Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL
Pat McFadden Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The immediate decision before us in this debate is about military action, but behind that, this is about values. This is not a war against Islam. Islam is one of the great world religions, which is practised freely, without any harm to anyone, by millions of people in this country and around the world. This is not about Islam, but about co-existence.
Co-existence is absolutely fundamental to our society—the ability to elect Governments who are freely chosen by the people, equality of rights between men and women, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are fundamental—but ISIS rejects every tenet of it. That is why ISIS kills, with impunity, fellow Muslims, Christians and Yazidis; engages in sexual exploitation of, and the trade in, women; and cares nothing for anyone who does not sign up to its single truth. This is not about Islam, but about co-existence.
The shadow of past decisions—particularly the 2003 decision to invade Iraq—is a long one in debates such as this one. That is because there is a live debate about the degree to which we are responsible for creating or fomenting violent jihadism. It is important to be clear about that. I accept that past decisions have angered jihadists and perhaps encouraged some people to join them, but it is a fundamental mistake to think that we are responsible for violent jihadism. Let us not forget that the bombing of the World Trade Centre on 11 September took place two years before the invasion of Iraq. Syria, until recent days, has been a byword for non-intervention by the west; yet it is now the headquarters of the global jihad.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not also the case that there was a plot against the World Trade Centre in the 1990s, that the bombing of USS Cole was in 1998 and that al-Qaeda carried out plots and activities of a similar kind well before the intervention in Iraq?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth stressing that the United States Administration’s policy for the past five or six years has been absolutely to resist intervention, but we still have violent Islamic jihadism and ISIS.
Mr MacNeil
I just want to query the hon. Gentleman’s history. What is the connection between the twin towers attack and Iraq?
Mr McFadden
The point I am making is that violent Islamic jihadism was around long before the decision in 2003.
Beneath the argument that this is really our fault lies a new imperialism—an imperialist conceit that, in foreign policy terms, seeks to divide the world into adults and children. The United States, the United Kingdom and other countries are defined as adults, and movements elsewhere, including the jihadists, are defined almost as children who react only in response to what we do or do not do. That is not the case: they are responsible for their own actions and their own ideology.
No one has forced anyone to behead innocent journalists and aid workers on the internet. No one has forced anyone to go from this country to join a group that carries out such acts. No one has forced anyone to carry out the terrorist acts that we have seen on our own streets. We cannot say this loudly and clearly enough: those who carry out these actions and foment this ideology are adults who are responsible for their own actions.
That brings me to the motion, which sets out a plan for military action in Iraq. I will vote for it, but I have to ask, as other hon. Members have asked, why it is right to carry out such actions against ISIS in Iraq, but not in Syria. The Government have welcomed the action carried out by the United States and Arab countries in Syria in recent days. If it is welcome and right for others to do so, why is it not welcome and right for us? If the Government’s position is that it would be illegal or wrong to act in that way in Syria, why is it not illegal or wrong for the United States and the countries taking part in the action? Militarily, we must ask what the point is of chasing ISIS from Iraq through a barely existing border to Syria. Morally, we must ask why it is right to come to the aid of the victims of ISIS who live under a democracy in Iraq, but not those who live under a dictatorship in Syria.
Is not the motion a reflection of where the country stands right now—somewhat limited in its confidence, overburdened by past events, and looking too much in the rear-view mirror? I would say that “Out, damn’d spot” is no basis for taking crucial foreign policy decisions. Instead, we should learn from the past, ally our soft power with hard power, follow through on our decisions to intervene so that we achieve our objectives, and not just define the struggle as a generational one and begin military action, but actually will the means to complete the job.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It was in February 2003 that I went on the famous march in London, alongside—it is estimated—millions of people around the world. My now wife came on her first ever political protest. I was proud to be part of that movement, and I am proud now that so many in this House have acknowledged that my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches were right to have opposed war then.
However, this situation could not be more different. A democratic sovereign state has asked us for help to deal with one of the most unpleasant terrorist forces that we have ever seen. There is a clear legal case for action, and there is an overwhelming moral case not simply to sit and watch the appalling scenes on television. As a nation—I am pleased that many hon. Members have acknowledged this—we now accept that we have a responsibility precisely because of the mistake of going into Iraq in the first place.
Mr McFadden
The hon. Gentleman says that we have a moral obligation because Iraq is a democratic state. Can he tell the House why it is a democratic state?
Greg Mulholland
This is a very strange time to be seeking to make points about the mistaken invasion of Iraq. The right hon. Gentleman should instead accept some responsibility for his vote, which was so mistaken.
I am also pleased that the House is taking so seriously its most profound responsibility—to vote on whether to send our brave servicemen and women to war. I take that as seriously as anyone, having been up to nearly 20,000 feet with three very brave former and current servicemen who have served and been injured fighting for our country. I have seen at first hand the reality of what that means through the incredible work of the Royal British Legion Battle Back Centre. We are right to take this seriously.
It would be a further tragedy of the disaster of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 if we felt we were unable ever again to intervene as part of an international force, which is what is proposed. This is not simply following America’s coat tails; this is part of a genuine international coalition, and we must do this. We simply cannot turn a blind eye to genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the most appalling sorts of religious persecution we have seen since, frankly, the concentration camps. Then it was an attempt to wipe out the Jewish people and the Jewish faith, as well as Poles, Catholics, socialists and Gypsies. Now, Christians, Muslims, both Sunni and Shi’a, Yazidis and people of all faiths and none are being slaughtered, murdered and tortured. The BBC has reported that 3,000 women and children have been sold into the sex trade by people who claim to be doing so on behalf of religion. I understand that we all have anxieties, and we should have them, but I have heard nothing today from those who are voting no or telling us to vote no about the alternative. We cannot negotiate with an evil, maniacal force such as Islamic State, and we should not do so. We must stop that and then we will be assisting a further opportunity for the middle east to go forward again.
Like everyone else, I will be taking this vote seriously and voting with a heavy heart, but as an internationalist and a Liberal, and as someone who believes that this country should not turn its back on what is happening, I believe that this country must take a part in this international coalition, so I will be voting in support of the motion.
NATO Summit
Pat McFadden Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
A number of people raised their concerns about the referendum. The overwhelming view of people who wish our country well is to say that of course it is a decision for people in Scotland but they hope that we stay together. I would absolutely echo that. Two visions of Scotland’s future are being put forward. The vision I believe in, and I believe the majority of Scots believe in, is, yes, of a proud and strong Scotland with strong institutions and a powerful place in the world that is in part secured by its membership of the United Kingdom. The alternative vision of separation involves such uncertainty about all these organisations—not knowing whether they would have a place in the European Union, or indeed a place in NATO, or indeed what currency they would use. These are real problems of uncertainty. I believe that the patriotic choice for Scotland is a strong, proud Scotland but within the United Kingdom.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
May I echo the Prime Minister’s words about Jim Dobbin? I sat beside him at the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party that we had on Friday, and we both discussed the Scottish situation. His death has come as a great shock to us all.
President Obama will set out his strategy for dealing with ISIS on Wednesday. If, as seems likely, military action is part of that strategy and if the UK Government decide to join in that military action, even if that decision is restricted to action in the air and not forces on the ground, does the Prime Minister believe that that would require a vote in this House?
The Prime Minister
The short answer is yes, but we are not at that stage yet. As I said on Friday, we should be building this comprehensive strategy. We are already helping the Kurds, delivering arms to them. I said that we should step up to arming them directly and to training Kurdish peshmerga battalions, and increasing all the elements of the strategy. I have always believed, in this role and as leader of a Government, that you should consult the House of Commons as regularly as you can and the House of Commons should have an opportunity to vote. The point I always make, though, and this is not to run away from the right hon. Gentleman’s particular scenario in any way, is that it is important that a Prime Minister and a Government reserve the right to act swiftly without consulting the Commons in advance in some specific circumstances—for instance, if we had to prevent an immediate humanitarian catastrophe or, indeed, secure a really important, unique British interest. But other than that I believe it is right, as he said, to consult the House of Commons.
EU Council, Security and Middle East
Pat McFadden Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. Friend, for this reason: we have had to make difficult decisions in order to deal with the deficit, but no one can describe a £33 billion defence budget—one of the top five budgets anywhere in the world—as a small stick. Because we have taken difficult decisions, we have got a new aircraft carrier, with another to follow, the Type 45 destroyers, the Astute submarines, the best-equipped Army that I think we have had for many years and, of course, a whole new range of aircraft for the RAF. You can only have that size and sort of stick if you take the difficult decisions elsewhere in your budgets.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The decision to water down control orders was the wrong policy taken for the wrong reasons, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s at least partial U-turn today on the relocation element.
On the international dimension, it is right to learn the lessons from the past, but it is wrong to be imprisoned by the past, particularly by the decision on the Iraq war or last year’s decision on military intervention in Syria. In the light of what has happened in recent months, will the Prime Minister consider seeking a new mandate from Parliament which begins not by ruling options out or by looking over our shoulders, but by exercising leadership and confronting the threat we face here and now?
The Prime Minister
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we of course need to learn the lessons of the past but must not be imprisoned by decisions that were taken in the past. I think the whole tone of the debate today is that, yes, it is for those in the region—principally the Iraqi Government and the Kurds and neighbours—to lead the charge against squeezing this appalling organisation ISIL, but Britain, America, France and others should use all the tools in our toolkit to help them to do that. We have to make a judgment about how we best help those on the ground, and to date that judgment has been to provide aid and political support and to help with certain military aspects. The Americans have gone further and provided air strikes. I think that is the right way to approach this problem.
On the issue of control orders, let me quote again what the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation said:
“There is no need to put the clock back. The majority of changes introduced by the TPIMs Act have civilised the control order system without making it less effective.”
We have to understand that control orders were permanently being run ragged in the courts. We needed a new system and now we can improve it.
Ukraine (Flight MH17) and Gaza
Pat McFadden Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his service in the Ministry of Defence and in the Northern Ireland Office. Because of the work that he and others have done, we now face a situation in which the defence budget is not being cut. Having sorted out the black hole in the defence budget, we now have the launch of the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, the biggest ship ever delivered to the Royal Navy, with the Type 45 destroyers, the hunter-killer submarines, the A400Ms and the joint strike fighters all to arrive. So we have a drumbeat of superb, deployable, high-tech, world-beating equipment so that we can ensure that our country is safe long into the future. There is a proper time to consider whether the events that we see today fundamentally change the strategy and the laydown that we need, and we will do that at the right time.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
A year ago, the House took a decision not to intervene militarily in Syria, and that was quickly followed by a similar decision by the United States. These decisions were both coloured by a reaction to long military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Prime Minister is right that the shooting down of this airliner was the responsibility of Russian-backed separatists armed by Russia, how will he ensure a robust response in the light of that mood, that affects both politics and political decision-making, which shows that we have not lost our ability to act or our willingness to stand up for what we believe in?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the sentiment behind what the right hon. Gentleman said absolutely. It is true that Britain is war weary after Iraq and Afghanistan. I still believe that if the challenge came along where we were asked to serve alongside others to protect our national interests, this House and the country would answer the call. But in this case we are not talking about military intervention; we are talking about, with our partners and with like-minded countries, using our economic and financial muscle in the world to demonstrate what I have said, which is that Russia needs European markets far more than we need Russian markets, and we need to make that strength show. But we will only do it, as he says, with an exercise of political will.
European Council
Pat McFadden Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. That is exactly what I will do. There are countries and leaders in Europe who are clear about the need for reform. They want to see greater flexibility and competitiveness. They are willing to look at the British agenda of completing the single market, signing trade deals, having a flexible European Union, not forcing everyone into the single currency, and imposing safeguards for the single market. Even difficult issues such as ensuring that freedom of movement is a qualified right and addressing benefit tourism are things that leaders on both the right and the left in Europe are willing to change, and that is what we need to build on.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said in his article this morning and in his statement today that it does not matter if he is isolated as long as he is in the correct position. The difference is that in the negotiation on which he is now embarking, he needs the support not of one other member state but of all other member states. How does he intend to move from a position of not so splendid isolation to securing the support that he says he wants? If he cannot secure it, he will end up recommending withdrawal, which is precisely the outcome he says he does not want.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Britain will build alliances with the leaders and countries that want to see change in Europe. For instance, the Swedish Prime Minister said yesterday that the UK
“has friends in the EU…Just look into what we have written in our conclusions.”
The Danish Prime Minister said that the EU
“should not occupy itself with some of the things that member states can handle better themselves.”
The Finnish Prime Minister said that
“for a country like Finland, British membership is very important.”
The fact is that when it comes to this renegotiation, there are many countries in the EU that want to keep Britain in and recognise that real change will have to come.
European Council
Pat McFadden Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should define what our national interest is in this instance, and I think it is that Britain benefits from there being a world where countries obey the rules and where there is a rules-based global system. We are an international country—a country that relies on the world’s markets being open, and on countries obeying norms and standards of behaviour. We know what price is paid if we turn a blind eye when such things happen: we build up much bigger problems for the future.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
At the critical moment a few weeks ago, and during the street protests in Kiev, the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France and Poland represented the European Union. Why was Britain absent from that group? Was it a deliberate choice of the UK Government, or was it a reflection of our threat to leave the European Union in three years’ time?
Commonwealth Meeting and the Philippines
Pat McFadden Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. At its best, the Commonwealth comes together and signs up to important declarations, such as the Perth declaration on human rights, but sadly, at its worst, those values are not always stood up for in every case. We can point to the good places, such as Fiji, excluded from the Commonwealth, given a path back to the Commonwealth if the right things happen, but we can all point to examples where these values have not been properly upheld. But it is an organisation that we should be proud to belong to and want to make it deliver to its best.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Given what happened at the end of the war in Sri Lanka and what has happened since, why does the Prime Minister think that the Sri Lankan Government can be trusted to set up a proper independent inquiry? Why is it not right for us to press now for what he said he might press for in March, which is an international inquiry in which the world can have trust?
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I would be delighted to make that visit with my hon. Friend. I have made visits with him in the past to look at what is happening in the black country in terms of greater job opportunities. That is part of the picture of a country where there are 1.4 million more people in private sector employment. In spite of the predictions that we would lose jobs, 1 million more people are in work in Britain today.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is the first duty of any Government to protect the public. Since the Prime Minister decided deliberately to downgrade the country’s anti-terror laws, two suspects have used their Government-granted freedom to escape, the latest one clad in a burqa. Will the Prime Minister admit that that decision was a hugely irresponsible mistake, and in particular will he revisit the sunset clause that will lift the remaining regime on the remaining suspects in January?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. The facts are these: under the control order regime, seven people absconded under control orders. Control orders were being endlessly hacked away at by the courts, so we needed to put a new system in place—a system that has the confidence of the police and the security services. Of course we will look at every single thing we can do to make sure the system is as good and robust as it can be, but we in this House should be frank that we are dealing with people who we are not able to charge and lock up, many of whom we would like to throw out of our country but currently cannot. We have to have some sort of regime like this, but we will do everything we can to make it as robust as possible.
EU Council
Pat McFadden Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There are two points here. What the eurozone countries want is a sort of social score card to go with deeper integration. I said that we did not want to be involved in that and insisted on a voluntary system. We not only need to see that welfare issues remain for national Governments; we need to look at the habitual residence test and some of the problems with the welfare system. This is not now a uniquely British complaint about European systems. We hear it from German and Dutch Ministers and others, so we need to build an alliance to try to ensure that we have a better system in Europe.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
What progress—or lack of it—was made on banking union and did the Prime Minister find any support among fellow EU leaders for the idea that it would benefit Britain’s very important financial services industries to pull out of the EU and erect barriers between us and our most important market?
The Prime Minister
There was some progress on banking union, but this is an issue predominantly for members of the eurozone. A single currency necessitates some form of single bank regulation and resolution system, and that is what its members are putting in place. They are doing so quite tentatively, however, because they are beginning to realise what an enormous transfer of sovereignty it could amount to—theoretically, of course, it would see German citizens standing behind Greek banks and vice versa. Some progress was made. Britain is not taking part in this banking union, of course, but we have achieved some excellent safeguards to ensure that we have a real say over those parts of financial services regulation to which we are still subject. I suspect that progress towards full banking union will be fairly slow, but in any case Britain will not be involved.
Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons
Pat McFadden Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
This debate inevitably takes place in the shadow of the decision taken in the House a decade ago to go to war with Iraq, and it is absolutely right that we learn from that experience, but the past should inform us rather than imprison us. After the experience of the 20th century, chemical weapons are rightly regarded with unique horror by the world.
It is completely understandable, in the light of the decision taken by this House a decade ago, that people want to know more about the facts of the use of chemical weapons this time. That is why it is right that we should look closely at the facts and at the reports, and analyse them very carefully. The bar to action is necessarily higher now because of the experience of the past decade. But in asking questions and calling for evidence, it is important that this is done as a means of taking a decision rather than a means of avoiding a decision. Let us see the evidence and the reports, but let us not escape the fact that we will still have a responsibility to decide; if not tonight, then very soon.
If the lesson that we drew from Iraq was that we must never again intervene, that military action could never again take place where repression was taking place and that it is impossible to act no matter how brutal a dictator is being to his own people, and if our policy was governed by a world-weary resignation that these issues are difficult and complex and therefore there is little that we can do, then I say that would be a dismal conclusion for victims of repression around the world. It would also be an open recognition of the diminished stance and capability of the international community, and it would beg the question as to what international law banning chemical weapons would mean if it could not be enforced.
Robert Flello
For many in this Chamber such as me, it is not about not taking action; it is about what that action is and what it is seeking to achieve. Action that is taken that makes things worse creates a worse situation.
Mr McFadden
I understand the fears expressed by my hon. Friend, but for the reasons I have set out, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right in his speech and in the amendment not to rule out military action. People say that it is difficult and complex, and of course it is. We cannot predict with certainty the consequences of action. But difficulty and complexity cannot be reasons to give dictators the right to do as they wish to their own people. Difficulty and complexity cannot be justifications for abandoning people to their fate, including death through the use of chemical weapons. In terms of consistency, the fact that we cannot do everything and that we do not act in every circumstance is not a reason never to act, whatever the circumstances.
Naomi Long
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last statement, but the issue of consistency is important. The question in the minds of the public, and many of us in the House tonight, is, “Why in some cases and not in others?” Surely in order to reassure the public, we need to have a clear framework as to how these decisions are taken.
Mr McFadden
The use of the fact that we have not acted in the past where perhaps we should have done as an argument against action in every circumstance is, in the end, a counsel of despair and an abdication of our responsibilities.
I do not believe that tonight’s votes are the key because I do not think that this is the debate or the motion that the Government intended. But that decision and that key debate is coming. We will soon be faced with the decision and the responsibility as to what we, as permanent members of the UN Security Council and as people who have stood up against repression in the past, will do in the face of chemical weapons being used against innocent civilians. That decision is coming soon and we will have to take it.