Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

It is, of course, true that the loss of UK tourist business to Egypt has been very severe, and we are working hard with our Egyptian counterparts to get the reassurances that we need to restore those flights, which we all want to happen.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Earlier this morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said that the Government only support UN Security Council resolutions when they know they can be enforced. So, if the Israelis continue with the settlement programme, what steps will the Foreign Secretary take to enforce resolution 2334?

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Lady will know very well that we are working with our international counterparts to persuade both sides to get to the table, to persuade the Palestinians to drop their violence and recognise the existence of the state of Israel and show some leadership, and to persuade both sides to understand that a two-state solution is the only way forward. I believe that that is the best thing for the Government to do.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you, like many of us, might have seen a front-page splash in The Times last week trumpeting the support for Brexit from Lord Anthony Bamford of JCB, the iconic digger maker based in my county of Staffordshire. I was intrigued by the story, mainly because it smacked a little of desperation. It was, as it is called in the trade, old news, because anyone reading The Sentinel newspaper in Staffordshire would have known that when the good lord came out all of a year ago.

Anthony Bamford is part of just a small smattering of industrialists on the Brexit side that includes a maverick knight of the realm, Sir James Dyson, who makes those costly, complicated hoovers—in Malaysia. In reality, their views are not reflective of the large majority of British businesses, investors or economists. Our membership of the EU has been vital to our attracting much needed investment here. Nissan, Toyota and Honda from Japan made that clear very early on, when they urged the UK to remain, and the likes of BMW, Volkswagen, Bosch and Siemens from Germany have since joined them.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Did my hon. Friend see the story in the Financial Times today pointing out that both Sir James Dyson and Anthony Bamford had been caught breaking competition laws by the European Commission, and suggesting that that was their motivation?

[Paul Farrelly]

I cannot speak for their personal motivation, but I am sure that they are speaking for themselves personally rather than for their own businesses.

German companies here employ 500,000 people. Along with the Japanese, they have made the UK car industry today the most successful in our country’s history—along with Tata of India, of course, with its investment in Jaguar Land Rover. Tata, too, cannot fathom why Britain would want to leave the world’s biggest single market. In this debate, their voices deserve to be heard and listened to, not silenced through intimidation, as was the intention at the beginning of the leave campaign. Then, of course, there are the voices of great British companies—household names such as Rolls-Royce, one of our biggest exporters. My grandad built Spitfire engines at Crewe for Rolls-Royce, and today the company, patriotically, urged its staff to vote remain.

It is not just multinationals that are emphatically in favour of our remaining in the EU. This spring, like other colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I carried out a survey of about 1,000 predominantly small businesses in my constituency, and we had a good response. Some 80% were in favour of remaining. Some wanted reforms, but they firmly believed that we should stay in, to reform from within. The response to our survey reflected the balance within the wider membership of Staffordshire’s chamber of commerce and the views of the British Ceramic Confederation—the industry from which my area of the potteries takes its name. This—particularly for us—vital export-led industry wants us firmly to stay in because it is in its and the country’s interests. It recognises that it is better to have one rule book, rather than 28 different ones for each country in the EU.

Let me take a local example of the new economy. One of our most passionate supporters of the remain campaign is bet365, which is now the world’s biggest online gaming company and the owner of Stoke City football club, which I must of course mention. In little more than 15 years, the Coates family has built that business up into the biggest private sector employer in North Staffordshire, with more than 3,500 highly skilled staff. It is one of the UK’s biggest business success stories of the last decade. Frankly, bet365 can only dream of one rule book, because at the moment it has to contend with not only 28 but far more rules, with each of the German Länder and other different European regions having their own individual regulations. Bet365 is precisely the sort of business that will benefit by staying in and extending the single market to services and e-commerce, which were key topics in the Prime Minister’s renegotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Britain stands at a crossroads. The nation has to make a big choice: whether to stay in the EU or to leave. The EU was built on the ashes of world war two once people realised that security and prosperity were linked. Today, again, the world is an uncertain place. Russia has forcibly taken Crimea. Syria is in the throes of a devastating civil war. What is the best approach? Should we pull up the drawbridge or co-operate with our neighbours?

The Labour and trade union movement was built on the principle of solidarity, and what is true for individuals is also true for nations. I believe that, since 2010, this Tory-led Government have set about mending the public finances in the wrong way—cuts instead of investment, austerity rather than growth—and this has led to deep unfairness and economic insecurity. People must now think carefully about what is the best choice in the real world.

On putting jobs first, why has the head of Hitachi said that “jobs would be lost” if we left the EU? Because Britain is a market of 60 million people, whereas Europe is a market of 500 million people. If we leave, next time he invests in a new production line, it will be more economic to build it somewhere else. Today, Rolls-Royce has said the same. Foreign indirect investment creates 85,000 jobs in this country every year, which are all at risk from Brexit.

The Brexit campaign has totally failed to set out how a new trading arrangement would work. It has suggested the arrangements for Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Albania, but even the Prime Minister of Albania does not think that that is a good idea. Why has the head of Glaxo, part of our brilliant pharmaceuticals industry, said that the EU is the best platform for success? Because one system for drug licensing is faster and more efficient than 28 systems. Yet Dominic Cummings, the Lord Chancellor’s former Spad who now runs Vote Leave, told the Treasury Committee that “that is complete rubbish.” Such breath-taking arrogance is putting 93,000 jobs at risk.

Let us look at the car industry. If we leave, it will face tariffs of 10%. It is supposed to cope with that through labour market flexibility, which, translated into English, means wage cuts. Wages account for only a third of total costs, so people would have to take a 30% pay cut or lose their jobs. There are 450,000 jobs at risk.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) have visited textile factories that, outside the EU, would face a 6.5% tariff. It is hard to cut wages in such factories because the Low Pay Commission reports that most of the workers are on the minimum wage, so another 56,000 jobs are at risk, mainly in the north and the midlands. When I challenged the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip about that, he said that

“there is no need for them to worry.”

It is all right for him: on top of his MP’s salary, he takes home another £250,000 every year for his column in The Daily Telegraph. His attitude is flippant to the point of irresponsibility, and this is not a joke.

Let us look at what is happening in the markets: £60 billion has been wiped off the value of shares in London in a week, and people are so desperate to get their money out of London that they are prepared to pay the German Government to look after it. That may be good news for the hedge funders, who make their money betting on volatility and then use it to fund the Brexit campaign, but it is certainly not good news for the millions of people whose pensions depend on the strength of the FTSE 100.

Security and prosperity are linked. The question on the ballot paper is the choice between letting off the leash a right-wing Tory Brexit group that is able to destroy the life chances of millions of ordinary people, and voting to remain in and holding on to the security and prosperity that we have in the EU.

Saudi Arabia

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend rightly underlines the importance of this bilateral relationship, which is not only commercial but includes academic and medical perspectives and so forth. The more we are able to engage and share ideas, the more we will be able to encourage change, modernisation and adaptation of international standards and the rule of law.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

What preparations has the Minister’s Department made for the potential legal action which the Government now face owing to the fact that arms have been exported to Saudi Arabia which, it has been reported, have been used against civilians in Yemen?

[Mr Ellwood]

I repeat what I just said. Saudi Arabia has a legitimate right to purchase weapons systems. It also has a legitimate right under UN Security Council resolution 2216 to provide legitimate support to the President Hadi in Yemen. Had actions not been taken, as I said, the humanitarian catastrophe in that country, which the hon. Lady’s Front-Bench spokesman rightly mentioned, would be worse than it is, as would the challenges that we face. A port off the Red sea called Al Mukalla—a town bigger than Bournemouth—is now run by al-Qaeda. That is the threat that we face in Yemen. So yes, we must be concerned and aware of any weapons systems that we sell across the world. We have robust systems in place, but let us keep in check how they are used and what the consequences are in the country where they are used.

Human Rights (Egypt)

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I had an opportunity to visit one of the Coptic churches in Cairo, and I raised that very important matter of the minorities in Egypt. It will also be raised during President Sisi’s visit in the next couple of days.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In July 2013, after the military coup, the then Foreign Secretary said that

“we cannot support military interventions in democratic processes.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 385.]

The new regime in King Charles Street seems to be taking a completely different tack. What has happened since that time is that the human rights record in Egypt has plummeted. The Minister knows that there was a trial in which 520 death sentences were issued after one hour, and 683 death sentences were issued without a single defendant being present. We do not hear about it, because 125 journalists are locked up. Does the Minister not understand that appearing to endorse President Sisi is likely to make people more engaged with radical terrorism than the other way round?

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. President Sisi was elected and has had a referendum as well. The first round of parliamentary elections took place in October and the second round will take place on 23 November. That will provide additional scrutiny of what the Executive are doing. We take every opportunity to raise the issue of the mass arrests, as I said in my opening remarks; perhaps the hon. Lady did not hear that, but I am happy to send her a copy. In December 2013, 20 al-Jazeera journalists were arrested and we took every opportunity to make it clear that we had concerns about the manner of the arrests, not least because two Britons were involved. They were convicted in absentia and we are encouraging a full pardon to ensure that their names are cleared.

Arms Sales (Human Rights)

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the implications for human rights of promoting arms sales.

I am particularly pleased to be having this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Amess; we have been in the House for about the same amount of time, so it is a great pleasure. I am also pleased to see so many hon. Members here to discuss this very important issue. I will keep my speech relatively brief to allow everybody to get in who has something to say, so that as many Members as possible can share their views about the implication for human rights of promoting arms sales.

As many hon. Members know, I have always been passionate about human rights and have argued against arms sales to human rights violators ever since I became an MP. As chair of the Committee against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq—known as CARDRI—in the 1980s, I argued against the supply of military equipment to Saddam Hussein, a man who, at that time, was gassing his own people, had executed a British journalist and generally oversaw a very repressive and brutal regime. Iraq was, of course, also then at war with Iran.

I was horrified when, in 1986, the then Conservative Government invited a five-strong Iraqi delegation, led by its director of armaments and supplies, to the British Army equipment exhibition in Aldershot. Of course, in 1990 Saddam’s troops invaded Kuwait, and he became no longer a friend, but an enemy of the west. Lord Justice Scott’s report a few years later detailed the involvement of the UK Government and British companies in arming him. However, Saddam had not changed overnight in 1990.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. Does she recall that the ultimate obscenity was that because these weapons were sold using the export credit regime, and were never paid for, the British Government, in fact, gave them to Saddam Hussein?

[Ann Clwyd]

That is a very good point. I am really sorry that so few companies have been prosecuted since for supplying some of the arms. The authorities did that in Germany, and are continuing to do so, but there have been very few prosecutions in this country.

As I was saying, in 1990 Saddam’s troops invaded Kuwait and he became an enemy of the west, but Saddam had not changed overnight. Enough was already known about his regime’s human rights violations—backed by detailed information from inside the country about the savage nature of the regime—and about the UK Government’s and companies’ attempts to arm him. Some us had tried to stop that, but our warnings were not heeded.

When the Labour Government came to office in 1997, there was a test case for the new Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s “ethical foreign policy”. I remember sitting at the Foreign Office, listening to the speech he made. I went up to him at the end of it and said, “I am very pleased to hear those words from you, but I’ll be watching you”. I did not realise how quickly I would have to put those words into operation, because the test case for the ethical foreign policy that he spelt out, with human rights at its heart, was selling arms to Indonesia, as we were doing at that time. Anybody who followed that particular conflict will know that repression in Aceh, for example, was acute. President Suharto’s troops were still occupying East Timor then. I am glad to say that our new Leader of the Opposition came to East Timor with me at the time and monitored some of the things that were going on there.

The previous Conservative Government had issued licences for the export of Hawk aircraft and armoured vehicles to Indonesia, but when Labour came to power, the equipment had not yet been delivered. Unfortunately, Robin Cook was not able to convince his Cabinet colleagues at that time and the export licences were not revoked. Hawk aircraft were later in action in Aceh and the armoured vehicles out on the streets of Jakarta.

However, the new Labour Government in 1997 did institute annual reports on arms export licences. Members of the four relevant Select Committees—the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Trade and Industry Committee, the International Development Committee and the Defence Committee—came together to look at those reports. Initially known, for obvious reasons, as the Quadripartite Committee, it became the Committees on Arms Export Controls in 2008. I was a member of the Committees in both guises.

In the last Parliament, the Committees on Arms Export Controls was chaired by Sir John Stanley. As everybody knows, he is a former Conservative Defence Minister; I pay tribute to the work of Sir John, my colleague both on the Committees on Arms Export Controls and the Foreign Affairs Committee. I also note that every CAEC—as it began to be known—report was unanimously agreed by their members during their 15 years of existence, including those when Sir John was chair. Sir John assiduously raised arms export issues with Ministers and civil servants and he came to see what is at the heart of this debate—that it is not possible to promote human rights at the same time as promoting arms exports. The two are not compatible.

The CAEC report from the last parliamentary Session said that

“the Government would do well to acknowledge that there is an inherent conflict between strongly promoting arms exports to authoritarian regimes whilst strongly criticising their lack of human rights at the same time rather than claiming, as the Government continued to do…that these two policies ‘are mutually reinforcing’”.

Although so far unable to convince Governments of this, the Committees on Arms Export Controls’ oversight was of immense benefit—I stress that it really was of immense benefit—in shedding light on this cross-departmental issue. For six months now, we have been without those Committees. As yet, my inquiries have not indicated when they are likely to be reformed. The global situation regarding conflict and arms transfers, not least as it affects the middle east and north Africa, makes it vital to have the Committees functioning at the earliest possible date. I would therefore urge the relevant Committee Chairs to come together as a matter of urgency to ensure that this process of scrutiny continues.

UK Governments—plural—argue that they operate one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control regimes in the world, that their export licensing criteria take human rights into account and that licences will not be granted if the equipment might be used for human rights abuse, or more particularly, if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression, to provoke or prolong armed conflicts or to aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination. All applications are subject to a case-by-case assessment.

In the first instance, I note with regard to the “clear risk” criteria that I just mentioned, that that is vague as to what exactly constitutes a clear risk. How can that be defined? What meets that threshold? To my mind, “clear risk” is in effect a blank cheque in human rights terms. In connection with that, it would be helpful, as a starting point, to know about the UK’s risk assessment methodology. We were always being told, when Ministers in Governments of all colours were being questioned, that there would be or was monitoring in the countries to which the arms were supplied. However, I have continually failed to find out what that monitoring constitutes.

In the previous Parliament, CAEC also raised concerns about the insufficiency of information being released about specific end users. Although the country is mentioned, there is no more specific designation. That means that the public are left in the dark about exactly who will be receiving the arms in question. I call on the Government to provide information about who exactly UK-supplied equipment will be used by and for what purpose.

In addition, situations change. The fact that after the uprisings in north Africa and the middle east in the spring of 2011, more than 150 licences—more than 150—had to be revoked indicates that the Government’s licensing process leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly, many of those licences should never have been granted in the first place, because licence revocation can be of only limited effect, for the simple reason that revocation is of no use whatever for exports that have already been shipped—those arms can never be recovered. It is imperative, therefore, that the utmost caution—that is, much more caution—be exercised when assessments are being undertaken on arms exports to authoritarian and war-torn countries.

However, the incompatibility between promoting human rights and promoting arms exports is primarily a difficulty not with export controls, but with the mindset that prioritises export promotion. Arms sales are promoted by those right at the top of Government. That is not new. Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron have all led delegations to promote arms sales, including to some of the world’s most repressive regimes. Earlier this year, licences to Foreign and Commonwealth Office-designated countries of concern were valued at almost £12 billion.

In the middle of the brutal suppression of protest in the middle east in February 2011, the Prime Minister chose to go ahead with an arms promotion tour of Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. The message sent to those regimes is quite alarming; the UK Government were in effect legitimising the regimes and provided them with political cover. Even the help of the royal family is enlisted. Prince Charles famously did a sword dance in Saudi Arabia in 2014 to secure a fighter jet deal for BAE.

Those high-level sales efforts in relation to human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia mute any criticism of their abuse of human rights. In the case of Saudi Arabia, it is a “priority market” for the UK Government’s arms sales agency, the UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organisation.

I think that the desire for arms deals prevents meaningful UK Government criticism of, for example, Saudi human rights abuses. That is a country where, according to Amnesty International, someone is executed every two days. Raif Badawi was brutally flogged and is in jail simply for blogging. Women are treated as second-class citizens, and immigrant workers far worse. The arms sales links have prevented the UK Government from criticising Saudi Arabia for the humanitarian catastrophe being created in Yemen. There are, it is said, even UK civil servants and military personnel in Saudi Arabia, who are now presumably supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign.

I mentioned the licences that the Government were forced to revoke in 2011, when the Arab uprisings took place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. This will be a negotiation. In the present pre-negotiation phase, we are quite properly setting out our broad agenda. Understanding our partners’ concerns, where their agendas coincide with ours and where their red lines are is all perfectly legitimate. It is clear already that some of our partners are beginning to line up for a negotiation. Giving away our hand at this stage would be foolish.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

22. My constituents are extremely concerned about the payment of child benefit for children living not in this country, but in other European countries. Did the Foreign Secretary make any progress with Chancellor Merkel recently on this, or is it still the Government’s view, as expressed by the Prime Minister in May, that it would be impossible to stop this? Is that why the Government have resisted publishing an accurate estimate of the cost?

[Mr Hammond]

There are accurate estimates in the public domain of the amounts of child benefits paid overseas. I have seen them regularly. When I was shadow Chief Secretary in opposition, I remember briefing them to the media regularly, so those data are published. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Conservative party intends, if re-elected, to proceed down a route that will include ending the payment of child benefits in respect of children not resident in the United Kingdom.

Government Strategy Against IS

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The short answer to my hon. Friend is yes to all four of his points. I simply add a rider in respect of his final one: as the Prime Minister said on Monday in the House, the Government, while wanting to put such a matter to Parliament, including for a vote, as rapidly as possible, will need the freedom to act in the case of an urgent threat to the security of the United Kingdom or of an impending humanitarian disaster, and to come to the House as soon as possible after such action.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is clear to the whole House that ISIL must be defeated. I understand that it is premature to take decisions about the involvement of the UK in military action, but I want to ask something further to the question put by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the former Minister. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that, were the House to decide that military action should be taken, including in Syria, there would be no question of the Government’s asking the permission of the horrible despot Assad.

[Mr Lidington]

We do not recognise Assad as providing the legitimate Government of Syria, so that question would not arise.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I wish to confine my remarks to the situation in Ukraine. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and I will follow his example by beginning my speech by declaring an interest. I am an officer in the all-party group on Ukraine, although I must confess that I cannot remember which particular role I have.

I take it as axiomatic that our aim in Ukraine is to secure peaceful, democratic, political development in that country. By that standard, we are not doing very well. Of course President Putin, for his own internal and external reasons, has done and is doing everything he can to undermine those developments. None the less, I have some questions about the way the UK, as a country and as a member of the EU and NATO, has played its hand; there has been a lot of furious rhetoric but a lack of sombre analysis. The Russians have a strategic interest in a warm-water port in Crimea for the Black sea fleet—we do not. The Russians have a long and close history and relationship with Ukraine—we do not. There is a large Russian-speaking minority in the east of Ukraine, and we are not in that situation. That all means that when push comes to shove, in an open conflict, the Russians are going to be prepared to do more and to push harder than we have and ever would.

Indeed, it is clear that some in eastern Ukraine do not support the Kiev Government and have not supported the association agreement with the EU. Unfortunately, because of the Russian actions it is difficult for us now to see how many people in eastern Ukraine take that view. When I visited Ukraine a couple of years ago, it was clear that the country had weak civil society and weak political institutions. We saw that in the way the Kiev Government were dealing with the problems in eastern Ukraine; there was no proper dialogue but an attempt to impose people on, and control people in, eastern Ukraine. A deeply unsophisticated approach was taken of imposing oligarchs as governors in eastern Ukraine and refusing to listen. We need to look at things again.

During the demonstrations in Maidan square at the turn of the year, the European Union had a tendency to over-promise: to promise more than we have or than we will deliver. Our messages were confused and confusing. Of course, a large number of people and the Kiev Government wanted the EU association agreement, but why did it have to be rushed through in a way that for the Russians was highly confrontational? In July, the Ministry of Defence was briefing that Ukraine is regarded as virtually a member of NATO, which was unhelpful as it created uncertainty and unpredictability in respect of our potential actions in the minds of the Russians. We need to draw a clear distinction between the Baltic states, which are members of NATO, to which we have clear obligations and which have duties and responsibilities to the alliance, and Ukraine, which is not in that situation.

I am not entirely convinced that sanctions are as effective as the Foreign Secretary hopes they are.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give me some details of what she thinks are appropriate sanctions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

One problem is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has been saying, it is not clear that small changes in the income of particular individuals will matter very much to President Putin. Edward Lucas said that in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. There is also a problem of corruption, which is not helped by the Tory party taking a lot of money from Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs.

We need to move to a political process to strengthen the political dialogue. On Monday, the Prime Minister agreed that the Russians had legitimate interests in the area, especially in seeing that the Russian minorities are well treated and protected.

The Foreign Secretary talked about effective international monitoring. I am not clear whether he meant the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or a UN-sponsored plebiscite. We need to know more clearly what the Foreign Office has in mind. What is absolutely clear is that the former British ambassador to Moscow, Tony Brenton, was right when he said that we should stop shouting and start talking.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I apologise to colleagues for having missed some of the Back-Bench speeches earlier due to an unbreakable commitment related to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

As was observed earlier, when my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is thought about in defence terms the one word that will be associated with him will be “strategy”. When my political epitaph comes to be written, I guess most people would think that the one word that would be associated me would be “Trident”—or, if they were feeling kinder, it might be “deterrence”. Actually, a different word ought to be associated with what I am trying to outline in terms of strategy today: “containment”. Containment is the key to what we need to do in the two very different scenarios of Russia’s behaviour and ISIL’s behaviour. Containment sometimes has to be done by means of a balance of terror, as when dealing with a nuclear-armed state such as Russia. On other occasions, it has to be done with the more traditional concept of the balance of power, as when dealing with states such as those of the middle east. Containment by means of the balance of power often means active intervention.

Let me refer briefly to two scenarios. In the case of Russia and Ukraine, what Russia is doing is not new, as the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) observed in his interesting speech. In fact, it is based on a model of what it did in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, when countries such as Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary were first subverted and then taken over. I have previously mentioned the important work of Professor Anatol Lieven in analysing the situation in Ukraine. Time prevents me from doing more than pointing out that he has consistently said that the only way in which a disaster will be averted is for some considerable degree of autonomy to be awarded to the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine. If we try to egg on the other parts of Ukraine to win militarily, Russia will simply step up its military effort and the overall effect will be disastrous.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point, and I agree with him. Did he agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), as I was somewhat alarmed to discover that I did?

[Dr Lewis]

Sadly, that is one of the Back-Bench speeches that I missed.

I am grateful, in any case, for the hon. Lady’s intervention, as it gives me a little more time to refer to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). There is a huge difference between NATO members that are covered by the article 5 guarantee and other countries, no matter how sympathetic we are towards them, that are not. When I was 16, Czechoslovakia was invaded. I thought what a shame it was that while Czechoslovakia was temporarily free we did not scoop up this poor vulnerable country under the protection of NATO. But I was 16 then—I am not 16 now, and I know the realities. I know that what was done in the aftermath of the second world war was nothing more than a recognition of the reality that the west could band together to protect itself by means of NATO, but it could not, at that stage, protect the countries of central and eastern Europe. Russia had to be contained by means of the balance of terror involving nuclear deterrence.

Let me quickly move on to ISIL. We are not in a situation where we have a choice of good outcomes. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) set out certain conditions in hoping for a good outcome in relation to the choices that face us. I hope they are right, but the likelihood is that there will be no good outcome in these confrontations—that no good guys are going to come out on top, but only somebody of the stripe of an Arab dictator, on the one hand, or revolutionary jihadists on the other.

That is where we move on to containment by means of a balance of power, whereby sometimes there is no ally to be helped and all we can do is try to ensure that no one of a bunch of undesirable actors on the international stage gets to be dominant. That is what we have to do in this case. That is why I gently disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex about the vote that we had last year. I am absolutely delighted to look back on the fact that I was one of the people who made sure that we did not intervene to drag down Assad, atrocious though he is, because the upshot of that would have been similar to that of dragging down Gaddafi. The effect of the latter was not to further western strategic interests but the interests of our deadly enemies on the jihadist front.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I think that is an incredibly generous description of how NATO is behaving under President Obama, although it certainly was belligerent under Bush.

NATO’s endless eastward expansion has encouraged an equal and opposite reaction on the other side, in Russia. Although I am not a defender of Putin or, indeed, of Russian foreign policy, one has to say that if there was a general agreement that Ukraine should be a neutral, non-nuclear state, the presence of NATO forces in Ukraine and joint exercises with Ukrainian forces were likely to encourage the Russian military to do the same across the border. If we want to see peace in the region, as we all do, surely there has to be demilitarisation and a process that brings about a peaceful reconciliation in Ukraine, if that is at all possible. Instead, what I hear all the time is the ratcheting up of the military options on both sides, with more and more exercises and more and more overflying.

This is a very dangerous situation that could indeed lead to some dreadful conflict. I want to sound a note of caution about it and also draw attention to the fact that NATO now gives itself the right to involve itself in any part of the world, at any time, through its rapid reaction force. Indeed, the Prime Minister wanted to bring another 33 countries on board. A global military power that can go in anywhere is not necessarily a good thing; indeed, it can provoke all the opposition and all the problems that we are discussing in today’s debate.

The question I want to put to the Minister—to which I hope I will get a reply either today or in writing—is this. The mutual defence agreement between Britain and the USA on the sharing of nuclear information, originally signed in 1958, comes up for renewal this year. There is no date set for Parliament to debate it, and apparently the Government do not seem terribly keen on that, yet President Obama sent a message to Congress on 24 July saying that he approved of the renewal of the agreement and hoped that Congress would approve it. If it is good enough for Congress to debate the mutual defence agreement, surely it is good enough for us to debate it as well.

[Helen Goodman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to bring down conflict, tension and the international temperature is to be predictable? These unclear mandates lead to uncertainty and unpredictability.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Indeed, and the daily dangers from the situation in Ukraine and eastern Europe are pretty obvious for everyone to see. I hope we can think more carefully about this, rather than rushing more and more troops, more and more arms and more and more missiles into the area, and instead try to search for a political solution, difficult as I obviously recognise that to be.

I want to make two other points. This morning a number of us went to Room 14 to hear a statement from Dr Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestine National Initiative. He showed us a short film that was appalling, shocking and horrible. All I was seeing were pictures of buildings in Gaza that I have visited and known. They are all ruined, and there are 2,000 people dead and many families completely bereft of everything. The bitterness from that bombing by Israel continues and will continue for a very long time. Surely there should have been a response by the British Government on this. It is not good enough just to talk about Israel’s right to exist and its right to self-defence. There was a total disproportionality about the whole conflict. More than 2,000 Palestinians are dead; sadly, 100 Israelis are dead. I wish no one had died from that conflict, but unless we address the rights of and justice for the Palestinian people—their right to nationhood, their right to recognition, their right to travel, their right to trade; all those things—and instead keep them in prison in Gaza, this will all break out again in the not-too-distant future and we will have a renewal of all the horrible bloodletting that has happened over the past month.

There was a massive lobby of Parliament yesterday by supporters of Palestine. On 9 August, 150,000 people came on a demonstration in London to show their solidarity with people under bombardment. It is up to us, as one of the authors of the Sykes-Picot agreement, which is the antecedent of many of these problems, to be prepared politically to do something about the problem, at the very least by suspending all military arrangements with Israel. Although I recognise that that will not solve the problem, it would at least send a significant political message.

My final point in my remaining minute is simply this. I have been a Member of this House long enough to have discussed the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, the Libya conflict and indeed, before that, the Gulf war. I am no supporter, sympathiser, apologist or whatever for ISIL—for what it stands for, what it does, what its methods are or for its current threat and attacks on the Kurdish people. Surely, however, some basic understanding of history will recognise that our interventions and our behaviour—American interventions, American behaviour—have created the circumstances in which ISIL has grown up. The money now going into the region for arms—from Saudi and other sources—as well as all the other weapons going in are a major cause of the current conflict within Iraq. Let us learn the lesson: intervention everywhere is surely not the solution; the solution is working with people on development and bringing about peaceful solutions to problems rather than the obsession with taking military intervention around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the symbolic as well as practical economic importance of the proposed deal. In practice, a successful transatlantic trade negotiation would establish global regulatory standards for business and trade on a transatlantic basis instead of the transatlantic powers having to copy others.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

3. If he will make it his policy to publish a list of all meetings between Ministers of his Department and officials since May 2010.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We publish details of ministerial meetings with external organisations on a quarterly basis, but in line with the practice of previous Governments, we do not intend to publish a list of meetings between Ministers and their departmental officials.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister tell the House whether at the meeting that the Foreign Office had on 24 February with Dmitry Firtash the question of asset freezes or sanctions was discussed?

[Mr Lidington]

I am obviously not going to go into details of what may or may not have been discussed at a meeting, particularly one at which I was not present, but it remains the case that Foreign Office officials and Ministers speak to people of all types from many different parts of the world with a single objective in mind, which is how best to enhance the United Kingdom’s understanding of global events and strengthen its interest in world affairs.

Ukraine

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this important debate about the very serious situation in Crimea and Ukraine.

The whole House is agreed that the events of the past two weeks have gone in completely the wrong direction and that what we want to see is the peaceful democratic development of Ukraine. We all know that conflict will set that back. If this crisis is not to escalate, we need to concentrate on bringing down the temperature, but securing Russian participation in meaningful talks about the future will be difficult.

It is clear that a vote with transparent ballot boxes and no international monitors does not reach the required standard for a free choice for Crimean people. When he winds up the debate, will the Leader of the House explain whether we are going to stick with our position on the overriding importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, or are we going to discuss what we believe would be a free and fair plebiscite?

As the Foreign Secretary has said, Ukraine should not have to choose between Russia and the EU. It is quite clear that the Russians feel they have a great deal at stake. Their major—possibly the major—concern is the warm-water location of the Black sea fleet. Will the Leader of the House explain how it could be maintained were Ukraine to join NATO?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth)? My real worry is that the Crimean peninsula is isolated and that the Russians require land access to it, which means coming through eastern Ukraine.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman, whose military expertise goes far beyond mine, makes a very useful point.

As we have previously discussed in the House, we need to look at the behaviour of the new Government in Kiev. The under-representation of Russian speakers from the east and the appointment of two oligarchs as governors of eastern regions does not look inclusive.

When I was in Ukraine a couple of years ago, it was absolutely clear that weak institutional arrangements had been further sapped by a weak political culture and an undeveloped civil society. Virtually every senior politician was supported by an oligarch—unless they had become one themselves—and it was very unclear who controlled whom.

I was therefore extremely concerned to receive e-mails from human rights activists in Ukraine who claimed that British parliamentarians had received money from Dmitry Firtash, a major Ukrainian oligarch. He owns 45% of the Ukrainian gas transit company, which controls Gazprom’s supplies through Ukraine to Europe, and he also owns a major chemical industry in the country. Mr Firtash is estimated to be worth between $600 million and $5 billion. He has been linked to President Yanukovych and even to President Putin.

When I raised the possibility of conflicts of interest with the Foreign Secretary on 4 March, he described my question as “utterly baseless” and “ridiculous in the extreme”. Since then, in an episode described by one analyst to the Financial Times as “seismic”, Mr Firtash has been arrested in Vienna by the Austrian organised crime unit, following a seven-year investigation by the FBI.

We have also learned that Mr Firtash had a meeting at the Foreign Office on 24 February. I hope that the Leader of the House, who will wind up the debate, can tell us whom Mr Firtash met, what was discussed and whether the issue of sanctions or asset freezes was on the agenda. On the same day, the Foreign Secretary said in the House that he wanted to see an “end to pervasive corruption” in Ukraine. We all agree with that, but I notice that Mr Firtash is not at the moment on the sanctions list issued by the EU.

Even the most cursory glance through the Electoral Commission website reveals that in recent years the Conservative party, in various guises, has received nearly £200,000 from associates of Mr Firtash. The Harlow Conservative party has received £40,000 from Mr Shetler-Jones, who was the chief executive officer of Mr Firtash’s holding company, Group DF. Mr Shetler-Jones has given money in his own name and via a company called Scythian, which he owns and of which he is a director.

Earlier in the Parliament, Baroness Neville-Jones was refused the post of National Security Adviser because of her links to Ukrainian oligarchs. She, too, has received money from Mr Shetler-Jones. During the previous Parliament, the Electoral Commission looked into whether Scythian was an active company, but it has not published its findings. It is apparently a consultancy that advises on energy matters, but it is not clear who its clients are.

That is not only a concern in this country but a serious problem from the perspective of Ukraine. Ukraine has lost the equivalent of almost half its annual GDP to outflows into offshore accounts during the past three years. The all-party group on anti-corruption says that a proportion of those funds have been laundered through the UK, that this is a clear example of the damaging role UK companies and individuals play in aiding foreign corrupt officials, and that assets should be identified, frozen and returned without delay. The Foreign Secretary has said that he is working on Ukrainian asset recovery, and I hope that the Government will take a no-holds-barred approach.