US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your chairmanship. The debate was called for jointly by me and the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who will speak after me. I am grateful to him for supporting the application to the Backbench Business Committee for today’s debate. For the record, I should explain that he and I hold a slightly different view on the security of the world that has been brought about the presence of nuclear weapons. We have debated this in town and village halls up and down the country on many occasions. No doubt we will continue so to do. I am grateful to him for being prepared to speak, and he is doing so in the spirit of Parliament.

I want to put on the record my thanks to Ben Folley, parliamentary officer of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, for the huge amount of work he has done in preparing information, and to Dr David Lowry, who works for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and who is a renowned expert on these issues.

My first question is: why do we have to debate something as fundamental as a mutual defence agreement with the United States in time allocated by the Backbench Business Committee? The answer is that Governments of all hues—this applies to my party, as well as the coalition Government and previous Conservative Governments—have been reluctant to have parliamentary debates on this subject. Indeed, this is the 20th anniversary of the debate on the Consolidated Fund held in 1994, which was started by Alan Simpson, then a Member, at 1.56 am on 15 December. Only two other Members took part at that time of the morning, so it was hardly parliamentary scrutiny.

I welcome this debate, but there cannot be a vote because it is an Adjournment debate. However, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has tabled a motion, supported by me and others, which could lead to a parliamentary vote on the mutual defence agreement. I hope that it will.

It is interesting that parliamentary scrutiny of the mutual defence agreement and nuclear weapons has been in short supply going back to the end of the second world war. The National Archives in Kew has a document, “Extracts from a memorandum on the Atomic Bomb from Prime Minister Clement Attlee, 28th August 1945”, which states:

“The only course which seems to me to be feasible and to offer a reasonable hope of staving off imminent disaster for the world is joint action by the USA, UK and Russia based upon stark reality. We should declare that this invention has made it essential to end wars. The New World Order must start now.

All nations must give up their dreams of realising some historic expansion at the expense of their neighbours. They must look to a peaceful future instead of to a warlike past. This sort of thing has in the past been considered a utopian dream. It has become today the essential condition of the survival of civilisation and possibly of life on this plant.”

That was Prime Minister Attlee’s view in August 1945, just after the first nuclear weapons had been exploded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Seven years later, there was an explosion in Australia by Britain when its first H-bomb was detonated. There was an interesting programme last night on al-Jazeera that showed the return of lands to the indigenous people who were driven off them because of those nuclear tests. The nuclear test veterans are still with us, and are still suffering as a result of the tests.

The then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, made a statement to the House of Commons on the detonation of that weapon on 3 October 1952. He explained that the temperature at the centre of it was nearly 1 million degrees and the damage it caused, and said that the Government were grateful to the Australian Government for allowing the test. He concluded:

“All those concerned in the production of the first British atomic bomb are to be warmly congratulated on the successful outcome of an historic episode and I should no doubt pay my compliments to the Leader of the Opposition and the party opposite for initiating it.”—[Official Report, 23 October 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1269.]

That was the same Clement Attlee. I am a great admirer of Clement Attlee’s domestic record, but not of a large part of his international record. During questions, Samuel Silverman asked the Prime Minister to explain

“the total cost of this experimental explosion, and will he bear in mind that to some of us it is no comfort at all to realise that both major parties in the State are equally responsible for this colossal folly?”

The Prime Minister said that everyone was equally responsible:

“Even if one sits below the Gangway, one does not escape the responsibility.”

Silverman then asked:

“What about the cost?”

Prime Minister Churchill—this is fascinating—then said:

“As to the cost, I have said before, as an old Parliamentarian, that I was rather astonished that well over £100 million should be disbursed without Parliament being made aware of it. I was a bit astonished. However, there is the story, and we now have a result which on the whole, I think, will be beneficial to public safety. As for the future, I think we must be guided by the precedents established under the last régime as to detailed accounts and the way in which the expenditure is recorded.”—[Official Report, 23 October 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1271.]

It is astonishing that, with all the austerity at the end of the second world war, the then Prime Minister managed to spend £100 million of public money without telling Parliament, and apparently without discussing it with his Cabinet, which resulted in the entirely secret development of a British nuclear weapon, the first of which was exploded in 1952. We still had for some time the pretence that Britain had an independent nuclear deterrent.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on the other side of the Chamber, for helping to secure this debate through the Backbench Business Committee. Does the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) agree that it is unacceptable for a UK Government of any party to wish to spend £100 billion on through-life costs for Trident renewal, and to do so in a way that is not open and transparent, maintaining the historical tradition of being secretive, and not being prepared to face the consequences of their decisions? It seems that the UK Government will not even turn up at the international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in Vienna in December. Does he agree on both those counts that UK Governments of all political persuasions have acted totally unacceptably?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree with his points. The secrecy surrounding anything to do with nuclear weapons is completely unacceptable. The fact that the British Parliament has barely debated the mutual defence agreement—I will come to that in a moment—since its existence is serious. The huge expenditure on Trident, at £100 billion, is enormous by any stretch of the imagination. It is my belief—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the British Government have no intention of attending the international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in Vienna at the beginning of December. I hope I am wrong about that, and I hope that they will attend, because it would simply not be right not to attend.

On scrutiny, the US is a major military and industrial power; that is obvious. It is a very wealthy country—that is equally obvious. The President must send a message to Congress to ask it to approve and renew the amended treaty, and it must debate, vote on and approve it. We have no such transparency in the British Parliament. The Prime Minister or any other Minister still has the ability to use the royal prerogative to override Parliament in this respect, and to approve the treaty, if that is what they want to do. That is why I was so determined that we should have this debate and why I have raised the issue on so many occasions.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is talking as though he is surprised about the lack of scrutiny. I am not surprised in the slightest, because if we had any decent level of scrutiny, it would be very clear that replacing Trident is a complete waste of money.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am basically a very optimistic person—in our line of work and with my view on politics, Sir Roger, I have to be an optimist, otherwise I would be very sad. I am optimistic that every Government want to consult Parliament and want Parliament to approve of things, but we have to face the reality that the lack of a written constitution and of a clear delineation of power, particularly on foreign affairs and treaty matters, means that the Government of the day, whatever party it is, do not have to consult Parliament on agreeing a treaty—or, indeed, on going to war—unless we change the relevant legislation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a war powers Bill before Parliament, but I do not have much hope of it getting through Parliament, despite my inevitable optimism on all these matters.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Might my hon. Friend not want to question why the Liberal Democrats, who seem to be exerting some influence—undesirable, I would say—over the Trident renewal programme, do not seem to have managed, or even tried, to exert that influence to get this issue debated? Nuclear policy has been debated, as I will say later; my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made Labour’s position very clear. Why does my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) think that the Liberal Democrats have not insisted on having a debate?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The shadow Minister invites me into a difficult situation. I cannot speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, nor would they want me to. They apparently wanted a Trident review, with no like-for-like replacement. The review took place, and it is a matter of record and of history.

On the question of this debate, I do not know what pressure was or was not applied by particular Ministers. I know that a number of Back-Bench MPs on both sides of the House believe, as I am sure the hon. Member for New Forest East would agree, that parliamentary scrutiny of all things is important; that is why we are sent here as Members of Parliament. As for the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) on nuclear weapons, he and I have a slightly different history on this matter, and we have debated it.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there was a Trident review. It came to the self-evident conclusion that if we are to maintain the nuclear deterrent, continuous at-sea deterrence is the only way of doing so, in spite of many fanciful schemes that have been dreamt up by the Liberal Democrats. He has a perfectly straightforward, long-standing and honourable position of being opposed, but where does he think that the Liberal Democrats now stand on the issue?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Well, it is—[Interruption.] My friend the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) helps me in this. It is an unfair question. I do not know and I cannot tell, but I hope that the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley will come round to the view that nuclear weapons are unsustainable, expensive, dangerous and immoral, and that the world would be a much safer place if the five declared nuclear weapon states stood up to their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and took steps towards disarmament. This debate is not solely about Trident; it is about the mutual defence agreement. Nevertheless, there is obviously a close connection.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman and I have a very different opinion on nuclear weapons. I understand that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will come forward with a different point of view. When it comes to nuclear weapons, I think that if a country has them in their possession, they become a deterrent, and I believe that, by their very existence, they prevent wars in places where there could be wars. That is my opinion, and I believe that it is the opinion of the vast majority of my constituents and the people I speak to in relation to nuclear weapons and nuclear power. What wit does the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) give to the opinion of my constituents who tell me that nuclear ownership is a deterrent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The way I suggest the hon. Gentleman deals with the issue is simply this: there are five declared nuclear weapons states, which all happen to be the five permanent members of the Security Council, and there are three other states that have nuclear weapons that we know of for sure—India, Pakistan and Israel. Then, there are questions about North Korea, which has some nuclear explosive capability. That leaves a very large number of other states that have no nuclear weapons. A considerable number of states have voluntarily given up nuclear weapons, such as South Africa, Argentina and Brazil, and there are others. If weapons of mass destruction were ever used, they could only create an environmental disaster where they go off and an economic disaster across the whole planet—and possibly an environmental disaster for the whole planet with a nuclear winter. They are something that we should not, could not and never would countenance the use of. However, every state, by possessing nuclear weapons, clearly does countenance their use, otherwise they would not possess them. I think security comes from disarmament, not from rearmament, and this is also going to cost us a great deal of money.

The hon. Gentleman and I might not agree on that, but that is a view I strongly hold. It is not just my view, but that of millions of people around the world who do not wish to live under a nuclear umbrella, because they fear it could become a nuclear cloud.

[Mr Leech]

I add that the countries that own nuclear weapons have all been involved in wars since having nuclear weapons, so it has not stopped them from ending up in some sort of conflict.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Indeed; those countries have all been involved in conflicts, and we have come near to the use of nuclear weapons in the case of Korea and in the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Clearly, their existence poses a threat. When the House debated Trident renewal in 2007, many Members took the view that Britain’s security depended on having nuclear weapons. If that was the case, someone could argue for any country in the world developing nuclear weapons on the basis that that would guarantee its security.

As I have explained, the reality is that the vast majority of nations do not have nuclear weapons and do not want them. Although some are under a nuclear alliance such as NATO, many are not and do not possess nuclear weapons, yet have massive natural resources. Many countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia are part of nuclear weapons-free zones. That is my view.

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

I appreciate that I will have the opportunity to speak after the hon. Gentleman, but I want to take him back to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said that if nuclear weapons were used, there would be dire effects on the environment and on the planet, but does he not recognise that people who believe in deterrents believe that the nuclear deterrent is constantly in use, because the use resides in the possession, which results in the deterrent effect on any other power against using such weapons against this country?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman and I have debated that view, and I simply do not agree that they provide security. Yes, they are in existence every day and therefore clearly are potentially a threat to somebody, but it did not do the USA much good on 11 September 2001. Nuclear weapons were not much help on that occasion; nor are they much help in dealing with poverty, environmental disasters and people who are forced to flee and seek refuge elsewhere.

My purpose today is to debate the mutual defence agreement and that, of course, is central to Britain’s nuclear relationship with the United States. I turn to the history of the agreement. The USA had the McMahon Act, which did not allow the sharing of its nuclear or defence information with any other state, notwithstanding the provisions of the NATO treaty of 1948. Britain, which had a very close relationship with the USA throughout the 1940s and ’50s, could not legally share a relationship of nuclear information with the USA. The McMahon Act was then amended, and straight after the amendment was agreed, the mutual defence agreement came into being, by which information and technology is shared between Britain and the USA.

An interesting legal point relates to the use of testing facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston and plutonium, which it would be completely illegal to use or test in the USA. I would be grateful if the Minister said whether there is any testing involving plutonium or potential uses of plutonium at AWE Aldermaston, because it is a significant part of the issue.

The mutual defence agreement has been amended a number of times in its history and was most recently renewed, on a regular 10-year cycle, to allow arrangements for the transfer of special nuclear materials and non-nuclear components. The treaty was last extended in 2004 and will be extended a further 10 years from this year. As I have explained, the US Congress debated it earlier; we were not able to debate it.

The next issue relates to what I have just said about the use of AWE Aldermaston, but also to the legality of nuclear weapons and the relationship of the agreement to the non-proliferation treaty, which is the result of an initiative by a previous Labour Government to try to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The treaty has two central themes. One is that all states that do not possess nuclear weapons and that sign the non-proliferation treaty agree not to possess them, take them on board or develop them. The other is that the five declared nuclear weapon states—Britain, France, China, Russia and the USA—agree both to take steps towards disarmament and not to allow the proliferation of nuclear weapons. So it would be interesting to know how Israel managed to get hold of its nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities.

It would also be interesting to know how this Government or any other Government can justify nuclear rearmament within the terms of the articles of the non-proliferation treaty. In a legal opinion released in July 2004 for Peacerights, BASIC—the British American Security Information Council—and the Acronym Institute, Rabinder Singh, QC, and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers concluded that

“it is strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”.

I would therefore be grateful if the Minister said in his reply to the debate what the legal process is in the evaluation of the mutual defence agreement and how he believes that it is compatible with our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is coming up for its five-year review in May 2015—unhelpfully, during the general election period in this country. Will he explain exactly what power and what finance have been used, in advance of the Trident replacement programme, to ensure that the British Government have that money available, even though there has been no main-gate decision, which is due to be taken in 2016?

I shall quote from written evidence given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs by Nick Ritchie of the Bradford disarmament research centre:

“The UK is entirely dependent upon the United States for supply and refurbishment of its Trident II (D5) submarine-launched ballistic missiles… The missiles themselves are produced and serviced in the United States by Lockheed Martin. The UK does not actually own any individual missiles, but purchased the rights to 58 missiles from a common pool held at the US Strategic Weapons facility at the Kings Bay Submarine Base, Georgia. British Trident submarines also conduct their missile test firings at the US Eastern Test Range, off the coast of Florida.”

The obvious point is that the claim that Britain has an independent nuclear deterrent must be treated with the utmost caution, if not derision, when what is quite clear is where the technology comes from, the relationship with the mutual defence agreement, the expenditure involved and the testing facilities that are available for Britain to use in the USA.

[Dr Lewis]

There is a question of independence in terms not of manufacture, but of control. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is entirely a matter for the United Kingdom Government whether the deterrent would be fired—as opposed to used—in response to a nuclear attack on this country and that the United States could do nothing to prevent that from happening?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That is indeed a very good question. I hope that the Minister can assist the hon. Gentleman with the answer, because it is fundamental. We have been told all my life that we have an independent nuclear deterrent in Britain and that we can operate independently. The mutual defence agreement should not have been necessary in 1958 if that was the case. It clearly was the case before 1958. Whether it was after that, I doubt, and it certainly was not the case at all after Polaris came in during the 1960s. That was a US import, as is the current technology. Could Britain fire off a nuclear weapon independently of the United States? No, I do not believe that it could. I believe that it would require the active participation of the US military and US Administration to undertake that. I simply do not believe that it is an independent nuclear weapon. I hope that this debate begins to raise more of those extremely important questions.

I was referring a few moments ago to the activities at AWE Aldermaston. Stanley Orman, a former deputy director of the AWE, said in 2008 that

“we also devised a technique...of imploding a non-fissile plutonium isotope. Now because it was plutonium the laws in the States would not allow you to implode this even though it was non-fissile, because it was plutonium. So again the American scientists would come across and use our laboratories because they couldn’t use theirs.”

If that is the case, one has to ask this question. Why is this treaty so one-sided that the USA is unable to do some testing in its own jurisdiction and therefore does it in ours, when the mutual defence agreement has received very limited parliamentary scrutiny, apart from today?

[Angus Robertson]

Has the hon. Gentleman any idea why our colleagues in the United States of America deem it unacceptable to conduct such tests there, but somehow we find it acceptable that they should happen here in the UK?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have many criticisms of the USA, but one thing that I find interesting and admire to some extent is the relative openness of its parliamentary system, compared with ours, and the ability of individual Members of Congress and the Senate to get legislation through. Indeed, legislation prevents such tests from happening in the USA. That is not the case in this country.

[Angus Robertson]

Just for the record, for people who might be watching this debate and who have not been following the proceedings in the United States, what were the reasons why American law makers opposed such tests being conducted in the United States? I ask that just so that we can understand on what basis UK Governments of both political persuasions have found it acceptable for that happen in the UK.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Nuclear weapons have been tested in the USA. They were tested there in 1945, towards the end of the second world war. I am thinking of the Manhattan project. There was the Nevada test range. Since then, there has also been considerable testing, including underground testing, and there are therefore deeply polluted and damaged lands in the west of the USA in particular, just as much as there are deeply polluted and damaged places in the Pacific such as the Marshall Islands or, indeed, in Australia.

There has not been any nuclear testing in the UK itself. We have always done that somewhere else and polluted somebody else’s environment rather than our own. I suspect that the motives behind the legislation that the hon. Gentleman refers to in the USA come from concerns about the environment and health of people, particularly in the western parts of the USA. Indeed, talking to the Western Shoshone people, one can only admire how they have stoically campaigned against nuclear weapons when they have suffered so much because of that.

The Austrian Government have invited every nation in the world to come to Vienna in December to take part in a conference on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons. This will be the third conference. The first was held in Oslo; it was hosted by the Norwegian Government. The second was held in Mexico, hosted by its Government. As I said, the third will be hosted by Austria. The last conference was attended by 135 nations, and 155 nations have now signed up to this conference. The Government of New Zealand, who are iconic in giving up nuclear weapons and devices, have headed up an invitation from those 155. Can we really be so discourteous to those 155 countries as to say, “We do not want to come.?

[Angus Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. He mentioned the fact that the first of those conferences was hosted by the Government of Norway, a member of NATO that now provides the Secretary-General of NATO. Norway, no doubt, will be attending the conference together with other NATO member states and more than 100 other countries. Given the commitment of other NATO countries, other allies and other friends, if they think it is important to turn up at that meeting, it would be much more than a discourtesy if we did not. Why are the UK Government not prepared to join the majority of other states that have taken their responsibilities seriously in understanding the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Government must answer for themselves, if they have decided definitely not to go to the conference. It would be discourteous not to attend, but the answer I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) during Foreign Office questions a couple of weeks ago indicated that he thought the conference was one-sided. Yes, it is a one-sided conference. It will consider the humanitarian effects of what nuclear explosions do, and what they have done in the past. I met the Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands in New York at the NPT review conference in May. He witnessed a nuclear explosion as a child, and his community has been devastated by successive testing. The community is now taking out an International Court of Justice action against the nuclear weapons states, Britain included, because of the damage that has been done to the community and the islands. Surely, if supporters of nuclear weapons are so confident that those weapons are safe, reliable, usable and so on, they will not be afraid to attend a conference to discuss the humanitarian effects of those weapons on the environment, pollution and the welfare of the entire planet. I quote from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons:

“The UK is badly out of step with the majority of countries in the world. As one of the few countries with nuclear weapons, the UK has a special responsibility to understand the risks and consequences of its own weapons. By refusing to participate in the conferences on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons held by the governments of Norway and Mexico, the UK gave the impression that it doesn’t care about the catastrophic effects its weapons could have on environment, climate, health, social order, human development and global economy.”

I could not put it better myself, and few others could.

We are debating the MDA at last, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and to the House for giving us the opportunity to do so. I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and others that calls for the rejection of the MDA because of its secrecy, because of its transfer of technology of weapons of mass destruction between two jurisdictions and because it will be used as a basis for the renewal of the Trident system. I believe that Parliament will have to vote on the renewal of Trident in 2016, and that will commit us to expending £100 billion on yet another generation of weapons of mass destruction. There has to be a different way to run the world. There has to be a different way to use our technology, resources and skills rather than the highly secretive world of nuclear weapons. The MDA represents all that is wrong about the nuclear relationship between Britain and the USA. That is why I have raised the subject today, and I hope that we can promote a serious public debate about nuclear weapons and their safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I wish I knew the answer. I have asked that question many times, and it takes me neatly on to the two reasons why it is important that we have a debate on this subject, even though Parliament seems relatively relaxed about it. There is no doubt that if we look at the arithmetic of the 2007 vote that took us through the first stages of the successor programme to the Vanguard class submarines, it was exactly as the shadow Minister says—virtually every Conservative MP and a substantial majority of Labour MPs voted for continuing the deterrent into the next generation, and a significant minority of Labour unilateralists voted against the measure. The figure was about 80 or 90, if I remember correctly.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

One hundred.

[Dr Lewis]

One hundred exactly. Any advances on 100? No, so let us take that as the figure.

There is no doubt that, if there were to be a free vote in the House of Commons, this matter would proceed. One of the reasons why I want to continue having these debates until such a vote happens is that there should already have been a vote. The shadow Minister is right about that. The main-gate contracts were due to be signed during this Parliament, and it was entirely a result of coalition politics and a back-door deal with the Liberal Democrats, who are opposed to renewing Trident, that the vote was not held and that the life of the existing submarines was extended by five years. The key vote has now been put off until 2016.

One of the two main reasons why it is valuable to continue having these debates is that it is important that Front Benchers from both main parties put their respective positions on the record as often as possible. Let us face it, much as Labour and Conservative Members might regret it, there is always the possibility that we may end up with another hung Parliament that is once again dependent on the Liberal Democrats, or conceivably on the UK Independence party or, worst of all, the Scottish National party—I say that without reference to the fact that the party’s parliamentary leader, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), has just vacated his place—if Labour suffers as badly in Scotland at the general election as some predict. It is therefore terribly important that the Front Benchers of both main parties have their feet held to the fire as often as possible so that there can be less room for wriggling out of it in the event of another hung Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

What I am saying is quite clear. If we end up with a hung Parliament and the balance of power is held by a small unilateralist party, it will be able to blackmail one or other of the main parties into not doing what should be done, which is to sign the contracts to make the renewal of Trident for another generation a certainty. I am clear that that was part of the potpourri of things that were negotiated in private. At the time I described it as a love gift to the Liberal Democrats. I thought it was absolutely wrong. It was a shock and a surprise, and it is not something of which any Conservative should be proud. Having said that, I look to my own party’s Front Benchers for an assurance that nothing like that will ever happen again, and I look to the Opposition spokesman for an assurance that no Labour leader will be tempted to conclude such a deal either.

The second reason why it is important to have a debate on this subject at this time is that the terms of trade, as it were, in international relations have changed. When the hon. Member for Islington North and I addressed these matters in January 2013, when we debated the nuclear deterrent, and in June 2013, when we debated the non-proliferation treaty, much of the argument was focused on the fact that the cold war was over and showed no sign of returning and that the nuclear deterrent was therefore irrelevant to the threats that then confronted us. As some of us stated at the time, it was far from certain that we could ever know significantly in advance whether those circumstances were going to change. We all hoped that Russia, having shed communism and started along a more democratic path, would continue to go in that direction, but there could be no guarantee.

Even now, we cannot tell where our relationship with Russia will be in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Nobody predicted the crisis that has arisen over Ukraine, and some might argue that if Ukraine were a member of NATO, the Russians would not have done what they have done. Conversely, it could also be argued that if Ukraine were a member of NATO and the Russians had done what they have done, we would possibly now be on the brink of an extremely dangerous east-west confrontation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there was an agreement between Russia and the west at the time of Ukrainian independence that Ukraine would not join NATO and would not be a nuclear power? Indeed, at the time Ukraine itself renounced nuclear weapons and their presence in Ukraine.

[Dr Lewis]

Indeed, Ukraine did renounce nuclear weapons. I strongly suspect that public opinion in Ukraine might now be divided, to put it mildly, over the wisdom of that decision. Given that they were Soviet nuclear weapons, Ukraine probably had little choice in the matter.

It would be a mistake to put countries on the path to NATO membership—I have said this consistently—if other NATO members would not be prepared to go to war in defence of their borders. It is all well and good to say that everyone would like to be a member of every alliance, but NATO has been so successful for so long because there is no doubt about its security guarantee. That is the importance of deterrence. In order to deter, we must be able not only to threaten an aggressor with an unacceptable level of punishment but to ensure that he is in no doubt that that unacceptable punishment will inevitably follow if he commits himself to an attack using weapons of mass destruction.

It was said earlier in the debate that the fact that the nuclear deterrent did not prevent the attacks on America in 2001 disproves the efficacy of nuclear deterrence. It does nothing of the kind. The efficacy of nuclear deterrence lies in its ability to deter another country with weapons of mass destruction from firing them in an act of aggression against you—not you personally, Sir Roger, but the person trying to deter the potential aggressor from attacking. The fact that the ability to deter one form of attack does not act as a panacea to prevent all forms of aggression or attack is neither here nor there.

The question we must ask ourselves is what the situation would have been if a country that did not possess nuclear weapons but had overwhelming conventional power faced a country that was weaker conventionally but could nevertheless deploy even a small number of nuclear weapons in an act of aggression. The answer is that no amount of conventional forces could make up for it.

When I saw that the hon. Member for Islington North wanted this debate, I knew that although it would hinge on the mutual defence agreement, that would be only a peg on which to hang the wider argument. The truth of the matter is that the mutual defence agreement is merely a facilitator for the UK’s continuing ability to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

When somebody is against maintaining the nuclear deterrent, there are a number of ways for them to campaign against it. They can try to win votes in Parliament, but as we have seen, when votes are held in Parliament on the issue, the majority of MPs are in favour of continuing the deterrent. They can try to win the battle for public opinion, but as we have seen in general elections during the cold war and in subsequent opinion polls, most members of the public think that the country should continue to possess some nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them. Therefore, the advocates of unilateral British nuclear disarmament must try to find indirect means of pursuing it. They think that if they can cite the non-proliferation treaty or the mutual defence agreement and derail the latter or get a legal opinion about the former, they might achieve by indirect means what they cannot achieve directly.

The truth of the matter is that nuclear weapons indeed have terrible humanitarian consequences, but those consequences arise when such weapons are fired; they do not arise when the weapons are used as they are meant to be used by democratic states. As I said in my first intervention on the hon. Member for Islington North, they are used in order to show any country that might contemplate or toy with the idea of aggression against the United Kingdom—a NATO democratic country—that that cannot be undertaken without the certainty of incurring unacceptable levels of retaliation.

Article VI of the non-proliferation treaty says:

“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

The only thing that is time-limited is the

“cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date”.

I am sure that the Minister will spell out how this country least of all the nuclear powers can be accused of being involved in a nuclear arms race—I am glad to see him nodding—because it has done more to reduce its nuclear stockpile than any other nuclear country.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

To take the hon. Gentleman back to what he said a couple of moments ago about the effects of nuclear weapons, surely he must be as aware as I am of the effects of nuclear testing in Australia, the Pacific, the United States and the former Soviet Union. To say that nuclear weapons’ existence has no effects is simply not correct.

[Dr Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the testing of nuclear weapons—they were physically fired and exploded—had effects. That is why there have been subsequent agreements to ensure that no testing of that sort is ever done again in the atmosphere. He is absolutely right about that, but I am afraid that we have moved long beyond that point now. We are now at the point where we must decide which is the more humanitarian way to proceed. I would argue that the lesson of 50 years’ stand-off during the cold war, albeit with some intense crises at one time or another, is that the people who first thought about such matters in 1945 were correct. They viewed it slightly differently from Clement Attlee.

The hon. Gentleman—I like to call him my hon. Friend—quoted Clement Attlee at the beginning of this debate as saying that the only way to prevent catastrophe would be to outlaw war. I believe that the only way to prevent catastrophe—he has heard me quote this before, but I am afraid that will not prevent me from quoting it again—was set out in 1945 by Professor Sir Henry Tizard, the leading defence scientist of the day, when he was considering the future nature of warfare in a secret report for the chiefs of staff. He was not allowed to consider the coming of the atomic bomb in any detail, but he could not resist making a general observation about it:

“A knowledge that we were prepared, in the last resort,”

to retaliate with an atomic bomb

“might well deter an aggressive nation.”

He drew a rather revealing parallel:

“Duelling was a recognised method of settling quarrels between men of high social standing so long as the duellists stood 20 paces apart and fired at each other with pistols of a primitive type. If the rule had been that they should stand a yard apart with pistols at each other’s hearts, we doubt whether it would long have remained a recognised method of settling affairs of honour.”

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman quotes Tizard. He could also have quoted Sir William Penney, but I suggest that he look at the profound comments of Einstein, who said that if he had known what was coming, he would rather have been a clockmaker. Joseph Rotblat, whose work was crucial to the Manhattan project, was so appalled by the power of nuclear weapons that he spent his whole life campaigning for a nuclear-free world. Surely they are more apposite than Tizard.

[Dr Lewis]

I am afraid that I have not put my argument across sufficiently well. I was not trying to suggest that we should accept the argument based on the eminence of Sir Henry Tizard; I used the argument because of its innate strength. The fact is that many distinguished philosophers have been ardent nuclear unilateralists, including some who worked on the bomb. I gave that quote not so much because of who said it, although I felt it necessary to spell that out, but because of the truth that it contains, which is that when a weapons system is not only able but certain to inflict unacceptable damage, therefore making retaliation unavoidable to those who wish to commit aggression, people will think much more deeply and carefully before they embark on attack, aggression and conflict. The experience of the cold war proves that, and the majority of people in Parliament and among the public recognise that.

There is therefore nothing to fear in debating issues such as whether or not the mutual defence agreement should continue, because what the agreement amounts to is a method of ensuring that this country can never be threatened by an undemocratic state brandishing atomic, nuclear, thermonuclear or chemical weapons. Also, if we look not at the question of who manufactures the components of the weapons system but at who has control over whether the weapons would ever be fired, we can be in no doubt, and neither can any potential aggressor, that any attempt to threaten this country with nuclear blackmail would be suicidal.

It is not a nice thing to live under a balance of terror, but it is a lot better than living under a monopoly of mass destruction weapons that are in the hands of undemocratic countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

We can draw a veil now over the incoherence and absence of the Liberal Democrats, and get down to the serious and proper debate—it is certainly a proper debate to have—about Britain’s nuclear posture. It is a debate that my party has engaged in for a considerable number of years, in fact ever since the great post-war Attlee and Bevin Government commissioned Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, a policy that, I am pleased to say, continues today.

Having said that, none of us should underestimate the weighty issues—both the hon. Members who have already spoken stressed this point—that should weigh heavily on all those who have to make these decisions or arguments. I say that because it is very clear that there are huge issues. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, nobody underestimates the impact of nuclear weapons nor the potential devastation that they could cause. Nevertheless, nuclear weapons are a fact in our world.

I partly differ from my hon. Friend in this regard. He made passing reference to the non-proliferation treaty conference that is due to take place next year. Clearly, it will be resolved by—we could say by the nuclear weapon states, but frankly the key discussions that need to take place are between the USA and Russia. If agreement can be reached by them, we should rightly be part of the subsequent discussions. However, as I say, the key initial discussions must be between the USA and Russia.

I do not think that any of the participants in this debate about nuclear weapons, including those who have spoken today or in similar parliamentary debates, in any way underestimate the impact of nuclear weapons on those directly affected, on the environment or indeed on the wider world.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Obviously, discussion between the USA and Russia on nuclear weapons would be a good thing; anything that helps nuclear disarmament is a good thing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the last two five-yearly conferences both agreed that there should be a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, and that at the last review—the preparatory conference last year—every state agreed that that should happen? Therefore, I am sure that he will join me in pushing the Government to do their best to initiate, or bring about, that zone. Otherwise, the danger is of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. There are other countries besides Israel that could develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to.

[Mr Spellar]

I take my hon. Friend back to the Attlee memorandum, and indeed to many other documents by those who have written about this subject. That is because the key issue—as Michael Quinlan, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, who is also a committed Christian and someone who has thought very deeply about these issues, has said—is the removal of the risks of war and instability. That is absolutely crucial in all these circumstances, including in the middle east. That is why it is so important to achieve a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, although Israel-Palestine is by no means the only source of tension in the middle east. We are seeing so many conflicts taking place in that unhappy region, and that is without any question of nuclear weapons, although, sadly, chemical weapons has been another issue. The resolution of those conflicts and the creation of a stable and peaceful environment is so important.

In the meantime, notwithstanding that, it is also important that the UK plays its part—indeed, it has played its part more than any other country, as I think the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned—in reducing the proportion of our nuclear armoury. Significantly, that took place under the defence team that I was a member of in 1997 to 2001, but, to be fair I should say that it has been continued by our successors not only in the Labour Government, but in this Conservative Government as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on securing this debate on the mutual defence agreement, which has spread out to consider wider aspects of this country’s nuclear defence policy.

It is noticeable that the debate has been conducted by Members on all sides with a degree of seriousness appropriate to the grave subject that we are debating. I am with the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) in saying that whatever side of the argument any of us stands on—whether for or against the UK maintaining a nuclear deterrent—we are in no doubt about the consequences of nuclear warfare. All of us have seen or read about the impact on people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. We have also seen the impact of nuclear testing in some of the cases that the hon. Member for Islington North described.

I take the view, along with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, that there remains a need for a United Kingdom nuclear deterrent. Although the cold war has ended, significant nuclear capabilities and risks remain. Nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. Substantial nuclear arsenals still exist. The number of nuclear armed states in the world has increased, and there is a significant risk of new nuclear armed states emerging. Moreover, several of the countries that have nuclear weapons, or are trying to acquire them, are in tense and unstable regions. There is the potential for a new nuclear threat to emerge or re-emerge.

This country’s strategic deterrent is therefore as relevant today as it has ever been. It remains the ultimate guarantee of our security and sovereignty, and a necessary insurance in an uncertain world. I want to be clear, as successive Governments of this country have been, that the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons are not designed or intended for military use during conflicts. Their objective is to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail, and acts of aggression against our vital interests that could not be countered by any other means. Successive Governments have been clear that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might be contemplated are of the most extreme kind.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Minister mentioned the non-proliferation treaty. It is specifically designed to prevent, as the name suggests, nuclear armed proliferation. Is he content about, or has he had legal advice on, provision for nuclear information to be shared by the USA with Britain? That is extrajudicial for both countries and therefore appears to be at odds with the terms of the non-proliferation treaty, which is designed to stop proliferation, rather than encourage it.

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will address the issue of the non-proliferation treaty and the bearing it has on the MDA later. I pay tribute to him. He has always, in all his years in the House, taken an absolutely consistent and coherent approach in opposing this country’s deterrent and wanting to see immediate and universal nuclear disarmament. The right hon. Member for Warley, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and I believe that this country’s deterrent remains necessary and important. There is no case for saying that the United Kingdom ought to have an independent nuclear deterrent, but one that was less effective and therefore of less deterrent value than the system of continuous submarine patrols that we have. That point was made more than once in this debate, but I will not pursue it further in the absence of those advocating that policy course.

I referred a moment ago to our alliance on continuous at-sea submarine patrols, and it is worth paying tribute to the fact that for more than 45 years, for every minute of every day, the Royal Navy has successfully operated such patrols, ensuring the safety and security of this country. I hope that the whole House would join me, whatever our views on the need for a nuclear deterrent, in paying tribute to the dedication of the men and women of the Royal Navy, including the crews and support staff and their families. Many of those servicemen and women are away from home for long periods, and their dedication and commitment are fundamental to the success of the United Kingdom’s deterrent operation.

While the international security environment continues to require the UK to maintain a nuclear deterrent, we have an obvious responsibility to maintain the safety, security and reliability of all its elements, including through the replacement and updating of parts of the system as they reach the end of their operational life. The mutual defence agreement has enabled us to collaborate with the United States to ensure that we are able to do that to the highest possible technical standards. The MDA underpins all nuclear defence co-operation between the UK and the US. That co-operation has been of considerable mutual benefit, allowing the United Kingdom to reduce costs significantly while maintaining an operationally independent deterrent. It is in the national defence and security interests of the UK and the US, as well as in this country’s economic interests, for the MDA to continue.

Questions have been posed about the independence of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent and whether that independence is in practice meaningful, given the MDA and our close collaboration on defence matters with the United States. I want to be absolutely clear that this country’s nuclear deterrent is and always has been operationally independent. The command and control systems involved are UK-owned and controlled. Decision making and use of the Trident system remain entirely sovereign to the United Kingdom. Only the Prime Minister can authorise the employment of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent, and there are no technical means by which the United States could negate or override a prime ministerial instruction.

It is true that through the MDA we have been able to take advantage of some American know-how, and of a certain amount of American material. We would have been able to provide that for ourselves, but creating an entirely indigenous source of such material, equipment and know-how would have given rise to significant additional expense. It has seemed to Labour and Conservative Governments alike over the years to be common sense to work with the United States to take advantage of its capacity in those areas of nuclear expertise to our mutual advantage, rather than incurring the extra costs ourselves when that was not necessary for the independence and capability of our nuclear deterrent. We have some procurement dependence on the US for certain non-nuclear aspects of the system, but we choose not to manufacture those indigenously because of the economic benefits of working with our closest ally.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

On the important question of the relationship between the mutual defence agreement and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, there have been claims in this debate and at other times that the MDA is at odds with our commitment to a world without nuclear weapons, and incompatible with the commitments we have made under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, particularly those in articles I and VI. The United Kingdom is a leading nation in securing progress in nuclear disarmament, and we should be proud of our record. We have steadily reduced the size of our nuclear forces by well over half since our cold war peak. Our nuclear arsenal is almost certainly the smallest of any of the five states recognised as nuclear weapons states under the NPT.

Our forces peaked in the late 1970s with a total of some 460 warheads of various types and delivery systems. In May 2010, the Prime Minister announced that the figure would continue to be reduced to no more than 120 operationally available warheads, with an entire stockpile of no more that 180 warheads by the mid-2020s. That reduction is already under way. The Government have also announced that we will cut the maximum number of nuclear warheads onboard each deployed submarine from 48 to 40, while reducing the number of operational Trident missiles on each submarine to eight. Those changes have already been completed on at least one of the vessels.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

May I take the Minister back to my question about the compatibility of the MDA, which is now amended and includes the observation of dangers of proliferation elsewhere in the world, with the original and current objective of the NPT, which is the non-proliferation of nuclear know-how or technology between states? Britain and the USA are not one state. As the Minister reminded us, they are both sovereign, independent nations, so the transfer of nuclear technology from one to the other is surely in breach of the NPT.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman takes me straight to the point that I was about to make about article I of the NPT, which touches on the transfer of nuclear weapons and devices between countries. The Government regard the MDA as compliant with our obligations under article I for three reasons.

First, nuclear devices or weapons are not transferred to the United Kingdom under the terms of the MDA. As I described earlier, what we receive under the MDA is a certain amount of nuclear technological know-how and some non-lethal elements, such as propulsion systems, that are not prohibited under article I.

Secondly, article V of the original mutual defence agreement—not including the amendments—quite explicitly states that the transfer of nuclear weapons is not permitted.

Thirdly, article I of the NPT refers in particular to transfers from the recognised nuclear weapons states to non-nuclear weapons states. However, the MDA refers to transfers of things other than nuclear weapons or devices from one nuclear weapons state to another, both of which are party to the NPT. I think that that answers the challenge that the MDA is in some way incompatible with article I of the NPT.

The other criticism made is that the mutual defence agreement is at odds with the obligation that we and the other four recognised nuclear weapons states have under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty to work towards multilateral disarmament. I have already described how the United Kingdom has significantly brought down its nuclear arsenal as a contribution to multilateral nuclear disarmament, but we have also been active and continue to be active in a range of multilateral disarmament initiatives.

We remain a strong supporter of the NPT. We signed and ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty as long ago as the 1990s and remain a strong supporter of the treaty both financially and technically, operating our own voluntary moratorium on testing pending the treaty coming into effect. We actively urge the remaining states that have not yet ratified the treaty to do so. We want an early start of negotiations in Geneva on the fissile material cut-off treaty and are an active member of the group of governmental experts that is working on those negotiations, which are currently blocked not by the United Kingdom or any of the recognised nuclear weapons states, but by Pakistan for national reasons.

In addition, we currently chair the forum of the permanent five nuclear weapons states and will be hosting the next annual conference in London in February next year. The purpose of the P5 process is to build transparency and mutual confidence to make it possible for all nuclear weapons states to engage in further rounds of multilateral disarmament. At the same time, we lead an informal working group at the United Nations, discussing the UN’s role in future nuclear security work. This country therefore has a good record of active work on multilateral disarmament that sits perfectly well alongside the arrangements that we have with the United States under the MDA.

[Mr Lidington]

First, I happily acknowledge that the multilateral disarmament work that I have described has taken place under Governments of both political colours.

Secondly, I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman that the prime responsibility for leadership in multilateral nuclear disarmament must lie with the two biggest nuclear powers: the United States and Russia. We encouraged the talks that led towards the second strategic arms reduction treaty, which will impose limits for each party of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads from February 2018. We need to see that target fulfilled and would welcome and support its implementation.

One could make a similar point about the talks on an intermediate nuclear forces treaty. There was a bilateral US-Russia treaty back in 1988, but each side now accuses the other of breaching it. For reasons relating to Russia’s conduct in Ukraine, there has been a significant erosion of trust between the US and Russia. It will therefore not be easy to get talks between Washington and Moscow back on course, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is in the interests of all of us that Russia and the United States are able to rebuild a sufficient degree of trust for meaningful negotiations towards multilateral nuclear disarmament to take place.

I want it to be clear that the United Kingdom is not using the amendments to the mutual defence agreement to upgrade its system’s capabilities. There is no move to produce more usable weapons or change our nuclear posture or doctrine. The amendments to the MDA that we are technically debating this afternoon do not in any way provide for an upgrading of the capabilities of the Trident system. That is a decision for 2016.

The hon. Member for Islington North asked a couple of detailed questions about plutonium tests at Aldermaston and the relationship between the mutual defence agreement and the planned replacement of the Vanguard-class submarine fleet. The Atomic Weapons Establishment has conducted sealed hydrodynamic plutonium experiments, which are sub-critical, do not produce nuclear yield and are fully compliant with the non-proliferation treaty. The experiments were described in a published article in the journal Nature in February 2002. Aldermaston and its experiments are also, of course, fully in line with the commitments we have undertaken in agreeing and ratifying the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I am therefore advised that what has happened at Aldermaston is fully compliant with our international legal obligations.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Two points come from that. First, was the plutonium from the UK, or was it imported from the USA? Secondly, were the results shared with US scientists and military personnel, either at the time or after the experiments took place?

[Mr Lidington]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say I will write to him after the debate to provide him with such detail as I can.

On the relationship between the renewal of the MDA and the 2016 main-gate decision, no submarines or reactors are being built before that decision. However, it is vital, as with any major programme of such complexity, to order certain items where there would be a delay in the programme if we were to wait until after main gate. Some of those transfers will take place under the MDA, but as I said earlier, transfers under the MDA do not include nuclear weapons or nuclear devices.

I hope hon. Members on both sides will recognise that the United Kingdom has been a leading nation on multilateral disarmament. However, successive Governments have also been clear that we will retain a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent for as long as the global security situation makes that necessary.

We are a responsible nuclear weapons state. The mutual defence agreement helps to provide the maintenance and servicing required to ensure the safety, security and reliability of the system, and at a substantial reduction on the costs that would otherwise be incurred. It is fully compliant with our international obligations, it does not hinder the operational independence of the deterrent and it is a key aspect of our defence co-operation with our closest ally. It is clearly in the national interest of the United Kingdom and the United States to continue this co-operation, and the Government’s clear view is that the mutual defence agreement should be renewed.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank you, Mr Amess, and Sir Roger for chairing the debate. Let me also express my thanks for the manner in which it was conducted and for the fact that we have at last had a debate on the MDA. I look forward to a lengthy, detailed and legally binding letter from the Minister on its compatibility with the non-proliferation treaty.

I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not appear to address my specific question about the humanitarian effects of war conference in Austria in December, and I look forward to a further letter about that. I am sure he will be happy to know that I will be attending it. I would be happy to present the view from the UK that there is a humanitarian danger from nuclear weapons, and I am sure he would endorse that. I therefore hope he will be able to reply on that issue.

I should make one last point. We are elected to Parliament to hold the Government to account—that is why were are here; that is the whole history of the British Parliament. However, we still have some way to go where treaties and the use of ministerial power and the prime ministerial royal prerogative are concerned, and there should be far greater scrutiny.

I secured the debate with the help of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and the Backbench Business Committee, and I am glad we did that. There is still a possibility that the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) could be debated. However, we must be aware that we are dealing with a massive threat to humankind. Such measures should not just be rushed through Parliament, as this particular aspect—the mutual defence agreement—is apparently being.

I am grateful that we have had the debate, and I hope the public are better informed about the issue as a result. I thank you, Mr Amess, for allowing me this opportunity to respond to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Arms Exports and Controls

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Stanley]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point as a member of the Committees on Arms Export Controls and the Chair of the International Development Committee, and I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to it.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In their excellent report, the right hon. Gentleman’s Committees draw attention to the sale of anti-personnel equipment to Bahrain and raise quite reasonable concerns about its use to control demonstrations and so on. For a while, it seemed that the Government were listening to such concerns, but in April last year, they changed their policy and did indeed sell armoured personnel carriers and other equipment to Bahrain. Does he have any continuing concerns about the supply of such equipment to Bahrain and its use there?

[Sir John Stanley]

The Committees most certainly do. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, we included in our report specific questions to the Government about how particular items that have been approved for export to Bahrain can be regarded as compatible with the export criteria that they supposedly follow. We therefore have responded specifically to that.

I come now to our second area of disagreement with the Government on arms export policy and internal repression, which is with particular reference to exports to authoritarian regimes. In successive reports the Committees have made—again unanimously—the following recommendation:

“the Government should apply significantly more cautious judgements when considering arms export licence applications for goods to authoritarian regimes which might be used for internal repression.”

Regrettably, in successive responses, the Government have declined to accept our recommendation.

I shall set out one of the most striking differences between what has happened under the present Government and what took place under the previous one. Under the previous Government, going right back to their election in 1997—shortly after which came the foundation of the Committees, thanks to the initiative of the late Robin Cook, who was the first Foreign Secretary to produce an annual report on arms exports—the number of revocations or suspensions of existing licences stood at a mere handful. However, during the lifetime of the present Government, there has been a massive use of some 400 revocations and suspensions. I do not think that can be attributed only to the fact that there has been a considerable amount of international turbulence and conflict during this Parliament, as there were wars and turbulence during the previous Government’s lifetime.

I make it clear to the Government and the Minister that I am in no way critical of the huge number of revocations—indeed, I believe they are entirely justified. The key question, and the issue that has been exercising the Committees, is whether export approval should have been given to all the licences in the first place. To reflect what was said by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), in broad-brush terms, the Government’s policy on the export of goods that could be used for internal repression to authoritarian regimes has been that if the situation in a particular country looks to be reasonably quiescent, there is a fairly considerable presumption that the export should be approved, with the Government no doubt saying to themselves, “Well, if things turn really nasty in that country we can always revoke the export licence.”

I suggest to hon. Members that nothing illustrates the weakness and limitations—and indeed the perils—of that policy more clearly than what has happened in Libya. Prior to the Arab spring, there was a significant arms export trade, approved by the Government, to Libya under the Gaddafi regime. Not surprisingly, when the Arab spring came and the Government announced their total list of revocations of arms export licences to Arab spring countries, the greatest single number—a total of 72 licences—was for licences for Libya.

We all know what happened when Gaddafi fell from power. Back in the UK, the Government had imposed their revocations, but they were of very limited effect, for the simple reason that they are of no use whatever for exports that have already been shipped. As I have said before, it was an exercise in shutting the stable door after the arms had bolted. What happened in Libya itself? The security arrangements around Gaddafi’s arms dumps vanished and people ransacked them, principally for financial gain, as they saw an opportunity to make quick and substantial money. As UN experts have reported, those stockpiles were then sold on and dispersed all over the middle east and north and west Africa.

I suggest that nothing better illustrates the cogency of the Committees’ recommendation for a significantly more cautious policy when dealing with arms export licence applications for arms that can be used for internal repression than what has happened in Libya. It is regrettable that, in their response to successive reports, the Government have failed to accept our recommendation for caution. I certainly hope that a future Government will take a different view.

I turn now to the Government’s export policy towards a few individual countries, starting with Russia. The publication of the Committees’ latest report happened to coincide almost exactly with the appalling shooting down of the Malaysian airliner MH17 over eastern Ukraine. That created something of a dilemma for the Government, because although, on the one hand, Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, were rightly condemning the Russian Government for being complicit in the shooting down of the airliner and the terrible loss of life, on the other, as was shown by our Committees’ report, there were no fewer than 285 extant British Government-approved arms export licences to Russia, with a value of some £131 million for the standard individual licences alone.

That led at one point to an unknown spokesman in No. 10 announcing to the media that many of the British Government’s arms exports to Russia were for the Brazilian navy, which I have to say came as news to me, as I suspect it did to a considerable number of other people. However, I thought that I should follow that one up, so I wrote to the Business Secretary to ask him for the stated end user of each of the 285 extant arms export licences to Russia. Disappointingly, he refused to give the Committees that information unless we agreed not to make it public. I see no justification for imposing that condition on the Committees. It is hardly in accordance with the Government’s supposed commitment to transparency on arms exports, and it raises a significant issue of policy for the Committees and, therefore, the House. The Government already make public the countries to which approved UK arms exports are going, but in many cases we need to know not just the names of the countries, but the end users in those countries. For example, will the end user be a Government body, a Government security authority or a civilian user? That is key information, but at the moment, the Government simply pick and choose when they will disclose the end users. They gave the Committees the end users when we wanted to know who they were in relation to the export of dual-use chemicals to Syria. They told us the end users when we wanted to know who they were for sniper rifles exported to Ukraine. However, they have refused to give us that information for Russia on the basis that it may be made public, and the Committee will want to address that policy issue further.

What is the Government’s present policy on arms exports to Russia? The Prime Minister said in the House:

“On the issue of defence equipment, we already unilaterally said—as did the US—that we would not sell further arms to Russia”.—[Official Report, 21 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1157.]

I would be grateful if the Minister clarified two points. First, when the Prime Minister said that we would not sell further arms to Russia, was he saying that all or only some will not be sold to Russia? If he was saying just some, which will continue to be sold? Secondly, on new licence applications, will the Minister clarify whether the Prime Minister’s statement means that all new licence applications to Russia are being refused, or only some, and if only some, which? The Minister’s clarification will be helpful.

I am sure that there was great concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about some of the measures taken by the Hong Kong security authorities against those who were exercising their right to demonstrate peacefully, and especially the fact that tear gas was used against demonstrators. I am in no doubt that if the Metropolitan police had used tear gas against those who recently demonstrated peacefully in Parliament square, there would have been considerable concern and perhaps outrage on both sides of the House.

I thought that the Committees should do their own analysis of precisely what items of lethal and non-lethal equipment that could be used for internal repression the Government had recently approved for Hong Kong. We took the information from the website of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for the last two years from January 2012. Our analysis showed that the Government had approved tear gas exports to Hong Kong in four of the past eight quarters since January 2012. If those licence approvals were given on the grounds that the security authorities in Hong Kong would never use tear gas against those demonstrating peacefully, that was a questionable assumption, given mainland China’s track record of dealing with peaceful demonstrators. Our analysis of lethal equipment approved for export to Hong Kong since January 2012 showed that it included pistols, sniper rifles and gun silencers, which were all stated to be for use by a law-enforcement agency.

I have written to the Business Secretary to ask a series of questions about the Government’s policy on arms exports to Hong Kong, including:

“Have any extant Government approved export licences to Hong Kong been revoked or suspended?”

I also asked:

“What is the Government’s present policy on approving new licences for the export of arms and equipment to Hong Kong that could be used for internal repression?”

We have just received the Business Secretary’s reply, a key paragraph of which is:

“No licences for Hong Kong have been revoked, suspended or had Hong Kong removed from a multiple destination open licence. The Foreign Secretary has advised me that the use of tear gas by the Hong Kong police was an uncharacteristic response at an early stage of the protests, the scale of which caught the police by surprise, and was not indicative of a wider pattern of behaviour that would cross the threshold of criterion 2. In his view that, since that incident, the Hong Kong police have generally approached the protests carefully and proportionately. I have accepted this advice.”

I am sure that the Committees will want to reflect on the Business Secretary’s response and then report to the House. My own view, having received that letter only a short time ago, is that the reply seems to reflect the more relaxed approach to arms exports that could be used for internal repression to which I have referred. It certainly makes me wonder whether, if the original wording in the October 2000 statement by the right hon. Member for Neath had been retained instead of dropped, those arms exports of both lethal and non-lethal equipment would have been approved in the first place.

[Sir John Stanley]

There is certainly a risk of a recurrence of exactly what the hon. Lady describes. I hope that a lesson has been learned by the Hong Kong police that it is not acceptable to use tear gas against those who are demonstrating peacefully. It remains a matter of concern to me, and I am sure that the members of the Committees will want to look closely at the analysis that accompanied my letter to the Business Secretary. The Committees will want to scrutinise closely whether it was wise in the first instance to approve exports of the sort of equipment—lethal and non-lethal—to which I have referred.

In turning to Israel, I want to make it crystal clear at the outset that I condemn unreservedly Hamas’s indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel. However, Israel has serious questions to answer about its use of lethal weapons that has resulted in the recent death of well over 2,000 Palestinians—men, women and children—in Gaza, the great majority of whom were certainly not Hamas fighters.

The Foreign Office, in its annual human rights report, includes Israel—entirely rightly in my view—in its list of the 28 countries of top human rights concern to the British Government. In our latest report, we have listed for each of those countries the extant UK Government-approved arms export licences. Our report shows that Israel has the third largest number of extant arms export licences of those 28 countries, with a total of 470—a figure exceeded only by China and Saudi Arabia. In addition, our report shows that of those 28 countries’ extant arms export licences, the largest by value is Israel’s, totalling £8 billion in value. However, I want to stress this very important point: that £8 billion is largely made up of a gigantic cryptographic equipment export order, valued at £7.7 billion, which the Defence Secretary, when he was Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, assured the Committees was

“for purely commercial end use.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 426WH.]

Early in August, following what happened in Gaza, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary, asking him to list the controlled goods that the British Government had approved for export to Israel and that the Government had reason to believe may have been used by Israel in the recent military operations in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary gave me his reply on 19 August, saying

“officials have judged it unlikely that many of the components that were the subject of extant licences were for incorporation into systems that would be likely to be used offensively in Gaza”.

However, he went on to say, significantly in my view, that

“12 licences have been identified…where, in the event of a resumption of significant hostilities, and on the basis of information currently available to us, there could be a risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”

I think that is a very significant statement by the Foreign Secretary, and it once again reinforces the Committees’ recommendation for a significantly more cautious policy when dealing with the export of arms that can be used for internal repression.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have two points to make: first, was the right hon. Gentleman concerned about the supply of drone aircraft parts to Israel during the recent operation and, I believe, since then? Secondly, was it ever identified exactly what the commercial purpose of the massive £7.7 billion order was, and what the boundaries were between commercial use, civilian control and military use?

[Sir John Stanley]

The hon. Gentleman, again, is on to a very important area, and that again highlights the need to get much more transparency about end users. He makes an extremely valid point, which applies even more strikingly in relation to non-democratic countries—one-party state countries such as Russia and China, in effect, where there is no clear boundary between the Government sector and the private sector at all. That is why we need to get the Government to accept that these Committees, and therefore the House, are entitled to end-use information.

On components for unmanned aerial vehicles, I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to what I just read out from the Foreign Secretary’s letter; he specifically refers to components that were for “incorporation into systems”. His view was that it was unlikely that they were used in Gaza, and I cannot take it any further than that, I am afraid.

If I may, I will just complete my points on individual countries. There are obviously a very large number of individual countries and others want to speak, and I want them to have their full time, but I make this point: in our report, we identified 12 countries in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s list of 28 countries of top human rights concern where it seemed to us that specific exports appeared to be in breach of one or more of the Governments’ arms export criteria. In our recommendations, we asked the Government to state why those exports were approved. Those 12 countries were: Afghanistan, China, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Uzbekistan and Yemen. We also asked the same question in relation to five other countries that are of concern to the Committees but are not on the FCO’s list of 28. Those five countries were Argentina, Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia and Ukraine.

For most of those countries, as the House will see in the Government’s response to our report—the Command Paper—the Government came back with a fairly formulaic response, certainly as far as the opening of their reply was concerned. They used this formula:

“The Government is satisfied that the currently extant licences for”—

and then they put in the name of the country—

“are compliant with the Consolidated Criteria”.

I want to assure the House that we shall not let the matter rest there. In our view, there is a substantial mismatch between what has been disclosed about extant licences and the Government’s arms export criteria. We want to examine that further, and we shall take oral evidence shortly from the industry and non-governmental organisations, and from the Business Secretary and the Foreign Secretary.

I turn to the other area of our report, which is international arms control agreements. Virtually all international arms control agreements are designed to control or halt proliferation of both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. The Committees have therefore extended their scrutiny of the Government’s policy to the entirety of international arms control agreements. The Government give an explanation of their policy in relation to some of those agreements in their “United Kingdom Strategic Export Controls Annual Report”, but a number of key agreements are omitted. For example, there is no reference to the fissile material cut-off treaty, or the chemical weapons convention, or the biological and toxin weapons convention, or significantly, to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

In the Committees’ last report, they recommended that the Government, in their annual report, make their coverage of international arms control agreements comprehensive, instead of only partial. It is disappointing that the Government, in their response to our questions on their annual report, have not accepted that recommendation, but I assure the House that the Committees will continue to scrutinise the Government’s policy across the totality of international arms control agreements.

I come to a few of the specific agreements, starting with the arms trade treaty. We warmly welcome the British Government’s ratification of the arms trade treaty on the first day it opened for ratification—2 April 2014. It is also very encouraging that the 50th country ratification, triggering the treaty’s legal entry into force, has now been achieved. According to the Government response to our report, entry into force will take place on Christmas eve 2014—an excellent Christmas present to all those concerned with international arms control.

However, it is particularly disappointing that of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council only the UK and France have ratified the treaty thus far. The US has signed but not ratified, and China and Russia have neither signed nor ratified. The House will agree that it would be a dismally poor example to the rest of the world if the remaining three members of the P5 failed to ratify the arms trade treaty. I hope that the British Government will continue to do their utmost to get those key countries to do so.

One of the most important arms control events in 2015, if not the most important, will be the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. In our report, we recommended that

“the Government states as fully as possible in its Response what are now its objectives for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2015”.

We did not get a particularly full response from the Government, but they did come back with three objectives:

“We want to agree further progress towards a world free from nuclear weapons and to highlight our actions in support of this; encourage action that will help to contain any threat of proliferation or non-compliance with the NPT; and support the responsible global expansion of civil nuclear industries.”

I hope that the Government will be rather more forthcoming, both to the Committees and to Parliament, about their detailed and specific objectives, and how they propose to try to achieve them in the run-up to the NPT review conference.

One of the great and largely unsung achievements of the Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev and Margaret Thatcher era was the intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement of 1987. The INF treaty is far and away the most important nuclear disarmament agreement that has been achieved since nuclear weapons were created. It was also the first and only time that the US and Russia reached a nuclear disarmament agreement based on zero-zero on each side. Against that background, it is of great concern that reports have appeared that Russia may be in breach of its INF treaty obligations. I took that up with the Foreign Secretary, who in his reply said:

“The US State Department’s recent annual ‘compliance’ report (Adherence to and compliance with arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament agreements and commitments) states that ‘the United States has determined that the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF treaty not to possess, produce or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”

That is a very serious statement from the Foreign Secretary and the US State Department. In my view, if the INF treaty breaks down, it will be the most serious reverse for multilateral nuclear disarmament that has so far occurred in the nuclear weapons era. I therefore urge the Government to do their utmost to mobilise the maximum possible international pressure on Russia to restore its adherence to its INF treaty obligations.

To conclude, Ministers are never happier than when they can deal with difficult issues with comforting generalisations. The devil is always in the detail, and in no area is that more true than arms export controls. I therefore make no apology for the length of the Committees’ latest report, which, taken with the all-important volumes of evidence, runs to some 1,000 pages. I hope that it will prove a valuable resource to those in the House and outside who want to inform themselves about the actuality of the UK Government’s arms control and arms export control policies, rather than just resting on ministerial generalisations.

The Committees are not remotely self-satisfied about our scrutiny and are sure that we can improve it further, but I believe that now in the UK Parliament we have the most detailed and most open parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s arms export policies of any of the major arms exporting countries, including the United States, where, under the relevant legislation, there are financial cut-off thresholds below which exports do not have to be reported to Congress. We of course have no such financial thresholds in our Parliament and in the relevant legislation.

In the course of this Parliament, the Committees on Arms Export Controls have substantially widened and deepened our scrutiny of the Government’s policies. First, we have for the first time put alongside the list of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s countries of top human rights concern—the 28 countries to which I referred—the extant arms export licences approved by the British Government for each of those countries. That has been an extremely worthwhile and very illuminating exercise. It has certainly left me, on certain points, with considerable concerns, but others will draw their own conclusions.

Secondly, we have very substantially extended our scrutiny of the Government’s policies on international arms control agreements. That, too, is a crucial area, even though the subject tends to receive not much public attention, in Parliament or outside. Thirdly, we have in this Parliament extended our scrutiny to a whole series of additional export items, including drones, Tasers, cryptographic equipment, the UK Government’s gifted exports and Government-supported arms export exhibitions.

I hope that we have discharged our scrutiny responsibilities to the House of Commons effectively in this Parliament, and that we have created a strong and powerful springboard for our successor Committees to carry forward scrutiny of the Government’s policies in the key area of arms control and arms export controls in the next Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are having the debate and look forward to the Minister’s response. This is the fourth day running that I have had meetings with him but, if this helps him, there are no plans for tomorrow.

I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) for his work as Chair of the Committees, for the analysis and the depth of their report, and for his preparedness to present it so well and in such detail today. I hope that we will see elected in the next Parliament someone as diligent and determined to ensure proper scrutiny of arms exports as he has been throughout this Parliament. We all owe him a debt of thanks, and it is sad to think that he will not be here after the next election, unless he changes his mind.

I want to make a number of points, but I will be brief. We should commend the late Robin Cook for our having this debate and these reports, and for the increasing tradition of openness in the Foreign Office on arms exports, human rights matters and recruitment policy in the diplomatic service of the future. The commendable changes that he introduced during his time as Foreign Secretary have stood the test of time. He will be remembered as a great Foreign Secretary for them, as well as for many other reasons.

While I want to raise detailed points about arms exports, we should think about the generality for a second. If we, as a country, export arms of any capacity or capability to another jurisdiction or regime, and those arms are used to abuse the human rights of people within those communities or within that society, that removes our ability to complain about those abuses because, in a sense, we are complicit due to our supplying weapons that have been used to oppress people. In that regard, the criteria adopted by the Committees and the Government’s response make interesting reading. I commend the Foreign Office for how its responses have been set out, because their helpful presentation means that one can quickly read the objection raised by the Committees and the Government’s response to it.

My first point is about Israel and Palestine. To reiterate what is said in the report’s introduction, we all witnessed what happened in Gaza recently. It was not the first operation—I hope it is the last operation, but it certainly was not the first—because there has also been Operation Cast Lead, among others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) pointed out, we have witnessed the destruction of Gaza several times over. There have been several worldwide appeals to rebuild Gaza only for it to be bombed and then rebuilt again some years later. We are exporting surveillance and other equipment to Israel, and indeed we are importing arms from Israel, but while the war crimes investigation organised by the United Nations Human Rights Council is ongoing, we need to think very carefully about our arms export policy for Israel.

I hope that the Minister is able to explain in detail the massive communications equipment order placed by Israel. I think the expenditure that has been cited is £7.7 billion, which is absolutely massive. I do not know what the equipment is for, but I cannot believe that a country of only 5 million people would want to spend so much on something that, while it could be used for commercial mobile phone services or something else, did not have a military component. I would be grateful to know what inquiries were made, what end-user surveillance there has been for Israel, and whether there will be restrictions on such exports in the future.

Paragraph 159 of the report describes the ongoing issues in Bahrain. For reasons that I do not fully understand, the Government decided at some point that it was safe to sell anti-personnel, riot control-type equipment and armoured personnel carriers to Bahrain. I was at the United Nations Human Rights Council a couple of months ago as a guest speaker in a seminar on human rights in Bahrain and the sale of equipment there. I talked to people who had been brutally assaulted on the streets of the capital city for taking part in a democratic protest. I hesitate to say this, but it seems that some of the equipment with which they were beaten may have been supplied by Britain. I also talked to the families of the medics who were threatened with permanent imprisonment, if not worse, for treating anyone who was injured during the disturbances. The human rights situation in Bahrain is very serious indeed, and I question why we are selling any equipment at all to Bahrain in the current circumstances.

Likewise, paragraph 141 makes the point about the repression of individuals and the unaccountable power of the police on Saudi Arabia. What it does not say—I am not making a criticism, but the report does not say it—is that it is very difficult to find out a lot about what is going on in Saudi Arabia because of the nature of its public media and the difficulties facing foreign journalists who try to report what happens there.

I realise that Saudi Arabia is a massive arms market—not only for Britain, but for other countries—and that seems to have an enormous impact on foreign policy relations with Saudi Arabia. However, the arms that have now appeared among ISIL forces in Iraq and Syria have all come from somewhere. They were not bought at the Defence Security and Equipment International exhibition, or anywhere else; they were bought from people who imported them from the USA, Britain and Russia—all kinds of places all over the world—because they had the financial resources to do so. Those arms were exported under licence at some point, and they have arrived with ISIL and are being used to kill large numbers of people in the most abominable ways. We therefore need to be a lot more assiduous and much tougher about what happens to the arms that we export.

I have deep concerns about Sri Lanka, which is also covered in the report. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an indication of the Government’s current thinking about the supply of arms to Sri Lanka. I know that the Prime Minister took the correct and quite brave decision to go to Jaffna during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and he obviously expressed concern about the treatment of Tamil people at that stage. Are the Government now planning to resume the sale of equipment to Sri Lanka, or not?

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North made a point about the Defence Security and Equipment International exhibition, which has become more than a bit of an embarrassment. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has pointed out that there were people at the exhibition advertising the sale of things such as electric shock equipment. Although that equipment is totally illegal in this country, it is on sale in London at an exhibition sponsored by the British Government. That is a cause of the deepest embarrassment, and I question whether we should be having the exhibition at all.

Paragraphs 120 to 122 of the report helpfully refer to nuclear weapons and their effects. This area is covered by several treaties, including the non-proliferation treaty. I asked the Minister a question about this on Monday, and I will continue to do so. The Austrian Government are hosting a conference on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons in Vienna at the beginning of December. That is a continuation of a conference hosted by the Mexican Government and, before that, by the Norwegian Government. Already, 135 nations have agreed to attend the conference, and 155 nations have supported New Zealand’s statement on the invitation to the next conference. This is a serious discussion about the effects of nuclear weapons on humankind as a whole, including not only those people who have already been affected by the explosions nearly 70 years ago in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but those affected by nuclear testing elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will tell me that the Government are at least seriously considering their invitation to the conference and that they will encourage the other permanent members of the Security Council to attend, too. If we want to live in a nuclear-free world, as everyone claims to wish to, surely attending that conference has to be a good step forward.

The report also cites the middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone conference, which is now apparently supported by everybody. I have sat through a number of non-proliferation treaty review conferences during which a number of countries—principally countries within the region, and usually countries in the Arab League—have raised a proposal from the 2000 review conference that to stop the proliferation and spread of nuclear weapons across the middle east, as only Israel has nuclear weapons in the region at the moment, that middle east conference should try to create a region free of nuclear weapons and WMD. That has never happened, however. The Finnish Government were unable to organise it, but it has been reiterated that the conference will be held. At the last review conference, every permanent member of the Security Council—Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States—got up and said they supported that. Iran supports it. and Israel has not said no to it, so I wonder what is the impediment to that conference taking place, if all the players want to attend?

At the previous review conference, Egypt walked out. It did not leave the NPT, but its representatives said that they were angry at the lack of progress. If there is not progress on non-proliferation in the middle east, proliferation will happen, because somebody else will be able to develop nuclear weapons—the financial resources are certainly available—and we will then be in a very dangerous situation.

I welcome the section in the Committees’ report about chemical weapons. If anything good has come out of the crisis in Syria during the past two years—this is probably the only thing—it is that Syria at least acceded to the chemical weapons convention. The removal and destruction of chemical weapons from Syria is to be applauded. That step forward shows what can be achieved when the EU, the USA, Russia and Iran co-operate to try to achieve something.

The Committees report that Angola, Burma, Israel, North Korea and South Sudan have not signed the chemical weapons convention, however, and it is time that they did. It is time that the whole world signed up to it, because if we can have a worldwide convention on small arms and landmines, we should be able to insist that there is a genuine worldwide agreement on the abolition of chemical weapons, and then move on to other weapons.

We have to think carefully. It is too easy to say, “Sell arms to somebody—out of sight, out of mind.” That comes back to bite us, with civil wars and conflict, and with human rights abuses, some of which are carried out with weapons that have been made in this country. We should think carefully about that, before we so glibly say, “We support the arms industry.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

1. Whether the UK will be officially represented at the conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons to be held in Vienna in December 2014.

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

The Government have received an invitation to the conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons to be held in Vienna in December. We are considering whether to attend.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I urge the Government to attend the conference and to join the family of nations around the world that supported the previous conferences. One hundred and twenty-eight nations attended the 2013 conference in Norway, 145 went to Mexico earlier this year and the New Zealand Government, on behalf of 155 nations, have urged universal attendance at this conference. They have drawn attention to the first ever resolution that was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1946, which drew attention to the devastating effects of nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare on humanity as a whole. Britain should be there and should not boycott it, as it will apparently do along with the other five permanent members of the Security Council.

[Mr Ellwood]

The House will be aware of the hon. Gentleman’s consistent views on this subject. The goals of the conference are unclear and, consequently, none of the P5 nuclear weapon states has attended the conferences in the past, as he said. We do not believe that a ban on nuclear weapons is negotiable, nor that it would even be observed by many nuclear powers. Even if it could be achieved in theory, in practice the confidence and verification measures that would be necessary to make it effective are not in place.

ISIL: Iraq and Syria

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As I mentioned earlier, the national security adviser is in Turkey today and will be talking to the Turkish authorities. For operational security reasons, I do not propose—and, I do not propose as a Government—to give a running commentary on which bases in which countries are being used for which operations. What I can say to my right hon. Friend is that control along the Turkish-Syrian and Turkish-Iraqi border has significantly improved over the last few weeks. We have close contact with the Turks on the movement of British-originating potential fighters across that border, and although there is still more that can be done, we are generally very pleased with the advances that have been made over the last few weeks.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Is the Foreign Secretary not concerned about the apparently very close relationship that exists between some elements of the Turkish Government and forces and the ISIL forces? Does he not think that in the long run there has to be a political settlement? That must include the right of self-determination for the Kurdish peoples all across the region, who have frankly been wronged ever since the end of the first world war on the question of their own identity. It is an issue that will simply not go away.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention just goes to underline how complex the situation is. We are not dealing with a conflict; we are dealing with a number of conflicts that interact with each other and mean that some of the participants have multiple considerations that they are dealing with when they decide how to act. Progress was being made—has been made—in Turkey over the last couple of years in resolving differences between the Turkish state and its Kurdish population. Significant progress has been made. I am afraid that what is going on now across the region is not helpful to that process and is not taking it forward. I think it is probably premature at this stage to speculate on the end outcome, but clearly the relationship between the different Kurdish groups in the four different countries is a crucial part of the overall conflict.

Palestine and Israel

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

There is so much to say about the tragedy with which Israelis and Palestinians have lived for so long. Over the years, I have spoken about the things I have seen for myself, whether that has been settlements growing in violation of international law and successive resolutions; the barrier that snakes in and out of the west bank, cutting Palestinian communities off from each other and farmers from the land; or Palestinian children being brought in leg irons into Israeli military courts, accused of throwing stones, and being subject to laws that vary depending on whether one is Palestinian or Israeli. I have sat with Palestinian families in East Jerusalem who have had their homes destroyed and who are no longer allowed to live in the city of their birth. I have seen for myself the devastation of homes, schools and hospitals in Gaza. I have met fishermen who are fired on if all they do is try to fish. Yes, I have been to Sderot as well and know that Israelis have spoken about their real fear about rocket attacks from Gaza. I also know the fear that Palestinians in Gaza feel daily because of the constant buzz of drones overhead, 24 hours a day, that could bring death at any moment.

I have not merely read about such things; I have seen them for myself. They are why a negotiated settlement is so important. Principles are important too, however, in reaching that negotiated settlement. First, we should act according to international law and insist that the parties involved do so as well. Secondly, we should treat Palestinians and Israelis as equals. We have a choice today: will we do that, or will we just talk about it?

For Israelis, the right of recognition and to self-determination are not the subject of negotiation but something they have demanded as a right and that they were given as a right more than 65 years ago.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and compliment him on all his work. Is he aware that despite what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and despite the fact that Israel is listed under the borders put down in 1948, it has never delineated its own borders? Our recognition of Palestine would help to assert Palestinian rights at this important time.

[Richard Burden]

Yes, that is absolutely right. The international position is clear: it is delineated by the green line. The final borders will be negotiated in final status negotiations. That is understood, and that is the same for Israel and for Palestine. But let us also remember that it is more than 20 years since the Palestine Liberation Organisation, acting on behalf of the Palestinian people as a whole, recognised the state of Israel. Yet, despite that, when Israel talks about itself, it still says that it wants constant reaffirmation of that recognition. How many times have I heard Israeli Ministers—indeed, some hon. Members—ask, “How can you talk with people who do not recognise your right to exist?” So for them and Israel, recognition is not about negotiation; it is about something fundamental. Well, if that is the case for Israelis, Palestinians have no fewer rights than that. Recognition for Palestinians cannot be a matter of privilege; it, too, must be a matter of right. That is the problem with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), because saying that recognition can only happen with the outcome of negotiations very much gives Israel the right of veto not only over a Palestinian state but over the UK Parliament’s ability to make our own decision to recognise that Palestinian state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I had not anticipated being called to speak, so I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The proposal for this House to recognise Palestinian statehood is not only premature, but misguided. An affirmative vote tonight would be nothing more than a propaganda victory for those who wish to bypass the mediation of the peace process in favour of international institutions such as the United Nations where the Palestinian Authority enjoy an automatic majority.

Three years ago President Abbas made it explicit that the attempt unilaterally to assert statehood through the UN was to ensure that it

“would pave the way for the internationalisation of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us”—

the Palestinian Authority—

“to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the international Court of Justice.”

The Palestinian Authority are seeking to create opportunities for new diplomatic and legal fronts on the conflict with Israel that enable a distraction, an alternative and an escape route from the bilateral principle entailed in the Oslo accords and subsequent diplomatic frameworks.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to participate in this debate, which reflects the House at its best. I have travelled the middle east for 30 years. I have written about it and served there as an officer. I am now the Minister for the region. I am humbled by the depth of knowledge on both sides of the House and by the spirit in which the debate has taken place.

I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this debate and I welcome the contributions of hon. Members from all parts of the House. I am sorry that important statements have curtailed the length of the debate. Before responding to the specific points that have been raised, I will briefly set out the Government’s position on the middle east peace process and the recognition of a Palestinian state.

I will start by addressing the terrible situation in Gaza, which I visited last week. I was profoundly shocked and saddened at the suffering of ordinary Gazans. More than 100,000 people have been made homeless by the conflict, and 450,000 people—about a third of the population—have no access to water. Yesterday, I attended the Gaza reconstruction conference in Cairo with the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne). It was clear that the international community stands ready to support the rebuilding of Gaza. I am pleased to say that the UK pledged £20 million to kick-start the recovery and help the Gazan people back on their feet. The UK has been one of the largest donors to Gaza this summer. We have provided more than £17 million in emergency assistance, which has helped to provide food, clean water, shelter and medical assistance to those in the greatest need.

Let me be clear: we do not want to see a return to the status quo. This is the third time in six years that conflict has broken out in Gaza and reconstruction has been needed. To illustrate the problem, in 2000, more than 15,000 trucks of exports left Gaza. In 2013, the figure had dwindled to only 200 trucks. The UN estimates that it could take 18 years to rebuild Gaza without major change. It says that Gaza could become unliveable by 2020. If the underlying causes are not addressed, it risks becoming an incubator for extremism in the region. At the same time, Israel has faced an unacceptable barrage of rockets from Hamas and other militant groups. That is unsustainable. We all know that if the problems are left to fester, conflict could break out at any time. Bold political steps are therefore necessary to stop the cycle of violence once and for all.

We welcome the agreement between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the UN to assist in the reconstruction. That must now be implemented. More needs to be done as a priority and we urge the parties to make serious and substantive progress in the talks in Cairo to ensure that the ceasefire is durable. It must address Israel’s security concerns and ensure that the movement and access restrictions are lifted. There must also be a clear economic plan. Gaza has huge economic potential and significant natural resources that need to be realised. There must be urgent repairs and upgrades to the public utilities, including water, sewerage infrastructure and power.

The parties must work together to open the border crossings to goods and people to allow greater connectivity between Gaza and the west bank. I fully support the announcement by Baroness Ashton yesterday, in which she said that the EU is analysing the feasibility of a maritime link that could open Gaza to Europe. I discussed that issue with my Palestinian and Israeli counterparts when I was in the region last week.

It is crucial that the Palestinian Authority return to Gaza to provide services and security. In that regard last week’s Palestinian Cabinet meeting, which took place in Gaza for the first time, was a positive sign. The Palestinians must also take steps to address Israel’s legitimate security concerns. The world has shown that it is willing to put the necessary money on the table, and the parties must now demonstrate that they are ready to take the political steps necessary to prevent conflict in Gaza. However, even a more durable ceasefire is no substitute for peace, and there must be urgent progress towards a two-state solution that meets the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for what he has said so far. During his discussions, was there at any point a serious debate about the problem of the lives faced by many Palestinian refugees in camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and other places? They too must surely be part of a long-term peace equation. They have spent more than 60 years in those camps, and it cannot go on for ever like that.

[Mr Ellwood]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I had a number of bilaterals in Cairo, and I met the Lebanese Foreign Minister and we spoke about that issue. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that we are pouring in significant DFID and Ministry of Defence funds to support Lebanon in that regard. In Cairo yesterday Secretary Kerry again reaffirmed that the United States is fully committed to bringing the parties back to negotiations, and the UK will continue to take a leading role in working closely with international partners to support US efforts. A just and lasting peace will require leadership from all sides. For Israelis and Palestinians that must mean a commitment to returning to dialogue, and to avoiding all actions that undermine prospects for peace.

Let us be clear: Israel lives in a tough neighbourhood and faces multiple security challenges. The British Government are staunch supporters of Israel’s right to defence. Israel is a friend and we are proud to be pursuing a strong, bilateral relationship, from trade to our commitment to growth in high-tech start-ups. However, Israel’s settlement building makes it hard for its friends to make the case that Israel is committed to peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I hear the hon. Lady’s comments and hope that she is correct. We, of course, will be only the 130-somethingth country to have signed up to recognition and none of the previous nations has achieved a change.

Passing the motion will certainly antagonise and weaken to some extent our relationship with Israel and Israelis—a relationship that, for all Israel’s manifest faults and frailties, I value and the House should value in a dangerous world. In a peace process, we do not show solidarity to one by antagonising and alienating the other, diminishing our relatively limited influence on events.

I do not say that the case has been convincingly disproved either. In the short term, passing the motion will not make peaceful settlement more likely; it may not have any impact at all. The long-term consequences of our recognising Palestine at this time are unclear and anyone’s guess, even given the knowledgeable and informed comments that we have heard this evening. Unintended consequences abound in this region.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Some 135 nations have already recognised Palestine. They obviously thought about that before they did it. They are happy with what they have done and believe that it gives a recognised right to a people who have been denied one. Should we not just join them?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am putting the argument that I want a well thought out strategy to end the conflict. I do not believe that this is the time for gestures. I hope hon. Members forgive the naivety of the second newest Member of the House—I welcome the newest one to her place—but I believe that this is a serious country and that we should pursue a serious foreign policy, based not on gestures, however well intentioned, but on our best efforts to address the unending quest for security and peace in the middle east. That applies in Iraq, where our decision not to address ISIS in Syria is not as serious a position as we could or perhaps should be taking. I believe that that also applies in respect of this motion.

I appreciate the powerful urge to leave this Chamber contented and able to face our electorates having done something. I am not alone in having received hundreds of e-mails and letters urging me to support this motion. I appreciate the urge to respond to the horrors of the summer in Gaza and the continued, impossibly frustrating impasse. However, if we believe in peace, we have to do what most advances it, and I do not believe that passing this motion is that. The British Government should use what influence they have once again to urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to sit down and negotiate, with no preconceptions, a realistic peace based on a two-state solution, and to urge President Abbas to accept the offer. My priority is to get the Palestinians a viable state rather than make a modest gesture here or have a momentary victory in the United Nations that will raise expectations but do little in the long term to further the interests of peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

As the chief cheerleader of “Get real, United Kingdom” about our place in the world, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), and perhaps to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and others who have questioned the importance of this debate, that there having been media bids from France, Turkey, al-Jazeera, Channel 4 and the BBC World Service in connection with this evening—unknown to me—I must say to the House that people are listening to the debate, and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories they will be listening very attentively because of our history.

I am immensely proud to have my name on tonight’s motion after that of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), and I also support the amendment that was so well tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), and others, which makes the purpose of the motion clearer.

I have been involved with this issue for an awfully long time. Twenty years ago I accompanied my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) when he was the first British Defence Secretary to visit Israel, where he went to deliver the Balfour lecture. We have been reminded on more than one occasion this evening of the second part of the Balfour declaration that has not been delivered. It was a rare period of hope for the Israel-Palestine issue at the time. Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister, the Oslo accords had been signed, yet already the rejectionists were at work. There was a bus bomb in Israel when we were there, and tragically a few months later Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish rejectionist of the Oslo accords. Even in 1996, I recall my right hon. and learned Friend as Foreign Secretary summoning the Israeli ambassador to give him a lecture about the settlements that were beginning to be constructed. That was before the deadline on the Oslo accords, which were supposed to deliver the final settlement arrangements by 1998.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is also important to make some reference to the problems facing Palestinian refugees in camps and in the diaspora? They should not be left out of this equation and our recognition will help to bring their cause to the fore.

[Crispin Blunt]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The right of return will have to be dealt with at some point during the negotiations. In the course of the debate I was delighted to hear the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and see the scales begin to drop from his eyes, with the latest land grab by the state of Israel. I was slightly surprised by his characterisation of the six-day war as an effort to destroy Israel. It was a brilliant Israeli feat of arms to dissipate what appeared to be a coming threat to Israel, but it certainly was not a response to an attack on Israel.

--- Later in debate ---

That this House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has voted emphatically tonight to support the recognition of the Palestinian state. That is good news, which will be well received by many people, and we should bear witness to those thousands who marched and demonstrated and those thousands who e-mailed us.

If I may, I will briefly explain why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) were tellers for a position that we do not actually hold. It was to ensure that democracy could take place and that Members could record their vote, because those who were opposed to the motion declined to put up tellers. We have thus ensured democracy here tonight. The constituents whom we all represent will be able to see what influence they were able to have on their Members of Parliament, ensuring that this historic vote took place.

[Mr Speaker]

Residents of Islington North and the nation at large are now fully apprised of the motivation of the hon. Gentleman and of his colleague. I thank him.

Government Strategy Against IS

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. and learned Friend knows better than most that, as with any client in receipt of legal advice, it is important for the Government to preserve the confidentiality of advice from legal advisers. However, when this Government have taken action previously during their time in office, we have set out the legal grounds for that action and why we think a particular course of action—a recent example is Libya—was justified in international law.

My hon. and learned Friend is right, too, to point to the shock felt throughout the country at ISIL’s action, and I ought to say that I strongly welcome the unreserved condemnation from so many British Muslims and mosque leaderships throughout the United Kingdom.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Odious as ISIL is, it did not come from nowhere. Is it not a product of our past policies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and of the vast number of arms that we have supplied to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region? That gives it highly sophisticated weaponry. Do we not need a slightly more nuanced view of the world that does not automatically lead to intervention everywhere and create the problems of tomorrow?

[Mr Lidington]

I think the answer is considerably more complex than the hon. Gentleman allows. This kind of perverted Islamist ideology has been around for a considerable time and is found not just in Iraq but in parts of the world where there has not been the kind of intervention that the previous Government undertook in 2003. It is also the case that in Iraq ISIL seized the opportunity presented by the loss of support for the Baghdad Government among the Sunni population in central Iraq. One of the key tasks for the new Government in Baghdad will be to win back mainstream Sunnis to support the democratic Government.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come to the point about the involvement of the Palestinian Authority in a moment.

The steps we need to take must include measures that will pave the way for the Palestinian Authority to resume control of Gaza and restore effective and accountable governance, which will allow the progressive easing of Israeli security restrictions on Gaza and, in turn, allow the Gazan economy to grow.

Both the Prime Minister and I have expressed our grave concern at the level of civilian casualties and the scale of human suffering in Gaza during the recent violence, but we have also been clear that the indiscriminate firing of thousands of rockets from Gaza into civilian areas of Israel by Hamas was a clear breach of international humanitarian law, and that by launching attacks from densely populated civilian areas—in some cases, from sensitive buildings, such as mosques and schools—Hamas bears a direct responsibility for the appalling loss of civilian lives. We have been equally clear that Israel has a right to defend itself against attack, but that in doing so it, too, must act in accordance with international law with regard to proportionality and the avoidance of unnecessary civilian casualties.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In the light of what the Foreign Secretary has just said, will he please explain why the British Government abstained at the United Nations Human Rights Council on its official call for an investigation into war crimes that have occurred there? Could he not express some regret about Britain’s close military relationship with Israel, which has indeed helped it to kill more than 2,000 people in Gaza during the recent siege?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman’s last allegation is regrettable and completely inaccurate. We have looked very carefully at the nature of the matériel and equipment supplied to the Israelis, and we are confident that very little of what we supplied could in any way have been used in equipment deployed during this operation in Gaza.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, we chose to abstain on the resolution, along with all our European Union partners, because it was not worded in an even-handed and open way. It was not aimed at getting to the truth of what happened in Gaza, and it was not targeted at possible wrongdoing by both sides. It was heavily lopsided, and made a political point, rather than seeking to get to the bottom of what actually took place. I would, however, say to him that we are clear that, in due course, there must be a proper inquiry into what went on. I shall return to that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. How does one effectively seek to influence the conduct of the Israeli Government? One truth that we in this House must confront is that Prime Minister Netanyahu—many of us have had concerns about specific actions he has taken—is probably more popular 10 years after taking office than when he first assumed it. The test for me is not, “Can we make headlines?”, but “Can we make a difference?”, and the test of that is whether actions taken in the United Kingdom, or at European level, strengthen the forces of progress in Israeli society, or strengthen the forces of reaction.

I fully understand the depth of feeling among many Opposition Members about the urgency of finding meaningful ways to influence Israel, and for it to adopt an approach that many of us believe better suited to its long-term interests. But in reality, if we were to take actions that strengthened a narrative in Israeli society that somehow the whole world is against them, that the only people they can trust to defend them are the IDF, and that they can have no security reliant on international agreements but must instead look only to themselves, I fear that far from that leading to the progress we all sincerely want, we would get a further reinforcement of the pattern of destruction and blockade that we have seen over recent years. I am conscious of the anger, urgency and frustration that so many people on both sides of this House feel about making progress, but our challenge is about what can make a difference given the discourse in Israeli society, the balance of forces in the Knesset, and the views previously taken by the Israeli Government.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

During the crisis of the last six weeks or so, American arms have continued to flow to Israel, the EU-Israel trade agreement continued unabated, and Britain, while not exporting a vast amount of equipment to Israel, has continued a military relationship with it. Does my right hon. Friend think that at the very least we should be supporting an investigation into war crimes and suspending military co-operation with Israel while that is going on?

[Mr Alexander]

We took a different position to the Government on the export of arms—once they managed to sort out what their position was—by saying that no arms should be exported during this conflict, and certainly that no arms should be exported where there were reasonable concerns that the consolidated criteria were not being adhered to by the end user, which in this case was the state of Israel. Of course any allegations of war crimes that are brought to the attention of the United Nations, and others, should be investigated.

On my hon. Friend’s substantive point, the nature of the military relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel is profoundly different to the relationship between the United States and Israel. It is important to nail the misperception that somehow the sustained military aid provided by the United States Government to the state of Israel, based on their long-standing strategic alliance, is comparable in a meaningful way to the export of arms to Israel under tightly drawn consolidated criteria and on a commercial basis by arms manufacturers in the United Kingdom.

When I was Secretary of State for International Development under the previous Administration, I oversaw the largest ever package of aid to the Palestinian Authority. We do not provide any aid to the Israelis as they are a much wealthier nation. The reasons we sent that aid to the Palestinian Authority were twofold. First, of course, we had an obligation on poverty reduction to make sure that we were ensuring a higher standard of living for impoverished people, not just on the west bank but in Gaza. Critically, we also supported those aid payments because we wanted a credible negotiating partner for the state of Israel. If we are serious about matching our words about a two-state solution with deeds, we must continue to make what I recognise are often difficult decisions and choices to continue to support the legitimate voice of the Palestinian peoples, the Palestinian Authority. If we are to be questioned about our aid relationship with the region, the facts are that we do not provide aid to Israel, but we do provide hundreds of millions of pounds to the Palestinians—and rightly so—both in the service of poverty reduction and to ensure a capacity for meaningful negotiations in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In the five minutes available to me, I want to make three points and ask one specific question that I hope the Minister will reply to.

We are meeting in the shadow of the end of the NATO Heads of Government conference, and although I am sure it was a magnificent affair for the many Heads of Government and other putative members of NATO who attended, I think we should have a much more nuanced view of what NATO is about and what it has become. It did not shut up shop at the end of the cold war, sadly; instead, it cast around for something to do, and has now sought and obtained for itself a global role. Collectively, its member states already spend $1 trillion a year on arms, and according to the Wales declaration, many states that do not quite meet the 2% minimum requirement will have to increase their spending.

[Paul Flynn]

Does my hon. Friend agree that NATO is a chameleon organisation? It was belligerent and bad under Bush, but benign and peace-seeking under Obama?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this thoughtful debate. I will start my brief remarks with a reflection on Ukraine.

Russia is undoubtedly breaching international law and its previous commitment to non-interference in Ukraine’s affairs. I want to make it crystal clear that I condemn President Putin’s hostile actions and violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. We do, however, have to understand better what is going on in that area if we are de-escalate the situation and find the solutions that we seek. Russia has long been suspicious of western intentions on its borders, and it fears encirclement. The history and culture of Ukraine and Russia are inextricably bound together. In this context, no Russian Government would coolly accept the drawing of Ukraine into the EU or NATO.

Extremely experienced and respected commentators and ex-diplomats, including Sir Roderic Braithwaite and Sir Brian Barder, have observed that the west has badly mishandled relations with both Ukraine and Moscow with irresponsible talk of EU and NATO membership. Members of the European Parliament will vote next week on whether to ratify the EU-UK association agreement. I think we should be deeply uneasy about actions and statements that suggest a wish to draw Ukraine into NATO or the EU at a time when that will only escalate tensions.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the hon. Lady agree that at the time of Ukraine’s independence at the end of the Soviet Union it became specifically a non-nuclear power, and specifically sought to be neutral-ish within the region and to pursue a peaceful course? Does she not think that that is something that we should have respected, and should respect now?

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely believe that that is at the heart of the problems that we are facing. The association agreement requires Ukraine to steadily approximate its legislation to that of the EU, a process to be monitored and even enforced by the EU. It sets up a political dialogue designed explicitly to

“promote gradual convergence on foreign and security matters with the aim of Ukraine’s ever-deeper involvement in the European security area.”

That is not compatible with what my hon. Friend has just described, namely the understanding and settlement for Ukraine in the past. I believe that at a time of such heightened tension, this agreement is inflammatory and divisive.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise profusely for being out of the debate for most of the afternoon. I heard the speeches by the Front Benchers and then I had to attend a meeting at the Home Office about the data retention Bill.

I wish to discuss the issues that have been brought to my attention by my constituents. I will try not to repeat the points that I have heard. All sides of the argument have been eloquently made. I want to focus on Syria and Iraq. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been in the House longer than me, but I have been here for 17 years, and on each occasion that we have discussed intervening in another country, there has been early consideration of the legality of such a move. I remember the discussions that we had on Iraq, and the elaboration of the just war theory, which comes all the way down from Thomas Aquinas.

Under the just war theory, before we enter into military action of any sort, particularly in another country, there has to be just cause, appropriate legal authority, proportionality, and the action should be taken in the last resort. Those are just some elements of the just war theory. I am anxious that we are taking the next step towards military intervention in Iraq and Syria without full cognisance of our legal position. Is there a just cause for an intervention at this stage by this state—the United Kingdom—when there are other parties that could be acting?

With regard to legal authority, I hope that whatever action we take we commit ourselves to ensuring that it is done through the United Nations with an appropriate resolution. No action should be taken unless there is the appropriate resolution. That was the problem with Iraq that caused such division both in our community and throughout the world.

I am concerned that we seem to be rushing fairly quickly to an extensive bombing campaign. No bombing campaign is based on precision bombing. We have seen that time and again, in every intervention in the past century. Proportionality was introduced to protect civilians but, in the bombing campaigns we have waged in recent years, there has been no protection of civilians.

That leads us to the question of who should undertake action if action is taken. There is an excellent article by Sunny Hundal on the Labour List website—I mention that because it contains many of my own thoughts and I do not want him to accuse me of plagiarism. UK engagement is exactly what ISIS wants. It wants the US, the UK and other western countries to invade Iraq and kill civilians, because that would unite radical Sunni elements in the middle east against such intervention. Sunny’s second point, which I fully agree with, is that ISIS would want to ally us with Assad, or even elements of the Assad regime if he goes. That, too, would unite radical Islamist forces against the west. As Sunny points out, ISIS would want the symbolism of the UK linking up with the US yet again to invade or threaten to take military against a Muslim country. I fear that UK involvement will mean that we have fallen into the trap that ISIS has set us.

If in accordance with just war theory there is a sound reason or a just cause for intervention, if it is the last resort and if it is a humanitarian intervention, I plead that the UK is not part of it. I agree with other hon. Members that other states in the region have a responsibility to act. They also have the resources to act. They have the military resources because we have sold them those resources. In recent years, Europe has sold Qatar €200 million-worth of military hardware. We have sold Jordan €34 million-worth of military hardware. Saudi Arabia has had €2,264 million in military exports.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my Friend aware that Saudi Arabia has possibly the worst human rights record in the region? It is unclear where many of the weapons that are sold to Saudi Arabia end up.

[John McDonnell]

The whole argument was that the weapons were sold to Saudi Arabia so that they could be used in its defence, and to ensure that in the region it has a military presence that can effect the suppression of violence and the maintenance of peace. We have sold those weapons to those states, and it is now their responsibility to intervene on a humanitarian basis if necessary within the region. I agree that bombs usually do nothing more than elicit more violence; my hon. Friend has made that point in the past. Therefore, we should ensure that we supply humanitarian aid to the region.

Like other hon. Members, I was lobbied all summer on Gaza. We had a meeting of 200 people in my constituency, which mobilised with the 100,000 on the demonstration. People tell me that British citizens fight not just in the Palestinian cause and elsewhere in the middle east, but for the Israel defence force. I would like to know from the Home Secretary what action will be taken with regard to their passports, and what action will be taken against them when they seek to return to this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that a political dialogue is needed at all levels, including Hamas in the elected Government of Gaza, to bring about and encourage a unified Government in Palestine, which will be in the interests of all Palestinians and of the region?

[Crispin Blunt]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

We face the much bigger question of how we will engage with political Islam. I am a secular, gay, western politician, and the values of political Islam are absolutely antithetical to mine, but people should be allowed to stand for election on a platform that brings their religious beliefs into play, much as the Muslim Brotherhood have throughout much of the middle east. We have yet to address the question of how we will engage with the Muslim Brotherhood fairly and reasonably, rather than doing so unfairly and unreasonably, tainting them with things of which they are not guilty. If their supporters cannot support the Brotherhood and are unreasonably suppressed, they might eventually make the transition to the ghastliness of what we have seen in Islamic State. In achieving a political and military mission to destroy Islamic State and everything it stands for, we must isolate it from the other political forces in the region. That means establishing the criteria by which we engage with political Islam.

My request to the Government, as they sit on the Jenkins report on the behaviour of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its potential engagement, or not, with terrorist activities, is to establish in that report the criteria of what is reasonable and acceptable for a political movement such as the Muslim Brotherhood to undertake. What is the reasonable playing field for it to engage with me and the rest of us in the battle of ideas and ideology to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) referred?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is important that the Atlantic alliance generally—this applies whether we are talking about NATO or the European Union—remains united, resolute and determined, because we face a very grave challenge. It is certainly the case that the NATO summit will need to give a high priority to a reassertion of article 5 of the doctrine of collective defence.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

What actions are the Foreign Office team taking to ensure consular access to Andargachew Tsege? He is an Ethiopian-born British citizen who was seized at Sanaa airport by Ethiopian officials on 23 June, sentenced to death in absentia by a court in Ethiopia and held at an undisclosed location in Ethiopia. Despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and me, he still has not had consular or legal access. Could the Foreign Office urgently contact the Ethiopian Government and ensure that access is obtained?

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

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this concerning case. I reassure him that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the gentleman concerned gets consular access. I spoke to the Ethiopian Foreign Minister last Friday night, and my colleagues at the Department for International Development spoke to the Ethiopian Prime Minister. We continue to press the Ethiopian Government to get access. I have approved a letter to be sent to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who are particularly interested in this case, to set out what continued action we intend to deliver.

Middle East and North Africa

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Hamas has been threatening this type of action for a long time. It has clearly stated that it does not accept the existence of the Israeli state and that it will attack it. It has been building up its weaponry; Hamas now holds Iranian weapons. Indeed, recently, in March, Israel intercepted an Iranian ship with a cargo of weapons, including advanced weapons, heading for Gaza and for Hamas. Hamas has been organising itself to attack, so, naturally, a responsible Israeli Government have been preparing for that through defensive means. The Iron Dome was constructed so that the weapons—the shells, the rockets—coming over from Gaza, targeted on Israeli civilians, could be stopped without any Palestinian civilian loss of life. That is what the Israeli Government have deliberately done.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend not aware that in the recent hostilities 200 Palestinians have already died and that water and sewerage works have been targeted by Israeli planes? Does she not think that the siege of Gaza, which has now gone on for a very long time, is a contributory factor? Does she not think that the inability of Israel to recognise Palestinian needs and rights is a major cause of the problem?

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend makes some interesting observations. I am well aware of the deaths and injuries sustained by Palestinian civilians. I deeply regret them and think they are a great tragedy, but those civilians were in that situation because Hamas deliberately put its weapons and launching bases among them. As I indicated by referring to the recent comments from Hamas spokespeople, Hamas seems to be gloating and sees its policy as working. On the other factors my hon. Friend mentioned, I go back to the facts I declared earlier. Israel withdrew all its settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2008. When, a year after that, Hamas, which was then running Gaza, decided to attack Israeli civilians, the Israelis had to take some steps to try to protect themselves.

The solution to this dreadful situation is of course for there to be an overall peace settlement, recognising the rights of the two peoples, the Israelis and the Palestinians, to have their states and to live in security and peace alongside one another in a region that will support them. The Kerry initiative has not up to now succeeded, but no one should abandon hope, and I hope that it can be resumed. It does not mean, however, that nothing can be done. What should be done now is for Hamas to stop sending its rockets against Israeli civilians. The Israelis then would, and should, stop their attacks on the missile sites in Gaza. I hope that that will provide the basis for a long-term ceasefire and, ultimately, lead to a peace in which all peoples of the region can have the peace they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I thank the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for giving us all the opportunity to speak on this subject. I was privileged to go with him to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for the debate, and it will come as no surprise to Members to hear which subject I will touch on. I have spoken on it many times before but it continues to be an issue, and this is a grand opportunity to underline that. I feel extremely passionate about representing those in my constituency, other constituencies and elsewhere in the world who face hardships—in this case, Christians who are persecuted for their beliefs. Today’s debate gives me an opportunity to highlight that issue again.

A century ago, about 20% of the population of north Africa and the middle east were Christian, according to figures from Open Doors, but now Christians make up only 4% of the population due to persecution. That concerns me greatly. The past two months have been littered with stories of Christians persecuted for their faith all across the middle east, such as the case of Meriam Ibrahim, the mother who was imprisoned in Sudan. When hearing that story, I wondered how many other Meriam Ibrahims there are in Sudan whom we do not hear about, because whereas she had access to the American embassy, others did not. There was also the teacher arrested in Egypt for her faith—Pastor Saeed, who remains in prison—and thousands of Christians who have been displaced due to ISIS’s violent takeover. Christians in the middle east are wondering whether there is any room left for them to stay.

Syria continues to rise in the World Watch List. The civil war has seen an increase in violence in general, but the rise of Islamist extremism is putting even greater pressure on Christians. On top of that, most of Syria’s Christians are concentrated in strategic areas of the country that are vital to both the Government and the Opposition’s war efforts, such as in and around Aleppo, Damascus and Homs, making them even more vulnerable, because that is where the war seems to be at this time. Last year, there were countless reports of Christians being abducted, physically harmed and killed, with many churches damaged or destroyed.

Many Christians have become malnourished owing to shortages and the rising price of food and other essentials. Access to water, electricity and communications is very limited. It is perhaps the traumatised children of Christian families who are suffering most acutely; some have lost one or both parents and many also face great dangers, as rebel forces have even targeted Christian schools. There is a perception among terrorist groups that if people are Christian, they are pro-western; they are Syrians first, and that always must be remembered.

Syria used to be one of the easiest places in the Arab world to be a Christian. Until early 2011, its churches were large—accounting for about 10% of the population—and Christians were respected by the Muslim majority. They were allowed to worship and practise their faith without much official interference, but now, with an estimated 600,000 Christians having fled the country or lost their lives as a result of the civil war, there are fears that Christianity will soon cease to exist.

That is made more poignant by the fact that the Church has existed in Syria since biblical times, and we must also remember that the middle east is very much where the Bible stories that we all know come from. In the book of Acts, it was on the road to Damascus, capital of today’s Syria, that Saul was stopped short in his mission to destroy the early Church. It was in Damascus that Saul regained his sight after being struck blind and it was there that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, baptised and began his ministry as an apostle. That is the story in Syria.

In Iraq, following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, there was a huge surge in anti-Christian threats, kidnappings and murders, and the violence has continued ever since. In June 2014, ISIS attacked Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city. We had a debate in Westminster Hall on that a short time ago and I highlighted the threat to Christians in Mosul and the plain of Nineveh. The goal of ISIS is to create a caliphate—an ultra-Islamic state in Iraq and Syria. Although the attackers were relatively few in number, the Iraqi army fled, leaving the militant jihadists to take control of the city. The result was a mass exodus of thousands of citizens; up to half a million according to some estimates. Those leaving included virtually all of Mosul’s remaining Christian population. As refugees, they are living in extreme hardship and extreme fear of injury or death, because they are Christians.

In 2013, a church in Baghdad was fired at by masked men who seriously wounded two security guards. Christian-owned businesses in the area had been the target of bombings the previous day. As well as violent attacks, Christians also suffer significant discrimination, marginalisation and injustice. Hundreds of thousands of believers have fled their homes, reducing the Christian population to a quarter of its 1990 size. Iraq’s Christian community is hardly a western innovation or a colonial relic. It dates from the 1st century, when two of Jesus’s disciples—St Thomas and St Thaddeus, better known as St Jude—preached the gospel in what was then Assyria. There has been a Christian presence in Iraq ever since. As with Syria, Christians are not newcomers to the country. They have as much right to be there practising their beliefs as everyone else. In each of those two countries, there has been a clear Christian presence from an early stage.

In Iran, since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s warning in 2010 of the ever-expanding influence and numbers of house churches, the treatment of Christians has rapidly worsened. The regime tries to destroy those who reach out to converts by monitoring services, carrying out arrests, banning the Farsi language services and closing some churches. Attacks against Christian communities have increased and the prohibition of house church activities is enforced much more strictly there than anywhere else, yet the regime’s harsh treatment of Christians only further fuels the flames of church growth. Certainly that seems to be the case in Iran. That said, each of those three countries ranks in the top 10 countries on the World Watch List, and undoubtedly the daily hardships that Christians face are simply unacceptable. The persecution of religious minorities has intensified in Iran since 2005. Almost all Christian activity is illegal, especially when it occurs in Persian languages. That applies to evangelism, Bible training, publishing Scripture and Christian books and preaching in Farsi.

On Wednesday we had an opportunity to hear from some people from Iran. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire spoke about that in his introduction to the debate, and I appreciate that. There are 61 people in prison in Iran today for their Christian beliefs, and it is not known which prison some of them are in. That is a very serious issue for the Iranians. We also had an opportunity today to attend an event organised by the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom. There are real human rights and equality issues to address there. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are denied in Iran. Christians are seen as a particular threat to the regime, as their numbers are growing and it is said that children of political and spiritual leaders are leaving Islam for Christianity. There is great interest in the message of the gospel.

As the early Christian author Tertullian noted,

“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.”

That might be the case in Iran, but it is a reality that our Christian brothers and sisters should not have to face. I again urge the UK Government and the Minister to do as much as they possibly can to bring an end to the violent and sometimes fatal ordeals that those men and women face daily.

Last but certainly not least, I want to speak about Egypt. There, Muslims who convert to Christianity have long faced persecution from family members who punish them for abandoning the Islamic faith. However, in recent years, Egypt’s historical Christian communities have increasingly been targeted as well. The toppling of the Islamist President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013 after a popular uprising raised hopes that the condition of Christians in Egypt might improve. In the short term, that did not happen. Indeed, it was the trigger for a furious backlash against them by angry Islamists. In mid-August 2013, at least 16 Christians were killed and some 60 church buildings destroyed. In the Islamist stronghold of Minya, Christian properties were marked for destruction with a black X.

That was the situation then, but we did see a change. The right hon. Gentleman and I, with others from the Commons and Lords, had the opportunity to attend an event, and we saw quite clearly a sea change in Egypt’s attitude towards freedom of expression, freedom of religion and equality. That is something it has tried to include in the constitution. It is good news to see that happening, at least initially, in Egypt.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

What the hon. Gentleman has just said about Egypt is interesting. He must be aware, though, that a large number of journalists in Egypt are now in prison—they have been sentenced to very long stretches indeed—many others are under threat and there is a silencing of political and public debate because of the threat to journalists from the Egyptian Government.

[Jim Shannon]

I accept that and I will give two examples of Christians who have just been put in prison because of their beliefs, so although we have seen some indication of change, a lot of things still need to change. We always work on the basis of the change that we see. Kerolos Attallah was arrested in June for “liking” a Facebook page for Christians from a Muslim background—Knights of the Cross. In court, he was convicted of blasphemy and contempt of religion and was sentenced to six years in prison. I want to put this on the record. Demiana Emad, a 23-year-old social studies teacher, was sentenced to six months for insulting Islam. She

“presented a comparison between religions in ancient, middle and modern ages as mentioned in the curriculum”.

It was very clearly not blasphemy in either case, but the Egyptian Government recently condemned those two people to prison.

The churches in Egypt continue to hope for better times ahead. The new constitution was approved in a referendum in January 2014. Christians and other minorities are granted greater political representation. Freedom of belief is declared “absolute”—that is what we were told—while the freedom to practise religion and establish places of worship is granted to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. Those are welcome changes, but many people have suffered and lost their lives to get there, so I hope we can work together to bring similar peaceful and fairer treatment for all Christians across the whole of the middle east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Sheridan, because I may not be here for part of the winding-up speeches, as there is a ministerial meeting with the all-party group on the African great lakes region at 4 pm.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on obtaining the debate. I am sure that when he applied for it and I supported the application, we assumed that it would be about the entire region and north Africa; inevitably, however, in view of the crisis, Gaza and the west bank will dominate the debate. I have recorded relevant interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having visited Israel and Palestine nine times over the years.

My last visit to Gaza was depressing in the extreme, because I saw a place surrounded by a 1 km wide no-go zone. Anyone who ventures into that zone, whether a farmer or anyone else, will automatically be shot by machine guns placed on the fence between Gaza and Israel. Any fishing boat that goes more than a very short distance from shore will be shot at by Israeli naval vessels, and every day, all the time, surveillance planes, drones and so on fly over the Gaza strip. The people there live under siege and have done for a long time.

I know people in the Gaza Community Mental Health Foundation and Dr Munah Farah well. Their estimation is that at least two thirds of the population of Gaza suffer medical stress from the way they live, with constant food and water shortages, and constant insecurity of supply. That has been happening to those people not for just a few months but for many years. They live in an open-air prison, created and continued by the state of Israel. That is the cause of the deepest anger and frustration among ordinary people in Gaza. We would be angry and frustrated as well, if it was done to us.

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend describes a distressing situation; but does he recognise that it arose after Israel removed all its settlers and soldiers in 2005, only for Hamas to take control of Gaza and intensify rocket attacks on Israeli civilians?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend has made that point many times. Israel withdrew its unwelcome settlements in 2005, as she points out, but it maintained border control and surveillance. It is not just that there has been bombing recently; there has been regular bombing by Israeli jets of targets along the Gaza strip. I make my point again: no one should live in an open-air prison, facing such horror and continued destruction.

[Mr Djanogly]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

No, I will not give way again, because of the time.

Jocelyn Hurndall is a brave woman whose son Tom was shot in Rafa by Israeli troops while he was trying to defend children whose homes were being demolished by Israeli defence forces. In response to an interview given in The Independent by Daniel Taub, she wrote:

“Mr Taub, there is only one Gaza, currently being bombed to pieces by the might and sophistication of Israel’s military”.

She went on to say, in respect of the Israeli victims of any rockets that are sent:

“Fortunately, Israel has the infrastructure, funds and basic materials to build bomb shelters for its people. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank continue to suffer: an internationally recognised, illegal military occupation, extreme provocation brought about by settlement-building on Palestinian land in spite of international condemnation, the utter thwarting of prosperity due to closed borders and blocked coast, grossly disproportionate civilian deaths and injuries, the destruction of thousands of homes, and a lack of food, water and medical supplies.”

She describes the situation for people in Gaza.

When there are protests in the west bank, Gaza and, indeed, all over the world about Israel’s actions, surely it is time for the rest of the world to recognise that what is being done by Israel is illegal—it is collective punishment. Settlement building all across the west bank is illegal. It is very hard to see how the much vaunted two-state solution could even be dreamed to be possible given the level of settlements. I will use the word that others get very upset about: a sense of apartheid that has developed in the west bank, where there are settler-only roads, settler-only water supplies and there is settler-only occupation of land. That is the reality of life there.

Yes, there is opposition by Palestinians. Ever since there was an attempt to bring about a unity Government that involved Hamas as well as Fatah, Israel has upped the ante no end on a military basis. However, it is not true to say that everyone in Israel is supportive of Netanyahu or some of the extremists in his Government, or of the far extremists who want to see Israel occupying a large but so far unspecifically identified area. A week ago in Israel, there was a large demonstration of both Palestinians and Jewish people against the policies of the Israeli Government. Indeed, I draw Members’ attention to the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website, which lists eight very interesting points on how peace could come about, including by mutual recognition, by the ending of illegal settlements, and by the rest of the world ensuring that international law is carried out so that Israel is forced to accept that law just as it thinks everyone else should.

We are not going to solve this problem today, but the reaction of the British Government, and of all Governments, to incidents of illegal activity around the world has been rather strange and disproportionate. We have placed sanctions on Russia because of the activities in Ukraine and Crimea; Israel is in breach of a large number of UN resolutions, and it is clearly in breach of international law on both collective punishment and the settlement policy, but no sanctions whatever have been proposed.

In looking for a long-term peace, I urge that we look also at our own historical involvement in the region and the surrounding area. After the first world war, the area was divided up in the interests of the west. The forerunner of that action, the Sykes-Picot agreement, was done in secret and only revealed some years later through files kept in Moscow, and that was followed by the mandate system and the division of the whole region. Israel was established in 1948, and the 1967 war expanded its territory no end. Netanyahu’s policies seem to put no limit on Israeli expansion.

We need to be very serious with Israel about its breach of international law, its expansion policy and its treatment of people. I am critical of anyone who wants to bomb anyone else—I do not see that as a solution—but if a people are kept imprisoned and denied work, hope and opportunity, then consequences follow. Those consequences are great bitterness, great conflict and horrible loss of life. In the past few weeks, 200 Palestinians have died in Gaza, and sadly one Israeli has been killed as the result of one rocket landing. This is wholly disproportionate. It is a horrible way forward, and the demonstrations around the world show just how isolated Israel is and just how isolated are those Governments who think that they can keep on and on apologising for Israel’s behaviour rather than pressure it to do something different. Such Governments are becoming out of touch with the feelings of an awful lot of ordinary people all over the world. Today’s debate gives us the opportunity to say that, at least.

Gaza

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I do not have specific information about that, but the Israeli Government argue very strongly that civilian facilities are used in Gaza to shield rocket launches and military operations by Hamas, and there is a good deal of credibility in those assertions.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The tragedy of the loss of life in the whole region surely stems ultimately from the occupation of the west bank, the settlement policy, and the current siege of Gaza. What practical steps has the Foreign Secretary taken to criticise Israel for its collective punishment of the people of Gaza, the destruction of water supplies and sewage plants, and the killings of large numbers of civilians, and what sanctions does he now propose to take against Israel for acting against international law in punishing a civilian population?

[Mr Hague]

I go a little further back in my analysis of the root causes, or, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, the ultimate causes, in terms of Israel’s policy. The ultimate cause is the failure to bring about a two-state solution, and there are failings on both sides in that regard. There is the failure to take opportunities in negotiations, and there is the failure by Hamas to adopt peaceful principles that would allow the world to welcome it into negotiations. Those failures exist on both sides, and therefore, for us, it is not a question of sanctions on one side or the other; it is a question of our effort to bring about a viable peace process, and that is where we must continue to place our emphasis.