Middle East: Security

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. Can he tell us where the Prime Minister is, and what he is doing that is so much more important than addressing Parliament on the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, an extremely dangerous and aggressive act that risks starting yet another deadly war in the middle east?

On Friday, I sent the Prime Minister a letter posing a series of questions. He has not answered any of them. Instead, today he is hiding behind his Defence Secretary. Is it not the truth that he is scared to stand up to President Trump because he has hitched his wagon to the prospect of a toxic Trump trade deal? At this highly dangerous moment, we find the Government giving cover and even expressing sympathy for what is widely regarded as an illegal act, because they are so determined to keep in with President Trump. This assassination puts British troops and civilians, as well as the people of the region, in danger.

As the Secretary of State will confirm, I have long spoken out against the Iranian Government’s human rights record, including when he and I visited Iran together in 2014. This is not a question of Soleimani’s actions or record in the region. Whatever the record of any state official, the principle and the law is that we do not go around assassinating foreign leaders. Without the clear demonstration of an immediate threat, it is illegal. So do the Government regard the assassination as legal under international law? If so, how? Do the lawyers in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence regard it as legal?

If the Secretary of State really believes that this was an act of self-defence, what evidence has he or the Prime Minister seen of an imminent attack on the US? The Secretary of State says that the United States is confident that attacks were imminent, but US officials have been quoted in the press as saying that the evidence was “razor thin”. How would the Secretary of State describe it?

In the past few days, the US President has threatened to target Iranian cultural sites and to attack Iran in a manner that is—I quote him directly—“disproportionate”. Both actions would be war crimes, yet the Government still seem unable to condemn such threats. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary said that the onus was entirely on Iran to de-escalate. I wonder whether, if Iran had assassinated an American general, the British Government would be telling Washington that the onus was entirely on the US to de-escalate.

We talk about this as a conflict between the US and Iran, but the worst consequences are likely to be felt by Iraq, a country on the brink of further terrible violence and instability. President Trump has threatened Iraq with

“sanctions like they’ve never seen before”

after its elected—yes, elected—Parliament voted to ask US and other foreign forces to leave their country. He has said he will not withdraw entirely unless the US is compensated for the “extraordinarily expensive air base” that was actually built by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. The Prime Minister—when he finally resurfaced from his trip—said that he was committed to the sovereignty of Iraq, so will the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will respect Iraqi sovereignty if the Iraqi Government ask all foreign forces, including British forces, to leave?

We know that the British Government were not consulted by the Trump Administration in advance, despite there being obvious British interests at stake. Let me also ask what the Government are doing to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other dual nationals who are currently in detention in Iran. This must be an utterly terrifying time both for them individually and for their families.

It is not in anyone’s interests for this to escalate to an all-out war. All sides should exercise maximum restraint and allow for meaningful dialogue, led by the UN Secretary-General’s office. To prevent war, we need a strong plan for diplomacy, so are the Government in contact with the UN Secretary-General? And let us not forget that there was a diplomatic plan: the Iran nuclear deal. It was working, until President Trump came along and tried to rip it up.

Time and again over the last two decades, the political and military establishments have made the wrong call on military interventions in the middle east. Many of us opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the failed invasion of Afghanistan, and I opposed the bombing of Libya in 2011. Have we learnt nothing from those events? This House must rule out plunging our country into yet another devastating war at the behest of another state.

[Mr Wallace]

I note that the Leader of the Opposition sent the Prime Minister a letter in which he posed three questions, none of which he has just posed from the Dispatch Box. I find that rather interesting. I am afraid that instead of a serious interrogation about we would de-escalate this situation in the middle east and how we would ensure that British citizens and British allies were secure, we heard the usual tripe—“This is about Trump, this is about America”—and all the other anti-American, anti-imperialist guff.

The Leader of the Opposition asked where the Prime Minister was. Well, funnily enough, the Prime Minister is running the country, something that the right hon. Gentleman will fail ever to do as a result of the general election. This Prime Minister actually believes in Cabinet government, and in letting the members of the Cabinet who are responsible for the policy come to the House to be able to answer questions about a matter relating to that policy. Indeed, the Prime Minister felt that it was appropriate for me, as a Secretary of State for Defence who currently has a significant number of assets in the region—in Iraq—and who is charged with the duty of defending this country, to attend and to answer the questions in his place.

Perhaps I can answer some of the few questions that were asked by the Leader of the Opposition. First, it is for the United States to answer in detail the question whether it views the intelligence on the basis of which it made its decision to be illegal or not. On the basis of the information and intelligence that I have seen, what I can say is that it is clear that there was a case for self-defence to be made in respect of an individual who had come to Iraq to co-ordinate murder and attacks on US citizens. That begs the question what the Leader of the Opposition would have done if that individual had come to Iraq or anywhere else to plot the murder of British soldiers and diplomats. Perhaps, as he recommended with al-Baghdadi of ISIS, he would seek to have him arrested at that time.

It is of course the case that this Government are engaged in a full diplomatic effort at all levels to de-escalate the tensions that have grown in the region, not only at the United Nations but in leader-to-leader, Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary discussions and using all other levers that we have. More broadly than just in the region, we are seeking efforts to ensure that Iran does not retaliate in any way that would escalate the situation and that our friends and allies do not escalate the situation either. The call that this Government are making is to ensure that we pause, that we focus on the safety of the peoples of that region and that we seek a way out for Iran and for its neighbours. The first way we can do that, which this Government are determined to try to do, is to ensure that the destabilising activity that has been going on in the region is ceased, so that we can all progress to find the solution that we desperately want to the conflict. In the meantime, the Government will get on and ensure that they keep people safe in the region, and we will do everything we can to protect them and their lives.

Counter-ISIL Coalition Strategy

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I do not think that my hon. Friend or the House would expect me to go into too much detail about how we gather intelligence in either Iraq or Syria, except to say that 30% of the intelligence-gathering effort is done by British aircraft. We need to build up a more accurate picture of ISIL’s strengths up the Tigris and west along the Euphrates before we can assist the Iraqi and Kurdish forces to retake the ground that has been lost. That advice, and train and equip, is all part of the mission to help bolster Iraqi forces.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I think we should thank the Freedom of Information Act for today’s statement. The Secretary of State really ought to come clean. What specific discussions has he had with Saudi Arabia about what happens to the arms supplied to it? Are any of them leaking through and ending up with ISIL forces or, indeed, any other weapons supplier in the region?

Secondly, what is happening about the oil that is clearly sold from the ISIL area of Syria to someone else and the money that then flows back to support it? How effective is the sanctions regime conducted by the western forces, with the co-operation of other Governments, to stop arms and money flowing to ISIL?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this does show the Freedom of Information Act at work: a question was put to us and we answered it, and the answer is produced on our website. I have regular discussions with the Defence Minister of Saudi Arabia—the deputy crown prince—not least about the situation in Yemen and the need for humanitarian aid and to get talks going. I am not aware of significant leakage of Saudi arms into the conflict in Iraq or Syria.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully aware of the commitments that were made at the NATO summit and has been even more fully aware during recent negotiations over the in-year savings, which have not taken us below 2%. It is important to note, though, that seven of the 28 NATO members do not even spend 1% on their defence and 20 of the 28 do not even spend 1.5%.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

As NATO now requires us to pay 2%, and apparently other member states the same, and has since 2006 given itself a global role, whose interests is it defending worldwide, and is it demanding that we replace the Trident nuclear missile system, or is that a self-grown decision?

[Michael Fallon]

The purpose of the alliance is to defend its members. That is why our troops were exercising last week in Estonia and will shortly be exercising in Romania and the Baltic sea, and why our Typhoons are flying with the Norwegians to protect the skies over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the face of Russian aggression. We are one of the nuclear members of the NATO alliance, and that nuclear shield helps to protect all members of the alliance.

HM Naval Base Clyde

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

I should first thank the Justice Secretary. In his anxiety to avoid answering a simple question, he has extended the time available for the Adjournment debate by 10 minutes, with his customary generosity. I have to acknowledge the role that he has played. Perhaps he wants to join us and focus on the key issue of safety at Her Majesty’s naval base at Clyde.

I am delighted to have won this Adjournment debate. I regret slightly that I am not able to make a maiden speech for my new constituency of Gordon, largely because Gordon is a constituency of outstanding landscapes and natural beauty. Few constituencies can compare with Gordon, but one of the few that can is the constituency so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). It is a constituency of stunning natural beauty far too great to be polluted by the obscenity of weapons of mass destruction. I am grateful for the Minister’s agreement to allow my hon. Friend to say a few words. This is a matter of constituency as well as general interest to him.

I want to do three things in the debate this evening. First, I want to get some detailed answers from the Ministry of Defence. We had today in a written statement from the Secretary of State for Defence 500 words of the suffocating bland complacency that typifies so much of the MOD’s reaction to serious concerns. I knew the Secretary of State for Defence at university and, although I might have accused him of many things, he was neither bland nor complacent. He seems to have picked up some bad habits in his tenure as Secretary of State for Defence. We want detailed answers to detailed questions this evening.

Secondly, I want to examine the lessons from the working, or indeed malfunctioning of the reactor prototype HMS Vulcan at Dounreay and what that tells us about the safety concerns at the Faslane base. The difficulties that that reactor has experienced and the MOD’s reaction to them give us serious cause for concern. Thirdly, I want to examine the inherent safety concerns about nuclear reactors, made double of course by the fact that the nuclear reactors in this case are associated with nuclear weapons and tripled by the fact that the nuclear weapons are on a submarine. That tells us that there is an inherent unsafe aspect to Trident submarines. How can that be reconciled with the new political reality in Scotland, where by my count 57 Members of Parliament out of 59 oppose the renewal of the Trident deterrent in Scotland?

I say 57 not because I am expecting an imminent by-election in Scotland, but because the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) is on the record as opposing the renewal of Trident. I congratulate him on his recent promotion to the Labour Front Bench—I should say that we have been the cause of that promotion. I hope that that promotion to the Front Bench does not mean that he has undergone some mind-melding process over the last week. I hope that he will stay faithful to the commitments made to his constituents publicly on his opposition to the renewal of Trident as a nuclear device.

I want to start with the claims made by Able Seaman McNeilly—claims that are published via WikiLeaks and also through the excellent journalism of the Sunday Herald. Briefly, those claims—I know that the Minister will treat them seriously and give us the detailed answers that we seek—are, first, that at the final security checkpoint in Faslane naval base, no security checks of ID cards were made, that the PIN code system was broken and that both Navy personnel and contractors were allowed access with no verification of identity. Secondly, aboard a vessel, on the missile compartment deck, no one asked for identification or checked to see whether personnel were on the list providing them with access to that part of the submarine. Thirdly, bags coming on board the submarine were going unchecked. It would be extraordinary if we had a greater level of security in the House of Commons than might exist at that nuclear naval base.

Fourthly, the vast majority of equipment onboard may be defective. It was alleged that HMS Vanguard was in the worst condition and had to be recalled to port several times, forcing other vessels to do extended patrols. Fifthly, it is alleged that a problem with one of the nuclear reactors aboard one of the SSBNs had been found and an instructor had suggested that all the boats might need to get their reactors replaced. We know that the process of refuelling is already under way.

It is claimed, sixthly, that firefighting equipment has been removed from the submarine while in port; seventhly, that complaints about defective equipment and safety concerns are being ignored; eighthly, that rules on constant manning of crucial positions such as the nuclear reactor’s main control desk and the nuclear missiles’ control and monitoring position are being ignored; ninthly, that the correct procedures to avoid a fire in the weapons storage compartment were not being followed, but no disciplinary action followed or was pursued; tenthly, that HMS Vanguard was nearly lost on two separate occasions, first in a deep depth incident, where the SSBN exceeded the recommended depth, and secondly when it crashed into a French SSBN. The report alleges that the extent of the latter incident has not been fully revealed.

It is claimed, eleventhly, that there have been numerous floods and fires aboard the SSBN, fire alarms are frequently ignored and concerns over fire hazards were dismissed; twelthly, that personal electronics equipment is frequently used in the vicinity of the missile compartments, despite being explicitly banned; and thirteenthly, that standard operating procedures and safety procedures are routinely ignored across the board. The last of the main allegations in the report is that the tests carried out at the end of a patrol had to be conducted three times because they kept failing, largely due to defective equipment.

Those are just some of the allegations—or revelations—made by Able Seaman McNeilly. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether any or all of them have substance, but I would submit to the House that in the crucial matter of safety, which is clearly what is at stake, the House and the public deserve better information and a more comprehensive explanation than the 500-word written statement issued by the Defence Secretary today. That is not just an insult to this House; it is an insult to the intelligence of the general public.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

I gladly give way to a Member who has a long interest in these matters.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that, in the previous Parliament, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the former Member for Lewisham, Deptford and I attended the conference on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons in Vienna. Most countries that took part in that conference have put on record a detailed assessment of the effects of a nuclear explosion, brought about by an accident or an act of war and the detonation of a nuclear weapon. Is he aware of any assessment made of what the effects would be on Scotland, on Glasgow, on the north of England or on Northern Ireland of a nuclear explosion, either by accident or design, in the Clyde, and what the effect would be on the wider population? Would he support such a report being sought from the UK Government?

[Alex Salmond]

I am aware of reports estimating the extraordinary damage that could result from such an occurrence. What I am not aware of is whether Her Majesty’s Government have ever conducted such an assessment, and whether they would be prepared to do that now and to release the findings to the general public and to this House.

The second question I want to raise is what the failings in the prototype reactor at Dounreay tell us about the functioning of the reactors on board the submarines at Faslane. I point to a statement—another written statement—from the Secretary of State for Defence on—

Falkland Islands Defence Review

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I hope the signal that will go out from the House today—from both sides of the House—will be the signal to the islanders themselves that this Government are determined to ensure their defence for the short, medium and long term, and will always protect their right to determine their future.

My right hon. Friend drew attention to the smaller number of ships. He will of course be aware that the ships we have today are much more powerful than some of the earlier platforms. He will know that we are constructing two new aircraft carriers and building altogether seven new hunter-killer submarines, and that the Prime Minister has recently announced the next phase of the construction of the Type 26 frigate fleet on the Clyde.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Does the Defence Secretary not think it a bit odd that he said nothing in his statement about diplomatic initiatives or relations with other countries, and that only in response to questions from Opposition Members has he even conceded that there have been discussions? Will he be more specific: what political, diplomatic and defence discussions has he had with Brazil, Uruguay or Argentina to reduce tensions and stress in the area, rather than proposing to spend £180 million?

[Michael Fallon]

As I have told the House, we have close and warm relations with other countries in the region. As I said, I have recently met the Foreign Minister from Brazil, and I and my colleagues continue to meet Ministers from other Governments. There is a standing invitation from the Falkland Islands Government to other Governments in the region to visit the islands for themselves and to understand the islanders’ wish to remain British.

Service Personnel (Ukraine)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I am looking forward to discussing this with the new American Secretary of Defence, Ash Carter, whose appointment I hope the whole House will welcome. I say to my hon. Friend that we cannot simply leave the defence of our continent to the Americans. They are involved in the joint commission with Ukraine, alongside Canada and ourselves, but it is also important for NATO to have the resolve to defend its own borders. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the commitments made at the NATO summit, which we now need to follow through.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Defence how far the Government have really thought this thing through. Does he acknowledge that 75 trainers will be followed by 150 trainers, and that they will be followed by more and more? The gifting of weapons is being talked about, and we are now moving into a situation in which we are going to be in the conflict in Ukraine. NATO wants Ukraine as a member, contrary to everything that was agreed following the break-up of the Soviet Union on the non-alignment and independence of that country. Instead of upping the military ante, why will not the Government put huge efforts into trying to demilitarise Russian militarism and NATO expansionism, in order to bring about a longer-term sustainable peace in that area? The danger of getting involved in a hot war in central Europe has got a bit closer as a result of the Secretary of State’s statement today.

[Michael Fallon]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are not supplying weapons and we are not attempting to escalate the conflict in any way. As I have said, we believe that in the end the answer has to be diplomatic and political, and the pressure therefore continues to be applied, through sanctions and so on. He invites us to help to demilitarise eastern Ukraine, but I think he ought to ask himself who has militarised the area and who has supplied weapons, tanks and heavy artillery across the border. It is now up to President Putin to withdraw his heavy weaponry, as was agreed at Minsk, and to implement the agreement that he has signed up to.

Afghanistan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to see an interesting cross-section of colleagues present at what I hope will be a good debate about the lessons from the war in Afghanistan.

Over the past week I have had to put up with a number of colleagues rather facetiously asking, “Lessons from which Afghan war?”—with the assumption that my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) might come along and talk about the first Afghan war and his own personal experiences. However, there is a serious element to this, because of course we, the British, were directly involved, more or less on our own, in three wars in Afghanistan—the 1839-42 war, the 1878-81 war, and in 1919—and then as part of a wider coalition from 2003 to 2014. That is part of the background for the Afghan people and what they think about the British—even if that is thoughts in the most benign way.

The second point to make is that I do not have military experience. I was a soldier manqué and taught military history at Sandhurst and the Army staff college, as well as for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy—a few of my former students who slept through my lectures are sitting here in the Chamber. My point, however, is that we tend to forget—perhaps not colleagues in the Chamber now, but often journalists and many times the public—that if we decide to initiate military action, two things are consequences. First, no military plan normally conforms to immediate contact with the enemy, so it is usually incredibly difficult to see how military action will develop. Secondly, such action will inevitably result in casualties.

We know that, for example, in both Iraq and Afghanistan the British suffered heavy casualties—not as many as the Americans or, indeed, as the Iraqis and the Afghan people. For example, in Iraq between 2003 and 2009, we lost 179 people, with several hundred wounded. In Afghanistan, between 2003—or, if we count Helmand, 2006—to the end of last year, 453 were killed and about 2,000 wounded. Without degrading that loss, that is probably about two days’ casualties suffered by the British Commonwealth armies in the 1944 Normandy campaign. The difference, of course, is that in 1944 it was total war—a war for national existence—so the public, while not welcoming the casualties, were more than prepared to tolerate them. With Iraq and Afghanistan, however, a sizeable proportion of British public opinion never supported either intervention.

Why do I wish to debate the lessons from the war in Afghanistan? I think that to do so is crucial. In a debate we had the other week on the Chilcot inquiry, I said that we are in fact talking about a two-act play. Iraq is the first act and overlapping with it is Afghanistan. In many respects, Afghanistan is as important, if not more so. The Chilcot inquiry is looking into the reasons why we went to war in Iraq and the lessons to be learned. That inquiry will tell us certain things, but Afghanistan is a black hole into which, as far as I can see, the Ministry of Defence, other Departments and the Cabinet Office are not as yet prepared to look for strategic lessons that should be learned.

A vast amount of evidence, ironically, is in the public domain. We have the evidence of many witnesses at the Chilcot inquiry who touched on the war in Afghanistan—the military, the intelligence and the politicians overlap. We also have a whole series of memoirs of one kind or another. The great lacuna is of course the memoirs of politicians and Ministers. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, spent a considerable amount of time in his memoir on Iraq, but only about a dozen pages on Afghanistan. Perhaps for obvious reasons, we do not have any memoirs of former Foreign or Defence Ministers—perhaps constrained by the Chilcot inquiry—but we have the memoirs of the military, mainly the Army, ranking from non-commissioned officers, through middle-ranking officers to a whole series of senior officers and generals, some of which have said more about their personal ambitions and their desire to get retaliation in first, rather than giving us an overview and an insight into what went on.

I want not only to get down into the weeds, looking at the lessons from the war in Afghanistan, but to address some fundamental points that are crucial to understanding the war and to our foreign policy and security posture.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The good news is that I will not be present for all of it, because I have a union group to attend—which I am sure he would like to be at too. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point of history and I am fascinated by his historical references, which are important, but does he not also think that there is another narrative: the stories of the ordinary people of Afghanistan who have been through the war, are still going through it and are still living in poverty? Sadly, tens of thousands of them are ending up as refugees well away from Afghanistan. Is that not a failure of the whole operation?

[Mr Simpson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. That is the law of unintended consequences. I do not think that we, the Americans or our allies wanted things to turn out in that way in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but he is correct: that story is continuing and should concern all of us.

Were the policy and strategy outlined by the British Government at the time correct? Were they well thought through? Was the intervention considered calmly and rationally, taking into account the best advice of Whitehall, the Departments—the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development —and the intelligence services?

Trident Renewal

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I apologise to the House for not being here at the start of the debate. As I explained to you in a letter, Mr Speaker, I was attending the funeral of a friend of mine, Mike Marqusee, a great writer who passed away last week. He had an enormous funeral this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was there, too. When I informed the massive audience that we were leaving to come to vote against Trident, they burst into rapturous applause.

Mike Marqusee wrote a great deal and thought a great deal. He started by opposing the Vietnam war and spent his life campaigning for peace and a nuclear-free world. During the funeral we received a message from another good friend of mine, Achin Vanaik, who is an anti-nuclear campaigner in India. He does not want India to have nuclear weapons or to be a nuclear power, and he does not want Britain to be a nuclear power. He wants to see a nuclear-free world. He is not alone. There are millions around the world who do not see nuclear weapons as their peace and their security. They see such weapons, first, as an enormous expenditure and, secondly, as an enormous threat to this world.

I attended the Vienna conference on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons, along with other colleagues from the House. I was very pleased that, at the last moment, the British Government decided to attend, as did the United States Government. That was a good step forward, because they had not attended previous conferences in Oslo and Mexico. I hope that all the delegates took in the reality of what a nuclear explosion is. When Members talk glibly about the deterrent or the threat—the possibility of deterring people through the use of nuclear weapons—they should pause and think for a moment. If someone says that they have a deterrent and it is a threat, they must be prepared to use it. If anyone anywhere in the world uses a nuclear weapon of any size, millions die and there is an environmental catastrophe, a global recession, a food shortage and a nuclear winter. It would mean the destruction of an awful lot of things that we hold very dear. We talk glibly about the security that these weapons give us, but that security is one of destroying everything that we hold dear. Perhaps we should be a little less glib and a little more sanguine about the real humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons.

Next month, the Government will host a meeting of the P5, the permanent members of the UN Security Council that also happen to be the five declared nuclear weapons states, but please let no one tell me that if a country gives up nuclear weapons it can no longer be a permanent member of the Security Council, because that is simply not the case. Presumably, the meeting was designed to work out the line to take ahead of the five-yearly review conference on nuclear weapons, which will take place in New York in May.

The non-proliferation treaty was the product of good work by the Wilson Labour Government, and others, in 1970, and contains two key demands. The first is that the five declared nuclear weapons states—Britain, France, China, Russia and the USA—take steps towards disarmament. The second is that all other signatories agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, and the declared nuclear weapons states agreed not to export nuclear technology. Is the development of a new submarine and nuclear weapons systems by Britain part of taking steps towards disarmament? Or is it the very opposite—taking steps towards re-armament? Perhaps we could have more credibility by going to the P5 meeting in February with a proposal for the non-replacement of Trident and the start of a process of disarmament by all five P5 members. We could report back to the conference in May.

We have been discussing morality and credibility. At the conference on the humanitarian effects of war, the British representative, the ambassador to Vienna, delivered a speech on behalf of the Foreign Office in which he outlined the British Government’s case for nuclear weapons, which was that they believe them to bring security—we have heard many of the same arguments today. It was met with silence, sadness, disappointment and incredulity, particularly after we had heard from people who had witnessed nuclear explosions and seen their effects.

That speech was followed by one from the representative of the South African Government, who explained how South Africa had nuclear technology but had specifically given it up in order to make the continent of Africa a nuclear weapons-free zone. How did the conference receive that speech? There was amazing sympathy, support and optimism. We offered pessimism, threats and insecurity; the South Africans offered hope and some kind of justice around the world. I hope that the House will understand that many of us will never give up on the idea that we can and will live in a nuclear-free world, and that our existence as a country does not depend on being able to destroy the rest of the planet.

When 2016 comes, we will presumably be invited to vote on the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system and expenditure on it of about £100 billion over the next 25 years. That is an utterly incredible sum of money. I obviously hope that we do not undertake the renewal, and that if we do we never use the weapons. An enormous amount of resources is taken up in creating a weapon of mass destruction when we could be setting our engineering industry, which is highly skilled, highly motivated and able to produce many things, to producing things of social and economic good rather than the drain involved in the cost of nuclear weapons. That, in turn, would help our economic development, whereas the development of nuclear weapons will not.

To those who say that it is all for our security and that our security is enhanced by nuclear weapons, let me say this. If we follow that argument, any country in the world can say, “We need nuclear weapons.” Iceland could say it wants them; Paraguay could say it wants them; Japan could say it must have nuclear weapons—the list goes on, the countries get bigger and the possibilities become more dangerous.

The last review conference reiterated the previous decision that there should be a middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone conference that would be hosted by the Finnish Government. It did not happen, and because it did not happen, Egypt walked out. Others in the Arab League and in the region warned that if this conference did not take place, there would be a danger to the whole non-proliferation treaty process. I hope that the Government are aware of that danger. Every single country at the last review conference agreed that the conference I mentioned for the middle east should take place, and I hope that it will. It would provide a way of getting Israel and Iran around the same table. We got together on chemical weapons and a load of other things, so we should get together on that. Otherwise, there will be a danger of a nuclear arms race developing across that region, with obvious dangers to the rest of the world.

Others wish to speak, so let me conclude with these thoughts. We were elected to this place to try to improve people’s lives; we were elected to represent our constituents and to ensure that they have homes, jobs, schools, hospitals and security. A secure world is not created by an arms race, and it is not created by creating more and more threats. A secure world is created by looking at the issues that divide the world—the racism that divides the world; the poverty that divides the world; the environmental destruction that divides the world. Can we not look in a different direction and deliver a different foreign policy, rather than hold to the arid idea that all we need to do is to spend phenomenal sums of money in order to threaten to destroy the whole planet?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brazier]

We are still firmly committed to April 2019 as the target date. As I have mentioned, recruiting has increased substantially. If we look at the latest quarter as opposed to the latest six months, we see that it has roughly doubled. Over the past six months it is up 62%, but over the second half of that period it has gone up even faster, and we expect a further continuation of that positive trend. We are firmly committed to April 2019.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

4. If he will publish research held by the Government on the global atmospheric consequences of nuclear war.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

Classified studies conducted by the Ministry of Defence focus on the effects of UK nuclear weapons and the potential impact, including on critical national infrastructure, of a nuclear attack on the United Kingdom.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Under the 30-year rule, Cabinet papers for 1984 have now been published. They show that the Government at that time refused to undertake any study of the atmospheric effects of a nuclear weapon explosion or nuclear testing. As I understand it, no other study has been undertaken since then. At the conference on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons in Vienna, there were some disturbing—no, frightening—reports of what would happen to the world’s climate if any nuclear explosion took place anywhere. Does the Minister not think it is incumbent on the Government to tell the British people exactly what the consequences of a nuclear explosion are, not just for them but for the whole planet?

[Mr Francois]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to some declassified Home Office documents, which as Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence I confess I have not read. I believe that nuclear deterrence contributes materially to our national security. If the hon. Gentleman wants to read a really good study on nuclear deterrence, I recommend “On Nuclear Deterrence: The Correspondence of Sir Michael Quinlan”, published by the Royal United Services Institute in 2011. It is a ripping good read about how to keep a country safe and free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

As my hon. Friend knows, BAE systems is pursuing a number of significant export prospects for the Hawk, with active support from the Ministry of Defence and UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation. As international air forces modernise their front-line aircraft, we anticipate that there will be significant further interest in the next generation of Hawk aircraft, the Hawk T2, which is already in service to train our Typhoon pilots and will do so for the F-35 pilots in due course.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Next month, the Government will be hosting a meeting of the five declared nuclear weapons states ahead of the non-proliferation treaty review in May. Will the Minister tell the House what he intends to achieve from that meeting, whether there will be an agreed position put and whether the P5 will adhere to the basic principles of the non-proliferation treaty and take steps towards nuclear disarmament?

[Mr Francois]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we take the nuclear non-proliferation treaty extremely seriously. We uphold that treaty and it is vital that we persuade other nations around the world that may be in breach of that treaty to abide by its conventions as well. The hon. Gentleman and I take a different view on these matters. I spent many years at university debating against the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and I still seem to be doing it now.

UK Armed Forces (Iraq)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

The tactics of ISIL vary and there is some evidence that it is already altering its tactics in the face of air strikes. The overall strategy has to be led and endorsed by the Government of Iraq. It is very important that, in the end, the campaign is led by the home-grown army of Iraqi and Kurdish forces, with the support of the international coalition. The strategy has to be formulated there rather than here, but we can offer specialist expertise.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In 2003, there was massive opposition to Britain going into Iraq. Those concerns are still there, yet we have now heard that more British troops are going back into Iraq and that a British base is being built in Bahrain. Is the Secretary of State not presiding over an expansion and an extension of British military activity in the whole region? Is he really sure where all this will lead, what the cost will be, and what the casualties will be?

[Michael Fallon]

What I am sure of, first of all, is that ISIL presents a clear and present danger to us in the United Kingdom. There have been acts of violent extremism on the streets of our capital and elsewhere. This is a very direct threat and there are Britons, sadly, who have gone to fight for the jihadists. There is a direct British interest in ensuring that ISIL is not allowed to capture further territory in Iraq and is thrown back out of it. That is why we are supporting the legitimate Government of Iraq, and why we are acting at their request in considering what further training and support we are able to offer. So far as the base in Bahrain is concerned, we have ships and aircraft permanently present in the Gulf. Having a permanent base there will make deployment much easier.