich, green and beautiful land. It grows some of the world’s finest coffee, as well as khat, which, although banned in this country, is very popular in certain parts of the world. It is extraordinary in its richness. It is the place where the Arabic language was formalised and the domestication of the camel happened and therefore the place from which the colonisation of the deserts of Arabia and the rest of al-Jazeera al-Arabiya began.

Yemen is, then, at the heart of Arabia, and that is one reason why the conflict matters so much. For the Saudis, it is not some minor adjunct to their territory or some neighbouring state that they can ignore. It is a country with which they have such close relationships of blood and history that they cannot cut it off. Many tribes that now live happily in Saudi Arabia have cousins and links across the border. I remember as a soldier watching as convoys of donkeys crossed the Saudi border—forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for taking a slight diversion. They would load up donkeys with hay and take them on the route five or six times, and when the donkeys knew where they were going, they would remove the hay, take away the donkey driver and load them up with heroin, and the donkeys would follow the same route. And so these self-propelled donkey caravans of drugs would come straight out of Yemen.

The Saudis have a real and personal interest in Yemen, and we should recognise, therefore, that they are defending their own interests. I will not argue, however, that they are doing so in the most humane way; they are not. They are behaving in ways that frankly call into question the training they have received from some of the finest pilots and servicemen in the world. I would urge them, therefore, to remember the lessons and doctrines they learned at Shrivenham and Cranwell and to remember that civilians are not a target.

This is an extremely important moment for Saudi Arabia. It is just beginning again to assert its presence in the region, as it has the right to do, being an important country. It is also right to do so given the expansion of the Iranian empire into traditionally Arab areas, such as Iraq, the eastern seaboard of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, where the Iranian influence is growing. The Iranian encirclement of Saudi Arabia is certainly a threat. I welcome the fact, therefore, that the Saudis are reacting and that Britain is playing her role, as a good ally, in supporting her, but I urge them to think hard about how it conducts this campaign.

The campaign, in the heart of Arabia, is being played out perhaps not in our broadsheets, but in the broadsheets of the cafés of Cairo, Algiers and Baghdad. People are watching the leadership of Riyadh and its conduct, and they are thinking, “Are these the allies we want? Is this the example for Arabia and the post-Arab spring generation?” I ask the Saudi Government to think hard about the human rights and lives of the people they are affecting, not just in Yemen, but around the Arab world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I suggest that the Front Benchers take eight minutes each.

International Human Rights Day

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am delighted to be under your chairmanship again, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his inspirational introduction to the debate, and for organising it. It is essential for international human rights day to be remembered in the House of Commons, which is, in many ways, the foundation of many of the rights of which we speak. It is from this Parliament, and from this voice of free-born sons of the country—originally English, but now including representatives of Scotland, Wales and Ireland—that many of the rights that we now see around the world have sprung. The traditions of democracy that were brought together here 750 years ago led to the rights in the declaration of New York, of which the hon. Gentleman rightly spoke, and which echoed around the world to fight the fascism and hatred that resulted in the holocaust. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) spoke of that earlier.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

On this international human rights day, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue of violation of the Igbo tribe’s human rights needs to be resolved, and that the Biafran leader should be released, as has been suggested in representations by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady clearly speaks with great knowledge of those issues. I am sure that she will raise them with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development on the appropriate occasions.

If the House will forgive me, I shall now focus on a specific aspect of human rights, namely the right to freedom of religion. This may surprise some Members, but I am going to begin with a quotation from the Koran. It is from the second Surah, Surah al-Baqarah, which states “la ikra fï al-din”: “There is no compulsion in religion.” One of the seminal tenets of Islam is that it is a religion freely entered into by free people, and one of the reasons why many of us recognise it as one of the great religions of the world is that very principle of freedom—that very underscoring of rights.

Those of us who may not share the same belief system as the Islamic faith, because we are from a Christian tradition, may not follow all its tenets. However, that freedom of association, that freedom of religion and expression, that freedom to choose whose God, which God, or indeed no God, is a fundamental human right. I am very pleased that we are beginning to have this conversation in the House of Commons, which, as we know, recognises all religions and none. As the west becomes more secular—and, indeed, as the “none” gains more power over the plurality—it is worth remembering that those freedoms do not always apply, and that some religions turn the minds of young men and women towards the extremism that this House would fight. However, I am pleased that we are at last talking not only about extremism as something that we might fight—as we did only a week or so ago, in the debate that was summed up so eloquently by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—but about a right: a very fundamental right that all people in our country and, we hope, around the world will share.

As we emerge from talk of extremism in the global area, I hope that Members will forgive me for speaking about extremism at home. In view of Operation Trojan Horse and Peter Clarke’s impressive report on Birmingham schools, it is worth remembering that even in our own society—even in our most multicultural and free towns, such as Birmingham and London—it is possible to find havens of hatred and islands of ideology that are absolutely inimical to the freedoms that we expect of all people, not just all British people but people around the world. I am delighted that the Government are fighting that extremism, and I urge them to stand even more strongly against it. When we see young people being brought to the school of hatred rather than the school of understanding, we must fight that with every fibre of our being. It is not those young people who are born to hate, but the so-called leaders, the so-called community elders who teach them hatred, and we must fight that too.

Extremism is of course not just a threat to the souls of humans all around the world; it is a threat to our security and it is therefore absolutely right that when we consider how we shape and defend ourselves, we form one simple principle into which we must all fit. That principle was underlined in this country with the signing of the Great Charter at Runnymede; that single understanding that we all stand equal before the law, from King to pauper, is a fundamental principle. It has applied for 800 years because the common law is indeed that: it is common to all of us and it works for all of us.

When I hear people talk, as some have over the past number of years, that we should have different legal structures for different religious communities, I say that as a man who follows the Church of Rome—I know not all Members of the DUP would agree that that is a great thing to say in this House—and who stays loyal to the Holy Father, I recognise very strongly that we here follow the common law. We follow the Queen’s law and it is right that we do so.

My own private confession is precisely that; it is a confession of private faith. It is not an act of public statement, and I would urge those of other religious communities that when they seek to structure the way they operate within our great United Kingdom to also see it as that. There is of course a place for conscience in our country—and there is a place for tradition and there is a place for culture—but it is not the same as the place for common law. That is why I am absolutely vehement and will bow to no one in my defence of that common law.

It is not just articles of the common law that some people speak of, and it is not simply Acts that may have been passed in the last 15 or 20 years, that guarantee those rights; it is the sum total of law that has been built up over nearly 1,000 years that guarantees those rights. Yes, there are other Acts that bring in elements of continental jurisdiction. Yes, there are Acts that bring in elements of other foreign concepts of jurisdiction as well. But personally, when people speak of the right of men, I prefer the rights of British men and women, because those are the fundamental rights that have kept us safe, free from fascism and communism and free to live our own lives in dignity and to practise our own faiths.

That leads me to think about some of the times when we have not been free. There have, even in this great kingdom of ours, been moments when our forebears were not free to practise their faiths, and when they were victims of hatred and religious wars. I am thinking, of course, of the reigns of the great Queens Mary and Elizabeth, when people under their authority executed and tortured people of opposing faiths. There were great saints on both sides of that national moment and there were great heroes on both sides of the debate, but for me what sums up that debate is something we should remember as having the heart of Englishness in it—it was, as we know, a very English moment. What summed it up for me was Queen Elizabeth’s great line; “I will not put windows into men’s souls.” That illustrates the understanding she had that freedom of expression under loyalty to the Crown was an essential part of being part of our kingdom.

That is the central aspect we must remember on international human rights day, because that understanding that freedom of faith and expression is something the state must guarantee for us—that, in our case, the Crown must guarantee—is essential but it works only if the relationship is two-way. Yes, the state must guarantee the freedom of expression, but the freely expressed religious faith must not be of a kind, an ideology or an extremism that seeks to undermine the liberties of others, which in our case means the application of common law.

I am deeply honoured to be following the hon. Member for Strangford, and I am deeply proud to be standing here on international human rights day in this Court of Parliament, which I see very much as the heart of the court of human rights in this world, because this Court of Parliament has been a light, a beacon, a city on a hill. It has been that ideal, and we can see, my own family included, how many migrants, activists and others have shaped their concepts of democracy and freedom on the basis of the words that have been spoken on these Floors and from these Benches. So I am honoured to be here speaking on behalf of this motion, and I urge the House to consider it well.

Middle East

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I will not.

I want Britain to engage in a concerted diplomatic effort to wean Russia and Iran away from their support for Assad, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia away from giving comfort, if not actual support, to Islamist extremism. I want a peace process that allows non-extremist opposition to talk to the acceptable parts of the Syrian Arab Army and Kurdish forces, and a concerted attempt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has just said, to cut off the funds to, and other international support for, Daesh. That is a very difficult, perhaps impossible, agenda, but to engage in bombing missions on the basis of, “Something must be done”, or even on the basis of solidarity, and without clear objectives, does not show sound judgment.

There are other arguments for and against intervention, including that our contribution would be small, especially given the lack of military targets without the risk of civilian casualties; that we should support allies, whether they be the Iraqi or French Governments; and that we remain at risk from Daesh attacks on the UK, whether we take further military action against them or not. However, the three points I have mentioned are my red lines. They are also, I am pleased to say, reflected by a ratio of 100:1 in the letters and emails I have received from my constituents in the past few days and weeks. I will, of course, review my decision in the light of changing events, but given the UK’s poor record of intervention in the middle east over the past decade, I think that further military incursion should be approved only if a high burden of proof can be established.

Having dealt with that matter, may I turn, albeit necessarily briefly, to two other issues in the middle east? The first is the current situation in Israel-Palestine. I am sorry that a few moments ago we listened to a speech that gave a very one-sided view of that situation, which is at its most serious for many years. The issues are not new—we are familiar with them, including the growth of Israeli settlements, which now account for almost 600,000 people in the occupied territories; settler violence; a shoot-to-kill policy and increased use of live fire; increased use of home demolitions; child detention and administrative detention; pass laws, checkpoints and barriers; and restrictions of access to the Noble Sanctuary and other holy places. None of those things is new, but the intensification of their use by the occupying power is much more significant, and that is going on partly because of the extremism of the Israeli Government and partly because tragic events elsewhere in the middle east, including in Syria, give cover for it.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I am sorry, but I will not, because of the time.

There are often distractions. Because the European Union has suddenly decided belatedly to impose labelling restrictions, Netanyahu said this morning that he was not going to talk to the EU. It is important that we do not import settlement goods, but, in the great scheme of the occupations, those are details. I can only quote from a recent article in The Guardian by Marwan Barghouti, who is a prisoner in Israel who wrote that

“the last day of occupation will be the first day of peace.”

That is what we should keep our eyes on—the fact that this is a country that has been occupied for many decades, and justice will never be achieved in Palestine until Israeli forces withdraw.

Finally, the Gulf is another issue that needs a whole debate in itself. The Government’s policy on it is just wrong. We support Saudi Arabia, where many barbaric things occur within the regime, and, indeed, Bahrain, where we are building a naval base, and the United Arab Emirates, all of which have appalling human rights records. Such matters cannot be airbrushed and they ought to be reviewed. Nowhere is that clearer than in what is currently happening in Yemen.

I believe that the Foreign Secretary is on the record as saying that the UK will support the Saudi-led coalition

“in every practical way short of engaging in combat.”

As Amnesty International has reported, that has meant a British-made Cruise missile being used in the coalition’s destruction of a ceramics factory, a civilian object, on 23 September in an apparent violation of international humanitarian law. The head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Peter Maurer, has said:

“Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years.”

Yemen’s is a forgotten war. It is a war in which the Saudi-led forces are creating havoc and committing humanitarian outrages daily. That is not to defend the Houthi and other forces, who are equally guilty of atrocities, but it is wrong that—for strategic, tactical or other reasons—the British Government are giving their unqualified support to what the coalition is doing. It is wrong that they are supporting a regime, such as the Bahraini regime in the Gulf, which oppresses the majority of its population and carries out torture and human rights abuses. While the Government are prepared to condemn such abuses in other countries, it appears they are not prepared to do so in the case of Gulf countries for historical or, indeed, diplomatic reasons, but I believe they should do so.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) on securing this important and timely debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I want to take this debate in a slightly different direction. Our role in the middle east must be to support countries that provide full rights to Christians and protect the rights of all minorities. We must challenge those who seek to persecute minorities for their religious beliefs and practices.

A century ago, Christians made up 20% of the population of the middle east, but this figure has dramatically fallen to 4%. Christians face prison sentences and executions for practising their religion in many countries across the middle east, where hatred of Christians is ignored or encouraged. Daesh is carrying out a campaign of persecution against minorities in the middle east. At least 5,000 Yazidis have been murdered in Iraq since August 2014, with the advance of Daesh forces who have declared Yazidis to be devil worshippers.

The rise of Daesh has intensified the persecution of Christians in the middle east. Countless Syrian and Iraqi Christians have been murdered with methods including crucifixions and beheadings. Daesh has evicted thousands of Chaldean and Assyrian Christians from their homes in Mosul, and in other areas they have demanded that Christians either convert or pay a tax for non-Muslims. They have destroyed countless churches and Christian shrines, and have carried out ethno-religious cleansing of Christian minorities.

Any Muslim who converts to Christianity is considered to have performed apostasy—the conscious abandonment of Islam. In certain parts of the middle east, this is a crime punishable by death. Christians live in a threatening atmosphere in many countries in the middle east, including Iran, where there were hopes that the treatment of minorities would improve under President Rouhani. Christians in Iran continue to be arbitrarily arrested and they face abuse in police custody.

Elsewhere in the middle east, Coptic churches have been burnt in Egypt in recent years. Hundreds of Christian Coptic girls have been kidnapped and forcibly converted to Islam, as well as being victims of rape and forced marriage to Muslim men. There are no churches left in Afghanistan. In 2012, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia proclaimed that

“it is necessary to destroy all the churches of the region”.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on the state of Christianity in the region. It is, after all, the crucible of Christianity, and where Jesus Christ himself emerged from the Aramaic communities of Syria, which have tragically been destroyed. There is, however, one glimmer of light—the United Arab Emirates, whose sheikhs have recently been building Christian churches. Is she planning to come on to that point?

[Heather Wheeler]

My hon. Friend has made the point superbly well already.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I also commend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I have just returned from a trip to Iraq and Turkey as part of my work on the Foreign Affairs Committee and the teams in both places told me how engaged he was. I believe that he will be making his fourth visit to Iraq very soon. I want to put it on the record that our ambassadors in those places are doing a tremendous job. I hope to describe in detail some of the solutions in Iraq and Syria. I, too, highlight to the House my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Britain has been deeply involved in the middle east for centuries. The region has occupied our diplomatic and cultural attention for decades. Those close links are the reason I stand here today. Britain was the haven of choice for my family when we fled Saddam in the 1970s.

Today, ISIL captures the news headlines, our nightmares and our imaginations, but it is just a symptom—a potentially fatal symptom—of a deep rift at the heart of the Muslim world. The rift has several parts at different layers and they all matter. For decades, a stricter, puritanical interpretation of Sunni Islam has proliferated across the region. Traditional and more enlightened forms have been rejected, leading to more aggression and intolerance. It has led to the spread of extremism when that interpretation has mixed with other social problems, such as unemployment, corruption and poverty, which are all too common in these countries.

The regional powers of Saudi Arabia and Iran are at a stand-off and undermine each other at every turn, their relationship poisoned by suspicion and fear. They risk tearing apart their neighbours by proxy. Syria and Iraq are vulnerable to that because of their origins as Ottoman provinces fitted together into new kingdoms by the victorious empires of the first world war.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that this is not the first time in the history of the middle east that countries have fought the genuine curse of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s interpretation of Islam, and that when the Ismaili dynasty of Egypt launched one of its great attacks on the Nejd province of Saudi Arabia in the 1800s, it was very much part of that evolution?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a great scholar and I look forward to his contribution to this debate and, I hope, to the debate on Wednesday.

In Iraq, a Sunni king who was installed to allow the British to dominate was replaced by a Sunni dictator. In Syria, a Shi’a ruling class was created to enable the French to rule. In both instances, it resulted in bitter divisions, as political oppression added to sectarian divide. That settlement, which was maintained only by fear and force, has completely collapsed in the wars.

As we have watched Syria torn apart by the civil war and Iraq stuck in political deadlock and threatened by ISIL’s invasion, it has become clear to us that a new settlement is needed. The one that the US began in 2003 is completely gone. The Iraqi Government that the coalition set up and the army it trained are hollowed out and militias provide much of the manpower against ISIL. Iran dominates politics in Iraq today. I commend the Foreign Secretary for the work that he has done to bring Iran in from the cold.

As we fight to end the war and restore peace, we must recognise that real peace—a peace that lasts and allows people to feel safe and get on with their lives—can only come from self-government, federalism and political reform. That is the aim and it is a noble one, but challenges stand in the way. Syrians and Iraqis may want strong representative Governments, but that may not be what Iran or Saudi Arabia want. That is not what all Shi’a, or indeed all Sunni, in Iraq want, and it is not what Assad and the Shi’a minority in Syria may want. Why? Because all they have ever known is rule by the strongest. Those who are not on top are under the thumb of whoever is on top. People see a protracted fight as preferable to letting down their guard in a compromise that they might not survive. That lesson has been scarred into the region by systematic killing right from the death throes of the Ottoman empire to the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and Hafiz and Bashar al-Assad. However, we are not passive on this matter, and it was made clear to me in Iraq last week that we can influence Baghdad—indeed, those who agree with us are crying out for more influence in Baghdad.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for securing this timely debate on the middle east and north Africa. It is my usual manner to try to respond to those who have spoken. I am aware, however, of the time constraints and the desire to have further Back-Bench contributions. If I may, I will write to colleagues on the questions they have raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell invited us to recognise Britain’s historical relationship with this complex part of the world. That is wise advice. Seeking solutions to today’s challenges must be done through the prism of understanding the peoples and their history. It is fair to say that the fertile lands found between the Nile, the Jordan and the Tigris-Euphrates rivers formed the umbilical cords of the area we now call the cradle of civilisation. Many of the foundation stones of modern humanity come from this part of the world: basic laws, agricultural techniques, the alphabet, the wheel, and, of course, the three monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

An impressive number of tribes, religious groupings and communities huddled around those sparse water resources and coastlines, subject to the waxing and waning of a series of empires and dynasties: the Sumerian empire and the Hittite, Assyrian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Phoenician and Persian dynasties. The region experienced 8,000 years of societal development, wars, culture and governance before the first stitch of the Bayeux tapestry was made.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The Minister is making some excellent points. We talk very often about cyber-terrorism. Al-Khwarizmi wrote his book on algebra, explaining the correlation of numbers, before the Bayeux tapestry even existed. Indeed, he wrote it before there was a King of England: Ethelbert was the King of Kent, and there was no Duncan and no kingdom of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

On behalf of my party, I applaud the Back Benchers who have secured today’s debate. We now know from one of the Conservative contributions earlier that we will be asked on Wednesday to vote on whether or not to go to war in Syria. It is timely and appropriate that in a week in which such a proposition is being put, we should consider the wider historical and political perspectives in the region.

It was less than 100 years ago when the then colonial powers carved up the lands that were once controlled by the Ottoman empire and created the map of the middle east and the territories that we see today. I have to say, on reflection, that some of those decisions were arbitrary and that some did not take into account the territorial and ethnic identifications of the people who lived there. Most importantly, those powers certainly did not consult the people who were to be governed by these arrangements and nor did they have at their heart the democratic and secular principles to which I think we all aspire.

Those arrangements have not served us well in the last century. They have been the source, I believe, of much of the insecurity in that region. If we are to have a wider debate and a wider strategy, this country needs to be concerned not to repeat the mistakes of the past and to ensure that it sees a future in which people will be consulted on their own government. There is probably widespread agreement in this Chamber on the type of political arrangements we would like to see in that part of the world. We believe that they should be democratic and that people should be allowed to elect those who govern them. We would also agree that we want them to be secular or, if not entirely secular, at least to be states that will tolerate religious freedom and allow religious expression.

In pursuing those objectives, I believe that we have to be both consistent and coherent in our foreign policy. It is fair to say that that consistency and coherence have been absent from the foreign policies of this country under successive Governments. I want to pick up on three examples in respect of which more work is required.

The first is the situation with the Kurds. Many have applauded the peshmerga, and we and other western countries are coming to their assistance and providing them with the resources they need in the current war that they are waging. We will need to consider and support demands for Kurdish autonomy in the north of Syria, and we will also need to consider, I think, whether the time has come to recognise that there should be a national state of Kurdistan, which would not just bring confidence to the Kurdish people but might end up providing more security in the region in the longer term.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the very policies that Her Majesty’s Government and our allies have pursued in the region. On the possibility of a Kurdistan, the hon. Gentleman has elucidated some interesting arguments. The only narrow point I would make is that the creation of a Kurdish state, if that were to happen, would cause such unrest in the region that it might be something best considered in due course rather than at a time when the region is already inflamed.

[Tommy Sheppard]

My point is that it must be on the agenda, and that we cannot have a situation whereby we appear to be allying with the Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq, using them in many ways as a proxy, yet at the same time denying their aspirations.

That brings us, I am afraid, to the situation with Turkey. I regard the recent Turkish elections, in which President Erdogan strengthened his position in the country, to be a retrograde step. This country needs, I think, to have a serious dialogue with the Turkish Government and to bring our other allies into that dialogue as well—and we need to say that the way in which they regard the Kurds is not acceptable and will not lead to the longer-term peace we want to see in the region.

The second aspect of Saudi Arabia has been mentioned already. It is a state that, frankly, is barely beyond the medieval in how it treats many of its people. I, for one, am dumbfounded at the continuing closeness of the Foreign Office with the Government of Saudi Arabia and our continuing desire to arm them, even in a situation where there is now credible evidence that the Saudi royal air force is using British-supplied weapons against the civilian population in neighbouring Yemen—contrary to this country’s rules relating to arms supply. I think we have seriously to question what our attitude should be to the Saudi Government and what their role would be in preparing a lasting settlement in the area.

My third and final point, relating to the need for consistency and coherence, is the Israel-Palestine question, which has in many ways been overlooked in the last few years. The situation there is getting worse than it has ever been before. The violence is reaching very intense levels, and, as was pointed out earlier by, I think, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), the disparity in that violence is really quite marked. The number of casualties on the two sides is entirely unequal, and many aspects of the reaction of the Israeli defence forces are disproportionate and, indeed, could be considered unlawful. We cannot continue to ignore the situation in Palestine, in the occupied territories and the green zone.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am not sure whether I will be given extra time, but I will take the intervention anyway.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I make a very short comment on the Israel-Palestine question? He has raised some excellent points, and is advancing an extremely fluent argument encompassing most of the middle east. What has struck me over the past four or five years—and I wonder whether it has struck him as well—is that since the so-called Arab spring, the question of Israel has not been mentioned on the Arab streets. The question is not whether or not Israel is legitimate or illegitimate; it relates to the governance of the Arab countries themselves. Is it not incumbent on us to focus on that question of governance—of which the hon. Gentleman himself has just spoken so fluently—rather than sending ourselves down a rabbit hole and talking about the Israel-Palestine question, which is, let’s face it, distinct from the question of governance in the region?

[Tommy Sheppard]

It is distinct, but it is not possible to consider a lasting peace in the middle east without addressing the situation there, which I think is being brushed under the carpet at the moment.

In the occupied territories, the Israeli Government are sponsoring and supporting both the development of new settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes and properties, which is creating a situation that is close to the annexation of those occupied territories by the state of Israel. That may be Israel’s intention, but if it pursues the same path, the viability of a separate Palestinian state will not be there, and hence the two-state solution will not be there. If the Israeli Government intend to continue their present policies, the Israeli Government should be challenged to say what they consider to be the longer-term conditions for a settlement of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis in that part of the world. Meanwhile, millions of Palestinian refugees are still being held in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries, in a sort of holding pattern, and are being denied any hope or any prospect of a place that they can call home.

I must say in all seriousness that one of the things that this country could do—acting in concert with other western countries—is try to take a fresh initiative on the question of Israel-Palestine, and be seen to try to advocate the human rights of Palestinians and the requirement for a lasting and balanced peace in the area. I think that that would, single-handedly, do a great deal to undermine and counter much of the mythology that is being put about on the issue of Daesh, and the suggestion that this is a conflict between the west and Islam. We should be seen to take new action on Palestine, but at present no one is talking, and no talks are planned for the future. I know from correspondence with the Minister that he is sympathetic to much of what I have just said, but this seems to be the policy that dare not speak its name. The United Kingdom cannot continue to be silent on what is happening in that part of the world.

Let me now say something about Syria, which is the main event that we are discussing. I must make it clear that the Scottish National party understands the threat that Daesh poses to our way of life, and that we sympathise absolutely with the requirement for international action to undermine and eradicate that organisation. We are, however, anxious not to do something in the short term that would make things worse in the medium and the long term. That is why we remain unconvinced about the need for air strikes, which, it is proposed, should take place not with a ground strategy to follow, but in isolation.

Aerial bombardment in isolation means rearranging the piles of rubble, and it invariably results in some innocent casualties as collateral damage. It creates more refugees, and, above all, it plays into the narrative of Daesh that the crusaders are coming to deny the Muslim people their way of life. Unless there are forces on the ground, all that air strikes do is destroy territory rather than controlling it. Unless the air strikes are linked with a proper ground campaign, we think it irrelevant to make the Royal Air Force the 13th air force in the skies over Syria. For 15 months the Americans have been bombing these positions almost daily, yet the situation on the ground in Syria has not changed by one inch, and, if anything, Daesh is stronger than it was 15 months ago.

European Union Referendum Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman speaks for the other side of the Labour party on this—I wonder whether there is a third side—and he makes a very good point.

On the Scottish Parliament’s Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill, which I will talk about in a moment, YouthLink Scotland has stated:

“We believe that this Bill addresses the inequality that young people aged 16 and 17 years old have historically faced: the discrepancy between their democratic rights and responsibilities—16 and 17 year olds can join the armed forces, enter employment and be subject to taxation, get married and drive a car, yet they were deemed too immature to cast a vote in an election.”

That is exactly the point the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Gethins]

I have given way to Members on the Opposition side of the Committee, so I would be delighted to give way to someone on the Conservative side.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman speaks fluently on the legitimacy of 16 and 17-year-olds participating in this debate, and I understand the points he is making. As a former soldier, I want to say how proud I was to serve with many who were 18, 19 and 20 years old—young men who served their country with courage and determination—and how pleased I was that we in this country do not use child soldiers. I think that the age of legal responsibility in that sense, whether on the military or democratic front line, should be aligned.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I respect his service. Voting in an election and trying to get young people engaged in the democratic process is quite different from fighting on the front line, so there is a distinction to be made in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

That is not part of our amendments, but I am sure such things can be considered in other debates. My point, as the hon. Lady has just heard, is that the referendum result will have a direct impact on our citizens’ right of free movement.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) said, because her point is fundamental. We are talking about the constitution of the United Kingdom and the details that allow people to participate in decisions on it. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should play with it in the case of this particular referendum, but in fact we should have a proper debate in the House about the age at which people should be enfranchised to debate the matters of our nation. That age should apply throughout, whether to juries or to an EU referendum.

[Mr McFadden]

I believe that the long-term trend will be towards enfranchisement at a younger age, for some of the reasons that have been set out in the debate. My party believes in a general reduction to 16, but the amendments are concerned with the EU referendum facilitated by the Bill. My argument is that there is a good reason for enfranchisement at 16 in this case, given the direct impact of the result on the right of free movement and the right to study and work in other EU countries. There is a good argument for that, and I do not believe that it is a partisan one that is made only by Labour or Scottish National party Members. Some Conservative and other Members support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

The choice is clear: we could have the local government franchise, which would allow European Union citizens to vote, as they did in the Scottish referendum and in the Mayor of London and local council elections; or we could have the restrictive franchise that the hon. Gentleman proposes. On the wider question, I quoted the Conservative party’s manifesto, which stated that they would extend the franchise period for British citizens living abroad, yet mysteriously—perhaps the Minister will explain why—that proposal is not in the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Bill is a local or a national matter? If he thinks that it is a local matter, will he not seek to apply a local franchise? If he thinks that it is a national matter, will he not seek to apply the franchise that is traditional in this country at national elections?

[Mike Gapes]

This Bill is more than a local or national matter; it has wide-ranging international implications. Before the hon. Gentleman puts his hands up in the air, he should note that EU citizens living in the UK can vote for MEPs in this country. Given the wide ramifications for our relations with our partners in other European countries, and the mingling and movement of peoples and investments, which is an inevitable consequence of a European Union with a population of 500 million, there are enormous interests for many British people and their families in having a say on this proposal. That is not being allowed to many of them at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I take that point, but I still think the evidence is mixed. We have one—very strong—example. Ruth Davidson is one Conservative, and I am another, who reflects positively on that experience and thinks that we should learn from it, but other evidence in this arena is scant and not concrete.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and allowing me to make a point in response to the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). In fact, the evidence is not quite as clear as he suggests. The Scottish referendum was on a simple yes/no question and we know that such questions attract higher turnouts of every age, so the question whether 16 and 17-year-olds’ participation attracted a higher turnout is moot.

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend places me in a difficult position. As he was responding to the hon. Member for Arfon, he will have to allow me to skip his intervention and return to my speech.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Sorry, I apologise.

[Chloe Smith]

If I may, Mr Howarth, I will suggest that the two hon. Members sort themselves out. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman kindly brings me to my next point, which is the nature of making a change as important and as necessary as this through an ad hoc means. I am arguing for a lasting change for young people, not for an ad hoc change, as represented by making it on a one-time referendum. As good as referendums are, they are by their nature one-timers.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I fully agree that there is a strong argument for lowering the voting age in this country and I would welcome a full debate on the issue in this place in due course, but I am not sure whether the British public, who have waited more than 40 years for a referendum on Europe, would forgive us for squabbling over the franchise at this point. Does my hon. Friend agree that a full and frank discussion about the enfranchisement of 16 and 17-year-olds is needed in this place in the fullness of time and that such a discussion should not be rushed?

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: we should do this properly. The Bill is not the place for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I point out to the hon. Lady that 16-year-olds can marry without their parents’ consent in Scotland. I think that trying to draw a comparison to cigarettes and alcohol is mischievous, to be honest. I think that having the right to vote is an awful lot less dangerous than the consumption of cigarettes or alcohol. We should look for the widest possible and most generous interpretation.

We live in a changing world, and I think that this House needs to be aware of the world the way it is. There have been particular changes that relate to this debate over the past decade. There has been an information explosion in this country. People are more connected, aware and engaged than ever. Sixteen-year-olds are far more aware of what is going on in this world and in this country than many of their parents are. To say that they do not have the right to make up their minds on things, frankly, is to treat them with disrespect.

As I said earlier this week, we should be making our policy on the basis of evidence, and we are indeed fortunate in this case, as in some others, to have direct evidence of what happens when we lower the voting age to 16, and this is because of the experience of the Scottish referendum. We saw a remarkable thing. Despite concerns that young people would not be interested in voting, we saw a 97% registration rate among 16 and 17-year-olds and a 75% turnout. The turnout was slightly lower than average, but it was higher than some other age cohorts. That dismisses completely the idea that if they are given the opportunity, young people will not want to get engaged.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on his economic argument, which I find extremely interesting? If he is saying that as soon as someone is economically viable, they have the right to vote, does he recognise that the duke’s boy who inherits millions of acres of land and starts paying tax at the age of three should be enfranchised, whereas the post office worker’s boy who does not pay tax until he is earning should not have the right to vote until that point?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I would not enfranchise him, but I would certainly be happy to take the money. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for addressing what I believe to be the elephant in the room. She let the cat out of the bag by expressing her concern about what 16 and 17-year-olds might do if they had the right to vote. I think there are probably too many people in this Chamber whose attitude towards whether to allow young people the right to vote is determined by their perception of how young people might exercise that vote.

Again, I refer to the experience of the Scottish referendum and ask hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to put caution to one side. Two years out from the Scottish referendum date of 18 September, the attitude profile of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland was significantly different from how it ended up on the day of the vote. Quite simply, an awful lot of people changed their minds during the referendum campaign, because they applied their intellect and their thought. They listened to the arguments and made up their minds. To my mind, that vindicates not only the democratic process but the decision to allow young people to have the vote in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

I am also not arguing for 16 or 17-year-olds to be termed “adults”. I have referred to them as young people, and I believe they are young people.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the hazards of drinking and smoking are to do with the ability to foresee the consequences, whether it be tomorrow’s hangover or next year’s lung cancer? Does she agree that some elections—indeed, some rather well-reported elections—can also bring hangovers?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I thank him for my first experience of an intervention. Yes, of course, those are potential forms of harm where young people may not be able to see the consequences of their actions. However, as I have said, going into a polling booth, in and of itself, does not present any harm, whereas smoking immediately presents harm to a young person.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and of course I agree. Again, I draw a contrast between the risks of harm from certain behaviours and the lack of risk of harm from going into a polling booth. The risks of harm from drinking early are well known and well presented. There is a large amount of evidence, as there is on smoking.

The Electoral Reform Society wrote:

“If we get more young people registered early and into the habit of voting, we will not only see lasting improvements in turnout but a lasting improvement in our democracy.”

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see those consequences, for young people and for ourselves. I am not arguing that 16 and 17-year-old young people be termed “adults”. I am simply arguing that they are capable of voting and interested in voting, and the evidence suggests that it would be a good thing generally for democracy that they be allowed to vote. That does not make them adults; they should simply be given the right to vote.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I have to declare an interest because—[Hon. Members: “You’re 16.”] It is a somewhat different interest to the one that hon. Members are suggesting. My wife is not 16, or 17, but she is French. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) talked about divided households. I can say that none is as united as mine on this issue. My wife has identified what hon. Members would be well advised to note. As a constitutional expert in French law, she realises that what we are talking about is not a tactical political change, but a major constitutional change to the state of the United Kingdom.

I understand that nations within our great kingdom have taken different decisions, and I recognise and respect the right of those decisions to affect the laws and conduct—

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The laws of Scotland, as well as the laws of England, recognise that majority is not attained until someone passes a certain age. In England that age is 18, but in Scotland it is 21. Legal rights are given to 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland in relation to the economic activity that we have heard about.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of Scottish law.

My point is not about 16 and 17-year-olds because my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) covered that so completely and so ably.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

May I make a little progress, please?

I will instead make a few comments about citizenship, because that is what we are really talking about. This is a constitutional vote. It is not a tactical vote or a minor amendment; it is about the constitution and governance of our country. When someone chooses to be a member of our society and a participant in it, there are various things they can choose to do. They can choose to reside here for educational purposes and stay for year or two, or perhaps do a PhD and stay for longer. They can also choose to reside here for an occupation and stay for a few months or a few years; or they can choose—as I am extremely glad my wife has done—to reside here for significantly longer to raise a family, marry and settle. If they do so, they are choosing a specific state of existence in our nation. What they are not choosing is full citizenship, because that is governed by other laws.

[Joanna Cherry]

Following on from what the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) said in his intervention, the age of legal capacity in Scotland is 16.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. and learned Lady has greater knowledge of that subject than I do, but I do not know whether her knowledge is greater or less than that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. I will leave it to them to debate that.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman has listed a lot of things that we can choose to do to set our position in society. Does he agree that a significant number of people—citizens of these nations—have chosen to surrender the right to vote in order to take a seat, often at the request of Her Majesty’s Government, in the other place? How can he justify giving them the chance to undo what should have been a permanent decision by giving them the right to vote, but not giving the right to vote to people who have lived here for 25 or 30 years?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I will leave it to greater minds than mine to decide whether noble Lords have made such a decision or whether they have simply chosen to access a different seat and therefore surrendered on one, but not every, electoral term. They do not rescind their right to vote universally; they merely rescind their right to vote in general elections, because they already hold a seat in Parliament.

Citizenship is not something to be added or taken away arbitrarily, and that is what we are talking about when it comes to the enfranchisement for the referendum. It is not simply a tactical choice; it is the act of citizenship. In constituency cases, I have been sad to hear time and again people think that they have rights that they do not. Concepts of “common law this” or “common law that” do not exist, and in this case there is no such thing as common law citizenship. If people wish to have citizenship, the laws of citizenship, immigration and naturalisation cover it. If people wish to have citizenship in Her Majesty’s great United Kingdom, they have a choice to ask for it. There are laws that allow them to do so and rules that set out at what stage they can or cannot apply.

As people move through the process of residency in our great kingdom, there are various moments at which they may or may not choose to take that citizenship, and there are consequences that go with that.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a cost of £1,005 to seek naturalisation in this country deters many people who cannot afford it from claiming citizenship, and that they should be allowed to vote in the referendum by virtue of residency? There should be no price on democracy.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but I would argue to the contrary: the right of citizenship in this kingdom is so great that the price of £1,005 is but a small price to pay for the benefit of being British.

Citizenship is not a common law right: there is no common law marriage, common law contract or common law citizenship. It is, therefore, no more the right of this House to bounce people into citizenship than to bounce them into any other form of contract. The proposal seeks to push people into a deal that would change their relationship to this country without their having chosen to do so.

I know that for a fact, because my wife, who could, should she wish, begin the process of citizenship, chooses not to do so. She is—and there is some debate about this—proud to be French. She is—again, there is some debate about this—unwilling to become British. My argument is that becoming British is such a great honour that, even as a French woman, she should appreciate the joys it offers.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Most of the English aristocracy were French at one time in history. The hon. Gentleman’s wife is not going to be bounced into anything. If European nationals get the right to vote because of residency, there is no compulsion on his wife voting.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Gentleman may say that he is not bouncing anyone into anything, but he is seeking to change the social contract between citizens who have specifically not chosen to be British and citizens who are British. In changing that contract, he would bounce people who have not made that choice into a relationship with the state that they do not wish to have. If he wishes to do so at a regional level—

[Alex Salmond]

Great nations!

[Tom Tugendhat]

I accept the correction and I apologise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Does that mean that those of us on the SNP Benches who never have and never will choose to be British will not be allowed to vote in the referendum?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes an entertaining point. The fact hat he was born here and has residency here is what gives him citizenship.

As well as the question of citizenship in the constitutional sense, there is also the issue of the referendum’s legitimacy. It would be wrong if we were suddenly to change the deal to benefit those who have a specific interest in doing so. I refer specifically to the hundreds and thousands of migrant workers who affect various states of the debate. We all know that there were some people who tried to get into this House whose principal argument was based on immigration. If we force ourselves to enfranchise those whom many people would not regard as British, the terms of the debate would be changed halfway through. I argue very strongly that that would be unwise and that it would call into question the legitimacy of the referendum itself. We could find ourselves with hundreds of thousands of European Union citizens who have not made the choice to become British citizens.

[Mike Gapes]

Is there not a danger that the argument being developed by the hon. Gentleman could also be used to argue against Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizens who are resident in this country having a vote?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but we are not making the argument on that basis; we are making it on the basis of the difference between what is normal in a national election and what is normal in a local or regional election. In doing so, we are sticking to the existing rules. In sticking to the existing franchise, we are allowing those who are normally entitled to vote in national elections in our kingdom to exercise that right. It is essential that we maintain that continuity, because if we do not, we leave the door open.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

I, too, declare an interest, in that my husband is German. He has been here for 29 years, working as a general practitioner and paying tax, but he does not get to vote in elections to this House, which sets his rate of taxation, and he certainly did not get to vote for me.

Given the argument that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) is making, is there not a danger that this will become a very nationalistic debate? That accusation was thrown at the SNP when our nationalism was completely civic and open to everyone. Pursuing a genetic-source, where-were-you-born franchise is a dangerous argument to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair]

Mr Tugendhat has the Floor.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I did not give way; I sat down.

[The Temporary Chair]

I call Hywel Williams.

Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for allowing me to speak in this debate, in which I will pick up on the theme of the 10-year timeline that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) highlighted. Ten years ago, I had been in Kabul for a few months to set up the Afghan National Security Council, helping the Afghan Government to stand on their own two feet in security matters. It will not surprise many of my hon. Friends to hear that one of the biggest threats then was the penetration of Iranian agents and activists within the Afghan system. I do not have recent experience but have no reason to believe that that has changed.

We are not dealing with a country that is behaving in the ways of the post-Westphalian system in western Europe; we are dealing with a country that has ideas of itself that go back way beyond what anyone in Europe is discussing. We are talking about Cyrus the Great and the Sasanian empire. As you will no doubt remember, Mr Hollobone, the Sasanian empire had its first major expansion into Yemen in the 570s in the year of the Elephant, which is often celebrated as the birth year of the Prophet Mohammed. That expansionism is not something that the present Iranian regime has forgotten. Quite the reverse—it is echoed in every word that it says and in every speech that is made. When I hear that it is not interested in expansionism, I merely look at the maps of the Sasanian empire and of later Iranian empires and I see where its interests lie: all the way from Delhi to Turkey.

Such impacts are serious for us, because our world has also changed. Our friends now lie around the Persian gulf, on all parts of the Arabian peninsula and on the other side in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. For us, the Iranian question is no longer a foreign question about which we know little. It is a personal, immediate and local question, because the nuclearisation of Iran—were it to happen—would trigger, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, the nuclearisation of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both of which would probably get what they have already paid for: a Pakistani nuclear bomb. That is an extremely threatening situation not only for us, but for many other friends in the region.

In fact, the situation is not, as many people think, about Israel; it is much more fundamentally about Arab sovereignty and Arab states in the region. Those who think that the rights of an Iranian theocratic regime should become supreme also seem to overlook that the situation is also about the rights of the Iranian people. People have now forgotten that the first of the so-called Arab spring revolutions was the Iranian green movement, which was crushed with extreme brutality by the Iranian Government. They were able to do so because, since the revolution, they have constantly played—certainly under Ahmadinejad—the cities against the countryside. They have recruited the Basij, the revolutionary militias, from the countryside and have used them time and again to crush movements not even of liberalism, but of gentle reform in the cities, in particular Tehran. The proposed treaty endorses a theocratic regime that is anathema to peace in the region and anathema to civil rights in its own country. It is not only incumbent on our Government to stand up for ourselves—

[Mr Bacon]

When my hon. Friend says “anathema to peace in the region”, I immediately think of Gulf and Saudi financing for IS. When he says “anathema to civil rights”, I immediately think of the civil rights that do not exist in Saudi Arabia. Why does he think that Iran, uniquely, gets picked out?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is right that the rest of the Gulf and the Arabian peninsula is far from being an island of perfection in an otherwise dark world. Other states have serious issues and I would not in any way seek to relieve pressure on the Salafi funding of various regimes around the area. I completely agree that such things are inimical to our interests. The pressure that Islamic State, as it has been laughably called—it should be called Daesh—is putting on our interests in the region is abhorrent. The idea, however, that somehow my enemy’s enemy is my friend is also for the birds—it is completely wrong. We are watching the continuation of a period of violence that started with the battle of Karbala and the deaths of Hassan and Hussain. We do not want to get involved, saying, “No, everyone can nuclearise themselves.” Indeed, my hon. Friend makes my point for me, that to nuclearise one would be to encourage further problems for the whole area.

I repeat that to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons would be anathema to peace for the region, anathema to the civil rights of the society and anathema to our interests. I therefore urge the Minister, who I am glad to see in his place, because he understands the region extremely well, to look hard at what Her Majesty’s Government can do. We need to reinforce our position as a voice for peace in the region, reassure our friends in the Gulf and across north Africa that we will not abandon them and be only fair-weather friends. What will we do to stand up for them if Iran insists on pushing things, because we will be standing up not only for them, but for ourselves?

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend says that we should support our international allies in the region and around the world, but does he agree that we should learn lessons from what happened previously? For example, the international community stood by when Iran backed the Maliki Government in Iraq, which led to the crushing of the Sunnis and then to the rise of Daesh or Faesh and the massive problem we now have. Therefore, we have an international duty to support our friends and colleagues where oppression is going on and to deal with such policies and issues at an earlier stage.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making an excellent point. All I can add is to urge hon. Members to read “The Unravelling” by Emma Sky—a plug for a book by a friend of mine that is absolutely outstanding. It explores not only the failure of the American governance system in Iraq, but the rise of Iran’s influence. The point my hon. Friend made most eloquently is just that—Iran did not wait for us to push, but has been constantly pushing out from its borders, because its view of itself is not the same as what we say when we see the borders. It is not a post-Westphalian state; it is a pre-Islamic state that is still exploring its areas of influence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s exact point. In fact, he is reinforcing my argument. The fact that there are other undesirable aspects of the Iranian regime does not necessarily mean that we cannot seek a proper, verifiable and effective nuclear agreement. We may argue about how that is achieved, but the other aspects, desirable as they may be—we should certainly press them with the Iranian regime—should not prevent us from reaching an agreement. The former Defence Secretary is right: we need to focus on the arms control agreement.

I wish that I had some of the confidence of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) about the internal dynamics of the Iranian regime. The same goes for his comments about the sponsorship of terrorism. He referred to relations with Hamas and Hezbollah, but Iran acts as the armourers of those organisations. Furthermore, it is reasonably argued that in many cases Iran is pressing and supporting elements within Hamas and Hezbollah who want to take things further, as against those who want a more moderate position.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Mr Bacon]

rose—

[Mr Spellar]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells first, then to the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Forgive me, but I am the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling; the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), is not present.

Does the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) agree that Iran’s actions in support of terrorism have not been limited to the region? We have heard a lot of talk about IS, but the reality is that actions in Argentina and Bulgaria, and the murder of Israeli and European citizens in Germany over many years, demonstrate that Iran’s involvement in terrorism is not a foreign matter, but very much a domestic one.

[Mr Spellar]

As does seeking to procure the assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington.