Syria

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is an important point, and it is important to stress, as I did in response to other questions, that our support is to the moderate and democratic forces in Syria. That is one reason why all the support I have set out is also non-lethal. It is also important for us to monitor, as best we can, the use of that equipment. If we thought that at any stage it was being used by people we had not intended it for, our attitude to providing any such further equipment would, of course, have to change dramatically.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The House is deeply united on the humanitarian aid but deeply divided on the oversimplified view of the Foreign Secretary, who, on this complex civil war, could not bring himself to mention the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group that is a vital part of the opposition. It has been accused of some of the most bloodthirsty massacres of civilians. Will he give an absolute guarantee that before we commit military equipment or personnel to Syria there will be a debate and a vote in this House, so that we can avoid repeating what we have done so often, which is, in trying to punch above our weight we die beyond our responsibilities?

[Mr Hague]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening carefully and will know that I have not announced or advocated sending military equipment or personnel. Of course we have conventions in this House, which he and I strongly support, about when we take decisions in the House, and we will observe all those. He will have to decide, given his long concern for humanitarian issues, whether it would be right to be static in the face of this situation. That is the alternative to what I have described. Everybody across the House is rightly concerned about the humanitarian situation, but I do not believe it is responsible for policy to sit still in the face of a rapidly worsening situation.

Mali

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. The neighbouring countries are extremely concerned about the possibility of the terrorists expanding their area of control into their countries because of the porous borders. They are keen for the region, under the auspices of the international community at the United Nations, to resolve the problem as far as is possible as quickly as possible. There is great concern about the increasing migration from northern Mali that may occur if the problem continues, and the knock-on that that may well have in Europe. Another problem is the criminality in parts of the Sahel, including drug, cigarette and people smuggling. All those problems need to be resolved as much as is possible, and the international community is working to that end.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Why us again? We have no post-colonial obligations to Mali. Even without mission creep, we are already exposed to possible terrorist reprisals because of the actions that we have taken. We have seen 618 British lives lost in two wars where there was little direct threat to British interests. Why are the Government so eager to put at risk the lives of British citizens in order to become the policeman of the world?

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not share his analysis. As we have discussed, there are serious concerns not just in the UK, but in Europe and the rest of the international community. China and Russia are concerned about what is happening as well. We are right to provide limited logistical support to the French, who are taking the lead because of their historical links with Mali. The two main reasons we are doing this are security and to support the region in ensuring that the conflict does not spread.

Syria

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am glad to say that Christian activists have joined in the opposition National Coalition. We stress at all times to the National Coalition the importance of not only maintaining the inclusion of Christian, Kurdish and other minority communities but constantly reiterating its commitment to a country where in future all those people have their rights acknowledged and can prosper and live together peacefully. That is very much the declared intention of the National Coalition, and we must hold it to it in future years.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary give an absolute guarantee that prior to the commitment of any UK troops there will be a debate and a vote in this House on the lines of the precedent of 2003? He has said that he believes in the UK punching above our weight. Does not that often mean spending beyond our interests and dying beyond our responsibilities?

[Mr Hague]

I say no to the second part of the question—I do not believe that it means that. It means many things. It means our country having a presence and an activity in the world of which our 260 diplomatic posts and our huge development programme are good examples. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of those things, which are aspects of our punching above our weight in the world.

On the commitment of forces, I stress again that I have not said anything today, or in any statement, advocating the commitment of UK forces. In any circumstances, in Syria or elsewhere, we now have a well-established convention in this House of which I personally am a strong advocate and in which the Government as a whole believe very strongly. So, yes, the hon. Gentleman can have a broad assurance about that.

Rohingya Communities

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for how he put his question. I hope to touch on such issues in my speech, but this debate is a chance for the UK Government to take a stance in the strongest possible terms. I hope that they will continue to make representations, but I am also keen to hear from the Minister how much further they can go.

I would be grateful, too, for an update from the Minister on the amount of aid funding that has been made available for such humanitarian assistance. Will he tell us whether the Government have any plans to increase the humanitarian aid in the future? I appreciate that he comes from the Foreign Office rather than the Department for International Development, but if he could perhaps spell out the Government’s thinking on that, I am sure that we would all be grateful.

On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), many of the Rohingya have sought help in neighbouring Bangladesh, yet that country has refused to allow them to cross the border. There are heartbreaking stories of boats containing men, women and children arriving in Bangladesh being pushed back into sea during the rough monsoon rains. Human Rights Watch says that about 1,300 Rohingya refugees have been pushed back into the sea. There is no estimate yet of how many of them have lost their lives.

In Bangladesh, some 30,000 Rohingya refugees have already lived for two decades in two of the world’s most squalid camps, with estimates that a further 40,000 live in informal camps. Again, the conditions in those camps are characterised by overcrowding, widespread malnutrition, especially among children, and the lack of clean water and sanitation. Many say that the conditions are among the worst in any refugee camp in the world.

Sadly, humanitarian agencies’ access has been restricted, with some even being expelled for fear that they will act as magnets for further refugees. At the public meeting in Leicester on Friday night, an aid worker told me how he had raised money for aid and medical supplies for the region, but was forbidden from delivering them when he arrived at Cox’s Bazar and was told to return home. Again, this is another desperate humanitarian situation.

In replying, will the Minister update us on the latest discussions that the UK Government have had with Bangladesh? In particular, will he tell us what pressure the Government are exerting on the country to demand immediate access for the non-governmental organisations to provide assistance to Rohingya refugees? What discussions has he had had with Indonesia, Thailand and other countries in the region to ensure the protection of Rohingya refugees fleeing persecution?

At the heart of the conflict is the underlying issue of citizenship. The 1982 citizenship law recognises 135 national races in Burma, but excludes the Rohingya. Despite living in Burma for generations, the 800,000-strong Rohingya population’s right to citizenship was removed. The Burmese regime regularly describes the Rohingya as illegal immigrants and has forced travel restrictions on them. The Rohingya have been denied land and property rights and have even had marriage and reproduction restrictions imposed on them.

The horrific violence of the summer has brought the outrageous citizenship law into sharp focus. Surely now is the time for greater international pressure to be put on the Burmese Government to repeal that law and to replace it with a new settlement based on human rights, which recognises and respects the equal rights of all the Burmese people and is in accordance with international standards. In particular, a new settlement absolutely must comply with the universal declaration of human rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality”.

The Minister will be aware that 31 international NGOs have called for a repeal of the citizenship law. I hope that in his response he will condemn that discriminatory law and detail what pressure the Foreign Office, along with its international counterparts, is putting on the Burmese regime to repeal it.

There are clearly human rights abuses and a humanitarian crisis in the region. Many people feel, perhaps unfairly, that the UK Government could take a stronger public stance. The Minister should use this opportunity today to reassure those who feel that the issue has been neglected. I hope that he will confirm that the UK Government’s policy is to continue to press the Burmese regime for immediate, unhindered access for humanitarian organisations to all affected areas.

I hope, too, that the Minister will confirm that the UK Government will do all that they can to ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered to the displaced and to those whose homes and property have been destroyed, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. That should be done without discrimination and on the basis of need.

The Foreign Secretary confirmed to Parliament last week that he has discussed these matters with Aung San Suu Kyi and opposition leaders. Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government will continue to have those discussions, particularly given Aung San Suu Kyi’s new role as the chair of the rule of law, peace and stability committee?

Will the Minister tell us what stance the UK will take at the UN General Assembly? Will he commit to ensuring that the wording in any forthcoming annual UN Assembly resolution references the violations of international law, recommends repeal of the 1982 citizenship law and strongly condemns the sectarian violence? In the event of there being no moves to repeal the citizenship law, to allow humanitarian access and to end the abuses of human rights, what would be the Government’s attitude to the President of Burma’s invitation to visit the UK?

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I am sure that the meeting that he had in Leicester is one that could be reproduced in cities throughout the United Kingdom. There is great anger and a sense of outrage in my Newport constituency about what is happening to the Rohingya people. Does he think that there will be any progress in influencing the Government in Malaysia, who have, as I understand it, taken in about 20,000 Rohingya people? The present regime in Burma is seeking more international approval than at any time in decades. Could we not use that opportunity to ensure that it introduces policies that are far more humane to their minorities?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about Leicester. While I have the opportunity, I should tell him that he has featured prominently in the Leicester Mercury recently because of his biography of the late David Taylor, which we are all looking forward to reading. On his substantive point on Malaysia, I entirely agree with him and hope that the Minister will pick it up in his response.

This year should have been one of hope for Burma. We all know that 2011 has seen a degree of transition from military regime to civilian Government. I have no doubt that we all welcome the small tentative steps that Burma is taking to democracy and that we were all thrilled at the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, so it would be deeply wrong of us not to commend Burma for the progress that has been made. Equally, however, we should be in no doubt that, for Burma to become truly democratic, it must celebrate the diversity of its people, and that must include the Rohingya.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

We have regular discussions about ensuring that British interests are protected in Latin America, but as I said in response to an earlier question, our relations with Latin America as a whole are in a better condition than they have been for many decades.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T2. The lives of 179 brave British soldiers were lost in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If the nuclear state of Israel attacks Iran in pursuit of non-existent long-range Iranian missiles carrying non-existent Iranian bombs, can we have a guarantee that the House would discuss its position before any British lives were put in jeopardy?

[Mr Hague]

First, the hon. Gentleman must be careful not to extrapolate too much from one case to another. The position on Iran and its nuclear programme is documented in dramatically more detail than any of the programmes of Iraq discussed before the war in Iraq. But of course we have established a clear convention in the House over the past 20 years about the commitment of our forces to military action and the need to consult Parliament and to have a vote in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. That is a convention well understood across the House.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The professionalism, valour and courage of our soldiers who have served in Afghanistan and those serving there now are as distinguished as any in our long military history. Some of our allies have already decided to withdraw their troops. They are not the nations that were not enthusiastic about the war, but those that have paid huge costs in blood and treasure. Canada withdrew its combat troops after a debate in its Parliament that was supported by every party. The Netherlands has also done so, and we now know that Australia and France intend to bring their troops home early.

The United Kingdom has lost 422 troops, and we have spent £20 billion, but that is only part of the cost. We must also take into account the number of troops who return from Afghanistan broken in body and in mind. Figures from America show that more of its veterans from Afghanistan take their lives after combat than die in combat. The same applied to our figures from the Falklands war. We know that the dying will continue.

A case in Pembrokeshire involved a soldier who had suffered grievously in Afghanistan. His death is not counted among the 422 casualties, however. In Afghanistan, he was shot twice and involved in two separate incidents involving improvised explosive devices, but his loved ones explained that the experience that haunted him was holding his best friend, who had lost a number of limbs in an explosion, and watching as the life retreated from his eyes. It was that experience that drove him to take his own life.

There are powerful reasons for saying that we are continuing to order soldiers to risk their lives for the cause in Afghanistan, but I do not believe that a case can be made for doing so any more. A recent briefing said that we needed to get all our equipment out of Afghanistan at enormous cost, because we did not want to see the Taliban riding round in British tanks in five years’ time. However, having gone into Afghanistan when it was ruled by the Taliban and engaged in a civil war, the likelihood is that, by the time we leave, there will be another civil war and that it will be ruled by the Taliban once again.

For 10 years, we have heard optimism being expressed by all Governments, along with exaggerations of success and dismissals of the failures that mounted up, year after year. It was not necessarily a mistake to go there, although no British interests were threatened in 2001. It was, however, a terrible mistake to go into Helmand province. In our first five years in Afghanistan, only two of our soldiers died. Then, we provocatively stirred up the hornets’ nest in Helmand, in the foolish and mistaken belief that not a shot would be fired. Our operations in Helmand were described in the House at the time as being as futile as the charge of the Light Brigade, but we have now lost three times as many troops in Helmand as were lost in that charge.

It is a dereliction of duty for the House not to debate the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan. We know that the people of this country are strongly in favour of such a withdrawal. In a recent by-election, a candidate from a minority party with only one policy—withdrawal from Afghanistan—gained 56% of the votes and humiliated all the other parties. We also know that 80% of the public want our troops to withdraw now, yet we are being distracted by the bread and circuses of all the events taking place this year, and we cannot find a moment in our parliamentary diary to discuss whether we should bring our troops home before we reach the point that Senator Kerry described when he was an officer in Vietnam in the final days of that war. He spoke of asking the agonising question: who will be the last soldier that I will order to die for a politician’s mistake?

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That would be required for the issue to be settled and for the negotiations to succeed. It is important for Iran to announce concrete steps and to put forward concrete proposals. It has put forward some proposals in the talks in Moscow over the past 48 hours. As I have said, the talks remain very tough and frank, and have not met with success so far. In the absence of success, including as my right hon. and learned Friend defines it, the international pressure will only be intensified.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

We lost 179 of our brave soldiers in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We have lost 419 soldiers protecting the United Kingdom from a non-existent Taliban terrorist threat. Are we to expose more British lives to defend ourselves from non-existent long-range Iranian missiles carrying non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman must not fall victim to Iranian propaganda about that, and of course we could also differ about some of the premises of his question, including the terrorist threats that have emanated from Afghanistan. I hope he will support the fact that the whole of our effort is going into finding a peaceful diplomatic solution. That is what the twin-track approach of sanctions and negotiations is about. One hundred per cent of our effort is dedicated to a diplomatic solution to the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

When that motion was debated and agreed without a Division at yesterday’s European Committee, I made it very clear that we were opposed to an increase in the External Action Service’s budget, and that we expected the EAS to live up to the terms of the decision establishing it, which said that it had a responsibility to secure value for money and to return to budget neutrality.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T8. As a greater number of American veterans of the Afghan war commit suicide than die in combat, and as uncounted thousands of our own troops return, broken in body and mind, should we not follow the example of Canada, Holland, France and Australia and bring our troops home at an earlier date than planned?

[Mr Hague]

It is also important to remember the immense achievements of our troops in Afghanistan, who have helped to bring stability to areas of Afghanistan that would not otherwise have known it, and who have done so much to reduce the terrorism threat to this country and many others, and it is very important for that job to be completed, as we intend it to be, by the end of 2014. It is important to remember the achievements of our troops, and not just the problems that they encounter.

Iran

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

It is very straightforward. There has to be evidence of nuclear weapons. We were told, for example, that there was no shortage of circumstantial evidence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it turned out that there were no WMD there. That shows how careful we need to be and how clear we need to be about the difference between circumstantial evidence and concrete evidence.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any IAEA evidence on Israel’s nuclear weapons programme?

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In certain quarters in the middle east, it is felt that double standards are being applied in that Israel has developed nuclear weapons and the west does not seem to worry about them. [Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) suggests that the evidence is circumstantial, and I am willing to grant him that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

That might be an option, but the political reality is that Israel has had nuclear weapons for 30 years and that has not led to Arab countries threatening seriously to develop their own nuclear capability. The reason the Saudis and others have reacted in such a hostile way to Iran is that they know that Iran is intent on geopolitical dominance in the Gulf region by being the only country of the Muslim world, other than Pakistan, to have nuclear weapons capability or the reality of it. I believe that we cannot rule out a military response because the potential for such a response must be part of the equation.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

I do not want to accept too many interventions, for the reasons you have mentioned, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Thirdly, the use of force will never be a desirable response, but it might be the least bad one if all else fails. In considering that, let me put to the House what I think is a very important point. Many commentators have drawn attention to all the downsides of a military response. They suggest that an attack by the United States—let us concentrate on the United States at the moment—would lead to a hike in the oil price, which is correct. They suggest that it might lead to increased terrorist support by Iran for Hezbollah or Hamas and to attempts to block the strait of Hormuz and all that that would entail, and they are right. There are various other downsides, too. But, when we think about it, we find that almost all the examples—the correct examples that have been given—of the adverse consequences of a military strike by the United States are relatively temporary. They are short to medium-term: they might last a few days, weeks or possibly even months, but they would gradually cease to have any impact.

The alternative, however, of an Iran with nuclear weapons capability is not temporary; it is permanent. Therefore, we have to come to—we cannot avoid coming to—a judgment. If diplomacy fails, if negotiations go nowhere and if sanctions do not deliver, we will at some stage still have to come to an honest judgment: whether the downside, which I do not deny exists, nevertheless has to be borne if the long-term objective is either to destroy or seriously to degrade Iran’s nuclear capability.

That brings us to a crucial question: would such action in fact do so? Do the Americans have the capability? That is ultimately a military question, and we are not privy to the military advice that the President may be receiving. If the advice is, “No, it wouldn’t,” it is not worth considering the option, but, if the advice is that we could either destroy or seriously degrade Iranian nuclear capability so that it is pushed back five or 10 years, that is a different argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

I have had a serious problem in my right ear since 1981, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a very good consultant just across the river at St Thomas’s, on the NHS. I have been treated there for 30 years. I think it was within the hearing of the House and Hansard when, within about my first two sentences, I spelled out that I would support the amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington. I apologise if it did not quite get as far as the bubble in which the hon. Gentleman sits.

[Paul Flynn]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current situation is very similar to the prelude to the war in Iraq? Does he really think that going to war on the basis of what proved to be non-existent weapons of mass destruction was worth the loss of 179 British lives?

[Mr Straw]

The two are very different, and in any case I have already said that I do not regard us as being remotely close to the bar for military action at present. It is important that Members, particularly those who support the amendment, are cautious and do not get themselves into a lather, as some but not all did in respect of Iraq and other issues. It is very important to acknowledge the evidence.

If the House refers to paragraph 53 of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report of November, it will see that it states:

“The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.”

However, it continues that information

“indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.”

The truth is that—until recently, we think—the major part of the programme stopped in 2003. It is my judgment, but no more than conjecture, that Iran’s aim has been to build up a nuclear weapons capability on paper, but not to turn it into a nuclear weapons programme. With respect to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, there is a big difference between the two.

Finally, I urge caution. I hope that we hear less of the suggestion that were Iran to get a nuclear weapons capability, there would automatically be an arms race in the middle east. I do not believe that. A senior Saudi diplomat said to me, “I know what we’re saying publicly, but do you really think that having told people that there is no need for us to make any direct response to Israel holding nuclear weapons, we could seriously make a case for developing a nuclear weapons capability to deal with another Muslim country?”

This is a complicated issue, and we need a resolution to it. We need to ensure that the Foreign Secretary does not go into negotiations without options open to him, but I also believe that with sensible negotiations, and working with the United States, Europe and other allies, we can ensure that there is a peaceful solution.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s policy towards Iran. I pay tribute to two distinguished predecessors of mine who have just spoken with the benefit of their enormous experience. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) made a compelling, almost unanswerable, case for his amendment and against the motion tabled by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), to whom I have often paid tribute in the House for his efforts to reach a rapprochement with Iran—I do so again today—spoke with his great experience of the difficulty of trying to arrive at an accommodation. I did not agree with quite everything he said, but he said many wise words about the current situation.

Iranian nuclear proliferation risks one of the most serious crises in foreign policy that the international community has faced in many years. As Iran moves closer to acquiring the capability to build and deliver a nuclear weapon, and as it continues its confrontational policies elsewhere in the world, that crisis is coming steadily down the track. Three years after Iran’s secret nuclear site at Qom first came to the attention of the world, it is expanding its uranium enrichment programme in defiance of the United Nations Security Council, and it is enriching uranium to 20% on a scale greater than that needed for a civil nuclear power programme. It remains in breach of its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions and it is not meeting the requirements of IAEA resolutions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay asked me to read the relevant extracts from the IAEA report of November. The right hon. Member for Blackburn has already referred to one of them. Paragraph 53 states:

“The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

The report goes on to make the points to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

[Paul Flynn]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the danger that increasing tension between the west and Iran might well persuade it to expel the IAEA inspectors from its land, meaning that the transparency that we have now will end?

[Mr Hague]

First, it is of course not the IAEA’s view that Iran has been fully transparent. Indeed, it states in paragraph 52 of that report that

“the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities”.

I hope the hon. Gentleman listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, who pointed out that it could very well be argued that adopting the policy prescribed in the motion would increase tension and the likelihood of military conflict in the near term. I certainly hold to that view.

Another part of the IAEA report says that

“in 2005, a senior official in SADAT”—

that is, the Section for Advanced Development Applications and Technologies—

“solicited assistance from Shahid Behesti University in connection with complex calculations relating to the state of criticality of a solid sphere of uranium being compressed by high explosives.”

A solid sphere of uranium being compressed by high explosives can be found only in the core of a nuclear weapon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

For the reasons that I have outlined and will continue to outline, I believe that it would be wrong to take those options off the table. When calibrating the way forward, one has to factor in the potential for change within the Iranian regime, given the prospect of elections next month. We are facing some critical months in terms of judgments to be reached in Tehran and elsewhere. That is why the responsible course at this juncture is to advance the twin-track approach that has characterised the attitude of the international community.

[Paul Flynn]

Does my right hon. Friend think that, although the Foreign Secretary rightly condemned what were probably terrorist attacks by Iran, he failed to attack incidents involving major explosions in Tehran, a cyber-attack against Tehran and the murder of four of Iran’s scientists? If we are to be taken as honest brokers, is it not right that we attack terrorism on both sides and insist on transparency not only in Iran but in Israel?

[Mr Alexander]

There is surely consensus on both sides of the House on the desire for a peaceful resolution to this crisis. That is why I argue that the strengthening of the sanctions regime to an unprecedented level is a necessary response to the growing tensions. All of us have an interest in a peaceful resolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman is right that that is the core of the debate. It is where he and I disagree. He may be right; I may be right. I know not, but this is the debate we are having. I do not pretend to be an expert in international law, but I heard it said that Iran will not be favoured; nobody wants to favour its position.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the immediate priority is to ensure that the present war of words does not deteriorate into a war of weapons, and that our task should be to reduce tension, not to increase it?

[Mr Llwyd]

That is absolutely right. I referred to sabre-rattling, and the hon. Gentleman puts it succinctly. That is not the way to have a diplomatic dialogue with any country.

We might not like the Government of Iran. Its human rights record remains appalling, despite reports last week that it is looking at revising its penal code. There are many Governments around the world, however, with whom we would not agree. Iran is a highly developed and complex society, and stereotyping makes it easier to demonise and create an atmosphere of fear based around simple sketches of society and the dehumanisation of those within it. It seems we have quickly forgotten the scenes in Tehran in 2009 when the green revolution was taking place and millions voted for Mousavi. Iran has a highly developed middle class, which often disagrees with Ahmadinejad. My point is to remind us all that the spirit of democracy is alive and well, and that when we make international judgments we should remember that the Government are not always representative of the views of their people.

As a party, we believe in being internationalist and in being committed to peace and justice. We are also strong believers in the importance of international law and diplomacy. We support the United Nations and we would like to see it strengthened. We reject weapons of mass destruction and military alliances based on the possession thereof. We support a role for the European Union in conflict prevention and peacekeeping. These, I think, must be our core aims, but as we speak, the drums of war are beating—and they are a ghastly echo of the run-up to the Iraq conflict. We must ensure that we do everything possible through every diplomatic means to silence those drums of war.

I hope that the IAEA’s mission in Tehran this week is unequivocally successful. With elections in Iran and in the US this year, we know that there is a lot of political mileage in talking tough and ramping up the rhetoric. Our role in this House, however, is surely to listen to the facts, make a calm and reasoned examination of the situation and scrutinise the actions taken on our behalf by our Government. I hope that every effort is made to pursue each and every diplomatic avenue vigorously in order to avoid war and the accompanying destruction of countries and lives. We should pause and listen to reason from informed observers.

One such person is Hans Blix, whose essay was published in the New Statesman of 20 February. He said that the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free zone for the middle east was originally advanced in 1974 in a UN General Assembly Resolution sponsored by Egypt and Iran. That was obviously aimed at Israel. He continued by saying that

“the idea of an agreement between the parties in the Middle East—including Israel and Iran—to renounce”

nuclear weapons

“does not seem far-fetched to me”.

He went on to refer to a recent poll in Israel in which a substantial majority of Israeli people said that they thought it would be better to have no state in the middle east with nuclear weapons than to have two states with them. I commend this article to all those listening to this debate. I believe that the motion is consistent with the good thinking of that article.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicholas Soames]

I agree. I think that the Arab spring is a very fragile flower, and that we must guard it with great care.

The role of the British Government should be clear: we should encourage every effort to ease tensions, and, for our own part, try to repair diplomatic relations. In that regard in particular, our strong connections and relationships in Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are extremely important in maintaining stability and retaining peace in the region. We need to work alongside them, the United States and Saudi Arabia.

I hope that our Government will be bold, and will be prepared to explore—either with or without our immediate allies and if necessary, of course, in secret—the options for setting the choreography, which is always so critical in these difficult matters, of who does what and in what order. I remember well that, in the midst of the cold war negotiations with the Soviet Union, it was considered essential for us to develop confidence-building measures so that each side could convince itself, through some small but significant successes—that could convince everyone—that it was worth working with the other side, and thus allow diplomacy to bear fruit. We in Britain must remember those lessons.

Given the American elections on the one hand and the Iranian elections on the other, this is a good time to think about some specific steps that could be taken in regard to confidence-building. I am sure that the IAEA will have some very good ideas on the technical side, and perhaps we could promote a protocol to prevent “incidents at sea”. I believe that it is only a question of time before some ill-disciplined patrol boat sets off a major shooting match in the strait of Hormuz. Perhaps we could also co-operate in dealing with drugs from Afghanistan. Iran, the United States and Afghanistan, perhaps with specialist European Union help, might be able to work together on controlling the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan into Iran. We know that Iran is worried about that, and of course we are very worried about it too.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nicholas Soames]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

Whatever steps are taken, they must not loosen the sanctions regime or, indeed, involve a renunciation of the possible use of force, but must rather show that we are serious about progress and the possibility—if it could be there—of reaching a peaceful agreement.

I do not believe that Iran has any interest in outright war, whether with the United States or with the wider international community. In my judgment, its actions and reactions must be seen through the prism of coercion. It is applying what coercive tools it has—for example, the ability to restrict traffic through the strait of Hormuz, or the use of terrorist proxies around the world—in response to the west’s application of its own coercive tools, such as the escalation of sanctions. New sanctions will cause damage to Iran. They will almost certainly enrich its strongmen, but they will not directly affect the nuclear programme. Unless we are prepared to break out of the conventional approach, this dance will get worse and worse.

The Foreign Secretary and his fellow Ministers have re-marshalled and re-energised the efforts of the foreign service to the great advantage of this country, and are in the process of revitalising the new global networks that will in future constitute a global super-highway through which great diplomatic and international disputes will be settled. I was very impressed by the line taken by the Foreign Secretary tonight, and with the commitment that he showed. I appeal to him to ensure that we in Britain use all our resources, all our relationships, and all our influence and help—quite apart from our relationship with the United States of America, and our conventional relationships in the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations and the IAEA—to get ourselves into a position in which we can at least agree on some future ground rules for engagement and progress in the future. I fear that, in the absence of such action, this dispute has the potential to have the most dreadful long-term consequences, and we must avoid those at all costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

This House engaged in a war with Iraq that was based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and 179 of our brave British soldiers died along with an uncounted number of Iraqis. We remained in Afghanistan and went into Helmand on the basis of a non-existent terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from the Taliban. When we went into Helmand, two British soldiers had died in warfare and five more in other ways; having gone into Helmand, however, the figure is now 398. We are now in a position of stumbling into another war on the basis of non-existent nuclear weapons and non-existent missiles.

Some of us present when those decisions were taken vividly remember how the decision on Iraq went through this House—not on the basis of truth or evidence, but because this House was bribed, bullied and bamboozled into taking a decision that many thought was wrong. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) was one Member and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) another who opposed that decision because the evidence was not there.

We should look at the evidence before us now of the threat from a missile in Iran with a range of 6,000 miles. Members will recall that we heard of this threat three or four years ago when America wanted to set up missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russians were quite rightly angry about this, but the pretext for it was the protection of the Russians and the Poles from missiles from Iran. It was a wholly implausible threat and we have not heard much of it since, but now that an election is coming up in America, the myth has been resurrected.

I claim some pedigree in opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear technology in Iran. I raised the subject in December 1992 in parliamentary questions—I shall not bore the House with the details—to the then Minister, Michael Heseltine. At that time, we were told that it was absolutely right to hand over nuclear technology to our ally at the time—the Shah of Persia.

One Conservative Member said, “We must still punch above weight.” Why? Punching above our weight means dying beyond our responsibilities. A young soldier from south Wales died last month, but he will not be counted among the 398 dead in Afghanistan. He was shot twice there and was slightly injured in two further incidents involving improvised explosive devices, but the event that destroyed him was watching his virtually limbless best friend die in his arms. He came back broken in mind, and last month he took his life.

We have lost 398 and at least 1,000 others are also broken in mind and body because we as a House decided that we wanted to punch above our weight in the world. That was our decision, and we cannot escape from it. The present Government and previous Governments have tried to minimise the extent of the bereavement and the loss. Those who have suffered because of this, the loved ones and the bereaved, will face an awful situation in the future. When the death toll reaches 400, which it surely must, although we all regret it, all the grief will be churned up again and there will be attention to it. To get the list of the dead on to the Order Paper requires 24 early-day motions, but what we should look at is what those people will see. Many of them were consoled by the belief that their loved ones died in a noble cause—that they died preventing terrorism on the streets of Britain. What conclusion will they reach when, in a few years’ time, we hand over the government of Afghanistan to the very people whom we said we were fighting against, to the very same threat? We will be handing it back to the Taliban.

The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) was absolutely right. The effect of our intervention in Iraq was to replace one rotten, cruel, oppressive regime with another rotten, cruel, oppressive regime, and the result in Afghanistan will be the same. A bad regime, the Taliban, will go out, and we will replace it with what? With the Taliban again. It seems extraordinary that we have to behave as though we were still in the 19th century and that Britannia still rules the waves. We do not have to take on these situations. We do not have to be the Little Sir Echo to American policy.

There is an unsolved riddle in the House about how we have been represented. There was an investigation of the conduct of the last Defence Secretary that was alleged to constitute a breach of the ministerial code, but the investigation itself constituted a breach of the ministerial code because it was not carried out by the sole enforcer of that code, Sir Philip Mawer. He has resigned within the last couple of months and someone else has been put in his place. There is great concern that the person involved in this matter, Adam Werritty, who was the adviser to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to return to the subject of Iran. I am sure that that is where he is heading next.

[Paul Flynn]

This is precisely about Iran, because it has been claimed that Adam Werritty and the former Secretary of State were in meetings with Israelis—indeed, it is a proven fact that at least five meetings took place—and that the subject of those meetings was Iran. That has been reported in many of our national newspapers. However, the investigation has yet to be carried out. We have seen a brief investigation by a civil servant who was not entitled to carry it out, and we have seen the resignation of the person who is the sole enforcer and who told a Select Committee that he believed that he, not Gus O’Donnell, should have conducted the investigation.

We have yet to find out what on earth was going on. Did we have a Secretary of State who was conducting his own foreign policy on Iran and perhaps bringing us closer to war? The Select Committee has yet to finish its report, but a fortnight ago I asked Philip Mawer’s successor, “If the Committee decides that you are not a fit person to take on this job”—because he has not shown the robust independence that is necessary to the job—“what will you do?” He said that he would relinquish his position. That has yet to be decided.

Finally, let me say that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay deserves great praise for introducing the debate. He has already succeeded—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Mr Edward Leigh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

Not for a moment does anyone in this House casually disregard it. I have always argued that there had to be a means, through special forces or even through the limited use of air strikes, to have controlled a Taliban Government. However, I am with the hon. Member for Newport West so far and, to an extent, I am also with him and with others who opposed the Libyan conflict. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), and I also accept the argument that we should not assume that deterrence would break down if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon. However, Iran’s having a nuclear weapon would be of a different geopolitical order from what we were confronting in Iraq. Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a calamity, but a pre-emptive strike at this stage would be calamitous. Therefore, we are in an extraordinarily dangerous position. I do not need to say this, because it is so obvious, but as a Government we need to urge our American and Israeli allies to proceed with extreme caution.

There has not been a great deal of debate so far about what is actually happening on the ground. I do not accept the argument that all the evidence is circumstantial. The Fordow site has enriched uranium to 20%. Enrichment of 90% to 95% is required for weapons, whereas only 5% is required for less sophisticated civil reactors and more sophisticated reactors run on 3% or less. There is no doubt that this enrichment is for military purposes. I am not necessarily arguing that Iran would take the final step to acquire a capability to deliver these nuclear weapons, but I believe that we are in a very dangerous position.

An attack would be extraordinarily difficult. It would not be simple like the Israeli attack on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. As we have heard, the Iranian programme is geographically, as well as functionally, extensive. It includes not 15 sites, as was mentioned earlier, but up to perhaps 30 sites, which could not be destroyed in a single attack—it would likely take an air war lasting several weeks to do that. In addition, as we know, the Qom facility was kept secret. I do not believe that Israel alone could stop Iran’s nuclear progress; only America could reliably destroy the nuclear capability. The conclusion must be that Israel does not have the capability to attack effectively; it could wound but not kill, which might be the most dangerous thing of all. Israel does not have the capability and America does not have the will, and if Israel were to attack, it is plausible that Iran would retaliate against not only Israel, but, much more worryingly, Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is only 150 miles from Iran at its closest point and shares a maritime border with Iran along the length of the Gulf. There are only 258 troops from US central command in Saudi Arabia at the moment. General Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of the elite revolutionary guard, has threatened retaliation, stating:

“Any place where enemy offensive operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran originate will be the target of a reciprocal attack by the Guard’s fighting units”.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there were an attack on Iran it would elicit an immediate and perhaps devastating response against Saudi Arabia. Israeli planes would experience problems, even in attack, and would have to overfly a combination of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia just to reach Iran.

Will economic sanctions work? We have to proceed on that basis, but they may not, which is why I come on to the second part of my speech. I am sorry that there is not a simple solution, but I cannot follow the hon. Member for Newport West in saying that we can do nothing—that we can accept the motion and rule out force and that somehow things will be all right. Yes, it is calamitous to attack, but it is even more of a calamity if that country acquires nuclear weapons.

[Paul Flynn]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better if he followed the example of Harold Wilson in Vietnam, rather than the example of Tony Blair in Iraq?

[Mr Leigh]

That is a very different situation, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so. I am not sure that what was going on in Vietnam was a direct threat to us or to the whole region.

What happens if Iran acquires nuclear weapons? We cannot just dismiss that and say that deterrents would work. It is widely believed—and I think that it is true—that Saudi Arabia would acquire nuclear weapons very rapidly. Could we forgive it for doing so, if Iran developed a nuclear weapon? Saudi Arabia is reported to have made a deal with Pakistan on buying nuclear warheads in exchange for the substantial assistance that it gave Pakistan during its nuclear development in the 1980s. If the Israelis attacked, there would doubtless be a response from Hezbollah. Iran is perhaps the worst governed country in the region, because of strong ethnic identities and the opaque system of government we have heard about. No doubt there would be a confused and difficult response.

What is my conclusion from all those difficult conundrums? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, there is no good solution, there is only the least bad solution. I believe that any attack on Iran would have negative consequences for stability in the middle east in general, and would directly affect our allies in the region. Iran is extremely volatile, and it could easily overreact to provocation, so an attack at this stage would be disastrous. Any attack without American support would hinder but not stop the Iranian nuclear programme. My right hon. and learned Friend is right, however, that taking the possibility of an attack off the table would make Israel more likely to act unilaterally to retard Iran’s programme.

So what do we do? The only thing that we can do is continue with economic sanctions and be realistic about their likely impact; we must recognise Iranian concerns, and not engage in sabre-rattling; and we must recognise that it is a proud nation that feels that it is surrounded. All of that is very wise. We should try to take the issue off the boil and keep them guessing. That is why I am sorry that I cannot support the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, as it would be wildly dangerous to remove from the table the threat of military action. It is not necessary to do so. As I said, when dealing with tyrannies—surely, this is the verdict of history—we have to keep them guessing.

The Foreign Office had a policy of keeping our potential enemy guessing in the 1930s, but ultimately that policy, too, was disastrous, because there was no certainty about our intent, which brings me to my conclusion that there should be no pre-emptive strike. We should keep talking, and keep them guessing. Ultimately, the Iranian regime must know that if it is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, the west—namely America and Israel—will act at that stage, and must do so to defend all our freedoms and to defend stability in the entire region.

Israel

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb]

I am grateful for that intervention from my right hon. Friend, who is a Liberal. When my colleagues and I were in Israel, one of the things we found quite amusing was that we, as MPs, occasionally complained about the fact that we had a coalition between two parties in Westminster. Obviously, Israeli politicians said they would be absolutely delighted if they could have a coalition between just two parties. Israel’s proportional representation system means that it has a vibrant political system, in which criticism of Government actions happens regularly.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman refer, I believe, to a poem by Saunders Lewis, in which he urges Wales to follow the example of Israel, particularly in terms of reviving its language—it is a poem of great optimism. However, does he not agree that there is a world of difference between the Israel of Yitzhak Rabin and the Israel of Netanyahu?

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

Again, the record, but, unfortunately, not necessarily the media in this country, would support that view.

More important than words are actions, and in 2009-10 there was a freeze on all settlement activity. For a right-wing politician in Israel that is a brave move. The 10-month freeze was met with nine months of no activity by the Palestinians—another missed opportunity.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Guto Bebb]

I will take a final intervention.

[Paul Flynn]

We all condemn the incessant use of rockets by Hezbollah and Hamas, but is there not another danger, given what is happening in Tehran, with the explosions, assassination of scientists and cyber-attacks, that we are in a perilous situation that could lead to war? I believe that the hand of other countries can be seen in what is happening in Tehran, and that is likely to provoke it into a shooting war.

[Guto Bebb]

I am sure that all Members of the House agree that the situation in Iran is dangerous and are concerned about that regime having access to nuclear weapons. Again, negotiation would be a much better option than direct action, and I am sure all hon. Members would agree on that too.

The final point that I wanted to make about the Prime Minister of Israel is that in September 2011 he fully accepted the Quartet initiative, which was the basis on which negotiations could restart. Again the response of the Palestinian Authority has been to obstruct the process and provide the Quartet with evidence without consultation with Israel. The whole point of the Quartet initiative was to ensure that proposals would go forward in tandem with Israel and the Palestinians. That did not happen. Time and again Israel has made generous offers, which have been rejected. That is not to say that it should not continue to make generous offers. It is simply to say that the exhortations to Israel to make the next move ignore the reality of the past 10 years.

The context of the statement to the House was the near euphoria in this country about the changes in many parts of the Arab world, which have been welcomed on both sides of the House. We welcome changes and moves towards democracy in Egypt. There has been a brave effort in Syria to deal with a regime that has been, to say the least, unkind to its people. There is successful democracy in Tunisia, and we all welcome those changes. However, it is crucial to put them in the context of how they appear to someone living in an Israeli state where the borders suddenly look extremely vulnerable for perhaps the first time in 30 years. Israel’s land border with Egypt has been a solid part of its security for the past 30 years, but suddenly there is a question as to where it is going. Syria has never been a friend of Israel, and no one in the Chamber would claim that it was; however, the border between them has been stable for a generation. Discontent is clearly being shown in Jordan, and that border too has been a successful part of the peace process in Israel. Israel seems to be threatened by change on all sides. Finally, the malign influence of the Iranian regime is present in both southern Lebanon and the Gaza strip. That, again, is part of the context that was missing from the statement.

I have three or four questions, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could respond to them. First, why did the statement ignore the efforts made by Israel over the past 10 years? That is a reasonable question. Secondly, why did the statement almost fully argue that the expectation was that Israel should make the next move? Israel certainly has to make a move, but to say that the onus is entirely on Israel’s shoulders was questionable. Thirdly, why was no equal and corresponding demand made of the Palestinian Authority to show a degree of flexibility? Finally, why did the statement ignore the context? As I said, although we welcome the changes, we must acknowledge that they look threatening to a state of 7 million people surrounded by potentially hostile neighbours.

The Israeli Government have shown a willingness to engage. I believe that the only way forward is a two-state solution, which will happen only through negotiation. The British Government, with our experience in Northern Ireland, can contribute positively to that debate, but the debate needs a balanced approach and balanced language.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this debate. The attendance of a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members from other parties at this 30-minute debate indicates the importance that the House attaches to both the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel and to the wider issues concerning the middle east peace process, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy alluded in his opening speech.

I want to make it clear at the start that the Government see Israel as a key ally and friend of the UK. That does not mean that we agree on everything—we do not hesitate to express our disagreements with Israel where we feel that to be necessary, and successive Israeli Governments have done exactly the same with successive Governments here in London. We enjoy a close and productive relationship with the Israeli Government, and that very relationship allows us to have the candid discussions that are often necessary between friends.

As a number of hon. Members have said, the potential for collaboration between the United Kingdom and Israel is enormous. Our partnership in the high-tech industry could become one of the drivers of Britain’s economic growth. There is a long way to go before we get to that point—America still remains the first thought for an Israeli entrepreneur thinking about international co-operation—but we need to change that mindset, and we have taken some important steps this year towards that goal.

First, in October, during a visit to Israel, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched a Britain-Israel high-tech hub. It is a new team, based in our embassy in Tel Aviv, tasked with promoting the high-tech partnership, with staff drawn entirely from the high-tech sector. Its job will be to help find partners for Israeli companies, bring the best of Israeli innovation to British companies and help our two economies to exploit each other’s potential.

Secondly, also in October, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science went to Israel, too, with a high-powered delegation from our digital industries. We intend to continue the exchange of delegations from across the high-tech sector in the coming year.

Finally, regarding political initiatives, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have agreed to launch a UK-Israel high-tech council. It will meet twice a year, once in the UK and once in Israel, to make sure that our strategy is right.

I could point to other examples of increased co-operation between our two countries. For example, in science and innovation, a major conference on regenerative medicine took place in November. Another example is education, where we are planning a campaign to ensure that the United Kingdom resumes its place as the destination of choice for Israeli students. A third example is cultural co-operation, where the work of the British Council and bilateral exchanges between Israel and the United Kingdom are helping to bring about a greater understanding of the culture of our two countries.

[Paul Flynn]

The political editor of The Daily Telegraph has alleged that a meeting that took place in February this year between the previous Defence Secretary, Adam Werritty and others was attended by Mossad. As the report that we have on the matter decided that that was a private meeting, is it not time that we looked at the policy followed by Mr Adam Werritty as possibly something that would lead to a conflict with Iran and had a legitimate report into the Adam Werritty-former Defence Secretary affair, because the only enforcer of the ministerial code is Philip Mawer—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that that is far too long for an intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is both well travelled and, as he has just shown, dextrous in his response to questions.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

May we assume from the Minister’s reply that the Government’s policy now is to encourage contacts with countries with records on human rights as despicable as that of Equatorial Guinea, and that hon. Members should accept private invitations for five-star business class visits paid for by the Governments?

[Mr Bellingham]

We have full diplomatic relations with Equatorial Guinea. We never hold back in telling that Government about our concerns regarding human rights and lack of good governance, and we have made it clear to the Government of Equatorial Guinea that they have a per capita income of $15,000 a year, yet that masks extremes of wealth between the very rich and the very, very poor. I welcome hon. Members going there with an open mind and reporting back to us.