Syria

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Any western intervention, such as arming the rebels, would make the disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq look like a picnic. The Alawites were a savagely persecuted minority until the French started empowering them; there are only 10 Alawites on the Syrian National Council, which numbers more than 300; and Christians are hugely unrepresented. Instead of constantly criticising the Russians, can we not appreciate that they have a sophisticated understanding of the country, and that we have to work with them to reach a peaceful solution which empowers the minorities?

[Mr Hague]

I hope that the Russians and all of us have a sophisticated understanding of the country, but that sophisticated understanding, when brought up to date, suggests that we are on the edge of a catastrophe for all those people unless we muster the international unity to ensure that the Annan plan, and the road map that arises from it, is put into practice.

My hon. Friend is entirely right to worry about those things, and I have stressed in my meetings with opposition groups from Syria that not only must they come together but that they need the broadest possible representation of all groups in Syria and to increase the representation of Christians, Kurds and Alawites, working with, and in leading roles in, the opposition movement.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to the number of people killed yesterday. As I have said, the violence continues. What the deployment of UN monitors has meant so far is that tens of people, rather than hundreds of people, are being killed every day. However, the situation is still completely unacceptable. What else are we doing? We are intensifying our support for bringing opposition groups together. I announced in Istanbul last month a doubling of our financial support to the opposition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has allocated humanitarian aid—as much as has been asked for—to international agencies dealing with people who have fled from Syria. At the next meeting, which I expect to be held in France, once the new French Government have established themselves, and which I hope will be the largest meeting yet, we will join the Friends of Syria group to co-ordinate international pressure. We stepped up our sanctions on Syria at the EU Foreign Affairs Council yesterday. Of course, we also continue to discuss, with Russia, the Russian position and the need for Russia—as it is in a position of crucial leverage on the Syrian regime—to recognise that only a political transition of the kind set out in the Annan plan is a viable way forward for Syria.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Ten per cent. of the Syrian population are Christian. The only redeeming feature of the Assad regime is that, like Saddam, he has protected them. There have been numerous violations against the Christian population in opposition areas. For the first time in centuries, the Easter liturgy was not celebrated in many areas this year. What are the Government doing to bring the plight of Christians in Syria to the attention of the world?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this matter. I can assure him that one of the top items on our agenda in all our meetings with Syrian opposition groups is this very issue and the need for them to make clear—as they did at our meetings in Tunisia and Istanbul over the last few months—their commitment to human rights, including freedom of religion and freedom of expression in Syria. That is crucial; indeed, it is a vital part of the future of a country that includes many different religious groups and many different cultures, which is one of Syria’s great strengths. I think opposition leaders are serious about that, and if and when they are ever in power we will look to them to hold to their commitments on that.

In addition, Members in all parts of the House will have concerns about Bahrain.

Sergei Magnitsky

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am not a member of the all-party group, and I have never spoken in this place about anything to do with Russia. However, I recently chaired a meeting at which Sergei Magnitsky’s former employer spoke, in detail and with emotion and depth, about Sergei’s life and death. It was impossible not to be moved, which is why I have come to speak in the debate today and to make a case for our Government to support the motion. That man died in the most horrific circumstances and he was the most principled of people. Sergei Magnitsky was killed by corrupt officials because he was a principled man who exposed officials as thieves, when a huge amount of money to be paid in tax to the Russian state disappeared overnight. Overnight, those officials, politicians, police officers and tax inspectors suddenly became very rich individuals indeed. That is the simple, tragic background to what we are discussing today, but the ramifications reach far further.

A ruling elite has sprung out of the chaos in Russia during the 1990s, and it preaches to the masses nationalism and pride in a powerful Russian state. At the same time, this ruling elite is weakening its own country through corruption, nepotism and greed. That contradiction is not for us in this House to solve. It is not our affair; we have no powers over Russian business. Proud Russian people, furthermore, do not take kindly to foreign interventions into their domestic affairs. The British Council would be able to inform us about that.

The British Government and this House, however, have influence over who enters this country and who crosses our borders, and over our domestic affairs, particularly in respect of foreign visitors. We do not have an entirely open border policy for Russian citizens. Indeed, I have been told that the visa regime between the two countries can make for an incredibly tiresome process. On rare occasions, we reserve the right to say to particular citizens of the Russian Federation that they are not welcome in the UK and we can deny them a visa.

Is there any greater indication that someone’s presence in the UK is not welcome or desired in this country than the fact that we are dealing with thieves, murderers, torturers and corrupt individuals? Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) said, the fact that these people can just pop into our country to do a bit of Christmas shopping is distasteful in the extreme. At the very least, we need to put some process in place to make sure that they are refused entry at the border.

On Sunday, Vladimir Putin was elected President of the Russian Federation for a third term. Mr Putin is known and recognised for his patriotic pride, and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) spoke about how Putin often displays this in taking off his shirt, attending ice hockey events or throwing in curling events to show us what a big proud man he is. He resents interference in Russian politics from anywhere outside Russia, which makes it ironic that the Russian ambassador thinks that this matter is unique to Russia. These Russians feel that they can interfere in what happens in our politics by trying to prevent this debate from taking place.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did the Russian ambassador write to you to try to prevent this debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful for that point of order. I hope that the clock will be held so that the time available to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) will not be reduced.

I can tell the House that I received a letter from the Russian ambassador, drawing my attention to what he regarded as the errors contained in the motion and the merit of what he thought to be that fact—I emphasise that this was what he thought to be that fact—being communicated to the sponsors of the debate. I replied to the ambassador, noting his letter and underlining to him that he must not expect me, as an impartial Speaker, to comment on the contents of either the letter or the motion. I reminded him of the date of the debate, and indicated that if he wished to communicate his views in writing to the sponsors of the debate, it was open to him to do so. I hope that my meaning was clear—that this House debates what it wants to debate and that if other people wish to send letters, they can send letters, but it is not the responsibility of the Speaker to act as a post person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am glad that we are having this opportunity to discuss this disturbing case, as it is very important that we do so. The death of Sergei Magnitsky in prison, when guilty of no crime, makes us appreciate living in a society where we enjoy rule of law. That he was ever imprisoned in the first place shows that Russia still has a long way to go if it is fully to leave behind the stark inhumanity of the Soviet period and reach the sunlit uplands of being a well-constituted, constitutional state.

There has been progress, however, although it has been limited. We should welcome the Russian investigative committee’s acknowledgment that Sergei died because of the conduct of the authorities who imprisoned him, and a criminal case has opened against the two doctors involved. It is disturbing, of course, that there have been delays, and it is ridiculous that Mr Magnitsky is now posthumously back on trial.

However, this debate also gives us an opportunity to discuss what is going on in Russia at present. Ever since marrying my half-Russian wife, I have taken a deep interest in Russia. I have no interest to declare, as she is not linked in any way with anyone associated with Putin or the Soviet era. Her family was expelled in 1917, despite donating the Michael palace—or, perhaps, because of that—where my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) can see the Repin masterpieces.

I have long been interested in Russia, therefore, which is why I was delighted to be asked by the Council of Europe to go there this week as one of its official observers. I think I am the only Member to have been in Russia this week; I have been there for the past five days. I travelled there full of cynicism about what is going on in Russia, and with concerns about Mr Putin’s party, and I should state at the outset that I do not condone in any way the restriction on the number of candidates or the lack of airtime for opposition candidates—they had some airtime, but not in prime time.

On Sunday, I spent 13 hours visiting polling stations in a rather drab suburb of St Petersburg, and I was impressed. Frankly, there is democracy working there. I was out at the polling stations before dawn, seeing the transparent ballot boxes being opened. The count was operated not by party officials, but by local people, mainly teachers. As far as I could see, it was done properly, according to the rules. I talked, through an interpreter, to many observers from all parties, who were present at all times. I saw the votes being counted. Generally, the atmosphere was good, and I saw no intimidating police presence.

I therefore want to rebalance the debate slightly. There has been a lot of Russia-bashing and Putin-bashing so far. I make no defence of the regime, but we must bear in mind that in my own lifetime Russia was a terrifying Stalinist dictatorship where people could be shot for expressing their point of view, so let us at least acknowledge that there has been some progress. Even 22 years ago it was a stultifying one-party state.

[Chris Bryant]

So was Spain, but the changes in that country have been much more dramatic and serious. Did the hon. Gentleman not see the reports of people who work for the Russian state being told that if they did not hand over a postal ballot form for somebody else to vote on their behalf, they would lose their jobs?

[Mr Leigh]

Well, we had accreditation and we were allowed to go and see all the absentee voting rolls. In the polling stations I visited, the absentee voting rolls were only about 10% of the total. Even if 10% of them were fraudulent or represented votes made under pressure from others, that could not significantly have affected the result. I am afraid that, whether we like it or not, in the polling station where I saw the count Putin won clearly. That leads to the question we have to ask ourselves: is Putin the bar to liberal pluralist democracy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) described in his excellent article earlier this week in The Daily Telegraph, or is there some evidence that the reason why he is quite popular in Russia is that not all Russians want pluralist liberal democracy? I make no defence of that point of view; I just ask that question. In his article, my right hon. and learned Friend said that

“the only opponents permitted to stand in the election were the Communists and an unelectable oligarch”,

but all the parties represented in the Duma were allowed to stand. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughs; I do not pretend that the election was perfect, but progress is being made. We have to acknowledge that there were other candidates.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I think the hon. Gentleman is putting too positive a gloss on this. May I remind him of the case of Grigory Yavlinsky, the candidate of the Liberal Democrats’ sister party in Liberal International in Russia, Yabloko? He was simply denied the opportunity to stand by an electoral commission. It was not a fair election.

[Mr Leigh]

I immediately acknowledge that, and I do not condone the exclusion of any candidate from standing or the lack of prime-time airtime for Opposition candidates. I do not pretend it is a perfect democracy, but the House of Commons has to appreciate that this is still an infinitely freer election than has happened in the past in Russia. At least some progress has been made; let us not knock that.

There has been talk about the case of Mikhail Khordokovsky. I do not defend the tumbling and the show trial of that oligarch, but we have to remember what happened under Mr Yeltsin’s rule. He sold off the family silver to his friends, cronies and supporters, and there was no limit to the power of the oligarchs under him. I do not defend the trial, but Mr Putin was clearly sending a political message to the Russian people that no oligarch is above the rule of law.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

My hon. Friend might make that argument regarding the first conviction, but what message was Mr Putin sending by bringing Mr Khordokovsky to trial a second time, after he had served his sentence, and having him sentenced to many more years in prison?

[Mr Leigh]

Straight away, I make no defence of that, but we have to appreciate the internal politics going on in Russia. That is all I am trying to do. I do not think we should indulge ourselves, pleasant as it may be, in Putin phobia, which is sometimes nourished in our own commentariat. There are double standards and the democracy is not perfect, but unfortunately many of the Russians to whom I and others have spoken conclude that the west would rather see a Russia that is poor, weak and unstable as long as it subscribes to our notions of liberal democracy—and it is not for us to lecture them—instead of a Russia that is rich, influential and stable. That is primarily what they want. They might not share all our views about liberal democracy, but ordinary Russians whom one can talk to in the street are primarily interested in their pensions and their quality of life, which has improved immeasurably in the past 10 years. I therefore support the moderate tone that the Minister has taken today. We have to have an environment of respect for the Russian Government and we have to encourage dialogue with them rather than continually giving them lectures that, I am afraid, have absolutely no resonance with the Russian people. It is true that Russia is changing too slowly, but at least President Medvedev has attempted to reform the police service and get rid of the Soviet “people’s militia” system, so some progress is being made.

The death of Sergei Magnitsky leaves one cold and those guilty of it are thoroughly contemptible. Of course we condemn what is going on, but I think our Government are taking a measured and sensible approach in seeking to prevent any of those people from coming to this country and in not seeking to predetermine the outcome of trials that are taking place in Russia. My hon. Friend the Minister’s attitude in seeking to preserve good relations with an essential trading partner is a balanced and right approach, which I support.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Iran

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I must say that we need to examine these statements very carefully, because that translation too is open to dispute. It is all very well coming to the House with these translations, but Farsi is a complex language, as she will know, and we have to make sure that we get them right. Many scholars outside this place verify that President Ahmadinejad’s original statement was misquoted—theses have been written about it—which is why I ask the Foreign Secretary to clarify the situation. We need to get this quote clarified.

There can be little doubt that the west’s policy of sabre-rattling and sanctions has failed; the Iranians are not going to back down on their nuclear programme. Mr Mousavi, the unofficial leader of the green movement and one of the great hopes of the west, said during the 2009 presidential campaign that any backtracking on the nuclear issue would be tantamount to surrender. Iran’s statement that it is introducing an oil embargo for certain countries shows that it is impervious to sabre-rattling, yet we in the west still pursue that policy when confronting Iran. Indeed it is considered “naive”—I have heard that word used a lot—to rule out the use of force. We are told that all options must be left on the table. Some people go further: there seems to be a hairshirt auction among Republican candidates for the presidential nomination in America as to who can be toughest on Iran, with Mitt Romney openly advocating war over the nuclear issue. I would counter that by saying that what is naive is pursuing a policy that has clearly failed. Sanctions and sabre-rattling are yesterday’s policies and they have brought us to the brink of a military conflict, which is hardly the sign of success.

What compounds the error of that approach is that most agree that a military strike would be counter-productive to the point of being calamitous. It would reinforce the position of the hard-liners at the expense of the pragmatists within Iran, just as the Iran-Iraq war boosted patriotic support for the regime and helped to cement the revolution. Military intervention would not work; the US Defence Secretary judges that it would delay the Iranians for only a year at most. Knowledge cannot be eradicated by military intervention, and such intervention will only delay the inevitable. If Iran is set on acquiring nuclear weapons, she will not be scared away; and if she is not, a military strike would encourage her to do so. We even hear voices from within Israel against a strike. Meir Dagan, the hard-line former chief of Mossad—nobody could accuse him of being a pussycat—has referred to an attack on Iran as “a stupid idea.”

I ask hon. Members to reflect on a wider historical point. It is perhaps relevant to reflect more generally that military action often has an embedding effect: it reinforces the position of the existing regime. For example, communism has lasted longest in those countries where the west intervened militarily—North Korea, China, Cuba and Vietnam.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about the verdict of history. Is the verdict of history not also that when dealing with tyrannies it is unwise to rule out force in defence, and that sometimes it is wise to keep tyrannies guessing as to one’s intentions?

[Mr Baron]

Yes, although I suggest an exception: keeping an option on the table that heightens tensions and makes a peaceful outcome less likely is less worthy, and we have to examine that position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I have some sympathy with that view. I will argue that there have been instances where the regime in Tehran has come to judge where its own self-interest lies, and the continued pursuit of sanctions reflects that reality. That said, I sympathise with the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s broader point about what is implicit within a relationship of deterrence. That is why, despite my appearance on the “Murnaghan” show on Sky television yesterday morning, I was rather restrained in my mild rebuke to the Foreign Secretary over his cold war analogy. He was more accurate in describing the potential risk of an arms race, but I would not say that the cold war is the perfect historical parallel. First, it involved a global struggle for supremacy, and it mischaracterises the threat that we are confronting in the middle east to suggest that there is a perfect parallel with a global struggle for supremacy. Secondly, it is fair to say that mechanisms were developed during the cold war that allowed for a peaceful resolution. In that sense, it was in some ways a prospect more favourable than that which we are facing now, unless we find a resolution as I have described.

I have been generous in taking a number of interventions. I would now like to make a little progress. What would I, on behalf of the Opposition, argue is the way forward? In my view, there has been too much discussion in recent days of possible military action and too little discussion of how diplomacy can still succeed. As one of my colleagues suggested, we must avoid talk of the possibility of military action becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our efforts must focus on how we can use all the diplomatic tools available to force the Iranian Government to change course. In the past, Iranian leaders have adjusted their behaviour in the face of international pressures—ending the war with Iraq in 1988 and stopping assassinations of Iranian dissidents in the 1990s are just some of the most significant examples.

Evidence is now accumulating that the sanctions are beginning to put unparalleled pressure on the Iranian regime. Sanctions in place for many years now on exporting materials relevant to the development of nuclear weapons have slowed Iran’s nuclear programme and directly hindered its ability to develop next-generation centrifuges. The combined effect of international sanctions on the Iranian financial sector, including steps taken by the Government last year, has triggered an enormous currency devaluation, which the regime is struggling to contain. The Iranian Government can no longer access reputable sources of international credit, insurance for its merchant fleets or investors for its state-led infrastructure programs. Crucially, Iran is struggling to find investors to revitalise its dilapidated energy infrastructure, which requires billions in new investment if production levels are to be maintained. Alongside that, the oil embargo, of which we have already heard a little, is increasing the strain on the Iranian regime even before the EU embargo comes into full force on 1 July.

Despite rejecting offers of talks in past years, Iran has now signalled that it is willing to resume talks with the E3 plus 3, and reports suggest that Iran’s supreme national security council replied last week to a letter from Cathy Ashton, on behalf of the European Union, inviting Iran to resume those talks without preconditions. Those are encouraging signs, but let me be clear that we must remain vigilant against the prospect of Iran seeking to draw out talks while continuing its nuclear programme unabated. The Opposition welcome the diplomatic steps that the international community has so far taken: the United Nations Security Council has passed seven resolutions on Iran in less than six years, and the EU, the US, and the UK Government and others have all taken important steps in recent months to increase further the pressure on Iran. However, despite those efforts, we have seen too little progress. What is needed now is a more concerted and co-ordinated international response. At this crucial time, it is vital that we remain focused on pursuing the twin-track approach, which remains our best route to resolving the crisis.

As we have heard, sanctions are not designed to punish the Iranian people. They are intended to increase pressure on the regime, and those pressures now seem to be mounting. This month, the Iranian Parliament voted to hold a special session to force President Ahmadinejad to account for some of the dire economic and social indicators in Iran today. Unemployment is high, growth is low and anger is mounting. The Iranian regime is beginning to show signs of doubt as to whether international isolation is simply too great a price to pay. Alongside that, parliamentary elections to elect new members of Islamic consultative assembly are due to be held in Iran on 2 March. They may offer yet another opportunity for the regime to change course and for a new leadership to steer Iran away from the brink of international isolation. The Iranian political calendar, the internal political dynamics, and the domestic economic and social pressures all imply that the next few months could be crucial.

The motion focuses on the use of military action, which has rightly been the subject of much debate in the House today. The risks facing the region are real, but I believe we must make it clear to our friends in Israel that now is not the time for a pre-emptive strike. However, notwithstanding our view that pre-emptive action should not be taken now, we are firm in our view that all options must remain on the table. That is because the prospects for a diplomatic resolution are enhanced, not undermined, by all options remaining on the table at the present time. Leaving all options on the table actually strengthens the international community’s hand in negotiations and therefore increases the likelihood of achieving a peaceful resolution, to which I believe the whole House is committed.

[Mr Leigh]

Wars often start because of an element of uncertainty, so let us be quite clear: notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition favour negotiations at this point, is it the Labour party’s position that we must not tolerate Iran being nuclear-armed?

[Mr Alexander]

I have said on the record previously that the cost of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is too high. I could not be clearer that this is an issue not simply for Iran’s immediate regional neighbours, but for the whole international community. That is why I am grateful for the Foreign Secretary’s gracious acknowledgment that the position being advanced by the British Government today is entirely consistent with the position that was advanced when Labour was in office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on his courage. I fear that my conclusions might mean that I cannot go through the Lobby with him, which is saddening. May I also pay tribute to Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, who sadly died very recently? He was a great contributor to debates on Iran, and I know that many Members of this House would wish to join me in saying how greatly he will be missed.

This is an opportune moment to consider Iran. The conduct and ambitions of the Government of Iran run counter to our interests and to the peace and security of the region. We must not lose sight of that fact. We therefore need a credible and sustainable response, and our actions should be based on the most up-to-date information and analysis. To my knowledge, that has sadly not been the case in the Foreign Office over the past 15 years—indeed, at a meeting with a previous Minister, who has now left this place, I was assured that the People’s Mujahedin of Iran had not renounced its pledge to give up weapons and fight for peaceful internal change in Iran. The fact that the Foreign Office was not in control and that it had that information in its hands six years after that position was stated and agreed is very worrying indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made the point that much misinformation has been accepted as information by the Foreign Office, which has been harmful to our cause.

I wanted to talk at length about the Iranians’ human rights record, but many others have paid heed to that problem. It is indeed a scar on the face of humanity, as we all know. We also know that the Iranian regime is not one that we can do business with as a trusted ally, and it never will be. We should, however, strive for robust and honest relations with Iran. There are Iranians who share that appetite for positive dealings. Sadly, until a few months ago our approach to them was variable. Our dealings with the PMOI and with Camp Ashraf are symptomatic of that weakness. As I said, the PMOI stated in 2002 that it was working for a peaceful transition to a democratic Iran, but that aim was not recognised. Ministers need to make decisions based on the best and most reliable information, but there have been serious concerns about the quality of analysis and the currency of the information available.

I remind Members that Camp Ashraf is home to 3,500 Iranian dissidents, including 1,000 women, living in Iraq. All members of the PMOI, they originally opposed the mullahs’ regime. The PMOI is the largest opposition group and the greatest thorn in the side of the present Iranian regime, as proved by the fact that more than 90% of the 120,000 political prisoners executed by the regime have been members of the PMOI. It is that group’s success in harnessing widespread support that engenders the hatred directed towards it by the regime. That is why the blacklisting of the PMOI was an initial Iranian precondition for participation in international talks in 2002. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) sadly acceded to that request as a result of attempting to appease Iran. The talks, of course, never happened.

[Mr Leigh]

No one doubts the courage of members of the PMOI, but how will attacking Iran help them?

[Mr Binley]

I will explain. My hon. Friend asks how looking at the case of the PMOI will help to resolve the Iranian situation. The truth is that cruelty and inhumanity have been visited on Camp Ashraf residents as a matter of routine by the Iraqis at the behest of Iran—the Iraqis have acted as Iran’s proxies. Ensuring that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Mr al-Maliki, and the Iraqi Government change their attitude, as they should do, would diminish Iran’s position in the middle east and weaken its role in the wider world. That is how changing attitudes towards the PMOI and to the people who live in Camp Ashraf can be of help.

This is not just a matter of a few thousand Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf, however. The situation raises fundamental questions about the entire region, and beyond. The al-Maliki Government’s flagrant disregard for human life, universal rights and international laws should ring alarm bells. When people see that the depth of cruelty and inhumanity following western intervention is not much better than it was under Saddam Hussein, is it any wonder that they are cynical about our motives and actions? When they see that the al-Maliki Government’s actions present him as a western-supported puppet of the Iranian regime, are they not entitled to ask why we sacrificed so much blood to achieve that objective? If we are to find an effective way to tackle the crisis of intransigence and hostility from the Iranian Government, it will not be done through examples of that kind.

That is why I call on the Government tonight to promise to act to ensure the removal of Iraqi forces from the perimeter of Camp Ashraf, to end the siege and to lift the ban on journalists, parliamentary groups, lawyers and families of residents entering the camp. Residents, particularly those who have been wounded, must be given immediate access to medical services in public hospitals. There must be an independent inquiry by a panel of jurists into the actions perpetrated at the camp. Residents should also be entitled to the return of their personal belongings. Such actions would, I repeat, immediately undermine al-Maliki’s role and position as a proxy of the Iranians, which would be in the interests of us all.

We have heard some bold attacks by the Minister of late, and they are most welcome, but I regret the fact that we have not pressed the United Nations to take action on Camp Ashraf. I look to the Minister tonight to say that we will do so, if for no other reason than respect for the lives lost in Iraq, which we should honour and can honour, by protecting the very people now under attack by the Iraqi regime. If we are to overcome the real threat of Iran, we must stop appeasing the regime as we are in relation to Camp Ashraf and the PMOI.

Following the failed adventures in Iraq, Iran is much more powerful. Threatening it with military adventures is not the answer, but we need to stop being weak in the face of the Iranian bullies and work with those best placed to bring about positive change for Iran, in Iran and by Iranians themselves—many of them young people who have a vision far more positive than Ahmadinejad and his supporters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) knows that I followed him into the Lobby to vote against the war in Iraq, doing so because I place great belief in the traditional concept of deterrence. I have never been a unilateral disarmer, but I have always been a multilateral disarmer and I always assumed that deterrence would work with Iraq. I must admit that I was not that prescient and that I, like everybody else, assumed that Iraq did have some sort of weapons of mass destruction and was astonished when none were discovered. But I did oppose that war and I have since visited Iraq, when I saw the agony of the country and of the mothers who had lost their sons; it is not just British troops who, sadly, lost their lives, but tens of thousands of people there. So I am with the hon. Gentleman on Iraq and I am also with him, to a certain extent, on Afghanistan—I have, again and again, questioned that. There is no doubt in my mind that the Taliban are remaining there and that there is a great danger that after the terrible loss of life of British troops we will end up with another Taliban Government. I believe that it was and is possible to keep their heads down.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

We are neglecting to acknowledge that Afghanistan was the incubator for a violent jihadist, Islamist ideology that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 men, women and children on 11 September 2001, and we should not casually disregard that.

[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.

Somalia

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) because we, together with the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), are officers of the all-party group on Somaliland and Somalia. We have been working very closely on all these issues and very much welcome the initiative being taken by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in organising the London summit later this month.

This is a tale of two countries. In 2004, the Select Committee on International Development, which I chaired at the time, paid a study visit to see how DFID development assistance was being used in Ethiopia. On that trip, we had a free weekend, but ambassadors do not like it when Members of Parliament have a free weekend because they are never quite sure what the MPs are going to get up to, so they like to keep Select Committee teams busy. Myles Wickstead, our excellent ambassador in Addis Ababa at the time said that he had recently been to Hargeisa for Remembrance day for the Somaliland Scouts. We should remember that during the last war many from Somaliland served in the armed forces. There is in Hargeisa a Commonwealth graves war memorial to the Hargeisa Scouts, to which he had been. He said, “Look, no one has been to Somaliland for a very long time. Would you be interested in visiting it?” To be totally honest, with one exception I do not think that any of us on the Select Committee had ever heard Somaliland. We knew nothing about it, so we said, “Yes, of course, we’d be interested in going to Hargeisa,” and we flew there. We were the first parliamentary delegation to have visited Somaliland for many years and the scene at the airport was one of crowds the like of which I have rarely seen, holding banners saying “We love our Queen”, “We want to come home”, and “Support the Commonwealth”. It was amazing. From the airport to the hotel in Hargeisa, the crowds welcoming members of the Select Committee were about 10 deep.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does that ever happen in Banbury?

[Tony Baldry]

Alas, the only time we see such crowds in Banbury is when the Queen comes to visit, and I am glad to say that when Her Majesty came to visit Banbury to celebrate our charter, we had similar crowds.

The people of Hargeisa saw the parliamentary delegation as very much representing the UK, the Commonwealth and this Parliament. They made it clear that they identified with us, and wanted to identify with us. That caused me to look a bit at history.

The crown of the British empire was of course India, and to protect the sea routes to India the British occupied Aden, and to protect Aden we occupied what became the British Protectorate of Somaliland. Interestingly, the British Protectorate of Somaliland, unlike many other countries in colonial Africa, had well defined boundaries that in the last century the United Kingdom negotiated by treaty with Ethiopia, France and Italy, and there has never been any dispute about them. Indeed, some fantastic British Protectorate of Somaliland postage stamps from the reign of the late King George VI show the map of that territory, which is now Somaliland, clearly marked by treaty. Its boundaries are clearly marked and defined.

To the south of the British Protectorate of Somaliland was what was called Italian Somalia, practically the only legitimate Italian colony in Africa. After the second world war and the defeat of the axis powers, responsibility for Italian Somalia fell to the United Nations and a UN mandate. Understandably, the UN was keen to release itself from the mandate at the earliest possible opportunity, and so in 1960 it was agreed that Italian Somalia would be given independence. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has already explained, the Somalis generally hoped to see a greater Somalia, involving Italian Somalia, the British Somali protectorate and Somalis living in Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia. The British Protectorate of Somaliland was given independence on a Sunday, and for a number of days it was an independent de jure state. Later in the next week, what was the British Protectorate of Somaliland, which had been granted independence by the United Kingdom, joined Somalia to become what is now known by the international community, and recognised by the United Nations, as de jure Somalia.

What had been the British Somalian protectorate and Italian Somalia sought to work as a single sovereign state. However, it floundered as a consequence of the activities of the Government of Siad Barre, and things become so desperate that in 1991 the Government of Siad Barre actually bombed Hargeisa. As BBC journalist Mary Harper comments in her recently published book:

“The authorities’ response to the rebellion was extraordinarily vicious; Siad Barre’s ground and air forces carried out such heavy bombardment of the regional capital, Hargeisa, that it was known as the ‘Dresden of Africa’. Barely a wall was left standing and almost every roof of every building was blown off or looted. The city was smashed and stripped; its population eventually left, walking all the way to Ethiopia in a biblical-style Exodus, as described by Mark Bradbury in his book Becoming Somaliland: The flight in 1988 was one of the fastest and largest forced movements of people recorded in Africa.”

If one goes to Hargeisa, one still sees the bomb damage inflicted on the city, which it has been impossible to rebuild.

I also think that it would be impossible to rebuild the trust between the Somalilanders and Somalia, between Hargeisa and Mogadishu. The people of Somaliland want independence. They have now been independent for more than 20 years. They have had contested parliamentary and presidential elections and, in contrast with many other African states, peaceful and democratic transfers of power without any difficulty, as with the recent transition from President Rayale to President Silanyo.

Somaliland is in exactly the same position as the Gambia. For a while the Gambia was part of Senegal, but that did not work and the Gambia decided that it wished to be independent again. It was granted independence and recognised by the international community. I suggest that Somaliland is in exactly the same position in international law. If so, that prompts the following question: why has Somaliland not been recognised as a de jure state? I think that it has been really bad luck for Somaliland that some of the key players in the region, for their own reasons, have not wanted to recognise it.

First, one would have expected the other Arab nations in the region to support Somaliland, because it is primarily a Muslim and Arab nation. However, Egypt has for a long time been in dispute with Ethiopia over the Nile waters, and I think that it has suited Egypt for there to be as much uncertainty, difficulty and turbulence as possible on Ethiopia’s borders. As Egypt has not been prepared to recognise Somaliland for that reason, neither have other Gulf Arab states.

Secondly, I think that many other African Union member states regard Somaliland as being a long way away; it is not a sub-Saharan nation, and they see it primarily as an Arab nation. It really has not been sufficiently high up the agenda in African Foreign Ministries, such as that in Pretoria. One of the things that will be good for the Somalilanders about the London conference, and for others, is that it will for the first time bring together in the same place all the key players, including the senior representatives of the African Union. It is a matter of fact that President Silanyo has so far not met the key players in the African Union, so the conference will be a good opportunity for that.

Having visited Somaliland on a number of occasions, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has, I can report to the House that, notwithstanding the lack of international recognition, it has striven to build itself into a decent country. The banking system does not work, because of course it only has a central bank and the only currency is the old Somali one, which is constantly being devalued, so people have to move around wheelbarrows full of money. What they do have, however, is a sophisticated system of remittances from the very supportive diaspora community here and elsewhere in the world, so this afternoon we could go to various places in London and hand over cash for recipients in Somaliland, who could collect it later on this afternoon. The system is even more efficient than Western Union.

Somaliland is not that far from Dubai and the United Arab Emirates, so its potential to do significant back-office work, if it had the opportunities, is immense, but it suffers from not being recognised by the international community. As President Silanyo said recently:

“We need foreign recognition because that is the only way we will become a fully fledged member of the international community. We cannot attend conferences organised by the United Nations and other organisations. We cannot benefit from programmes of the World Bank and other international bodies. We miss out on a lot by not being recognised. We have been very patient about this and we hope our patience will be rewarded very soon. If we are granted international recognition during my presidency, we would put on the biggest celebration the world has ever seen.”

We have seen other countries, such as Kosovo and states from the former Yugoslav republic, emerge in recent times.

The British Somaliland protectorate, now Somaliland, was part of the empire and of the Commonwealth. It has incredibly strong connections with the UK, and, although I fully understand the Foreign Office’s reticence, feeling that if Somaliland is to be recognised it must be recognised first within Africa, I do not think that we should ever forget, or for a moment be seen to be forgetting, Somaliland.

I am very pleased that, of the development assistance that DFID now allocates to Somalia, a significant proportion goes to Somaliland, which has phenomenal potential. It has a fantastic port, at Berbera, with enormous potential, and its access to the sea could, if it were developed, be used by countries such as Ethiopia. But it has just been incredibly difficult for Somaliland to take forward any such developments without international recognition, and because international companies are reluctant to enter into contracts there, where they could never be sure what status in law, recognition in law and system of law they would experience if there were ever a dispute about an investment or contract.

That makes life hard for Somalilanders, but Mary Harper, whom I quote simply because she has spent much more time in Somaliland than I have and has all the objectivity of being a BBC reporter, says:

“The reason why so many Somalilanders have returned home and have been able to embark on such exciting projects for themselves and for the territory as a whole is that, unlike Somalia, Somaliland has since 1991 been rebuilding its economy, society and government. It has been doing this slowly, in its own way, with a careful progression from a clan-based political system to what should ultimately be a Somali-style multiparty democracy. Because western models of peacemaking and state-building have not been imposed from the outside, Somaliland has in many ways saved itself from the fate of Somalia. The example of Somaliland has demonstrated that, when left to themselves, Somalis can form a viable nation state.”

I am therefore delighted that President Silanyo is coming to the London conference. It is excellent that UK initiatives are being taken by the voluntary and other sectors to set up a Somaliland development corporation, so that we here can give Somaliland whatever help we can with investment and job creation. They are all really good initiatives. However, those on the Treasury Bench need to understand that the Somalilanders are willing to give the London conference their full support, but do not want to prejudice their claim to be an independent state. They support it because they see themselves as neighbours of Somalia. Like Ethiopia, Kenya and other neighbouring states, they see that they have an interest in certain issues, such as in ensuring that piracy off the coast of Somalia stops and that the Mogadishu regime becomes more stable. They are coming to London co-operatively and supportively, but want to make it clear that they, like many others in the past in Africa, wish to assert their right to self-determination. I suggest to the House that they have international law and history on their side.

I will make two concluding comments about the conference. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, one reason the London conference is being held is that the international community and the seas around Africa have been bedevilled by Somali piracy for some time. If the international community is to succeed in bearing down on piracy, it will have to bring prosecutions and imprison people. Someone will have to accept the responsibility for the cost of running those prisons. Understandably, African countries are often not prepared to do so. One reason Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, is being tried for war crimes in The Hague is that no African country was willing to have him tried in Africa, because they were concerned that if he was convicted they would be liable for the lifelong costs of detaining him in prison, notwithstanding the fact that formally he is being tried under the jurisdiction of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. If we expect African states to imprison pirates from Somalia and elsewhere, there must be agreement on the long-term funding of the prisons and on how the prisoners will be looked after. This is not something that we can start and then forget about and abandon once the problem has abated.

My second concluding remark is about fisheries. Fisheries are an essential natural resource for Africa. For many coastal countries, the potential income from their fisheries is greater than that from their oil, minerals or mineral deposits. Tragically, far too often the fisheries around Africa have been raped and pillaged by much more sophisticated countries, and African countries have not had the wherewithal to protect their exclusive fishing zones. It is said that one historic reason Somalis took to piracy is that it was no longer viable for them to make a livelihood from deep-sea fishing. The Foreign Secretary was right to make it clear that one objective of the London conference is to help the Somalis assert their national exclusive fishing zone. If that is to happen, they must be given help with fisheries protection vessels and fisheries management schemes so that they can defend their fisheries. If they can do that, those vessels and systems will help to bear down on piracy.

Everyone will wish the London conference every success. We all want Somalia to cease being a failed state. Far too many people have starved to death there as a consequence of its failures as a state and its ongoing humanitarian difficulties. I hope that in seeking to improve the plight of its people and bring stability to it, we do not lose sight of the considerable achievements of the people of Somaliland, notwithstanding all the difficulties that they have experienced over the past 20 years, in creating a stable and potentially extremely viable state. They wish it to have independence and, I am sure, in due course become a member of the Commonwealth of nations of which we are all so proud to be members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We have either the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) to thank for this debate—we are grateful to him—or perhaps the lack of business, because a Bill is being discussed in the other place before it comes back here. Sometimes we are too self-absorbed and it is good to have a few weeks to look beyond our own horizons and think about what is happening elsewhere in the world, where often there is great suffering.

I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend the Africa Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have achieved in their proactive stance on Somalia. It is clear that we have a Foreign Secretary of stature—of course we knew that already—and a Minister for Africa who has tried to push the process forward. He said recently that he wanted a “strategic approach”, but Somalia defies strategy. Nostrums of liberal unitary democracy do not work with Somalia. It has tinges, shades, gradations and distinctions that evade a simple solution. We have to learn to work with that reality rather than try to defeat it with our own notions of what is right.

[Alun Michael]

I do not think we should be quite so defeatist, given that the Somalis themselves have a model that has worked in Somaliland. It has dealt with what was a clan situation and has engaged with the elders through the Guurti. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right about the current situation, but I do not think we should write off the capacity of Somalis to build democracy, especially if they can do so with our help.

[Mr Leigh]

I agree entirely and apologise if my opening remarks had a defeatist tone. I did not mean to convey that at all. I just wanted to be realistic. I will, as have many who have already discussed Somaliland, pay tribute to what it has achieved. There is a model about which the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), so we should not despair of the situation. I was leading up to saying—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this—that there is no single solution or governmental process that is right, because Somalia is a patchwork of sub-national entities: some, such as Somaliland, are large, some are small, and some are clan-based.

Somaliland has developed governmental structures that exercise authority in a relatively normal and competent way, despite or—dare I say it—because of almost total non-recognition by outside powers. Perhaps we should learn something from that. Elsewhere in Somalia power can shift rapidly as clans align, separate and shift alliances. I suspect that progress can be made only by encouraging the peaceful institutionalisation and regularisation of the clan structures. That is not being defeatist; it is just recognising reality. That is why I believe that any kind of imposed solution or attempt to create one out of this conference would be a mistake.

At least, in my view, we have learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly opposed both those ventures, because I believe they were badly planned and because they involved western troops on the ground. Thank God we have learned the lessons and British coffins are not returning through Wootton Bassett from Somalia. We are, however, engaged and not a great deal has been said about this so far. We are, apparently, training, equipping and supporting Kenyan and other African Union troops. I am told that British Army officers can often be seen in Nairobi doing that. Not a great deal is disclosed about it by our Government—perhaps that is right and it should be under the radar—but I think that Parliament, which pays for it, needs to know what is happening on behalf of our taxpayers.

We have to acknowledge the limitations of foreign intervention, even if we are being cleverer about it this time and using troops from the African Union effectively as proxies. The fact that troops are from Burundi and Kenya does not mean they are not resented as interloping Christians and foreigners by many in Somalia. We have to recognise that and we must not be over-optimistic about their ability to change events there. I still believe there are worrying comparisons with Afghanistan. There is foreign intervention for a start, there is the resurgent Muslim al-Shabaab—read the Taliban in Afghanistan—and there is a weak, corrupt central Government who are too reliant on aid from the west. I think we have been too kind to the Mogadishu Government in this debate. It might be difficult for the Foreign Secretary to say this—I went to the Somali conference yesterday at Chatham House, at which he gave an excellent speech—but the failure of the transitional federal charter and the transitional federal Government, whom we support, is almost absolute. They are virtually a failed entity, apart from in Mogadishu, where they operate only with foreign intervention.

The corruption in that Government, whom our Government support, is absolutely appalling, and taxpayers here should know about it. A confidential audit of the Somali Government suggests that in 2009 and 2010, 96% of direct assistance to the Government from outside powers simply disappeared, most likely into the hands of corrupt officials. Billions of pounds and dollars from the west have therefore simply disappeared. I am not attacking international aid, and I will say something about the vital importance of humanitarian aid in a moment, but it is appalling that, according to a confidential and authoritative audit, 96% of aid from our country and others has simply gone down the drain—into the pockets of corrupt officials.

I believe the transitional road map should be abandoned. If possible, another road map should be agreed that is more flexible and able to develop in response to the implementation of changes—bending to them rather than being broken by them, as has happened in the past. In that part of the world, as in many others, a strict road map is unlikely to succeed in practice. It is clear that the presidential system of a central Administration is inappropriate for Somalia. That has proved to be unworkable and it might be wise to propose a confederal solution to the problem. The country could be arranged into a number of cantons that bestow authority upwards to the national Government rather than there being a system that works downwards from the centre, as with most unitary states.

[Martin Horwood]

I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman about having a federal organisation of the possible state, which would reflect the history of Somalia, but may I question him about the report that so much aid has been wasted? That is rather counter-intuitive given that a high proportion of our aid goes to Somaliland, which is relatively well governed and where structures are well in place. Quite a high proportion goes through NGOs, with which that kind of exercise of being siphoned off by officials should not apply. Will he give a little more detail about this report and its sources?

[Mr Leigh]

I am not attacking aid to Somaliland. I am talking about aid that goes directly to the Somali Government, not about aid that goes to Somaliland or NGOs. I will happily send my hon. Friend the report, which is very clear, explicit and authoritative. There is undoubtedly a failed state in Mogadishu. We have to be aware of and recognise that.

A report from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York suggests there should be recognition of the reality on the ground with the creation of a council of leaders to replace the bloated and ineffective transitional federal Government and Parliament. That would surely be a step in the right direction. I believe that if a political process begins to succeed in stabilising Somalia, the issue of Somaliland, as we have said again and again in this debate, will need to be addressed. Somaliland has demonstrated its ability to function as an independent state; it is the only part of Somalia with a Government who function properly, and they do so with some democratic legitimacy, which is all the more commendable. All of Somalia, apart from Somaliland, is committed to the idea of a united state; for example, Puntland, while functioning separately, participates in negotiations for the creation of a recognisable national Government and seeks to be a state within Somalia. On the contrary, Somaliland has decisively demonstrated the desire to add de jure sovereignty to its de facto independence, and it should be granted. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office says that self-determination is right for Falklanders, so why is it not right for Somalilanders?

One way forward would be an offer to Somaliland that it sign up to a confederal Somalia, with a guaranteed time frame for an independence referendum, as happened in South Sudan. Nobody doubts what the result would be. If there was a fair referendum in Somaliland, its people would vote for independence, which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, they had in the past. That would give Somalilanders a realistic prospect of achieving the international recognition that their state currently lacks, while retaining national legitimacy at a Somali-wide level, even if only transitionally. I suggest it as an idea for the conference, as others have done.

Much of the piracy stems from Puntland, which is one of the poorest areas in an already poor country. Given the lucrative nature of piracy, its financial attraction is understandably strong, but it should also be noted that Somalia’s fishing industry has collapsed over the past 15 years. Its waters have been overfished, not by local people but by European, Asian and other African ships. Lack of maritime security in Somali coastal waters means that they provide a safe haven for people smugglers and arms smugglers, in addition to illegal fishing.

In Britain, we suffer from the common fisheries policy—a thoroughly counter-productive strategy that our Government are forced to accede to. We should therefore sympathise with the position of Somalis who are being ravaged by an immeasurably worse depredation of their fishing stocks by outsiders. While the pirates—until now—seem to be in it simply for financial enrichment, we must be aware of the potential convergence of terrorist groups in the area.

Worse things could happen. For instance, the sinking of a large container or tanker in the approach to the Suez canal would be a propaganda coup for terrorists. Insurance premiums have already risen more than tenfold since the first flourishing of Somali piracy in 2008. Although the pirates obviously keep most of the ransom funds they obtain, we can assume that a significant amount provides local factions with an injection of cash that helps to finance warfare and escalates conflict in the area.

I shall not repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, but there is some confusion about exactly what ships can do when pirates approach them. We heard what my hon. Friend said; there must be clarification of the law of the sea, and I am sure the Minister will provide it when he winds up the debate.

There has been much good progress. Operation Atalanta is an impressive effort involving 23 of the 27 EU member states. We provide the operational headquarters at Northwood. A combined naval taskforce—CTF 150—has been undertaken by a coalition under US co-ordination. It involves the UK, Canada, Denmark, France, Japan and Germany, with participation from Australia, Italy and the Netherlands. It is very impressive and we should pay tribute to it.

As my hon. Friends who took part in the defence debate pointed out, all these things show the importance of the work of our Royal Navy and that it is increasingly over-stretched: in the Falklands, where we have had to send a Type 45 destroyer, in the strait of Hormuz and in anti-piracy control. We cannot rely on others. An authoritative report from the Defence Committee underlines the fact. In recent years, people have said that there is not enough for the Royal Navy to do, but actually it is extraordinarily important and it should be a national priority. We of course have allies for counter-terrorist and anti-piracy purposes—let us not doubt it—but perhaps we should remember Lord Palmerston’s warning, which applies to us just as it does to others, that nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests. We do not necessarily have permanent allies, but we have a permanent interest in maintaining maritime security. That is why I take every opportunity I can in such debates to pay tribute to the Royal Navy for the important work it does. I hope that when my hon. Friends succeed in catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, they, too, might make that point.

Let me end my remarks by talking about humanitarian intervention, because I did not want my earlier remarks to sound defeatist about the importance of international aid. I condemn the libertarian approach that says we should sit by and let the problem solve itself while hundreds of thousands of people go hungry and die, which I think is completely counter to our history of humanitarianism. Therefore, I warmly commend what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is doing and the help he has given. I often talk about the need for strict controls on public money, but occasionally one has to cut through Treasury controls and get the aid out there. I would like to echo the concern expressed in a Chatham House paper: if the international community does only one thing, ensuring the safe delivery of food aid should be the priority. I have no argument with that. When between 50,000 and 100,000 people are dying, it is right that we should be prepared to take action.

So much of this issue concerns the lack of interest. There is a lack of interest in many parts of the west. Perhaps up to 100,000 people have died in the past year, but this debate has not been overwhelmingly well attended. There is the lack of interest, the divided counsel and the violence. None of this is new. I will end with a quotation I recently read from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI, Part I”, Act I:

“Gloucester: Is Paris lost? Is Rouen yielded up?...

Exeter: How were they lost? What treachery was used?

Messenger: No treachery, but want of men and money;

Among the soldiers, this is muttered—

That here you maintain several factions,

And whilst a field should be despatched and fought,

You are disputing of your generals:

One would have lingering wars with little cost;

Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings.

A third man thinks, without expense at all,

By guileful fair words peace may be obtained.

Awake, awake, English nobility!”

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for his remarks. I may be a dogged opening batsman, but when we played together for the Lords and Commons at Lord’s about four years ago, I was out for four and he made, I think, 38 not out—at the headquarters of cricket.

We have had a really excellent bipartisan debate, with a lot of experience being brought to the table and to the House. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out, this is a debate of huge significance and importance, because it is probably the first time that Members have debated Somalia on the Floor of the House for a very long time indeed.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained, the time is now right for action to be taken. Mogadishu has fallen, other areas of stability in Somalia have now developed, al-Shabaab is undoubtedly on the back foot and the pirates are under pressure, so we have an opportunity to make the most of the transition by putting in place a new political process. We as a Government were absolutely right to seize the opportunity, and my right hon. Friend explained why he felt that that was the case.

My right hon. Friend explained also that we are realistic about the conference. We are not setting up a new, parallel process. We want to enrich the existing process and to act as a catalyst to drive international action: on security, with more sustainable funding for AMISOM; on the political process, by building on the local stability that I have just mentioned; by breaking the business model for piracy; and by making a renewed commitment to tackle the humanitarian crisis and to bring about better international co-ordination.

Over the next few weeks, it will become apparent how we plan to deliver on all that, but one of the most important areas that has been discussed today is the political process because it is incredibly important that we build on local stability. There are areas, such as Puntland, Galmudug, those controlled by the ASWJ and those being opened up in the west and the south, where people deserve to have their voices heard, and that is why we need a more inclusive and representative political process. We need a constituent assembly that really does represent those people, and to prepare us for transition we need a more credible authority and Government.

Several right hon. and hon. Members asked about the political process. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary asked about civil society and NGOs, and it is important to involve them. A number of hon. Members were very critical of the transitional federal Government, particularly the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who noted that 96% of all the aid that has been given to the TFG has gone missing. That is why we are setting up a new financial management board, which is incredibly important.

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) asked me what the source was for the statistic that 96% of direct bilateral aid to the TFG was going astray. I am sorry that I did not have that information with me then, but it is important to put it on the record. It comes from the investigative report for 2009-10 by the TFG’s public finance management unit. The TFG’s own internal report shows that 96% of the bilateral aid going to them goes into the hands of corrupt officials.

[Mr Bellingham]

I point out that we have never given aid directly to the TFG. Of course, a lot of aid has gone into Mogadishu. That is why it is important that we have a new financial management board.

The hon. Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Islington North and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) mentioned women and children, and the role of the TFG in ensuring that issues relating to them are addressed. We will certainly look at the language in the communiqué on that.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) that it is essential that after the transition we build more capacity and administrative ability into the structures of the Administration and Government in Mogadishu.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke eloquently about Somaliland. Indeed, my hon. Friend gave a brilliant history lesson to us all. He told us about his visit to Hargeisa a few years back, when the red carpet was rolled out and there were crowds 20 deep on the streets into the city. I visited Hargeisa last July. I was met by the President at the airport and I was received with a red carpet, but the crowds were certainly not 20 deep on the drive into the city centre. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for their knowledge.

This is an important conference for President Silanyo. He has been invited to take part. We feel strongly that this is a conference to which the Somalilanders can contribute. They can tell the rest of Somalia what they have done to build stability, what has worked in their free and fair elections, and why they are a good development partner for the UK. His decision is a brave one and the right one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked me whether Somaliland’s position will be enhanced by attending. I believe that it will. President Silanyo will have a chance to speak. He will talk not about independence for Somaliland, but about what Somaliland can do to enhance the peace process in Somalia and about what is happening on his doorstep. By coming on to the international stage, he will meet a large number of international statesmen and Heads of State. He will be able to explain to them what he has done that has worked in Somaliland and why it has been so successful. I take on board what my hon. Friend said about the Somaliland Development Corporation and the role of the private sector.

In the meantime, we will work with Somaliland, particularly on the agreement with the Seychelles to allow convicted pirates in the Seychelles to return to Somaliland to serve their sentences. Obviously, we are urging President Silanyo to pass his draft piracy law and prisoner transfer law, which are essential to allowing the transfer of prisoners back to Somaliland, in time for the conference.

Syria

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

This idea has been floated, although I think more in the media than by any of the Governments concerned. It can, of course, be an appealing idea when people are in such distress and suffering so much, but one then has to consider how safe havens would be created and how they would subsequently be policed. We know from experience in the Balkans in the 1990s that safe havens that prove not really to be safe are one of the worst things we can create. The creation of true safe havens inside Syrian territory would, in effect, require military intervention in Syria. That is not authorised by the UN Security Council and would require a massive military operation. The Turkish Foreign Minister was not proposing that, and that was not part of our discussion last week.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

While Assad’s actions are evil and those of the Russians and Chinese are woeful—my right hon. Friend is entirely correct on that—some of us warned during the Libyan intervention that we were in danger of playing into their hands and providing them with an alibi because we did not stick strictly to humanitarian action, such as when we were pursuing Gaddafi in the last hours of his life before he was executed by our allies. We are where we are, however, so where do we go from here? The fact is that the Chinese are impervious to grandstanding. The Foreign Secretary has been rather brief on the quiet diplomacy he is now going to engage in with them to get them to sign up to a resolution that, in terms, prohibits any repetition of the kind of action that took place in Libya.

European Council

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

I will make some progress first.

As a result of the European Union Act 2011, the Prime Minister has boxed himself into a position in which there must be no potential for a referendum in this country. As he was trying to assuage his 81 Europhobic Back Benchers, he took the easy option of making a political decision rather than one in the national interest, which would have been to remain in the negotiations and to carry on trying to influence the outcome. As a result, when discussions conclude on the arrangements, if they are based on the fourth draft agreement—I quote the House of Commons Library Paper—

“the Heads of State or Government of contracting parties whose currency is not the euro who have ratified this Treaty and have declared their intention to be bound by some of its provisions”

would be invited

“to a meeting of the Euro Summit”.

However, those who did not agree to the intention to be bound by the provisions and were not participating would have no automatic right to attend. The Library paper states:

“This would appear to exclude the UK as a non-Euro, but crucially also a non-contracting State.”

There is a potential, therefore, for us no longer to be in the room, even as an observer, because of our misguided decision in December to walk away from the process.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that it is wrong not to be in a room that is about as robust as a sinking Italian cruise liner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I shall not be drawn into that. Critically, it is for the eurozone countries to address the crisis in the eurozone. The right hon. Gentleman highlights the important point that just by drawing up a treaty the eurozone countries do not solve some of the rather fundamental problems in the eurozone. In fact, the situation in Greece is becoming increasingly serious and it needs to be urgently addressed—that is even more the case now than in recent months.

The importance of the main business of the summit must not be neglected. Britain’s re-engagement in European affairs is critical and it must be pushed forward. There have already been some successes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills helped to create the like-minded growth group, which has pushed forward ideas such as lifting onerous accounting rules from the smallest businesses in this country. I think the group has helped to create a shift in Commission attitudes on the smallest businesses to the point where it has committed to review all existing EU legislation to look for other opportunities to lift onerous regulation from such businesses and to screen new legislation to see whether, wherever possible, the smallest businesses can be excluded. That is exactly the kind of agenda we should be pushing in Europe.

[Mr Leigh]

I want to make an intervention that the hon. Gentleman and I can both agree with. Does he agree with the point I have been making consistently at business questions that this debate is so important that in future we should have it in Government time, for a whole afternoon, with the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister here so that we can ask them detailed questions?

[Martin Horwood]

I think that is right, although the point I am making is that the jobs and prosperity agenda should be the focus of such debates. If possible, we should get away from the obsession with structures and treaties. The British Government should be pushing the jobs and prosperity agenda at the summit. I have suggested some areas for deregulation and the European Liberal leaders forum drew up a long list of legislation that should be reviewed for possible reform. It included the working time regulations, the temporary agency workers directive, the control of vibration at work regulations, fixed-term employees regulations, part-time workers regulations, control of noise at work regulations, road transport working time regulations and the transnational information and consultation of employees regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

This debate is being conducted between some right hon. and hon. Members with an extraordinary air of complacency and myopia. The European Union is on the edge of the most appalling crisis—a self-inflicted crisis that many of us predicted when the euro was first conceived in the early 1990s and is now being fuelled by blindness and denial. The fundamental problem is that the euro cannot work—it cannot succeed. There are fundamental structural flaws that are destined to cause the euro eventually to fly apart into separate currencies. I do not want the euro to fail, but the fact remains that the crisis will go on and on until it does fail, so we should start to ask ourselves whether it is, in fact, in our interests that it be resolved quickly and in an orderly fashion, instead of waiting for the markets to do their work.

The fundamental structural problem is that the different national components of the euro represent very different economies, with different surpluses and deficits. The 2010 figures for trade in goods in the eurozone, provided by the Library, show that Germany has a surplus in exports to the other eurostates of €43.4 billion. Other countries have very large deficits: France’s is 4%, Greece’s 6% and Portugal’s 9%. Unless there is a system of fiscal transfers permanently operating to compensate for those surpluses and deficits, the European economies will become ever more out of balance. The debt problem has been greatly exacerbated by artificially low interest rates in countries that were used to much higher interest rates and therefore borrowed vast sums.

[Mr Leigh]

Is it in our interests that the other countries succeed in creating fiscal and monetary union? We will be excluded from a massive monetary union, which historically—for centuries—we have tried to avoid. Or is it in our interests that the euro gradually breaks up in a reasonably orderly way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I do not subscribe to the view that British foreign policy should be constantly to try to divide and rule on the continent. Actually, I think it would be in our interests if the euro succeeded with a democratic settlement in the European Union, but for the euro to succeed with 17 nations the institutions would be required to take on much more power, to accumulate much more taxation and to distribute money much more than they do now. I put it to the House that because there is a democratic deficit in the EU, which everyone acknowledges, the institutions lack the legitimacy and the authority to be able to impose their will across the democratic nations of the EU. There is a fundamental lack of consent to what would be required to impose the necessary discipline.

The problem with the fiscal union treaty is that it is a case of Germany trying to write German rules for the whole eurozone. That will not work—it cannot be sustained—and the result will be the break-up of the euro, so we had better start planning for that eventuality now. There are three things we should do, the first of which is to have a plan and not pretend that a break-up will not happen. I accept the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that the plan should be made in secret, but there should be a plan and the IMF should be its guardian. Secondly, the plan should be clear on what liabilities will be denominated in what currencies as each country comes out of the euro—easy for sovereign debt and very complicated for commercial paper, but it has to be done. Thirdly, the G20 must be ready to provide the liquidity needed to deal with the defaults that will occur as each country comes out of the euro—massive defaults that will require massive central Government printing of money to recapitalise the European banking system.

That can be done and it has to be done. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was absolutely right to veto the treaty on 9 December. He knows there can be no going back on that decision, because to do so would leave him a position where he might as well have not vetoed the treaty, and then where would we be?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) for her remarks and all colleagues for taking part in this important debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this debate on next Monday’s informal Council. We know that there are many calls on the time it has available to allocate, but as it now holds the time previously assigned for European affairs debates, I am pleased that it found time for this debate.

[Mr Leigh]

It is fantastic that my hon. Friend is here and we greatly respect him, but will he take back to the Foreign Secretary the clearly expressed wish of Members on both sides of the House that we should have a full afternoon of debate in which he is present before any future European summits?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. As he knows, occasionally colleagues cannot be where they would like to be because of other business, but I have heard what colleagues have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) expresses an interest in how the House scrutinises European business, and I will certainly take back to the Minister for Europe and the Foreign Secretary what colleagues have said. I would like to underline the effort and valuable work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and the European Scrutiny Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The Arab League, in conjunction with the rest of the international community, played a vital part in ensuring the freedom of the people of Libya, and that support continues to be evident. The Libyan Government are establishing themselves and building their capacity to handle the recovery of assets and to determine the way in which they can be used. Accordingly, they are in discussions with ourselves and with Arab League partners, which are being effective. This is a process in which we are all engaged.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

One of the problems with liberal imperialist wars is that once they are over, we lose interest in their victims. I have already drawn attention to the United Nations report on the plight of the 7,000 prisoners who are being held by the current Libyan Government in the most appalling conditions and undergoing torture and many other dreadful things. What are this Government doing about that?

[Alistair Burt]

This Government do not lose sight of the victims of this conflict. The conditions of those in detention have been raised by Ministers on visits, and directly with the Libyan Government. It is a matter for them to be able to create the processes to determine the future of those detainees. The commitment to human rights is absolute, regardless of how those in Libya were taken prisoner, captured or anything else. The United Kingdom stands four square behind that, and so does the national transitional council, which has made clear its own concerns, as well as its determination to deal with the issue of detainees through appropriate free and fair judicial processes as quickly as possible.

European Council

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for the way he has introduced the debate. I do not intend to weary the Chamber with his level of forensic detail. He has made the case, and I subscribe entirely to what he said.

I want to talk about the broad picture, in historical terms, because I think we lose track of history. We are on the cusp of a truly momentous moment in our country, which could reorder our entire relationship with history. I regret that economics is now considered to be the only science that politicians of note should understand, because history is just as important. The fact is that for 300 years this country had one historical imperative, and that historical imperative is born of the fact that we are a maritime and a trading nation. We have strained every sinew and have fought momentous wars to ensure that there is no conglomeration of power on the continent that could either exclude us from continental markets or have an effect on our trade, particularly our maritime trade.

It is a shame that, in our schools—I know quite a lot about education, because I follow what my children are learning—little knowledge is bred into our children about our own history. There is far too much emphasis on 20th century history and Hitler and Stalin, but our history is far longer than that. Virtually everything that we have undertaken for these 400 years has been to ensure that we retain our independence as a trading and maritime nation. In the 16th century, we were prepared to go to war against Spain because they were affecting our trade. We also did so in the 17th century with the Dutch; in the 18th and early 19th centuries with the French; and in the 20th century with the Germans. All along, I believe that, although we have stood on great principles—that is certainly true of 1914 and 1939—our prime motivation has been to retain our independence.

What we are seeing now is a truly frightening conglomeration of power on the continent. If the German Chancellor and the French President succeed in creating fiscal and monetary union tomorrow, we will voluntarily exclude ourselves. Do not think for a moment that this conglomeration of power would not have a decisive and dramatic effect on us. The United Kingdom accounts for 36% of the European Union’s wholesale finance industry and a 61% share of the EU’s net exports of international transactions in financial services. However, under new voting rules that will come into force in 2014, it will possess only 12% of the votes in the Council of Ministers, and 10% of the votes in the European Parliament. In contrast, France accounts for 20% of the EU’s market in agriculture, but enjoys a veto over the EU’s long-term budget and therefore retains substantial control over the sizeable EU subsidies received by its farmers. An express train is coming in the direction of the City of London.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

On that basis, would the hon. Gentleman support a massive increase in Greece’s voting power over maritime matters, since it is a massive contributor to the European maritime economy?

[Mr Leigh]

To be frank, I do not think that that is a serious point. Everybody knows that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tilt at windmills. Things are getting worse, because the United Kingdom’s level of influence on new financial rules has decreased. Regulation is now geared less towards financial services growth, and more towards curtailing the financial market economy. The perception in many continental capitals—there may be a reason for this—is that the so-called Anglo Saxon light-touch capitalism needs to be reined in. In the past, EU politicians and policy makers generally, but not always, felt constrained from imposing financial regulation on the UK, but that has now ceased to be the case. I agree that United Kingdom regulation has moved from the light-touch concept, but its new focus on regulatory judgment looks set to clash with the prevailing rules-based culture at the EU. In addition, the eurozone crisis is increasingly likely to create exceptional needs and political incentives for the euro countries to act in the interests of their own eurozone of 10.

I believe that all those reasons—the new emphasis on qualified majority voting, our inability to use our veto in this marketplace, and the increasing tendency of the European Union to want to interfere in the financial marketplace—are as big a threat to the main motivator of our economy as anything that we have seen in history. What do we do about it? I think that this is a decisive moment for the Prime Minister. He has to say in the conference that he is not prepared to sign any treaty unless he receives cast-iron guarantees that our financial sector will be set free from interference. If he does not get such cast-iron guarantees, I believe that he must be prepared to veto any treaty. If he is then told that the 10 will go ahead and create their own treaty, he must declare that illegal. Although that may sound like a very dramatic thing to do, I have read in today’s papers that German commentators are already talking about even the threat of our Prime Minister standing up for British national interests as being “obnoxious,” but that is precisely what all European countries do. The first lesson of history, as I have said, is the overwhelming imperative on behalf of successive British Governments over the centuries to protect our commercial interests. The second lesson of history is that all Governments in Europe act in their own financial interest—all are determined by their own history.

We need not say much about recent German history, but we know that there is an imperative throughout German history to extend their marketplaces, particularly into the east in the Balkans. We know that there is an imperative on behalf of French Governments to hug Germany close, so the French President and German Chancellor will be acting entirely in their own national interest, which is what we demand of our Prime Minister.

I hope I will be forgiven for saying this, but we have had enough of spin and of reading about British Prime Ministers who, over the past 20 or 30 years, have said in the days preceding a summit that they will stand up for British national interests and ensure that they are protected, only to come back with a Chamberlain-esque piece of paper, saying, “I have negotiated very hard, got an opt-out from this and that, and succeeded in standing up for British interests,” when such guarantees are not worth the piece of paper they are written on. I suspect that agreements have already been made among the sherpas and the miners, and that our Prime Minister will be offered something, but that will not be enough unless it includes cast-iron guarantees that we can all accept and that protect our vital national interests, particularly those in relation to our financial sector.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not in our national interest that the Government are deeply divided on the issue, and that the Prime Minister is therefore weak and isolated in the European Union and less able to negotiate the sorts of things demanded by the hon. Gentleman?

[Mr Leigh]

What is in our national interest—we see it in this Chamber today—is that patriotic Members of Parliament are prepared to speak up for the vital national interest. By speaking out this afternoon, we are actually supporting the Prime Minister in his negotiating stance, because I believe that we stand for what the British people want.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I would like it to be put on the record that, while not many Opposition Members are present, many of them, as well as many Labour party members and millions of Labour party supporters throughout the country, want to see our Prime Minister standing up for this country and making sure that we get some of those powers back. The most important thing that the country wants, however, is a referendum on the whole question of Europe.

[Mr Leigh]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. Her courage, independence and intellect are widely admired throughout Parliament, because hers is a voice that stands up for reason and for democracy. I reiterate what the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Work and Pensions and many of us have said this week. The creation of true fiscal and monetary union throughout much of Europe, with the ability to compel nation states to, in effect, subscribe to particular levels of debt and taxation, is such a fundamental shift of power, that it would be a dereliction of duty, legalism in its worst form and slippery tactics, to say that that does not demand a referendum. We are talking about such a fundamental shift in our relationship with Europe that it would be an appalling attack on the good name of politicians and politics in general if, once again, we were to use mere legalism to say that a referendum is not needed.

I finish by joining my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and agreeing with what he said when opening the debate. An increasing groundswell of opinion in this country says that we want a renegotiation of our relationship with Europe. We want to concentrate on our traditional strength of having the free trade of goods and people with Europe, which, by the way, is not at risk. It is a complete myth that somehow we will lose that when Europe has a massive balance of trade surplus with us. We want a renegotiation and, having achieved that, let us put the decision to the British people and move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

Any attempt that the non-eurozone members make to protect their interests is important, but perhaps an even better way to do it would be to ensure that, if any vote is passed under QMV by the eurozone bloc, there should also be a supporting vote under QMV on the part of the out-group of 10, at a very minimum, to ensure that the in-group could not ride roughshod over the out-group.

[Mr Leigh]

We now know that the policy of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is to be an observer.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s kind remarks. I should particularly like to credit our ambassador in Yemen, John Wilks, who has done fantastic work in very dangerous—literally physically dangerous—circumstances in the past few months. Last year, there were two very serious attempts on the lives of our diplomats in Yemen. They do an extraordinary job in working there and we have kept our embassy functioning at all times. We will now do all we can to support this process and the work of Vice-President Hadi and the transitional Government. I propose to discuss these things with him soon. We have already provided more than £15 million in UK aid this year alone, but DFID has been restricted in what it can do. This is less than the Budget originally provided because of the very difficult security situation on the ground. We can do more in the development sense in Yemen once security has more widely returned.

As to absolute confidence, it would be a very brave Minister—indeed, a foolhardy one—who expressed absolute confidence in what will happen next in Yemen, after what we have been through in recent years. Nevertheless, the signing of the GCC agreement by the President in the presence of so many regional leaders, including His Majesty the King of Saudi Arabia, is a very big step forward. Now we all have to give every assistance to the process being carried out on the timetable that has been set out.

On Libya, the House will welcome the announcement of a transitional Government, headed by Prime Minister al-Kib. The transitional Government will pave the way for elections to a national congress, a new constitution and elections to a Parliament in 18 months’ time. There are positive signs that the Prime Minister seeks a new Libya built on human rights and the rule of law.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the report issued by the UN Secretary-General, which says that there are up to 7,000 enemies of the state who have disappeared or are being maltreated and tortured in militia-held prisons? Clearly, we cannot have double standards about this. We went to war to protect human rights. We must go on putting maximum pressure on the new Libyan Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) but I shall not go into Tuaregs and Tornados. I shall immediately go into the election that is taking place today in Egypt.

It seems that there is a large turnout for the election, with queues at polling stations. For most Egyptians it must have a similar impact to that of the first democratic elections that took place in South Africa after the end of apartheid—another large African country undergoing a process of transformation—but there are, of course, significant differences. The election in Egypt today is about establishing a constituent assembly, from which 100 people will be chosen to draft a constitution. That will be followed by a presidential election, the date of which has just, reluctantly, under pressure from the streets, been announced by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces—12 March next year.

We will not know the outcome of the elections until they are verified and adjudicated by lawyers, and the result will not be known until January. That is worrying. We saw from what happened in Afghanistan a year ago how legal challenges to elections and disputes about the validity of the vote and about candidatures can lead to great complications when a body is established. We have also seen in other countries disputed elections leading to severe delays. I am worried about that and other difficult processes that Egypt has to go through.

As has already been said, Egypt has a very large young population, high levels of youth unemployment and an economy that is in decline and could go into an even more serious decline because so much of the revenue is built upon tourism and foreign investment that may not come about because of the uncertainty and instability that are developing. At the same time, there are worrying developments in the nature of the political process that has been established.

There was a democratic election in Tunisia under a formula whereby 50% of the candidates had to be women. That led to an elected Parliament in Tunisia which reflects the fact that in Tunisian society under the previous regime women played an important role. There is much greater equality overtly between men and women in that country. Even though the Islamist party Ennahda has come out as the largest political grouping, there are some positive signs about the continuation of women’s role within the political process in Tunisia.

The same cannot be said of the situation that has developed in Egypt. A helpful research paper produced by the Library points out that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in Egypt is distinctly conservative in its approach to women’s representation. Under the old electoral system in Egypt 64 parliamentary seats were reserved for women. That law was abolished by the military regime. In its place is a provision that every party list must include at least one woman. That is an extremely worrying development.

It has also been decided that there will be no requirement for any women’s representation on the committee that will be established to draft the constitution, and there is only one woman in the present Egyptian Cabinet of 28. That raises serious concerns about where Egypt will go after today’s elections and the constituent assembly that is established in future, and what kind of society there will be in the post-Mubarak era.

Further concerns have been expressed by many of the demonstrators in Tahrir square about religious tolerance and what might develop in the future in a country where a significant proportion of the population—more than 10%—are Coptic Christians. There has been a series of attacks on Christian places of worship and on Christian ceremonies. Other worrying developments include statements from some of the more extreme Islamist groups about the kind of society and kind of laws that will emerge and whether minorities will continue to be tolerated in Egyptian society.

The international community must be resolute. We should send clear messages to the newly elected Egyptian political establishment when it is announced and also to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces that there are international standards that we expect a democratic Egypt to uphold, and that the international community’s response to the changes in Egypt will be shaped by the treatment of minorities and women in Egyptian society.

[Mr Leigh]

The plight of Christians in the middle east is desperate and many of our actions have made that plight far worse, particularly in Iran. What is happening to the Coptic Christians is very worrying. Does the hon. Gentleman think there is more that we in the west can do? Can a Christian west take more responsibility for the plight of Coptic Christians? What does he think we can realistically do and what pressure can we impose on an Egyptian Government? What is going on there is terrible.

[Mike Gapes]

At this moment we need to give the Egyptians the benefit of the doubt because the process is still developing. We should try to get groups from the United Kingdom and other Western European Union countries reflecting faith forums and diverse groups, including leading British Muslims, to go to Egypt, taking with them Jews and Christians to show diversity and tolerance and how we work together. We also need to talk to countries such as Turkey, where an Islamist-influenced political party, the AK party, is in power in a secular state and where religious minorities are treated with tolerance in Turkish society. I think that we should try to use our influence.

When the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr Erdogan, went to Cairo to give advice, he seems to have been very strongly welcomed. Interestingly, there were large demonstrations in the streets when he arrived, but when he left, having made it clear that he wanted Egypt to remain a secular state rather than adopt an Islamist constitution, even though he was an Islamist, the demonstrations were much more muted. The message he sent the Muslim Brotherhood was not the message it wanted to hear. He said that he wanted a Prime Minister from an Islamist political party, but in a secular state. That was very important, and he should be praised for trying to show that the Turkish model is not just one in which Islamist parties can come to power and that democracy means leaders, after coming to power, having respect for women and minorities rather than imposing an intolerant form of society that does not respect diversity.

I would like to consider the revolutions that have been called the Arab spring. Had they taken place in summer, I suspect that we would refer to the Arab summer, but I am not sure that we would talk of the Arab winter. Nevertheless, the issues are now much more complicated than they appeared to be at the start of the year. We are in a situation in which we can be guided by history, which the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border mentioned in his contribution. Those of us who have studied the history of the 19th century will know that the revolutionary processes that took place in that century and at the end of the 18th century were not easy, were in some cases bloody and often led to years or even decades of turmoil. I suspect that what we are seeing in north Africa and the middle east and what we will see in the Gulf states could be such a period.

It is only 20 years since the transformation of central and eastern Europe after communism was lifted. The political formations that have taken power in some of those countries have at times been difficult to cope with and some very unpleasant organisations have since come out from under the stone. We have seen political parties that are overtly homophobic, racist and authoritarian, and some that are associated with admiration for the Waffen SS have been elected to Parliaments in countries such as Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland, yet all those countries have come through the process. They still face difficulties, but because of the European Union they have been able to become democratic, pluralistic countries in which there have been changes of power. Parties that were in power have lost it and oppositions have won power and then lost elections. That is what democracy means. Just because elections are beginning in Egypt does not mean that that country is already a democracy.

Similarly, although there has been an election in Tunisia, it is not yet a democracy. Democracy will be entrenched only when parties that win elections are thrown out of office and when there is respect for diversity, the rule of law and minorities. Some of these countries will have to learn that respect. We have seen the great difficulties in Iraq when the parties that fought the last election came to a standstill and there was no possibility of Mr Maliki and Mr Allawi agreeing on who should be Prime Minister. It took the Iraqis almost as long as the Belgians to form a Government because there was no tradition or understanding of how Government and opposition work within a pluralistic political culture. Ba’athism had destroyed that political culture.

If the revolution comes to Syria and the Ba’athist regime there is forced to leave or is overthrown, there will be an almighty, complicated mess to deal with. It will be extremely hard to achieve stability and a pluralistic society, given the diversity in Syria that has been mentioned, and we will need to be patient. We should not expect these countries rapidly to become models of democracy of the sort we have in this country and elsewhere in the EU.