G7

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues, some of which were not on the agenda of the Quebec summit. I will do my best to address the issues that actually were on that agenda.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the environment and the 25-year environment plan here in the United Kingdom. In fact, the United Kingdom is seen throughout the world as a leader on many environmental issues, not least in the work that we have been doing in relation to plastics. I was pleased to get agreement at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting on action that we are taking in relation to clearing our oceans of plastics. It was important that there was agreement from the G7 as well that action should be taken on this issue. As a Commonwealth country, we have a responsibility in this regard. Many small island states in the Commonwealth are already feeling the problems caused by this issue, especially in the impact on their oceans, and it is important that we act on that issue.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the relationship with Russia. As we have discussed, and as I said in my statement, it is important that we recognise the need to maintain sanctions on Russia given that the Minsk agreements have not yet been fully put into place and that we stand ready to take further restrictive measures if necessary. He said that Russia plays a role in Syria. Indeed, Russia does play such a role. What we want to see is that the efforts to bring about a political solution and future stability and security for Syria and the Syrian people come through continuing the United Nations process.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the attitude of the United States of America and whether we are working together as allies. We should, of course, look at the recent action that the US has taken in support of the United Kingdom. It expelled a number of Russian diplomats in solidarity with us after the Salisbury incident, as indeed did other countries around the world. The Americans have recently taken action on Russia by imposing more sanctions.

What is important is that we are able to sit down and talk about these issues together, share the information that we need to share and determine the way forward. On the steel and aluminium tariffs, I was very clear—I have been clear directly to President Trump and I have been clear in this House and elsewhere—that they are unjustified, and the European Union will take countermeasures on them. We want to ensure that we can get a dialogue going forward so that we do not simply see a continuous tit-for-tat escalation on these measures, because that is in the interests of nobody. We will be playing our part, as we have done already, in discussions with others around the European Council table to ensure that the EU is able to take the right proportionate action in line with the World Trade Organisation rules. Of course, the EU is taking a case at the WTO on this very issue.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of trade, saying that this country depends on exports. Well, of course we are an exporting country. I want to see more companies around the United Kingdom exporting. The Department for International Trade and the Secretary of State are doing excellent work in increasing the number of companies that are exporting around the world. But if we are going to export around the world, we need to be able to ensure that we are negotiating trade deals with other countries and that we negotiate a good trade deal with the European Union, but that we are free to negotiate the trade deals that are in our interests.

The right hon. Gentleman may stand up here and talk about the importance of exports, but it is of course the Labour party’s policy to put the United Kingdom into a relationship with the European Union that would mean that, without being a member of the EU, we would hand over the negotiation of trade deals to the EU. That would certainly not be in our interests.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does not last week’s summit sadly demonstrate that President Trump has little or no time for multilateral meetings or multilateral agreements, and no time at all for the WTO and its rules, and that he wants to take steps that he hopes will force rich and developed countries like ours to export less to the United States and to import more from politically-sensitive sectors of the American economy? Does not the Prime Minister reflect on last week’s unfortunate events and think about when she negotiates in Europe? Although things are going to change when we leave the European Union, does she not think that we must keep frictionless trade and as many qualities of a single market, customs union and totally free trade as we possibly can, because we are probably going to need it more in the near future than we have in the past?

[The Prime Minister]

As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, we have set out very clearly the objectives we have for our future customs arrangements with the European Union, which indeed reflect having as frictionless trade as possible, alongside being able to negotiate our own trade deals with an independent trade policy and having no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. As we leave the European Union, we want to ensure that we have a good trading relationship with the EU, but we also want to have an independent trade policy that enables us to negotiate trade deals around the rest of the world.

Leaving the EU: Customs

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue about the security of Northern Ireland, and the first point I would make is that we are absolutely crystal-clear that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for the very reasons she raises. On her specific question about potentially receiving what would be some very sensitive information, albeit redacted, that would be best taken up with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, rather than by me making any specific comment from the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the Government’s firm commitment that there will be no new physical infrastructure on the Irish border and some degree of regulatory convergence if necessary and no customs border down the Irish sea, so this will presumably apply to Dover, Holyhead and everywhere else? Will he confirm that, whatever discussions are going on, quite rightly, in private within the Government, those commitments remain absolutely firm?

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the joint report issued in December after the phase 1 negotiations covers exactly the issues to which he refers, and of course the Government will entirely stand by and remain committed to the commitments they made in that statement. The Government have this morning committed to publishing a further White Paper before the June European Council. This will communicate our ambition for the UK’s future relationship with the EU in the context of our vision for the UK’s future role in the world.

We have always been clear that we will not provide a running commentary on the internal work being carried out in the Government on these highly sensitive and vital negotiations. We are focused on delivering on the referendum result in the national interest, and that means having a stable and secure policy-making process inside the Government. It would not therefore make sense, and would go against the national interest, to release information that could in any way undermine the UK’s position in our negotiations, a point the House has previously recognised. To provide details of the confidential discussions between Ministers regarding our negotiating strategy to those in the EU with whom we are negotiating would be a kind of madness that surely even the Labour party would find a stretch.

We have shown our willingness to share sensitive information with Parliament, but we will not do so to the detriment of our national interests. Let us see this motion for what it truly is. It is not a motion designed to assist our country at this critical time in our history, to secure our future outside the European Union or to help Parliament to fulfil its duty to our people. No, this is a motion about something rather less noble. It is a motion designed purely for the purposes of party politics and it should be seen for what it is. We should reject this motion today.

Question put.

Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I will not give way. I have heard a lot of the arguments in this House.

The speed and secrecy that we try to uphold in military operations cannot be curtailed by decision making. Should Parliament have a say? Should Parliament have a debate? Should MPs be listened to? Are MPs important in this debate? Absolutely, but when it comes to the defence of this nation and the defence of the freedoms and privileges that we in this House live up to and enjoy every day, we cannot retrospectively inhibit the people who fight for them by introducing a war powers Act.

This country has a role to play on the global stage. Think for a moment of the Americans and the French and of how we would look when they ask us in the dead of night, in that last decision-making process, whether or not we will stand shoulder to shoulder with them in some of these highly contentious operations. Do we want our Prime Minister to have in the back of her mind, “I’ve got to go to Parliament and I may lose a vote, so therefore I am not going to do the right thing for the country”? Or do we want to empower her to do the right thing in the British national interest to keep this country safe?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

We all accept that the sources of intelligence should never be disclosed to the House of Commons, but surely these are essentially political and foreign policy judgments about whether to use force to defend the national interest. These arguments could be applied to health, education and lots of other areas. The concept that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best has never been allowed to overrule Parliament in any other area of policy, certainly not in modern times.

[Johnny Mercer]

I respect the position of the Father of the House, but there is a fundamental difference between intelligence on national security and policy on health, social security benefits or whatever it is.

Syria

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on her very eloquent, if rather idealistic, speech. I think we all share her ambition that we should make the maximum possible contribution to humanitarian relief in Syria. The issue is what is actually practical and deliverable. On the Conservative Benches, I think we all think the British Government’s record is exemplary compared with that of most other powers.

I also congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this emergency debate, which was a splendid initiative on her part. I was rather bewildered by the whole issue being reduced, in a way I had never seen before, to applications for emergency debates. It is my opinion that we should probably be having a two-day debate on a Government motion, so that everybody could have a reasonable length of time in which to speak. I must keep my contribution very short on this occasion and I will say no more about parliamentary accountability. At least we are having a debate now.

I am in the position of being a strong supporter of the action taken, while holding the view that we should have followed the precedent set when we liberated the Falkland Islands, when the House was recalled on a Saturday to give its approval. Margaret Thatcher did not invoke royal prerogative on that occasion. On the action that has been taken, I strongly support it. I strongly supported the action that should have been taken in 2013, when I was a member of the National Security Council. We resolved that the really serious use of chemical weapons that had taken place on that occasion should have been met with a military response as both a punishment and an attempt to deter any future use of chemical weapons. Despite the fact that I support parliamentary sovereignty on this matter, Parliament got it wrong on that occasion, as it did on Iraq a few years before. Nevertheless, the policy on Syria was, with hindsight, plainly correct. We should have responded to that attack. That we did not is one of the things that has slightly contributed to the temptation, which has been given into by Assad, to see how far he can go in using chemical weapons.

It is extremely reassuring that the British Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have played such a strong role in supporting this three-nation intervention, which has given a targeted, very precise and proportionate attack on sites associated with chemical weapons. As I said earlier, we should hold ourselves ready to do the same thing again if Assad is in any doubt about whether he might get away with going further.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

No, with great respect, I should not take too long, so I will not give way. The hon. Member for Wirral South rightly did because it is her debate, but I do not think I should.

The reason I feel so strongly is that unless we respond properly, there is a very serious danger that the use of chemical weapons, nerve agents and so on will rapidly spread. The nature of warfare in Syria and in a lot of other places in the middle east and elsewhere at the moment is essentially urban, guerrilla-type and militia-based. It is not only regimes such as Assad’s who can see that if they wish to take somewhere like Ghouta, it is much quicker, easier and less of a risk to use chlorine gas, Sarin or whatever they have than it is to rely on bombardment and street-to-street fighting, where forces are engaged in long, dragged-out, dangerous activity in which they take heavy casualties. If someone has no regard for the ethics of warfare, it is obvious common sense for them to use a substance that will wipe out every living thing in the area that they propose to occupy, once it has all blown away and been cleared up.

If we look at the world at the moment, we see I think that not just Assad but countless groups will be tempted to do that. If we had not acted last weekend, Assad, who probably intends to go on to conquer Idlib next to recover control of his country, would undoubtedly have used bigger chemical attacks. We wait to see whether he will do so in the face of threats from the United States, France and the United Kingdom. I very much hope he does not, but we should not underestimate the importance now, in the real world, in several political crises, of establishing the principle that the British Government will react and will not tolerate and allow a return to the use of chemical and similar weapons, which the world community has at least managed to ban. We have not done much else to improve warfare in this world, but we have at least managed to ban that for decades, and we should stop it coming back.

As I said, that is the reason why I feel so strongly and, for what it matters, why I was arguing in the interviews I gave last week not only for parliamentary accountability, which got picked up, but for targeted action of the kind we have had. I realise, as I said, that courage is required on the part of those who took the decision. Of course there were risks. The Russians tried to terrify the population with their usual propaganda stuff, but I suspect that we did not have public support when the attack took place, because people had got disturbed about the risks of world war three and what was going to happen, and whether we would get immersed. With hindsight, we see easily that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet showed the right judgment. It has not led to any wider risks and they were rightly not deterred, but it cannot have been an easy decision at the time.

I have already said that I support all that has been said about the maximum humanitarian contribution that the British should make to relieve distress in Syria and elsewhere, in all these war-torn places, but if we take the realistic capacity of Britain, its population, its budget and everything else, I think we are doing pretty well to make a contribution to alleviating the suffering.

On the broader point about the politics of Syria and other places generally, I hear what everybody says in asking, what is the strategy? What is the next step? Why are the British not taking the lead in making sure that all is calmed down? I wish I felt that those who said that had the first idea about exactly what solution they think they are offering to the Syrian crisis. How will the British initiative bring the Turks, the Russians, the Iranians, the Israelis and many other powers all together to produce a peaceful settlement in the country? I am sure that the British Government’s influence will be among the more useful in the Geneva process and elsewhere—our values have a great deal to offer—but let us not pretend that Britain at the moment can usefully take a political role. I see nothing that could happen that would call for military intervention by the British Government in the Syrian civil war, whether seeking regime change or anything else; indeed, that would be madness. I think that the Government have retained influence by taking part in this tripartite attack. They have acted courageously, sensibly, in the national interest and in the interests of proper humanitarian values and proper international rules of law—even in warfare—in the action they have taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), as she has done a service to the entire House. I do not agree with all her views, but I was more than happy to support her application. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to what is sometimes called the endgame in Syria, and I think there are four possibilities. Option No. 1 is a negotiated deal with give and take on both sides, which seems to be almost out of the question. Option No. 2 is a de facto stalemate, with the effective partition of territory between opposing forces—that is possible but unlikely. Option No. 3 is a win by the rebels, which is now impossible, unless we enter the war, as we disastrously did in Iraq and in Libya. Option No. 4 is a win by the regime, which is highly probable.

In December 2015, the House voted to bomb Islamist terrorists in Syria, as we had been doing in Iraq for more than a year. For the next 17 months, we mounted more than 800 airstrikes in Iraq but only 95 in Syria. Why the huge disparity? It was because in Iraq we want one side, the Iraqi Government, to win and the other side, the Islamist fighters, to lose, whereas the situation in Syria is totally different. As I have said previously, it is a choice between monsters and maniacs, with the inhuman Assad regime on one side and the jihadist fanatics dominating the other. Right hon. and hon. Members should be in no doubt that the armed opposition in Syria is indeed dominated by vicious Islamist factions. Only the Syrian Democratic Forces, led by the Kurds, are at all acceptable to us, and they are now under attack from the Turks, who are supposedly our allies in NATO but are increasingly cosying up to the Russians.

Airstrikes risk inflicting lethal collateral damage, which is why the Prime Minister was absolutely right when she said to us earlier that this was a “targeted and limited” action. That is as it should be and that is how it must remain. I have been concerned about suggestions in the debate, once again, that we should widen this out into a broader intervention in the Syrian civil war. That will be to repeat the mistakes we made in Libya and in Iraq. I have to disagree with the Father of the House, because if we had gone to war in 2013, although there was talk about bombing to prevent chemical attacks, the reality is that it would not have stopped until we had toppled Assad and the result would have been similar to the one in Libya.

There are three guidelines we should follow in any further military action that we feel we have to take. First, we must remember that, apart from the SDF, neither side in the Syrian civil war deserves our support. Secondly, we must continue to impress on Russia that the action we are taking is solely to punish, degrade and deter the use of poison gas, and is not the thin end of a regime-change wedge. Finally, we must ensure that we have engaged in a one-off punishment that will not be repeated unless further chemical attacks take place.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

May I correct what my right hon. Friend said earlier? In 2013, we had discussions in the National Security Council and in the Cabinet, and we were absolutely clear that we were asking only for targeted, proportionate attacks on sites connected with chemical weapons. The then Government had discussed and agreed that we were not going to get involved in the wider Syrian civil war, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that that is as desirable an objective now as it was then.

[Dr Lewis]

I am glad to have the extra time to say that my right hon. and learned Friend did not mention the conflict in Libya. With Libya, we were told exactly the same thing: that we were voting for a protective measure—a no-fly zone to protect the citizens of Benghazi—but the moment that we retrospectively gave our approval for that, it was all out for a bombing campaign to topple that regime. I do not doubt for one moment what my right hon. and learned Friend has said to the House, but I have it from other sources that I cannot quote that I am not at all far from the truth in saying that had we acted in 2013, the result in Syria would have been the same as the result in Libya. Even if that were wrong, the people who are at fault are the people who misled the House in 2011 about Libya when they did not say that we were going to try to topple Gaddafi. Had they said that, I would have voted against that action. I believe that I and the 29 other Conservatives who voted the way we did on Syria in 2013 were absolutely right to do so.

With that, my time is up, so I simply say that we should spend more money on defence so that we will have more defence options.

Syria

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will start by responding to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments on the Syrian conflict more generally. I think that everybody in the House recognises the nature of the conflict and the impact it has had on the Syrian people, including on the millions of people displaced either within Syria or to countries in the surrounding region. As I said in my statement, the UK, having given almost £2.5 billion, is now the second biggest bilateral donor for Syrian refugees in the region. We have been clear that we believe we can help more people by giving aid in the region, and we have been able to support hundreds of thousands of children in the region through the aid we have given to them. We will continue to provide that support, and we continue to be grateful for all that is being done, particularly by Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, to support refugees in the region. It is a significant task for those countries, and we are supporting them in their effort.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to launch a new diplomatic effort. As I said in my statement, we will indeed be continuing the work in relation to the wider issue of the conflict in Syria. As I said, that means continuing and concluding the fight against Daesh; it means our humanitarian work, as I have said, and continuing to press for humanitarian access; and it means supporting the international efforts to reinvigorate the process to deliver a long-term political solution in Syria. It is necessary for all parties, however, to be willing to come together to discuss and develop that long-term solution.

I come now to the strikes at the weekend and the issue of chemical weapons. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the legal basis. We have published the legal basis for our action, and I have been very clear—I went through the arguments in my statement—that this is about the alleviation of humanitarian suffering. That is a legal basis that has been used by Governments of all colours. As I said, it was used in 1991 and 1992. It was also used by the Labour Government to justify intervention in Kosovo as part of the NATO intervention.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to other areas of conflict in the world. Let me say to him that what sets this apart particularly is the use of chemical weapons. This is about alleviating the suffering that would come from the use of such weapons, but I believe it is also important, and in this country’s interest and the interests of other countries around the world, for us to re-establish the international norm that the use of chemical weapons is prohibited. We cannot allow a situation to develop in which countries and people think that their use has been allowed to become normalised. That is important for us all.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and about its investigation in Douma. As I said in my statement, the problem is that the investigation is being stopped. The regime and the Russians are preventing the OPCW from investigating. Moreover, again, the regime has reportedly been attempting to conceal the evidence by searching evacuees from Douma to ensure that they are not taking out of the region samples that could be tested elsewhere, and a wider operation to conceal the facts of the attack is under way, supported by the Russians.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the possibility of chemical weapons being used by other groups. As I pointed out in my statement, it is understood that these chemical weapons were delivered by barrel bombs, which are normally dropped from helicopters. There is the evidence that I cited in relation to regime helicopter activity in Douma on the date in question, and it is not the case that the groups to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have access to the helicopters and barrel bombs that would be able to deliver such a chemical weapons attack.

I think that that is clear, and it was on that basis that the Government decided to act, together with the United States and France. I think it important that this was a joint international effort. The strikes were carefully targeted, and proper analysis was carried out to ensure that they were targeted at sites that were relevant to the chemical weapons capability of the regime. We did this to alleviate further human suffering. We targeted the strikes at the chemical weapons capability of the regime to degrade and deter its willingness to use chemical weapons in future, and I continue to believe that it was the right thing to do.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I fully support the proportionate, targeted action that we have taken against these sites, and I hope that the Government will consider similar action in future if anyone is so foolish as to repeat chemical weapons attacks. We can all debate these matters, but it takes a real Prime Minister to actually face up to the grave responsibility.

As for the question of the parliamentary role, I think that the Prime Minister was not relying on the archaic narrow interpretation of the royal prerogative, which no Government have invoked in this country for more than 50 years. Governments will always come to Parliament for debate, and votes if possible, on any military action. The Prime Minister said that there was a problem of time, but surely once President Trump had announced to the world what he was proposing, a widespread debate was taking place everywhere—including among many Members of Parliament in the media. However, there was no debate in Parliament.

Would the Prime Minister consider establishing, once the immediate issues are over, a cross-party commission of some kind to set out precisely what the role of Parliament is in modern times in the use of military power against another state, and what exceptions, if any, there can be to the usual rule that the Government need parliamentary approval before taking grave actions of this kind?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments about the action that was taken in Syria by the United States, the United Kingdom and France. He referred to the parliamentary position. The decision to act was made on this basis: first of all, obviously, an effort was made in the United Nations Security Council to propose and pass a resolution that would have enabled investigation and enabled accountability for the chemical weapons to be determined. That was vetoed by the Russians, so it was not possible to follow that diplomatic route, but the timing enabled proper planning to take place so that this was a targeted and effective set of strikes, it was done in a timely fashion and it maintained the operational security of our armed forces. Any Prime Minister who commits any of our armed forces into action of this sort must have a care for their safety and security in doing so.

I also refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the written ministerial statement in 2016 on the war powers convention, which concluded:

“After careful consideration, the Government has decided that it will not be codifying the convention in law or by resolution of the House in order to retain the ability of this and future Governments and the armed forces to protect the security and interests of the UK in circumstances that we cannot predict, and to avoid such decisions becoming subject to legal action.

We will continue to ensure that Parliament is kept informed of significant major operations and deployments of the Armed Forces.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 11WS.]

That is what I have done today: I have come to Parliament with a statement on the action that took place. As I said in my statement, Parliament will hold me to account for the decision that has been taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is comfortable; I am quite bothered that he might not be.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I am trying to avoid walking between the Prime Minister and her questioner.

[Mr Speaker]

That is characteristically solicitous of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; we would expect nothing less of him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said previously, clearly the allegations relating to Cambridge Analytica are concerning, because people should be able to have confidence about how their personal data is being used. It is right that we are seeing the Information Commissioner investigating this matter. I expect Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and any others involved to co-operate fully with the Information Commissioner’s Office in the investigation that is taking place. As I said earlier, our Data Protection Bill will strengthen the powers of the Information Commissioner, but it will also strengthen legislation around data protection, as will the other steps that the Government are taking—for example, through our digital charter. This is a Government who are committing to making sure that this is a safe place to be online.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Would the Prime Minister confirm her reported opinion that we are highly unlikely to introduce a new hard border between Britain and Europe by December 2020? Presumably it could take years to train thousands of customs officers and build new lorry parks and other infrastructure at Dover, Holyhead and elsewhere if we tried to, so will she confirm her strongly preferred policy option of frictionless trade in future between the EU and the United Kingdom and an open border in Ireland, in conformity with the Good Friday agreement, and seek a customs arrangement that I personally hope will resemble the existing customs union very closely indeed?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that we are indeed committed. We have given that commitment—we gave it in the December joint report and we have given it in the negotiating stage that was completed last week—to ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and also to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to trade freely with the rest of the United Kingdom and vice versa. We are working to ensure that we have tariff-free trade and trade that is as frictionless as possible. As I am sure he will know, trade between the UK and the EU is not completely frictionless today, but we will ensure that trade is as frictionless as possible in the future. We have put forward proposals and we have started discussing them in detail with the European Commission, and I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the Home Secretary and others are taking the steps necessary to ensure that we have the arrangements in place for when we come to the end of the implementation period.

Salisbury Incident

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions about the nerve agent that had been used. He asked whether we were putting together an international coalition to call on Russia to reveal the details of its chemical weapons programme to the OPCW. That is indeed what we did. We gave the Russian Government the opportunity, through the démarche that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary delivered to the Russian ambassador in London earlier this week, to do just that. They have not done so.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the corrupt elites and money going through London. As I said in my statement, led by the National Crime Agency, we will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people or their money in our country, and that work is ongoing.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about getting an international consensus together. As I said, I have spoken to Chancellor Merkel, President Trump and President Macron. Others have also expressed their support. Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary-General, said:

“We stand in solidarity with our Allies in the United Kingdom”

and

“Those responsible—both those who committed the crime and those who ordered it—must face appropriately serious consequences.”

The NATO Council has expressed deep concern at the first offensive use of a nerve agent on alliance territory since NATO’s foundation, and allies agreed the attack was a clear breach of international norms and agreements. Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, said:

“I express my full solidarity with PM @theresa_may in the face of the brutal attack inspired, most likely, by Moscow. I’m ready to put the issue on next week’s #EUCO agenda.”

We will be doing that.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a question of our diplomacy or of what diplomatic support we have around the world. This is a question of the culpability of the Russian state for an act on our soil. He said that we should be trying to build a consensus. It is clear from the conversations that I have had with allies that we have a consensus with our allies. It was clear from the remarks made by Back Benchers across the whole House on Monday that there is a consensus across the Back Benches of this House. I am only sorry that the consensus does not go as far as the right hon. Gentleman, who could have taken the opportunity, as the UK Government have done, to condemn the culpability of the Russian state.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

It seems to me, without any access to closed information, that the use of this particularly bizarre and dreadful way of killing an individual is a deliberate choice by the Russian Government to put their signature on a particular killing so that other defectors are left in no doubt that it is the Russian Government who will act if they are disappointed in any way by those people’s actions. In the light of that, the only sensible question the Leader of the Opposition asked was what consultation we propose to have with NATO, other European countries and the American Government about positive action that could be taken to prevent this continuing defiance of international law and the defiance of all rules on the testing and possession of chemical weapons. This is not just a question of expressing our anger about Salisbury. This is actually a serious threat to the safety of the western world unless and until we all do something together to get the Russians to do something, as opposed to simply ignoring us.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. That is why not only are we talking to allies bilaterally, but there will, as I understand it, be a meeting of the NATO Council tomorrow at which this issue will be considered. The President of the EU Council has said that he will be putting this on the agenda of the European Union Council meeting at the end of next week.

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: while we rightly focus initially on the use of this nerve agent here in the UK and its impact on us here in the UK, this is about the illegal use of chemical weapons by the Russian state and an illegal programme of developing those chemical weapons by the Russian state. We will leave no stone unturned in working with our allies to ensure that we respond appropriately to that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s very firm reaffirmation of her commitment to the Good Friday agreement and the open border and to the December agreement that she made on the withdrawal terms, which included, if necessary, full regulatory convergence on both sides of the border? Does she accept that that means that, if necessary, there will be full regulatory convergence between the United Kingdom and the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

At this stage, prior to my speech on Friday, may I perhaps refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the speech I made in Florence last year, which set out very clearly that we recognise there will be some areas where we will have the same objectives as the European Union and we will want to achieve those objectives in the same way, there will be other areas where we have the same objectives but we want to achieve those objectives by different means and there will be other areas where our objectives will differ? What matters is that it is this United Kingdom that will be able to take the decisions about the rules that it applies.

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Anybody would have thought that the right hon. Lady was nervous about facing me across the Dispatch Box again.

The right hon. Lady started by questioning my credentials to be here. Since I have Cabinet responsibility for constitutional affairs, including the implementation of devolution throughout the United Kingdom, and since I also chair the Cabinet Committee on the domestic implementation of our Brexit arrangements, it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable that I should respond to the right hon. Lady’s urgent question.

The right hon. Lady asked about the position of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Like every other member of the Cabinet, he stands four-square behind our support for the Belfast agreement and the December agreements reached between the United Kingdom and the European Union. We are now at the very start of a negotiating period during which we will discuss with our partners in the EU how to give practical effect to the commitments that were entered into then, both to ensure there is no hard north-south border between the Northern Ireland and Ireland and to ensure there is no kind of border, customs or otherwise, between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have both said publicly that they believe the priority is to settle these issues in the context of the ambitious, deep and special partnership that we are seeking between the UK and the EU in the future, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will set out more detail about her proposed approach to this in her speech on Friday.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

We have just heard the Prime Minister reconfirm her commitment to full regulatory convergence if necessary to keep the Irish border open, but I did not wholly understand the second half of her reply to me. Does my right hon. Friend really believe it will be possible to negotiate a position whereby the British Government decide what regulatory convergence they are going to have, the British Government decide what regulatory convergence they are not going to have, and the British Government are free to change their mind and move those boundaries at any time? What does my right hon. Friend think the prospects are of agreeing that with 27 other sovereign Governments?

[Mr Lidington]

With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, I do not think that there is a need for any misunderstanding about what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was saying. On the date when we leave the European Union, the treaties will, in the words of article 50, cease to apply to the United Kingdom. The effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is currently before the House of Lords, is that the direct effect and primacy of European Union law in the United Kingdom will be extinguished. We are now seeking an agreement, which will take the form of a treaty governed by international law, between the United Kingdom and the continuing entity of the European Union. That is what we are seeking to do, and the Prime Minister has said that she will talk about that in more detail on Friday.

Brexit Negotiations

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the only posturing taking place has been on the Opposition Front Bench.

The right hon. Gentleman talks quite a lot about alignment. I set out our objectives for the Brexit negotiations very clearly in my Lancaster House speech, and I set them out further and in some more detail in the speech I gave in Florence. Meanwhile, the Labour party has had 12 different Brexit plans. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman has had so many Brexit plans he cannot even reach alignment with himself.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, he started off by saying he wanted to uphold the referendum result. Later in his comments, however, he said he did not want to accept the leave date of 29 March 2019. We are leaving the European Union on that date. That is what the British people voted for, and that is what the Government are going to put in place.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the financial settlement. We have agreed the scope of commitments, and methods for valuations and adjustments to those values. The calculations currently say that the valuation would be £35 billion to £39 billion, so the answer to his question is yes. He asked whether that was conditional on securing a deal. It is clear in the joint progress report, and I have repeated it in my statement just now, that the offer is on the table in the context of us agreeing the next stage and the partnership for the future. If we do not agree that partnership, then the offer is off the table.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how much we were going to pay into joint programmes. That is all part of the negotiation in phase 2, and it will be negotiated depending on the programme and depending on the agency, should we wish to remain part of it. He asked whether I would confirm that the European Court of Justice would oversee the rights of EU citizens for the next eight years. The answer to that is no, because it will not be overseeing the rights of EU citizens for the next eight years. I made it absolutely clear that citizens’ rights would be determined by the courts here in the UK. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the legal nature of that agreement. It will be brought into law in this country in the withdrawal and implementation Bill that will be presented to the House. He asked about the payment of pensions for UK citizens. Yes, that will continue. He asked whether the arrangements that were in place in relation to citizens’ rights in the ECJ would have an impact on other parts of the deal. Paragraph 41 of the joint report makes it very clear that this in no way prejudges discussions on other elements of the withdrawal agreement.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about alignment. What is necessary is that we have the same objectives. We may reach those objectives in different ways, but what we need to ensure—and this is not a theological argument; it is about the practical decisions that need to be made—is that the trade across the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland can continue, and that is what we will be looking at. The Taoiseach and I have been very clear in our discussions: we both believe that we should be working to ensure that that can be achieved through the overall agreement between the UK and the EU, and that is indeed what we should be aiming for.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the trade deal, and about CETA-plus-plus-plus. We have always said that we are not looking for a deal that is Norway, and we are not looking for a deal that is CETA. What we are looking for is a deal that is right for the United Kingdom. Sadly, we know what a Labour approach to these negotiations would mean. It would mean paying the European Union billions of pounds every year in perpetuity. It would mean following EU roles with no say on them. It would mean no divergence whatsoever from EU rules in the future. It would mean zero control of immigration. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that that would not make a success of Brexit; it would be no Brexit at all.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Let me first congratulate the Prime Minister on her triumph last Friday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope that that is maintained, because I have never previously known the days following a British Government’s entry into a treaty-like agreement with 27 friendly Governments to be followed by Ministers and their aides appearing to cast doubt on whether we have agreed to anything finally, and regard ourselves as bound at all.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” is a well-known phrase which means that details can be revisited once you have sorted out what the ultimate destination is, but which does not mean that you are going to tear everything up and start all over again on EU citizens and paying money and regulatory convergence if something goes wrong in the future? Will she confirm that we have settled the rights of EU citizens, that we know how we are going to calculate the financial obligation that undoubtedly falls on this country because of past commitments by British Governments, and that open borders do require some regulatory alignment in any country in the world if we are to have an open border—and we are committed to an open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which in part, of course, means between the United Kingdom and the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his positive comments about the stage that we have reached in the negotiations. The report that was issued is a joint progress report on the point that we have reached and the agreements that we have reached. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it enables us to go on to the detailed negotiations on various of these issues. The area on which we have had perhaps the most detailed negotiations so far is that of citizens’ rights, which covers a range of issues relating to benefits and so forth for EU citizens who are here. Obviously, we have also had negotiations on the other elements, which are not just about Northern Ireland and the financial settlement, but about a number of issues connected with the withdrawal. Of course, that withdrawal agreement, as we have set out in this joint progress report, will be brought into UK law at the point at which that Bill is brought before this House, and this House will have an opportunity to vote on that Bill.

My right hon. and learned Friend made the point at the end about trade deals, and he is absolutely right that in any trade agreement there is a necessity for both sides to agree certain regulations, rules and standards on which they will operate. This will be no different from that; it will be different only in the sense that we are already operating on—mostly—exactly the same rules and regulations as the European Union, so we start from a slightly different place than we would do if we were negotiating with another country.