House of Commons
Tuesday 25 March 2008
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The Secretary of State was asked—
Iraq
The United Kingdom, with its international partners, remains committed to supporting Iraq’s development into a secure and stable country, able to play its rightful role in the region and within the international community. This is consistent with our proactive approach to foreign policy, centred on the strategic goals that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary outlined to the House on 8 January 2008.
On 23 May 2003, Jerry Bremer, head of the coalition provincial authority, ordered the dissolution of the Iraqi army. A week before that, he had disbanded the Ba’ath party, alienating tens of thousands of Iraqis, including some 40,000 teachers and as many nurses and doctors. Will the Minister now concede that those were two of the biggest schoolboy errors in recent peacekeeping history and explain why Britain supported those decisions?
I do not think that “schoolboy errors” is the right description. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that tremendous resentment was felt towards the Ba’ath party and the Iraqi army for what they had done over the previous 10 years, including the appalling events in Kurdistan and the massacre of Shi’a s in the south. If he is asking whether I think, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was a mistake to do that, I shall defer to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) who is, among other things, a military historian, and can give his hon. Friend a more considered view. I think that it is easy to look at things with hindsight and to assume that the facts as we now know them were apparent at the time.
Are we not seeing a post-Iraq foreign policy emerging, exemplified by President Sarkozy’s visit here, his desire to see a reintegration with NATO and to send more troops to Afghanistan, and also by Senator John McCain’s statement on the front page of Le Monde at the weekend that the US must listen to its allies and rebuild relations with Europe? Is not the real lesson to learn that Europe and the US must work together and the US must listen to Europe? Britain has to be a leader in Europe, and the way forward is neither the anti-European populism of the right nor the stupid anti-US rhetoric of the left.
There is very little I disagree with in that.
The Minister will know as well as anyone the amount of disappointment felt by Britain’s allies in the middle east at our failure to exercise more influence over the course of events in Iraq, in particular on the mistakes in American policy. Could the Minister give his assessment of the damage that has been done to the achievement of British foreign policy goals by the damage to our influence with our friends in the region?
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this issue and I always have done. However, if he is implying that what Britain has done in the middle east is somehow more damaging than, for example, the duplicity that we have witnessed from some of the capitals in the middle east on issues such as Lebanon or support for the rejectionists in Gaza and the west bank, I disagree. The real damage is being done by those who want to see the middle east not as a settled, prosperous area, but under the influence of certain extremist groups and terrorists.
Last month I was in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and I met women’s groups and trade union groups. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is by forging links with such groups seeking social justice that we will achieve our foreign policy goals in Iraq?
Yes, it is important to stress that there are parts of Iraq that have done extremely well over the past year or so. Like my hon. Friend, I visited Irbil recently and saw the encouraging developments there. What is required now is a sense of unity between Irbil, Baghdad and Basra that will enable that country to start to tap its enormous potential, because it could be very prosperous and a key country for the whole middle eastern region.
Does the Minister understand that many of us believe that our involvement in Iraq has done immense damage to Britain’s national and international interests, and that that is one of several disreputable reasons why the present Government will not allow an immediate inquiry into Iraq?
No, I certainly do not agree. I do agree that our involvement in Iraq has generated tremendous controversy, and we have to accept that. It would be silly to deny it. However, on the other hand, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that Iraq is not now in a position to attack its neighbours, to gas and poison its own people or to commit the sort of atrocities that occurred before Saddam Hussein was removed.
Gaza
We have been working with partners to address the situation in Gaza. I have recently been in contact with the key players, including the UN Secretary-General and EU colleagues as well as leading figures in the region. The EU presidency issued a statement following the European Council last week. We call on all parties to exercise restraint and minimise civilian casualties, and we use our aid resources to mitigate the worst aspects of the situation. However, a lasting solution can come only from a strong political process, to which we are contributing. Rejectionists must not divert us from that path.
Foreign politicians by the planeload arrive in Jerusalem to heap praise upon the Israeli Government, but none goes to the Gaza strip to see how Israel’s sanctions and its siege of the 1.5 million Palestinians have caused economic collapse, starvation, pitiful conditions and hundreds of deaths. Will the Foreign Secretary condemn Israel’s actions at the EU and UN, as a political and moral obligation, and so end the collective international blindness to those outrages and deafness to Gaza’s cries of despair, and the silence as Israel suppresses and destroys with impunity?
I know that my hon. Friend has followed the issue for some time. In respect of actions, we can point to the genuine work that this Government are doing, I think with the support of the whole House, to try to mitigate the worst aspects of the humanitarian situation. Some £30 million was given last year, as part of an €800 million contribution from across the European Union.
In respect of statements, I refer my hon. Friend to what I said on 2 March, which I think was the most recent occasion on which I commented on Israel’s actions in this area. I said:
“Israel’s right to security and self-defence is clear and must be reiterated and supported. But measures taken in response to rockets must be in accordance with international law, minimising the suffering for innocent civilians, and maximising the scope for political negotiations to be restarted.”
I hope that that is a point of unity in the House. However, two weeks ago I met the mayor of Sderot, a town that has been the subject of 7,000 rocket attacks, I think, in the past decade, and I hope that it is also a point of unity that suffering and insecurity on a terrible scale are being suffered in Israel as well. From our point of view, the Palestinian suffering and Israeli insecurity are two sides of the same coin, and they need to be addressed together.
I, too, met the mayor of Sderot. With rocket attacks increasing to more than 250 a month on both Sderot and Ashkelon, and with the Israeli counter-measures in Gaza, may I urge my right hon. Friend to redouble the efforts of the UK Government to get both the Palestinians and the Israelis talking again, particularly President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert, to seek the peaceful resolution and two-state solution that I believe we both want to see?
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I would say two things in response. First, the discussions between President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert, which have continued throughout the past few weeks, when violence has been at a very high level, speak to the commitment of both those leaders to see through the Annapolis peace process that has started—a process fragile in many ways, but none the less better than having no process at all, which has been the problem for the past seven years.
Secondly, it is important to continue to emphasise that the goal of a two-state solution has cross-party support in the United Kingdom, and we certainly want to contribute to it in practical ways. The next stage will be the next meeting of the ad hoc liaison committee, a key group of countries that supports the development of a Palestinian state and a Palestinian economy. It will be meeting in London, under the chairmanship of myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, on 2 May. It will be an important occasion to take forward practical and political measures.
Since Israeli disengagement in Gaza back in 2005, there have been something like 4,000 rocket attacks emanating from there into Israeli territory. Those rocket attacks are not just perpetrated by Hamas; the al-Aqsa brigade is involved. What specific pressure are the Government bringing to bear on the Palestinian Authority to stop those attacks on Israel?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. Of course, the split that now exists within the Palestinian population, between Gaza and the west bank, is one of the most significant problems. The absence of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza is a significant issue that blocks progress. We are supporting the reopening of the crossings from Gaza into Israel, which would involve the Palestinian Authority, giving it a new bridgehead back into Gaza. I continue to believe that the leadership of President Abbas, who has been elected by all the Palestinian people, offers the best hope of progress. The hon. Gentleman’s wider point deserves wider discussion, because he is right to say that the rocket attacks have not come only from Hamas, although they have come predominantly from Hamas.
Does the Foreign Office, with its long and expert knowledge of the area, regard it as a success that its Secretary of State seems sensationally to have overturned 1,300 years of Islamic antagonisms by driving Sunni Hamas into the arms of Shi’a Hezbollah? Both groups are being armed by Shi’ite Iran, so that the possibility of a two-power settlement without the involvement of all three now looks very remote.
I think that the past 40 years of history are more important than the 1,300 years that the hon. Gentleman referred to. I fear that he is right to say that the prospect of a two-state solution is further away than it has been for many years, but that redoubles the importance of the very fragile peace process that has been started. Iran’s support for terrorism in the region is a significant matter and one that we have raised directly with the Iranian authorities. It obviously causes genuine instability across the region, and we should all be seeking to counteract it.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hard to see how there can be a durable peace between Israel and the Palestinians while the latter remain divided between Gaza and the west bank, Hamas and Fatah? Will he therefore welcome the discussions over the past five days between Fatah and Hamas to promote national reconciliation? Does he agree that our job is to win both groups over to an effective peace process and not, as Vice-President Cheney appears to have been doing over the weekend, to try to drive Hamas further away from that process?
Our job is to support everyone who is committed to a peaceful resolution on the basis of two states able to live side by side. The unity of the Palestinian people under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas is something that we should all support.
I endorse what the Secretary of State has said, and the Opposition accept that security and the need to tackle the humanitarian catastrophe taking place in the Gaza strip are inextricably linked. What contact are he and his colleagues having with the Egyptian Government? Does he agree that the Egyptian authorities are crucial to ensuring that explosives and materials for making rockets do not get through the tunnels into the Gaza strip, from where they can threaten Israeli cities? Are they not also crucial to efforts to reopen the border crossings, so that legitimate trade can resume in the not-too-distant future, as we both hope?
It is for precisely that reason that I went to Cairo two months ago, and it is also why I spoke to the Egyptian Foreign Minister the Friday before last. Egypt has an absolutely pivotal role to play, both in practical terms in respect of the smuggling to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred—and which is a long-term and not a short-term problem—and in respect of the crossings. Twenty-two nations supported the Arab peace initiative, which remains a very important contribution to the peace process. It shows that moderate Arab opinion is rallying around reconciliation with Israel, and reflects the Arab world’s determination to take its responsibilities very seriously. That is to be wholly welcomed, and I know that Egypt’s Foreign Minister is determined to continue to play what is an important role for Egypt and other leading nations.
Hamas goes on indiscriminately murdering innocent Israelis, including children and babies, while the Israeli forces continue indiscriminately murdering Palestinians in Gaza, including children and babies. The Israelis continue to break international law by building an illegal wall, expanding illegal settlements and imposing collective punishment on the people of Gaza. When are the Quartet going to do something other than utter platitudes that get no one anywhere?
My right hon. Friend makes an important comment about the role of the Quartet. The economic work that the Quartet is taking forward is important, although it is frustrated by the current insecurity, and I know that discussions are going on about the Quartet’s next meeting in an attempt to forge a more active unity. As he knows, our position is that the settlements are illegal under international law. I am glad to hear him repeat that the indiscriminate terrorism of Hamas is a murderous attack on the peace process, as well as on the individuals who are affected.
India
The United Kingdom enjoys a strong partnership with India based on the shared values of democracy, fundamental freedoms, pluralism, rule of law and respect for human rights. The Prime Minister’s recent visit to New Delhi strengthened that partnership by ensuring that progress was made on a range of bilateral and wider international issues. Both sides will use the outcome of the visit to deepen the relationship further.
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he recall the joint declaration signed in September 2004 by our Government and the Indian Government? In the declaration, it was agreed that both sides would pursue permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council for India. What progress has been made, and what effort has the Minister made to ensure that the Indians succeed in gaining that seat?
The United Kingdom publicly and consistently champions reform of the UN, including the introduction of an enlarged UN Security Council, with a permanent seat for India. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the United Kingdom’s support for India’s candidacy during his speech in Delhi in January. Our mission in New York is trying to break the long-standing deadlock over reform, and we will continue with our efforts to persuade Governments that India should have a permanent seat on the Security Council—alongside Brazil, Japan and Germany, in our view—and that there should be representation from Africa.
The Minister will be aware that India has gone to war with Pakistan over Kashmir three times since independence, and that both India and Pakistan are nuclear states. What discussions has he or other Ministers had about a way forward for Kashmir?
The hon. Gentleman is right: back in 2002, those two nuclear states were facing each other in what was probably the most dangerous confrontation anywhere on Earth. I am sure that he will agree with me that we should be greatly encouraged by the fact that India and Pakistan are dealing with the matter themselves. It will be interesting to see how quickly the new Pakistani Government take up the mantle and ensure that the peace that is thankfully now being experienced in Kashmir becomes permanent.
Burma
We were disappointed by the regime’s refusal to engage with the UN special envoy on Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, during his visit. It shows no willingness to meet the demands of the international community, in particular the need for a genuine and inclusive process of national reconciliation. The regime is determined to press ahead with its flawed road map process, which risks entrenching division and instability in the country.
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and I share her disappointment with the outcome of the recent visit by the UN envoy. Does she share my concern about the proposed referendum that the Burmese regime anticipates will take place in May? It is likely that it will wish to retain a large block vote for the military in the new Parliament, and to ban opposition leaders. What dialogue has she had with Burma’s neighbours, including China and India, on what they will do to put pressure on the Burmese regime to ensure that the process is much more democratic than is currently proposed?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the proposals give no cause for optimism at all. There is no inclusive process in the proposals; indeed, the constitution on which the referendum would take place has not been seen. She rightly identifies the important role of China and India. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown has done a great deal to work with them. The Prime Minister raised the matters on his visits to China and India, and we will continue to press them to use their influence.
On 19 November 2007, in response to the institutionalised bestiality of the Burmese regime, the Council of the European Union announced new sanctions in respect of the Government of Burma covering gems, metal and timber; 127 days later, why have those sanctions not been fully implemented? When does the Under-Secretary of State estimate that they will be, and do the Government intend to press for a strengthening of the EU common position, including a ban on all investment, when the matter comes up for consideration next month?
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the EU ban on those matters was formalised in January, so sanctions should be in force, and we are monitoring their effect. However, we are not complacent, and we will consider pressing for further sanctions if the regime does not continue to take steps along the lines set out by the United Nations.
Peaceful attempts have been made to demand democratic values in Burma and other locations across the globe. What specific attention have the Government given to efforts to support those peaceful attempts, particularly by the opposition in Burma?
The Government are in touch with a range of countries in the region, particularly neighbouring countries: not just China and India but the ASEAN—Association of South East Asian Nations—countries. ASEAN has made a decision to step back, but individual countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia have proposed talking to the Burmese about encouraging peaceful ways forward, and we support those efforts.
A few weeks ago, I met Piero Fassino, the EU’s envoy to Burma, who has been unable to go there since he was appointed, which indicates the military regime’s attitude. What steps can my hon. Friend and her fellow Ministers in the EU take to press for tougher, co-ordinated international action, both within the EU and through their contacts with other international organisations?
My hon. Friend is right that we should seek to get the Burmese regime to co-operate with a number of processes to demonstrate that it is willing to move towards a more democratic situation. We remain engaged in the United Nations through the Secretary-General’s “group of friends”. We are involved, too, through the EU, and as I have said, we continue to lobby and discuss the situation with countries in the region. We want Sergio Pinheiro, the UN human rights envoy, to be able to return and make a proper assessment of the human rights situation in Burma, and that is something to which we have given priority.
Ministers have said on many occasions that the Government would support further action at the UN and through the EU on Burma if the Burmese Government failed to make progress on political reform and reconciliation. It appears to many hon. Members that the Burmese Government do not respond to virtually anything; the only thing to which they seem to respond in a small way is strong international opinion. Given that Mr. Gambari has said that his visit did not yield “any tangible outcome”, will the Government push for Burma to be put on the UN Security Council’s formal agenda, and for meaningful action such as a UN arms embargo to be finally adopted?
The hon. Gentleman raises some important matters. We are concerned about the lack of progress and, indeed, in some respects, matters have gone backwards. We would certainly consider pushing for the issue to be discussed further at the UN, and we would support a UN call for an arms embargo.
Iran (Women’s Rights)
The Government are very concerned about the increasing repression of women’s rights activists in Iran. Reports have reached us that dozens of women have been arrested and sentenced for campaigning peacefully for reform of discriminatory laws in the country. Protection of human rights defenders and freedom of expression is crucial to the promotion of human rights. We reiterate the EU’s recent call for Iran to
“put an end to all acts of harassment against all Iranian human rights defenders”.
I thank the Minister for his reply. In addition to being arbitrarily arrested and detained, women are being ill-treated in prison and denied access to legal redress. It may be very well to support EU action, but what positive action has the Minister taken alongside other EU countries to bring those practices to an end?
I can certainly tell the hon. Lady that the United Kingdom has been in the forefront of efforts to persuade EU member states to take much stronger action against Iran, principally for its general abuse of human rights. It is the country that executes the second highest number of prisoners in the world, after China, and those executions very often take place publicly under barbaric conditions. It is also the country that has brought back all sorts of barbaric punishments, such as stoning to death. I have démarched the Iranian ambassador to the United Kingdom about that, and I know that a number of other European states have done the same. I can assure the hon. Lady that we will keep up that pressure.
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I wonder what other action we can take to deal with the problem of the abuse of women and also, as he rightly says, Iran’s terrible record with regard to capital punishment. Is it not time that the UN took that up more seriously? We hear about the threat of nuclear proliferation, but Iran’s treatment of its people should also be at the forefront of our mind. What does my hon. Friend intend to do about that?
The Government are publishing their human rights report today, in which, unfortunately, Iran features heavily. My hon. Friend is right. We believe that there ought to be much more concerted action on the part of the United Nations to persuade the Iranian Government that if Iran is to be, as it purports to want to be, a modern democratic state, it could begin quickly and easily to be so by stopping the abuse of human rights and the barbaric punishments that it uses.
I am glad to hear that the Minister and the Government take seriously the appalling treatment of women in Iran. Can he share with the House the Foreign Office’s assessment of what happened last week in parliamentary elections, and whether the so-called conservative consolidation in those elections may even make matters worse?
I think there is a question coming up on that, but I can say that I, for one, was disappointed by the apparent outcome of that election, but we have heard since that there is now quite a strong group in Parliament that refers to itself as pragmatic conservatives. I do not know whether the hon. Lady knows what that means, and whether she would recognise that term. It should be a great cause for concern among all politicians inside Iran that a country that is potentially as great and as wealthy as Iran ought to be is better known for human rights abuses against women and against many other parts of the population than it is for its great history and great potential.
As relations between Iran and the outside world have worsened over its nuclear programme, Iran has also taken less and less notice of rebukes over its extremely poor human rights record. Given that and Iran’s effective suspension of the EU-Iranian human rights dialogue since 2004, what additional action do the Government propose to take to expose Iranian behaviour and to call on it to abolish cruel and degrading punishments such as stoning, flogging and amputations once and for all?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who is the Opposition spokesman on this important subject, that whenever and wherever we hear reports of such abuses taking place, we try very hard to ensure that our voice is heard. As hon. Members have said, it will take a lot more concerted action on that, and I would like to see far more effective action by the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly to address these matters, which infect the reputation of Iran. We want that country to have a good reputation, not to be known for its abuses of human rights.
Iran-Iraq Relations
It is essential for Iraq’s stability and prosperity that it develops constructive relationships with its neighbours, including Iran. We welcome Iranian efforts to build relations, but some elements in Iran continue to support illegitimate armed groups, undermining democracy and security. That is wholly unacceptable, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have told the Iranian Foreign Minister on a number of occasions. British and coalition troops will continue to support the Iraqi Government in confronting such groups and their sponsors.
Despite President Ahmadinejad’s official visit to Baghdad earlier this month, General Petraeus yesterday publicly accused the Iranians of being responsible for supplying the mortars and rocket shells that landed within the green zone. He also said that Iranian revolutionary guard elements were responsible for training the insurgents who fired those rockets. What action will the Government take against the Iranian authorities to prevent the Iranians from stoking the insurgency in Iraq?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been worried for a long time about the supply of Iranian weapons, especially those of Hezbollah design—roadside bombs with special detonation devices that bear the hallmark of Hezbollah and seem to have come through elements of the Iranian security forces.
We have called on Tehran to turn its rhetoric about wanting a good relationship with its neighbour Iraq into a reality. We urge it now to try to do just that, to make sure that the relationship is based not on fear and terror, but on the understanding that if Iran is to have a safe and secure future, Iraq must be safe and secure as well.
Tibet
The whole House will be very concerned about the situation in Tibet. An uneasy calm has returned to Lhasa, although unrest has spread to surrounding regions. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to Premier Wen on 19 March, my right hon. Friend urged him to respect the human rights of detainees, avoid the use of excessive force, respect freedom of expression and religion in Tibet, and start a political dialogue with the Dalai Lama. I repeated those points to the Chinese Foreign Minister when I spoke to him on Friday. We also call on the protesters to desist from further violence.
The whole House will be with the Foreign Secretary in hoping that protesters desist from further violence. However, the fact is that most Free Tibet protesters and the Buddhists that go with them are peaceful protesters. The awfulness has been that they have been repressed in the most violent way by the Chinese and other interests.
Will the Foreign Secretary give us his assurance that as the Olympic torch wends its way across Europe and through the UK, the British authorities will allow peaceful protest by the Free Tibet people and that he will use his best initiatives with other countries across the world to ensure that those people are allowed to continue their perfectly legitimate and free protests?
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. He is absolutely right that our traditions of free speech and free demonstration must be upheld in respect of all matters—including the passage of the Olympic torch, which should pass with full security but also with full respect for our democratic freedoms.
The hon. Gentleman hinted at a further important point. In the last 50 years, the Dalai Lama has made it his business not to argue for independence for Tibet, but to voice calls for moderation and dialogue. The danger is that people give up on that course and turn to more violent courses of action; the hon. Gentleman may have been hinting at that point in the early part of his question. I certainly echo the conclusion of that point, which is that the need for political dialogue has never been greater.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that many Tibetans in exile in northern India are expressing impatience with the Dalai Lama’s commitment to peaceful protest and to autonomy rather than independence. Does my right hon. Friend not think that that makes it even more important that the Government should put all the support that they can behind the Dalai Lama and behind the work towards a peaceful resolution?
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is precisely why the Prime Minister is going to meet the Dalai Lama, who is a respected religious figure. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that without dialogue as the basis for expressing frustration, people turn in other directions. I share the sense of urgency that she brings to the issue.
Given that the Chinese Government depend on trade with the EU, what European initiative is likely to take place to try to ensure that the Chinese understand that dealing with the Dalai Lama is crucial not only to their domestic problems in Tibet but to their global position and their increasing respectability in the world before the Olympics?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In respect of both the Olympics and trade, there is an important decision for the world to take: whether it gains, and China gains, from engagement or from isolation. We have made our position clear in respect of the Olympics: engagement is better—and ditto in respect of trade. However, I can assure him that in that context of a commitment to engage in China on an open basis—with maximum openness, actually—the 27 European Foreign Ministers who meet this weekend will discuss how we can ensure that the maximum political voice is given to the need for the sort of dialogue that he believes in.
Will my right hon. Friend enter into discussions with the Chinese to ensure that non-violent protest may take place, that people who are going to take part in the Olympics will not have to sign any gagging orders, and that we allow freedom of speech in a non-violent way?
To the extent that that question is related to the story about British athletes, there is certainly no question of gagging orders. My hon. Friend also raises a wider point, which is that in our own history and reading of the Chinese situation, giving people expression for human rights and guaranteeing human rights, whether in the courts of law or in respect of freedom of speech, is the way to ensure the stability of a society rather than to promote its instability. That is the basis of our human rights dialogue with the Chinese authorities, which went to Tibet earlier this year, and it is the basis of the human rights cases that I raised with China’s Foreign Minister and Prime Minister when I was there last month.
When issuing instructions on the policing for the progress of the Olympic torch in Britain, will the Government take the view that the police should allow placards to appear in any picture of the torch passing—the protesters’ view—or will they take the Chinese view that the event should be policed in such a way that no protest placards and posters will be on display?
If the right hon. Gentleman believes that we control the pictures that people take, he is perhaps giving greater credence than is deserved to stories about the Government’s prowess in controlling the media. Obviously, the operational matters will be taken forward by the policing authorities. I am sure that the spirit of the whole House is summed up in the idea that we want to ensure not only security for the torch and a proper celebration of the Olympic spirit, but that our own history and our own commitments to democratic rights and freedom of protest are properly respected.
In today’s London Times, it is reported that the Foreign Secretary was assured by the Chinese Foreign Minister that any Chinese protesting against the Beijing Olympics would be given a cup of tea by the police; we then read that Yang Chunlin was given five years in jail for it. Tibetan protesters have been getting shot. What credence does the Foreign Secretary give to assurances from the Chinese Foreign Minister or Government about their good intentions?
The Chinese Foreign Minister did not assure me about a cup of tea or promise me a cup of tea—he answered a question from, I think, a correspondent from The Times at a press conference that the Minister and I held in Beijing, and I think that his answer was in respect of a slightly different point. The credence that we have to give is that actions are what count; the rights of individuals in China and the actions of the Chinese Government are absolutely key to the responsibilities of great nations like the Chinese. It is important that we continue to set out our own view without fear or favour.
Darfur
Due to fragmentation among rebel movements and intensified fighting between the Government of Sudan and rebel groups, there has been no recent progress in the political process. The UK set out, at a meeting convened in Geneva on 18 March by the United Nations and African Union envoys, proposals for a cessation of hostilities and actions to revitalise the political process, including the urgent appointment of a single chief mediator and deeper engagement with civil society.
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. Is she aware that China sold Sudan $55 million-worth of small arms between 2003 and 2006 and has provided more than 90 per cent. of Sudan’s small arms since 2004, when a UN arms embargo took effect? Does she agree that China must do a lot more, in Sudan and Tibet, to end violence and support human rights?
This Government want China to use its considerable influence in Khartoum to play a constructive role in Darfur. The Chinese special envoy for Africa visited London last month and discussed with my right hon. Friends key objectives in Sudan, particularly the acceleration of UNAMID—United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur—deployment. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman wants to see the Chinese use their influence in a positive way.
When I was in Darfur in December, we were told by one of the commanders of the African Union force that three things were needed to enable that force to do its job properly: first, the lifting of the night-time ban on helicopter flying; secondly, the availability of logistical resources; and thirdly, the removal of the obstacles placed by the Sudanese Government in the way of entry into the country for personnel and equipment that the force needs to do its job. Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made on each of those three specific measures?
As I said in my earlier answer, the real problem is the fighting taking place on the ground, which means that none of those matters is moving forward. There has been progress on the provision of helicopters, which we discussed during the last Foreign Office questions, in that Ethiopia has offered four more. In reality, however, until the fighting stops on the ground, further deployments cannot take place and the humanitarian situation will continue, causing us all a great deal of concern.
Topical Questions
EU Foreign Ministers will meet informally in Slovenia on 28 and 29 March to discuss, among other topics, the middle east and Russia. We will also meet the Foreign Ministers of the western Balkans countries to discuss their European perspective, and the Foreign Ministers of the accession countries. The member states have important common interests at stake in all those issues, and the UK’s impact is enhanced by working with our European partners.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani on his election as Prime Minister of Pakistan, and Dr. Fahmida Mirza on becoming Speaker, making her the first woman Speaker in the Muslim world? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Pakistan faces many challenges, and that last month’s parliamentary elections show that it is moving towards real democracy? Can he assure the House that the British Government will give their full support in helping to build and strengthen democracy in Pakistan, which is the only guarantor for its, and our, future?
I am delighted to agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The scenes on election day, and on the subsequent election of the Speaker and Prime Minister, give strength to those of us who argued that democracy was in the best interests of stability in Pakistan. Our responsibility will be to engage fully with the new Pakistani Government to ensure that the Commonwealth monitoring action group, which looks at Pakistan’s role in the Commonwealth, reconvenes soon, and to ensure that our aid programmes fully support the people of Pakistan, who depend not just on elections but on the economic and social progress that many millions of people in Britain, around the world, and in Pakistan itself want to see.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was here 10 minutes or so ago when we addressed precisely that issue. The need for political dialogue is stark, not least because of the situation on the ground, and not least because of the danger that people will turn away from the political process if they do not see dialogue delivering a way forward. I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman talk on the radio about having an Asian Nelson Mandela, and he repeated the phrase in the International Herald Tribune yesterday. I am happy to agree with him that dialogue with the Dalai Lama is the right way forward, and it remains the position of the British Government to support that. It is important to capitalise on the Dalai Lama’s commitment to autonomy for Tibet, not independence, and to non-violent action and dialogue as the way forward.
The Foreign Office noted with interest the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We take great care on the matter, and we will continue to monitor the specific concerns that he fairly and reasonably raises today.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s interest in Cuba, which I know goes back some time. The UK and the US both want Cuba to be free and democratic, but we disagree about the best way to encourage that. We continue to support the current EU common position, which will next be reviewed, as he said, in June. That is obviously a few months away, and we will consider what happens in Cuba before that. We remain concerned about the lack of human rights, especially for political prisoners, and we want greater movement on that, with the political prisoners freed, before changing the EU common position.
May I return the Foreign Secretary once again to the Iranian nuclear issue? In a written answer to me last week, he said:
“Work…is now under way”—[Official Report, 18 March 2008, Vol. 473, c. 1032W]
—to develop new proposals for incentives for Iran, building on the package presented in June 2006. He will recall that Iran rejected that incentives package out of hand at the time. Does he therefore agree that incentives must be combined with a credible set of tougher sanctions and that, so far, despite his best efforts, which we fully support, we and our European allies have failed to muster that credible threat?
I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the need for a twin-track approach to Iran. It is the Government’s policy that we must ensure that the sanctions are clear and strong, and that incentives for Iranian co-operation are clear. I am sorry that he has dismissed what the European Union is doing. I think that he agrees that Europe has outperformed the requirements of the existing UN sanctions regime. The EU has gone beyond the requirements of the UN position on nuclear and missile technology, dual use items, travel restrictions, the assets freeze and a study ban. It is important—I would have thought that we could agree on this—that we continue to make it clear, by both reiterating the June 2006 offer and pointing to the flexibility that we showed in the May 2007 offer of a suspension for a suspension, that there is a real chance for Iran to rejoin the community of nations on the issue.
We do very much agree about all that. I do not dismiss what has been done in going beyond the UN sanctions. However, the Foreign Secretary will not be surprised if we try to hold the Government to their statements about the subject a few months ago; I am sure that he will not object to that. The Prime Minister said last November that he would seek European sanctions on Iranian oil and gas investment and on its financial sector. The Foreign Secretary said to me a few days later that Britain would push for those sanctions to be agreed before the end of the year. Does he share our disappointment that those sanctions have not been agreed? Is he still confident that those sanctions, which he and the Prime Minister rightly supported, will be agreed at any time in the coming weeks and months?
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the European action was designed to follow the third UN resolution, which has now been agreed; it was agreed later than he and I wanted, but it was none the less passed nearly unanimously, by 14 to zero. It is right for him and me to continue to press all our European partners to ensure that we examine precisely the issues that the Prime Minister and I raised. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue to do that. I do not want to put a date on when we will achieve that, and I do not want to say that I am confident, because we have 27 nations to line up behind the action. However, I assure him that our Government will make full efforts to ensure that the sanctions part of the package is as strong as the offer. At each stage, we need to make it clear to the Iranian people that we do not have a quarrel with them. We want to ensure a change of behaviour on the part of the regime. It is up to the people to choose their Government, but their Government must conform to the rules of the international community.
I have read of those reports. There are two aspects to the issue. One aspect is to do with the amount of aid going through the Afghan Government. I am pleased to say that 80 per cent. of British Government aid goes through the Afghan Government, rather than alongside them. That is something that should be matched by other donors. The second aspect is about whether the pledges that were given at the London and other conferences are being matched. I will write to my hon. Friend with the full details about that, because I would not want to put a figure on it at this stage, without being absolutely sure whether two thirds or 75 per cent. of what was pledged has been delivered.
Given that the Prime Minister said in his national security strategy statement last week that accelerating global nuclear disarmament was a key objective, can the Foreign Secretary explain how that fits with the Government’s agreement that RAF Menwith Hill could be used for the US ballistic missile system, particularly when President Bush rebuffed President Putin’s offer to work together on the issue? If the Government really think that a one-sided ballistic missile defence system is such a good way of promoting nuclear disarmament, will the Foreign Secretary accept the recommendation made by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and let the whole House have a proper debate on Britain’s involvement with the “Son of Star Wars” project?
The fact is that the United Kingdom welcomes the US expansion of the ballistic missile defence into Europe. We think that the sitings in the Czech Republic and Poland are an important protection against a potential attack by a rogue state. It is clear that the system offers no challenge whatever to Russia’s strategic missiles, in terms of either its location or its capacity. That is generally accepted. The fact is that the US has offered to share the information, importantly, with Russia and with NATO allies. We welcome that very much indeed. We should not be criticising the US for seeking to deal with the threat; instead, we should be showing a united effort in trying to deal with those rogue states that the missile defence system is designed to protect us from.
Extra-judicial executions continue in Colombia, with many trade unionists killed and others living under constant threat. What are the Government doing to call the Colombian Government to account within the international community, and will they consider a review of military aid to Colombia?
Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have met the Colombian Government on numerous occasions and have stressed always that they should do their utmost to protect all those who campaign for human rights, especially trade unionists, who after all are an important part of civil society and help to bring a sense of security to Colombia. We will continue to do that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to support our efforts to undermine the murderous influence of paramilitary groups, on the right and the left in Colombia, that seek to undermine the authority of a democratically elected Government.
The Government have made it clear that we expect Simon Mann to be treated in line with internationally recognised standards, which includes in relation to the media. It is correct that our consular officials were refused access last week. We have made clear our concern to the Equatorial Guinean authorities and are urgently seeking access again.
I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must do everything that we can to hold the Nepalese authorities and the Maoists to the earliest possible date for an election. The delays have gone on for long enough. We hope very much that the United Nations will continue to play an influential role, and that India, the key player in this area, will use its good offices to ensure that the elections take place and that a proper democratic Government will start to bring peace to that country.
I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to raise this important issue. The Prime Minister had the chance to meet the new President of Cyprus at the European Council last week, and I have been able to have a meeting with the new Cypriot Foreign Minister. The consistent message that we have given to both of them is that we want to do everything possible to support the determination of the new Government in Cyprus to exploit the opening that now exists for a bi-zonal, bi-communal solution in that area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) is playing an important role as the Prime Minister’s special representative on the issue. We are as determined as the whole House is to ensure that there is a restart of these processes. The mission of the UN, which is due in Cyprus very soon, represents an important contribution towards that aim.
Constitutional Renewal
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about our programme of constitutional renewal. With this statement are published a White Paper, the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, and an analysis of the responses to our consultations. Copies of these are available in the Vote Office and on my Ministry’s website.
The accountability of Government is fundamental to the health of our democracy. Arbitrary action and lack of transparency can undermine that. But for decades the royal prerogative has been used by successive Governments to sustain Executive power. Last July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced his determination that the Government he leads would reverse this process and surrender significant Executive powers to Parliament, or otherwise limit them. Following my right hon. Friend’s July statement and the accompanying “The Governance of Britain” Green Paper, five consultation papers were issued. I am grateful to all who responded to them. We have taken account of their views in the White Paper and in the draft Bill.
The draft Bill is in five parts. The first relates to protest around Parliament. In July, the Prime Minister undertook to consult widely on managing protests around Parliament to ensure that the people’s right to protest was not subject to unnecessary restrictions. Accordingly, in the light of the consultations, clause 1 of the draft Bill proposes the repeal of sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Our view is that Parliament itself is best placed to decide what needs to be secured to ensure that Members of both Houses are able freely to discharge their responsibilities. We invite the views of Parliament on whether additional provision is needed to keep open the passages leading to the Palace of Westminster and to ensure that, for example, excessive noise is not used to disrupt the working of Parliament.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with the Attorney-General. It sets out major reforms to the role of the Attorney-General and to the management of prosecutions, to make the arrangements more transparent and to enhance public confidence. The proposals involve recasting the relationship between the Attorney-General and the prosecuting authorities. In particular, the Attorney-General will cease to have any power to give directions to prosecutors in individual cases, save in certain exceptional cases which give rise to issues of national security. The Attorney-General will have to report to Parliament on any exercise of that power. Under clause 3, a protocol will set out how the Attorney-General and the prosecuting authorities are to exercise their functions in relation to each other. This will be laid before Parliament, as will an annual report. We do not propose changing the Attorney-General’s role as chief legal adviser to the Government, or his or her attendance at Cabinet.
Part 3 builds on the significant reforms introduced by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Falconer to reinforce the independence of the judiciary. The Bill proposes to remove the Prime Minister entirely from the making of judicial appointments, and the Lord Chancellor from making appointments below the High Court.
Part 4 makes it a statutory requirement that treaties must be laid before both Houses of Parliament before ratification. If this House were then to vote against the ratification of a treaty, the Government could not proceed to ratify it. Although it is obviously a matter for Parliament, the White Paper suggests that a valuable role could be played by Committees of either or both Houses in the scrutiny of treaties prior to ratification. I should just say, Mr. Speaker, that none of these proposals affects the current arrangements for European Union or tax treaties, which are already the subject of elaborate statutory procedures.
Part 5 will for the first time put the civil service on a statutory footing by enshrining the core values of the civil service—impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity—into law, as well as the historic principle of appointment on merit. The Bill makes provision for special advisers and the civil service commission. The Bill has benefited from detailed comments on the draft Civil Service Bill in 2004 and from the work of the Public Administration Committee, for whose help I am very grateful.
I now turn to the other key proposals in the White Paper. The first is war powers. There was a widespread welcome in July for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s proposals that the Government should limit the Executive’s powers to deploy Her Majesty’s armed forces into conflict situations. As well as from those who responded to the consultation document, we have benefited from earlier Select Committee reports from both Houses. In the event, there was significant support for the recommendations from the House of Lords Constitution Committee.
What we are proposing is that Parliament’s role should be both enshrined and guaranteed by a resolution of this House. A detailed draft of that resolution is set out for consideration on pages 53 to 56 of the White Paper. It would require the Prime Minister of the day to seek this House’s approval before deciding to commit forces to armed conflict abroad. It would also require him to lay a report before the House in advance of any decision, setting out the terms of approval sought and information about the objectives and legal matters relating to the proposed armed conflict. Exceptions are proposed in respect of emergencies and operational secrecy, with a requirement in such cases to inform, but not to seek retrospective approval. Special forces would be exempt from any of those provisions. Those changes, if agreed, would define for the first time a clear role for Parliament in the most critical of all decisions to face a nation, while ensuring that our nation’s security was not compromised.
Last July’s “The Governance of Britain” Green Paper contained proposals on increasing parliamentary scrutiny of some key public appointments. Since then, that matter has been considered by the Liaison Committee and we will respond to its recommendations shortly. On the dissolution and recall of Parliament, proposals have already been made to the Modernisation Committee, and we look forward to hearing its views in due course.
Last Wednesday, in his statement on the national security strategy, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
“We will…immediately go ahead to introduce a resolution of both Houses—in advance of any future legislation—that will enshrine an enhanced scrutiny and public role for the Intelligence and Security Committee.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 926.]
The White Paper sets out the proposed arrangements.
There are other matters relating to Executive prerogative powers, the first of which is passports. The Government are committed to reviewing the prerogative power with regard to issuing passports, and draft legislation will soon be published. We are also reviewing the remaining Executive prerogative powers—for example, the prerogative to grant mercy. The Government will consider the outcome of that work and how we plan to proceed, and obviously, we will inform the House.
The Government remain profoundly committed to the establishment of the Church of England and greatly value the role played by the Church in our national life. Appointments to senior Church positions will continue to be made by Her Majesty the Queen, who should continue to be advised on the exercise of her powers by one of her Ministers, usually the Prime Minister. We are very grateful to the General Synod for its proposals at its February meeting on how new appointments procedures should work, and we are discussing future long-term arrangements with the Church.
The Government received more than 300 responses to the consultation on the flying of the Union Flag—
All from my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).
Not all of them were from the hon. Member for Romford, but as the House knows, I was extremely happy to join him in his campaign, and have made my own contribution to it.
In line with the majority of responses, we have decided that the interim change made to the guidance to allow Government Departments to fly the Union flag from their buildings whenever they wish should now become permanent. There are no plans to change the arrangements for flag flying in Northern Ireland.
Good law is imperative for accessible and modern constitutional arrangements. For 40 years the Law Commission has played a vital role in that respect, but I intend to strengthen its role by placing a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor to report annually to Parliament on the Government’s intentions regarding outstanding Law Commission recommendations, and providing a statutory backing for the arrangements underpinning the way in which Government should work with the Law Commission. Those changes sit alongside those announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House last week, which will strengthen the scrutiny of laws after they have been enacted by Parliament.
Discussions in the cross-party working group on reform of the House of Lords are proceeding well, and we are on track to publish a White Paper before the summer recess. In the coming months we will publish a Green Paper on a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, and on the values that should bind us together as citizens.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced today, Professor Sir Kenneth Calman has agreed to serve as chair of a commission to review the Scotland Act 1998. Such a commission was proposed in, and approved by a majority of, the Scottish Parliament. The Government welcome their support for the aim of strengthening devolution and securing Scotland’s place in the Union, and we are giving our full backing to the cross-border, cross-party review.
The proposals in the White Paper and the draft Bill go to the heart of how power should be exercised in a modern democracy. They are not a final blueprint, but part of a much wider Government programme to secure a new constitutional settlement. They will strengthen the role of Parliament in our democracy, for it is Parliament, the seat of our democracy, that is central to this programme of constitutional renewal.
I commend my statement to the House.
I thank the Secretary of State for Justice for early sight of his statement. There is much in the Government’s proposals with which we can agree. We welcome measures to strengthen the autonomy of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and to place on a statutory basis the rules governing ratification of treaties. We also welcome—seven years after the Government’s commitment to it—legislation to put the civil service on a statutory footing, as recommended by our democracy taskforce, but why will the Government not go further and place a statutory cap on the number of special advisers? And, although pre-appointment scrutiny hearings by Select Committees would be welcome, should not Parliament be strengthened further, not least by the ability to set its own timetable, so that we can scrutinise legislation properly?
The decision to commit troops to conflict is one of the most important that a nation can take. Last May we tabled a motion to require parliamentary approval for substantial deployments of troops into conflict. I welcome the fact that the Government now accept that principle, but when prior approval cannot be sought, why should there not be a mechanism for securing retrospective approval?
In a democracy, citizens should have the right to make their views known peacefully to those who govern them. The Government’s laws restricting the right to protest around Parliament caused widespread disquiet, and we welcome plans to repeal them, but can the Government say more about how they plan to ensure that while peaceful protest is protected, demonstrations that disrupt the operation of Parliament are not?
We welcome the commitment to introduce greater clarity into the relationship between the Attorney-General and the prosecution directors, but it is also proposed to end the requirement for the Attorney-General to give consent for a wide range of prosecutions. How is accountability to be preserved if that role is removed from the Attorney-General?
An independent judiciary is at the core of our liberty. Reducing the influence of the Executive on judicial appointments is welcome, but does the Justice Secretary agree that the principle of judicial independence is harmed when Ministers seek to influence the sentencing decisions of judges and magistrates—for instance, by urging them not to imprison offenders because the jails are full?
In a newspaper article today, the Prime Minister said that the Justice Secretary would today be “consulting throughout the country” on a statement of values and the British Bill of rights and duties—but in his statement the Justice Secretary said that a Green Paper will be published over the coming months. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify when this process will begin? Will it do so today, as the Prime Minister suggested, or over the coming months?
Will the Justice Secretary also tell us whether, as was reported yesterday, he plans to consult on alternative voting systems for the Commons, and compulsory voting, and if so, when? Does the Justice Secretary agree that the electoral system should never be reformed for partisan political purposes?
The Prime Minister also wrote today in support of the Union, but is it not the case that unbalanced devolution has unleashed the forces of nationalism? So far, the Government’s answer has been to fly flags on Government buildings. Will the Calman commission, announced today, address the real issue of concern, which is the still unanswered West Lothian question?
When the Prime Minister announced his ideas for constitutional reform last July, he spoke about rebuilding trust in democracy. Since then, he has refused the referendum that he promised on the EU constitution. How can trust be rebuilt if such important promises are broken? Is it not the case that the relationship between the people and politicians is seriously damaged, and that it will require more to repair our broken politics than the measures announced today?
When more and more decisions are being taken centrally—not here in Parliament, but in Whitehall—is not the real need to return power to individuals and communities, so that people have a genuine say over decisions that affect them? Why are we not giving citizens the power to initiate debates in this House and have new laws tabled? Is there not a pressing need both for measures to ensure transparency in how we as politicians account for ourselves and our spending to the electorate, and to put an end to the culture of spin, which has so gravely undermined trust in politics? If the Government continue to shy away from real change, is not the danger that measures such as those announced today will be seen as worthy but inadequate?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome he gave to the proposals, but let me say in response to his slight chiding—that civil service reform has taken a little time, for example—that we have acted on a vast range of constitutional changes, in contrast to the Conservative Administration, who over 18 years did absolutely nothing in respect of any such changes. Also, on the issue of the Union, his history is wrong. The devolution settlement in 1998 was to bind the Union and provide legitimate transfer of power from this place to the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales. It was not the devolution Acts in 1998 that drove nationalism; it was the poll tax in 1987, which fuelled it to an astonishing extent and led to a situation in which Scotland became a Conservative-free zone, although the Conservatives had had 50 per cent. of the votes and seats some decades before.
The hon. Gentleman asked me some specific questions; for example, he asked about special advisers. The draft Bill is for consultation by this House; we have a view about whether there should be a limit, but let us hear what the House has to say.
As for retrospective approval where there has been an operational need for a decision to go into armed conflict to be made in secrecy, or where other operational matters have been involved, we have thought about that a great deal. Ultimately, it should be a matter for this House, but there are genuine problems—for example, if, when troops have already been committed to a theatre, there is then a big question about whether the action will subsequently be approved. We hope that, aside from operations by special forces, occasions when there is a total emergency and this country needs to undertake major armed conflict in secrecy are likely to be very few and far between. I cannot think of any such example over the past 20 years. That was why we came to the judgment that we did, but let us hear what the House has to say.
All I would say about access to this House is that the Sessional Orders used to work very satisfactorily. When I was organising demonstrations myself a few years ago, they were certainly enforced by the public order office in respect of the organisations for which I was responsible. [Interruption.]
He was arrested!
No, I was never arrested.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) raises an important point on consent to prosecutions, but we cannot have it both ways. It is proposed that the requirement for the Attorney-General to give consent to a series of prosecutions should, in general, be removed. If we want to make prosecutors more independent, we must bite that bullet. Ultimately, the choice will be one for this House and the other place, but we cannot have things both ways. The Attorney-General will still be accountable for the broad operation and management of the prosecution service, and I think that that is appropriate.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about voting systems. I think he was directly quoting me, because although I claim no monopoly on the view, I have always said that we should never change the voting system for partisan purposes. That has been the practice in one or two European countries, usually with disastrous consequences for the parties doing the proposing. We published a review of voting systems. Personally, I am profoundly committed to single-Member constituencies. I have always thought that there is much to be said on both sides, whether we are talking about first past the post or the alternative vote, particularly as we now have multiple candidates, as opposed to the situation in the 1950s when there were normally simply two candidates.
Let me make it clear that we are against making it a criminal offence not to vote. We need to address the issue of how we can raise turnout at elections, and there is a case for there to be a general non-enforceable duty for people to vote, as part of their understanding of their responsibilities as citizens; we are consulting on that. On citizens’ powers, I merely say to the hon. Gentleman that when I was Leader of the House we put forward radical proposals to the Procedure Committee for improving how the petitions system works so that matters could be triggered in this House. It was a matter for the Procedure Committee that they came to a different view from some of us on the Modernisation Committee.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly his comment that this is not the final blueprint. I ask him to include provision for the abolition of the Act of Settlement, because it discriminates directly against Roman Catholics. That is legalised sectarianism, which has no role to play in the 21st century.
Let me say to my hon. Friend that I speak on behalf of the Prime Minister: because of the position that Her Majesty occupies as head of the Anglican Church, this is a rather more complicated matter than might be anticipated. We are certainly ready to consider it, and I fully understand that my hon. Friend, many on both sides of the House and thousands outside it, see that provision as antiquated.
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement. Will he acknowledge that although some aspects of it are welcome—for example, the abolition of the absurd restrictions on demonstrating around Parliament—much of what he has said will be seen as tentative first steps and half measures?
It is right that the Attorney-General should not give direction on individual prosecutions, and should give only general policy guidance that is open and on the record. However, does the Secretary of State not accept that as long as the Attorney-General retains a broad, unaccountable power to stop prosecutions on grounds of national security, the public will not be reassured about, for example, the shameful events surrounding the dropping of the BAE Systems case? Why will the Attorney-General still have a power to stop prosecutions related to terrorism? Is it not important to fight terrorism on the basis of fighting crime, in a context that has nothing to do with political decisions?
The proposals on not releasing the Attorney-General’s legal opinions are especially poignant, given that later today we will debate the Iraq war. There is a strong case for confidentiality while policy is being formulated, but when the Government rely on that legal advice in a parliamentary debate, Parliament should see the real thing. It is not enough for the Government merely to promise not to mislead Parliament.
On treaty ratification, the Government are again taking a step in the right direction, but given their tight grip on the business of the House, does not the proposal mean that there will be a vote in the House only if the Government want one?
On the proposal to put the civil service on a statutory footing, there will be quiet rejoicing in many discreet quarters, but—again, on the day of a debate on Iraq—why are the Government to make an exception so that MI5 and MI6 officers will not be bound by duties of impartiality and objectivity? Surely one central lesson of Iraq is that never again should Government policy dictate intelligence.
On the limiting of the Prime Minister’s power to call early elections, which was given short shrift in the statement, I invite the Government to clear up the whole mess by supporting my Fixed Term Parliaments Bill.
Is not the main problem with the statement that it is nibbling at the edges of constitutional reform? Our political system is broken and people are losing faith in politics. That means that if we do nothing about it, they will lose faith in democracy itself. This House is at the heart of the problem, being elected in so unrepresentative a way that all Governments start out as unpopular, and usually get worse. As in 1832, and many times since, reform must start with the way in which this House is elected.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of the changes. These are major and significant changes, and it has fallen to this reforming Government to introduce them, when no changes of any constitutional significance were introduced by the previous Administration.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s points about the Attorney-General, it is our judgment that it is appropriate and proper, and in the national interest, that there should be a power for someone to make difficult and sometimes unwelcome decisions to protect national security. It is important that whoever is in that position should be accountable. Far from the Attorney-General being unaccountable, our proposals mean that they would be more accountable than they are today, and there would be greater clarity about their distinctive role.
On the issue of the Attorney-General’s legal advice, my belief is that, as with any legal advice in any circumstances, it has to be given on the basis of legal professional privilege, but there is certainly a case—as referred to in the draft resolution on pages 53 to 56 of the proposals—for the Prime Minister of the day to be required to provide information on the legal issues relating to any proposal for armed conflict, and that is what we propose.
On treaty ratification, there will have to be a vote. We are not proposing to use the negative resolution procedure. Either the treaty will be approved on the nod or there will be a vote. If there is a vote against a treaty ratification the treaty cannot be ratified by the Government, and that is a major shift of power to this House.
I wondered how long it would take the Liberals to get on to proportional representation as a solution to all our problems. They have been banging on about that ever since the 1923 election, when they ceased to be the second party and became the third party. Before they became the third party, they were in favour of first past the post and single-Member constituencies. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examine other countries that have proportional representation, because they have more problems with the operation of their democracy than we do.
Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on the proposals in the White Paper for the accountability of the Intelligence and Security Committee? As he knows, at the moment it is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister. Is it intended that it should be appointed by this House and report to this House?
These arrangements—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out, they are in advance of any legislative changes—are set out at the back of the White Paper. The proposed changes would be consistent with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, so that under the proposal, which is a halfway house, it would be for the Committee of Selection to make recommendations about the Members of each House who should sit on the Committee. They would then have to be approved by the Prime Minister of the day, however, because that is what the Act says. The implication is that, as an interim measure, that would give this House and the other place much greater control over membership of the Committee than they have now.
I welcome proposals to reform the Crown prerogative. Too many powers that should rightfully rest with elected members of this legislature have come to reside with unelected officials and with the quango state. Will the Bill allow Select Committees to ratify with public hearings the appointments of senior civil servants and quango chiefs, and if not, why not?
The proposals on public appointments of key officials are not in the Bill. They are proposed for non-legislative changes through discussions with the Liaison Committee, but this is a consultative process, and we are happy to hear opinions from all parts of the House.
May I refer to the issue of judicial appointments? Is it not a fact that, like this country, nearly every other major country has significant political input in the appointment of judges, either from the legislature or the Executive, for the very good reason that public opinion needs to be able to influence the culture of the judiciary? Is not the alternative to have lawyers appointing judges, which would be quite unacceptable? We would have a self-perpetuating, out-of-touch, arrogant oligarchy in the judiciary, which would be very damaging to public confidence in the judiciary and in democracy.
It is rare for me to demur from my right hon. Friend’s opinions, but on this occasion I do so. I do not accept his description of today’s judiciary. In 2005 the House agreed—and so did the other place—major changes to the appointments of the judiciary so that the role of Lord Chancellor was very much diminished, and quite right too.[Interruption.] Not in every sense. There is now an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which has the primary role. Judges are also, funnily enough, human beings. They are members of society and are acutely aware of the responsibility that they bear to society.
Although I welcome the fact that the Government have moved much closer to the position of the former Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the role of the Attorney-General, why is the Attorney-General to retain the power to stop on grounds of national security not merely prosecutions but investigations by the Serious Fraud Office? Will the Attorney-General also retain the consent to prosecution under the honours legislation of the 1920s? As those were the two issues that most inflamed debate on the Attorney-General’s role, is that not a bit too much of a coincidence and too much like back doors being deliberately left open?
On the latter point, I do not think that that is the case, but I shall certainly look at the matter. The aim of all of us involved in the discussions has been to reduce the Attorney-General’s discretion over prosecutions and investigations to a necessary minimum that is basically to do with national security.
On the point about BAE Systems, it is worth reminding the House that it was the head of the Serious Fraud Office who decided to withdraw from the investigation, not formally the Attorney-General. We all accept that there must be clarity, but I also believe that the case for the Attorney-General to have a power to make decisions in the national interest, on the basis of national security, is important.
So far, so excellent, but will my right hon. Friend also include in his constitutional proposals the improvement of the Executive’s accountability to the legislature? In particular, will he put in place arrangements to ensure that Select Committee members are elected by secret ballot among non-Executive Members from across the House, in accordance with party quotas? Will he also ensure that Select Committees reports—or at least some of them, by agreement with the Liaison Committee—are debated and voted on, on the Floor of the House on a substantive motion?
I shall quit while I am ahead as far as my right hon. Friend’s compliments are concerned.
The way in which Select Committee members are chosen has been debated often. Having been involved in the other process from time to time, I am not sure that it produced more balanced Select Committees or provided more opportunity for those who sometimes disagree with their party Whips than the current arrangements. The process that my right hon. Friend sets out would need the most contorted and complicated system of proportional representation for each party. No doubt that would be welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, but it would not be welcomed by anyone else.
The House will have heard that the Justice Secretary believes that, when it comes to flag flying, the people of Northern Ireland should be treated as children of a lesser god. Will he tell the House the rationale behind the Government’s decision on this matter? Does he believe that the flag may not be universally cherished in Northern Ireland? If so, will that have implications elsewhere in the kingdom?
The reason for the Government’s decision is obvious, and it is not the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions. As everyone knows, the two communities in Northern Ireland have been seriously divided. The best advice that we received was that we should maintain the current arrangements for Northern Ireland.
This is a welcome and important package of measures that will play an important part in our constitutional history. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be greatly enhanced if the Government added to it parliamentary confirmation of important executive offices? Among the obvious candidates for that confirmation would be the chief executives of the Child Support Agency and the Benefits Agency, the chairman of the BBC, the Governor of the Bank of England, and the members of the Monetary Policy Committee.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his broad welcome for the proposals. A procedure is already in place whereby the Treasury Committee considers Bank of England appointments. The current proposals are non-statutory, as I said a moment ago, but we will listen carefully to what hon. Members of all parties say. I should also have said that we have proposed that a Joint Committee comprised of Members of both Houses be set up to scrutinise the Bill that will be introduced.
As one who believes that this Executive have done more to sideline Parliament and the legislature than any other in recent history, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take at least one step to dismiss our scepticism to some degree? Will he give an undertaking that, in future, Bills will not be timetabled automatically, at the Government’s diktat?
I am sorry to say that I cannot oblige the hon. Gentleman in that regard. I have been here almost as long as he has, and I do not accept that the House is less active than it used to be. It is much more active than it was in the 1960s and 1970s, although the fact that no Government since the 1970s have had a small majority has inevitably changed the nature of the House. There is also hugely more in the way of scrutiny today. Select Committees were established by the Conservative Government of the 1980s, but they have been strengthened by us and are much more active. There are also many more parliamentary questions: there were 6,000 written questions a year in the 1960s, but there were 90,000 last year. There is much greater scrutiny of Government than there ever was in the past.
I welcome the greater scrutiny of public appointments, but there is one particular appointment that I suggest should be not only scrutinised but voted on in the House: the appointment of the EU Commissioner.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I will discuss it with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
I welcome the further statement on policy on war powers, but does the Justice Secretary agree that in practice we need to know all the details of the new process before we can know whether there has been any significant shift of authority to this House, or new constraints on the Government, particularly with regard to whether parliamentary approval will be asked for at a time when events can still be influenced? Does he accept that recent practice has been to deny until the last possible moment that any decision has been taken to enter into conflict, while vast deployments of troops are made and undertakings are given to allies? Will the resolution provide that as soon as a decision is taken to move troops to an area of potential conflict, where conflict is one of the options, it will be necessary to get parliamentary approval?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. I hope that he will examine the draft resolution, and I hope that the Joint Committee that we propose to establish will do so, too. In my judgment, the resolution will move the role of the House beyond existing conventions, such as that which we sought to establish on Iraq, and will change the way in which the Government will operate, internally, where there is consideration of an armed conflict. That is what I want, personally, not least as a result of my experience in respect of Iraq and Afghanistan. The purpose of putting this set of proposals before the House today—this also applies to the draft Bill, although the proposal in question is in the White Paper—is to have them tested properly by the House and the other place, so that we can see whether they will fulfil the purpose we describe.
I welcome the range of proposals in the White Paper, particularly those that strengthen the role of Parliament. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the legitimacy of Parliament depends on how and when elections are conducted. In “The Governance of Britain” Green Paper, it was suggested that there would be consultations on weekend voting. Is it his intention that the consultations will result in the inclusion of the possibility of weekend voting in the legislation that will be brought forward?
The answer is that we are consulting on weekend voting. There is much evidence that if voting takes place over a more extended period, turnout is likely to be higher, all other things being equal. I cannot give my hon. Friend a firm commitment that the measure will be in the Bill when it comes before Parliament in its final form, but we are looking for an early legislative opportunity, if the measure is what the public want.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that part 4 of the Bill wraps up the discussions and exchanges that we had about a year ago on whether or not treaty can prevail against statute—in other words, that treaty cannot prevail against statute? Secondly, why did he say in his statement, “If this House were then to vote against the ratification of a treaty, the Government could not proceed to ratify it”? Does that exclude the House of Lords? Of course, I am not thinking of any particular treaty.
The hon. Gentleman and I have bored for Britain on the interesting issue that the Karlsruhe federal constitutional court raised called “competence versus competence.” The proposal will at least ensure that any treaty is ratified by a statutory process of this Parliament. The current proposal is that, since we have to allow for the possibility—hopefully remote—of a stand-off between this place and the other place, it should be the elected House that decides.
The Canadian Parliament debated and voted on the decision to send 2,500 troops to Helmand province. In a non-emergency situation in April 2006, we decided to send what is now 7,800 troops to Helmand province without a debate or a vote in Parliament. In the spirit of the very welcome document before us, is it not time that we debated the mission in Helmand?
I will certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House my hon. Friend’s specific request. To return to the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), it is in respect of such conflict in Helmand that the change, if accepted by the House, would in my judgment make a significant difference to decision making in the Government and to the House’s authority.
I am quite surprised that there is so little about Scotland in the constitutional paper, given the unanswered West Lothian question and the ridiculous remarks by the Prime Minister in The Daily Telegraph today. We have learned that Sir Kenneth Calman is to chair the constitutional commission, but how can the Scottish people have any faith in an initiative that ignores the central question of Scottish independence, and bypasses legitimate Scottish government? As a democrat, surely the Justice Secretary agrees that anything proposed by the commission must be tested by the Scottish people with all other constitutional options.
It might be a good idea if the hon. Gentleman recognised the legitimacy of the majority of the Scottish Parliament, who voted entirely voluntarily to establish the review; all the Unionist parties voted in favour of it. We are responding to that request from a democratically elected Scottish Parliament.
Is there anything in the draft Bill that addresses the scandal of tax exiles serving in Parliament? If not, will the Justice Secretary lift the relevant clauses from my private Member’s Bill, and incorporate them in his Bill?
I understand my hon. Friend’s sentiments, but we have no plans to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman’s proposals that the Executive should yield power to Parliament would be even more impressive if the votes in the House were a free, unwhipped expression of opinion. Does he not concur with the advice that I give all my Back-Bench colleagues that all votes in the House are free? Furthermore, when the Whips seek to impress on me their own will, I tell them—and I hope that he agrees—that it is none of their business, and they should not interfere with the constitutional duty of Members of Parliament to vote in accordance with their own judgment.
He didn’t say that when he was a Whip!
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has taken the words out of my mouth. This is a latter-day Pauline conversion, because I remember the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) going around arm-twisting Conservative Members while taking the Queen’s shilling as a Government Whip. Now that he is an unguided missile on the Conservative Back Benches he has changed his opinion. He is entitled to do so, but government would be difficult to operate under any party without any whipping.
I do not understand what the Prime Minister said last week on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was reiterated this afternoon by the Justice Secretary in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is a minute adjustment—a ritualistic change—as the nominated members have to go before the Committee of Selection, but they still have to be approved by the Prime Minister. I do not understand the problem: why does the Justice Secretary not legislate to create parliamentary oversight of security and intelligence, so that instead of a spook providing the secretariat, the Clerk of the House of Commons does so? All the members should be appointed on the same basis as members are appointed to the Select Committee on Transport, the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. What is the problem? Why does he not trust Parliament?
The Government’s proposals are set out on pages 59 to 61 of the White Paper. Last Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we would introduce a resolution of the House for change in advance of any future legislation. I take my hon. Friend’s remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) as strong representations that there should be such legislation.
On part 1 of the Bill, although no one would object to orderly and peaceful demonstrations in Parliament square, many people object to permanent, unsightly encampments in the middle of a great, historic city. Will the Bill put that right?
I understand that there are strong feelings about that. Those encampments are unsightly, but they also represent people exercising a right to demonstrate. The changes in the law have not been conspicuously successful—[Interruption.] It is no good pointing at me; I am not the police. The changes in the law have not been conspicuously successful in dealing with the problem, and they have appeared to be pretty heavy- handed as well, so better arrangements are needed. Let us see what the House has to say about it.
I had hoped to hear more in the statement about electoral systems, including the possibility of compulsory voting in elections. May I ask the Secretary of State for Justice to look urgently at the issue of postal voting? In the last general election, between one in six and one in seven votes were by post. As was seen in Slough recently, where the Conservatives cheated and won a seat through fraudulent stuffing of ballots, existing legislation does not sufficiently protect us from such fraud. Will he use the Bill to consider whether we can put in new safeguards?
Significant changes to the security of postal voting were made in the Electoral Administration Act 2006. I well understand, however, the concerns that further tightening of the procedures is needed, and we are giving that urgent consideration.
Do the proposals for the reform of the House of Lords, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his statement, entail the abolition of all or most of the unelected places in that House? If so, how would a Government deal with the likely No vote in the Lords to such changes?
The basic terms of reference, so to speak, of the cross-party group are the decisions of this House last March in favour of an 80 per cent. or wholly elected Chamber and against any alternatives, so as faithful servants of the House, that is what we are seeking to deliver. The proposals will, of course, have to go in legislative form to both Houses. We will have to see what happens, but I hope very much that when we present proposals, they will be approved.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the greater inclusion of Parliament in the ratification of treaties and in the long overdue system of post-legislative scrutiny. Does he agree that along with an ever wider and deeper commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny and improvements to the way in which European legislation is scrutinised in Parliament as a whole, the proposals provide us with a good opportunity for a thorough debate on the distinctive roles and responsibilities of the second Chamber, and that until we have a settlement and agreement on the roles and responsibilities of the second Chamber, major structural reform is premature?
The proposals do provide us with that opportunity, but I do not want in the statement to rehearse the arguments in favour of significant changes to the House of Lords, except to say that clear decisions were made last March and we are taking them forward.
Picking up a question that I was asked by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), I may have inadvertently misled the House about the contents of the White Paper as to whether it was a negative or an affirmative resolution procedure. Currently a negative resolution procedure is proposed, but I take what the hon. Gentleman and others said to be strongly in favour of an affirmative resolution procedure, and we will look at that.
Giving Parliament the power to vote on a dissolution will make no difference when a Government have an overall majority. The farce last autumn, when the Prime Minister dithered over the opinion polls and the decision whether to dissolve Parliament halfway through its term, would still be possible. How can the Lord Chancellor justify the continuation of a situation where the governing party could dissolve Parliament halfway through for no other reason than that it was ahead in the polls?
We have proposed to the Modernisation Committee that where the Prime Minister proposes the dissolution of Parliament—that is the system that we have, and it is the system in most parliamentary democracies, though not all—he would have to receive a vote on that by this House before it could go ahead.
Successive Governments have found difficulty in creating parliamentary time to deal with outstanding Law Commission reports. Last year the Government conceded to pressure in this House and the Lords when there was an attempt to find a means of dealing with outstanding reports through the Regulatory Reform Bill, as it was then. It is all very well having a report from the Lord Chancellor. What mechanisms do the Government intend to put in place to deal with important outstanding reports?
I understand the frustration that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and I repeat my great praise for successive law commissioners, who have done a terrific job. Speaking for this Government—and also, I think, for previous ones—I should say that Governments have not done enough to ensure that commissioners’ recommendations are brought in timeously.
We are proposing a change of procedure for non-contentious Law Commission proposals. The other changes that we are proposing would ensure that within Government the commission’s reports were not sometimes shelved on grounds of inconvenience. There would have to be a process within Government for taking forward Law Commission proposals that were broadly agreed.
Between 1965 and 1976, I was an election agent and was involved on numerous occasions in local, national and European elections. I assure the House that at that time the electoral system was credible, seen to be fair and in total receipt of the confidence of the British electorate. That is not the case any longer. I was hopeful that in his statement today the Home Secretary would give us hope that he would put the matter right. He has failed to do so. Will he now give me an assurance that he will recognise the mistakes that his Government have made in the last 10 years and do something about the situation?
I am not the Home Secretary, but we will leave that minor matter aside. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view of the 1960s and 1970s; moreover, that view was not expressed by his party, which accused the House and the country of being ungovernable and our system of being in decay.
May I put forward an alternative point of view from that expressed in an earlier question about the Church of England? We should not encourage the Catholic Church—or, indeed, the Church of Scotland, which is also excluded—to come in. As we go further into the 21st century, this might be the time to separate state from Church, so that the Church is taken out of state business.
That is a point of view, but my view is that the established Church plays an important role in our constitution as well as in the faith of our society. It is significant that many of the Churches that are not members of the Anglican communion support the inclusion of Lords Spiritual in the other place, for example.
I was extremely concerned to read in yesterday’s edition of The Guardian that, according to its political editor, Ministers have already made a decision to introduce alternative voting systems. Can the Secretary of State give me a categorical assurance that that is not the case? Does he agree that he could introduce a new voting system only if he succeeded in a referendum of the British people on the issue, or if his party were re-elected at the next general election having included the issue in its manifesto?
I have already said on many occasions that one cannot use changes to the voting system as some kind of partisan tool. We are not proposing to do so. It is reasonable, however, for there to be a discussion about the alternative vote and we got that going when we published the review of voting systems about three months ago.
The Government will not be taken seriously in their supposed desire to return power to Parliament while they insist on keeping complete control of the timetable of parliamentary business. Does the Secretary of State not agree that they have made rather a bad start today in scheduling this important but not urgent statement in Opposition time, before an Opposition day debate?
Part of the trouble—and it has been ever thus—is that there is insufficient time on the Floor of the House. The Government Whips try to avoid statements on Opposition days; I think that the record on that in the past 10 or 11 years has been rather better than it was before. However, sometimes such things are unavoidable.
May I press the Lord Chancellor on one matter? In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), he did not clarify whether the Government would seek to change the voting system for electing Members of this House before or after the next general election.
I am clear about the fact that this is not a partisan proposal. We have come to no decisions about it. A review process is taking place that was launched with the review of voting systems.
In examining proposals for constitutional renewal, have the Government given any consideration to introducing a recall mechanism whereby in certain specific and exceptional circumstances constituents could remove their Member of Parliament during the course of a Parliament, not just at a general election?
We have not, as it happens, but there is a case for that, as there would be in respect of the other place. It has not so far been part of our constitutional arrangements, but there is a case for it.
BILL PRESENTED
Sustainable Energy (Local Plans)
Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. Tim Yeo, Julia Goldsworthy, Colin Challen, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Jim Dowd, Steve Webb, John Battle and Mr. David Drew, presented a Bill to promote energy efficiency; to require specified bodies to publish sustainable energy plans; to make provision for the transfer of functions to principal councils; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed. [Bill 92].
Opposition Day
[8th Allotted Day]
Iraq Inquiry
We now come to the Opposition Day debate on the Iraq inquiry. I have to announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. There is also a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
I beg to move,
That this House calls for an inquiry by an independent committee of privy councillors to review the way in which the responsibilities of Government were discharged in relation to Iraq, and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and its aftermath and to make recommendations on lessons to be drawn for the future.
The passing of the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war brings us naturally to consider once again the need for a high-level and wide-ranging inquiry into its origin and conduct. When we last debated the issue on 11 June last year, I think it is fair to say that a consensus emerged across the House that such an inquiry would be necessary at some point. Those of us who voted for the invasion of 2003, just as much as those who voted against it, expressed the view that the length of the conflict, the difficult and controversial nature of the decisions leading up to it, the extreme difficulties encountered afterwards, and the sheer immensity of the decision and of its consequences were all so great that a major inquiry would be unavoidable. The Government accepted that argument in principle, but argued that the appropriate time had not been reached.
The case that I wish to put to the House is that the nation expects, our troops deserve, and the facts lead to a fresh conclusion that the time to commence such an inquiry has now been reached. The passage of time, the urgent need to learn for the future, the need to reinforce the credibility of future decision taking, and the diminished role in Iraq of British forces all point to that clear conclusion. In a letter to the Prime Minister of 11 February, the Fabian Society put the case very well. It said:
“Iraq has been…the most controversial and publicly contested episode in British foreign policy for half a century, since Suez”.
It continued:
“An inquiry cannot change the course of events since 2003. But…A full inquiry would ensure that a rounded assessment of the pre-war diplomacy, the intelligence failures…the conduct of the war itself, and the difficulties of post-war political and economic reconstruction could inform future policy.”
It argued that the fifth anniversary of the war would be
“the right time for the government to set out plans to ensure the lessons from Iraq are learnt and inform the future of British foreign policy”.
In response, the Prime Minister maintained the Government line of the past 18 months, saying:
“This Government has already acknowledged there will come a time when it is appropriate to hold an inquiry. But…we believe that is not now.”
That statement was treated by some as a new development in Government policy, but in fact it brought us no nearer to an inquiry than at any time in the past 18 months. In the debate on this issue of 31 October 2006, which the nationalist parties initiated, Ministers did indeed refuse to concede the case for any inquiry, but the Defence Secretary then announced to the television cameras waiting outside:
“When the time is right, of course there will be such an inquiry.”
That has been the Government’s position for 18 months.
Do the Government have to initiate an inquiry? What is stopping Parliament from setting up its own inquiry, and would the right hon. Gentleman endorse that?
If the motion were carried, it would amount to Parliament’s insisting on such an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is entirely at liberty to vote with us—as he seems to do on an increasingly regular basis—on this issue.
I will give way to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).
Given that discussions on Privy Council terms with leaders of his party and other parties took place before many of the crucial decisions, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is right that the Conservative party’s role and views throughout the proceedings should equally be the subject of the inquiry?
I am sure that no Opposition party would object if an inquiry wished to have access to any of its papers or records of its deliberations. The hon. Gentleman might not want to set that precedent in the case of his own party; if he is relaxed about it we may have inquiries in future on parties that promise things in elections and do not deliver them in opposition, but that is another matter.
Does the right hon. Gentleman go along with the idea that whenever an inquiry is held, it will be useless unless witnesses are obliged to swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? We have learned that from painful experience. The inquiry should afford support to witnesses who want to tell the truth but are being leaned on by superiors and people we do not see to be ambiguous or economical with the truth. For an inquiry to have any veracity, it is a prerequisite that people give evidence under oath.
There is no reason why that should not be built into an inquiry. If we were to carry the motion, the practical effect would be that the Government would have to come back with their own proposals for an inquiry. I am sure that they would want to build such a requirement into them.
As someone who voted against the Iraq war on every single occasion, I think that it ill becomes someone to come to the Dispatch Box and argue about an inquiry at this stage. It would be unreal for you to expect people like me to come into the Lobby with you. Could I pose a question back to you? If the right hon. Gentleman is looking at a position where you want an inquiry at this moment in time—
Order. I am trying to assist the hon. Gentleman in the use of the correct parliamentary language. He must not involve me by saying “you”. I think that he meant the right hon. Gentleman.
The best answer that I could give to the hon. Gentleman would be to develop the case of what an inquiry would look at now, and the argument for holding it now. I shall proceed to do that—
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
In fairness, I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who has been trying to intervene, and I shall then proceed a little way.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. While I am in favour of an inquiry, and I do not accept the Government’s arguments that the time is not right, I am concerned about its nature. If we vote for the right hon. Gentleman’s motion, how can we be sure that it will provide a full inquiry that will take evidence in public, preferably on oath, in which we can have every confidence? We have not had confidence in previous inquiries, with good reason.
The case we have set out in the motion is for a Privy Council inquiry, modelled on the inquiry that took place after the Falklands war. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), the practical result of the motion being carried would be that the Government would be required by Parliament to set up an inquiry, which would be a matter for further debate. My preferred model is that of a Privy Council inquiry. I want to set out the reasons for that in a moment.
Let me proceed a little way. I will give way to hon. Members in due course, but we have to remember that others will wish to speak.
The case in principle for an inquiry should, therefore, be agreed across the political spectrum. It was agreed after the last debate. For those of us who supported the invasion of March 2003, recent signs of hope in Iraq are welcome indeed. The security situation has improved, the Iraqi economy is growing, stumbling but genuine steps towards political reconciliation have taken place and optimism among the people of the country has risen. But we all have to recognise that the path to this renewal of hope has lain through a painful trauma, including the deaths of 175 members of our armed forces. While the 23 days of the initial military campaign to overthrow Saddam were astonishingly successful, the constant theme of those who have written about their involvement in subsequent events is that things went seriously wrong in the preparation for, and execution of, the occupation of the country.
Sir Hilary Synnott, who was in charge of southern Iraq under the coalition provisional authority, puts very well in his book the need to draw practical lessons from the events. That is part of the case for an inquiry beginning now. He says that, of course, the highest-level political decisions in the run-up to the war need to be examined, but that many practical issues also need to be considered. I shall quote him at some length. He mentions:
“The deficiencies of process and planning need to be examined in detail: the inability quickly to mobilise adequate numbers of appropriate experts or sufficient financial resources…The bureaucratic accounting and contracting procedures; the failures of communication and understanding—between the hub in Baghdad and the regional and provincial spokes…the failure to motivate and organise the Coalition Central Government Departments so that they were…able to contribute their particular skills and resources to an effort which needed to be a truly comprehensive one.”
He continues:
“Only by careful analysis of such failings will it be possible to decide to what extent changes need to be made and then…ensure they are brought about.”
rose—
I shall give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and then I will read further from Sir Hilary Synnott’s book.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that any inquiry needs to embark on the much more fundamental question of whether it is right for any nation to go to war in the absence of an express United Nations resolution, save when there is an urgent, genuine and immediate threat to its security or that of its immediate allies?
Of course, it would be open to an inquiry to examine the arguments about legality. I suspect that a difference of view would remain at the end, but it would be open to the inquiry to consider that.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us felt that, whatever preparation had been made in advance of the invasion, the war would inevitably lead to the sort of mess that exists now—in other words, those who voted against the war at the outset felt that it was impossible to avoid the quagmire that we now face?
Of course, there are people who hold that view. There are disagreements in the House and in every party about that. The hon. Gentleman may recall that the person who said:
“I happen to be on the side of those who believed Saddam Hussein had to be removed by force, but no one could have predicted they would have made such a mess of the peace building afterwards”
was his noble Friend Lord Ashdown. There is bound to be disagreement to some extent in any party about that.
Does my right hon. Friend share my opinion that it is clear that a majority in the House of Commons currently believes that there should be an inquiry now, but that the practical problem is that we will not get one in the lifetime of this Parliament until sufficient Labour Back Benchers are persuaded to support the proposal? Could he perhaps invite members of the Labour party who have already expressed such an opinion to table a motion, stipulating what sort of inquiry they would like, and contemplate our party or the Liberal Democrats giving time for debate so that we could mobilise a parliamentary majority to do what the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) suggested? Thus Parliament could reassert its right to call an inquiry when it wants.
That is, characteristically of my right hon. and learned Friend, a hugely constructive proposal. Indeed, hon. Members who differ with the terms that we propose but agree that there is a need for an inquiry may wish to do exactly as he suggests.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who has been so persistent, and then I shall return to Sir Hilary Synnott’s book.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his graciousness. If the inquiry that he seeks through the motion took place and was completed before UK troops were withdrawn from Iraq, would he envisage a second inquiry?
That would depend on later events, but I do not think so. Given the stage that we have now reached of fulfilling an overwatch role and what is meant to become a training and mentoring role, pressure or a campaign for a second inquiry is highly unlikely.
rose—
Having spent the weekend reading Sir Hilary Synnott’s book, I am determined to impart my knowledge of it to the House. He makes an important point when he states:
“Understanding the causes and consequences of what went wrong in Iraq should not therefore be regarded as just an academic or historical exercise.”
In his opinion,
“Britain and America seem likely to be involved in more, not fewer, nation building efforts in the coming years…Even in Afghanistan, after more than six years of operations, the challenges show little sign of abating, and several of these are, yet again, being examined from first principles—police training…the role of Provincial reconstruction teams”,
and so on. He continues:
“Many of the shortcomings in that country have similarities with those in Iraq and still need to be properly assessed, with appropriate conclusions drawn.”
That, as I see it, is why a full-scale inquiry is of practical relevance, and why it might be of assistance to the future operations of this or any other Government and to our armed forces in the field elsewhere. To close our minds to learning from or to delay learning from the issues that Sir Hilary Synnott—the man in charge of governing southern Iraq on our behalf—has been talking about would be a dereliction of our duty, as well as that of the Government.
Can we get back to the terms of the right hon. Gentleman’s motion? It refers to
“the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003”,
but when, in his opinion, did that period begin? Does it include what happened when the Thatcher Government were arming Saddam and implicitly supporting the repression of the Kurds, or does it simply start when the Labour Government were elected?
I do not think that that period starts with an election. Rather, it is for the members of the inquiry to decide; or, indeed, it is for the Government to bring forward terms of reference for an inquiry that set that out. That question is hardly an insurmountable obstacle to the setting up of a Privy Council or any other inquiry.