Richard Spring MP
Member of Parliament for West Suffolk

This is the name of a South African wine; the rather exotic description is certainly easier to understand then the complicated spelling of the Cape Dutch wineries. 

I suspect that the goats are unhappy, and some at least will either voluntarily or involuntarily be put out to pasture before this parliament ends. 

Post offices are a vital part of our social fabric and local community. They not only provide essential services but are often the lifeblood of our small towns and villages.

Yet, since 1997, over 4,000 Post Offices have closed. In addition to this, a further 2,500 branches are set to close over the next two years. 67 post offices in Suffolk and East Essex have already been named for closure and those that could be shut in my constituency are to be announced in March 2008. 

The effect that this will have on rural areas cannot be underestimated. Post offices are often the last publicly accessible commercial hub in a community or village. I am deeply concerned that fewer post offices, providing fewer services to fewer people will affect the most vulnerable in our society. 

This is why I have now launched an online petition to request that all post offices in West Suffolk remain open. We must all try our best to stop these closures from happening. You can sign the petition at (www.richardspring.com/postoffice.asp). 

This Government has no understanding at all of how life is in rural market towns and villages. We in Suffolk pay high council taxes and get poor central Government funding. It is now time for the Government to sit up and listen. 

One of the most fulfilling challenges for people of a certain age is to re-train and re-skill. For example, many have been able to master new technologies such as the internet and email by attending courses.

Thus, it is very surprising that there has been a large decrease in the number of Suffolk adults participating in education. Suffolk has seen a 26% decrease since 2003/04 in the number of adults in further education and a further 15% decrease in the number participating in adult and community learning programmes.

Gordon Brown has placed much emphasis on young people staying in education. But more needs to be done to encourage adults to learn new skills and gain new qualifications. Not only does it lead to self fulfilment but it is often a bridge to employment. Its erosion in Suffolk is very disappointing and no doubt is replicated elsewhere.   

How much influence in the world does Britain under Labour have? In the Middle East? In the European Union? In the United States?

The question is almost rhetorical. It is just embarrassing and morale is now low in our Foreign Office. As with everything else, there is precious little fresh thinking.

Yesterday I spoke about the Middle East in particular in a debate in the Commons. Earlier this year I was in Iran, Israel and Syria. There is nothing like seeing places for oneself….

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con): We have touched on the fact that a lot of time has been spent talking about the European treaty, and I want to make this basic observation. The whole issue of a constitution or a non-constitution arose from the Laeken declaration, put together by the European Council in December 2001. It is worth reminding ourselves of the remit inherent in that declaration. It called for the clarifying, adjusting and simplifying of the division of competencies between the EU and member states and the addressing of the democratic deficit to make the EU more democratic, transparent and efficient. It also called for the EU to be brought closer to its citizens. On the four treaties, the declaration states that

“If we are to have greater transparency, simplification is essential”.

What a long road we have travelled since that remit. The declaration asked exactly the right questions for the long-term viability of the European Union, but one can see that the EU is very far removed from them. The idea that the treaty is bringing the peoples of Europe closer to the structures now being proposed is preposterous.

Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): Before my hon. Friend moves on from the Laeken declaration, I remind him and the House that only in June this year the European Council, continuing what was said at Laeken, called for the

“crucial importance of reinforcing communication with the European citizens…and involving them in a permanent dialogue. This will be particularly important during the upcoming IGC and ratification process”.

So that urge to have democracy came not only at Laeken, but in the ensuing years. Unfortunately, it will not be fulfilled.

Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I absolutely agree with him.

In the next fortnight, Mohamed el-Baradei will report on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear developments. The vote on a possible third UN Security Council resolution for sanctions will be called if the IAEA and Javier Solana conclude that Iran has failed to make progress on the work programme agreement of last summer. When I was Iran recently, I was told that it would be fully compliant. However, since then—and we are at a critical juncture—President Ahmadinejad has hinted that Iran is now capable of producing 3,000 centrifuges, which would be an important step in the process of enriching uranium and would lead to the possibility of a nuclear bomb. Iran has indicated that it will expand that capability considerably.

If we go down the route that I have mentioned, there will be huge problems for us and the region. Let us consider, for example, the reactions of two of Iran’s neighbours, which are concerned for different reasons. Saudi Arabia has unveiled a Gulf states initiative for all users of enriched uranium to ensure security of supply for civilian nuclear power programmes and to prevent the diversion of uranium into nuclear weapons programmes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) mentioned, Russia has proposed to be a guarantor of the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, with the possibility of some exchange resulting from America’s proposal on ballistic missile defences. However, even before the imminent IAEA report, the United States has announced a series of sanctions against the Iranian revolutionary corps as a proliferator of nuclear weapons, and against the al-Quds force division as a terrorist organisation. We therefore have in prospect a freezing of assets, as well as the ban on US citizens doing business with three Iranian banks. However disagreeable it may be to us, the problem is that that sort of action bolsters the reputation of President Ahmadinejad, whose supporters did badly in the local elections nearly a year ago, and who got into office in the first place promising higher employment and prosperity, which has unfortunately completely failed to materialise. There is petrol rationing, amid other signs of a truly sclerotic economy. However, the country is insulated by oil at $100 a barrel, as it has one of the highest reserves in the world. It has become fashionable in Iran to blame Britain, in particular, for its difficulties; that is because of our rather chequered historical relationship with the country.

If Iran does take the alarming route to a nuclear capability, not only its neighbours have reason to be concerned. President Ahmadinejad’s recent comments on Israel and his repulsive observations about the holocaust make Israel understandably anxious. The United States has indicated that Iranian weaponry is being used against soldiers in Iraq. We do not know what the exact provenance of that weaponry might be, but it is undoubtedly being used, and the United States may use that as an opportunity for some sort of attack on Iran in due course. Before that ever happened, we would do well to consider the consequences. Iran has sophisticated weaponry and is most unlikely to fail to react. What could it do? It could close the Strait of Hormuz, which is only 34 miles wide and through which 20 per cent. of the world’s oil travels each day, or even attack some of the Gulf oilfields. A substantial reduction in oil supplies to the world would have dire economic consequences. We must also ask ourselves whether surgical strikes could be effective. Would the Iranians manage to retaliate further afield? If there was no UN mandate because of objections from Russia and China, how would parts of the Islamic world react in such an eventuality? If there was a UN resolution, how would enforcement be viewed when non-compliance is accepted elsewhere in the region? There are huge dangers, but they have to be balanced against the consequences of Iran acquiring a nuclear device.

If there is to be a successful dialogue, the United States will be the key player, as always in this region. Iran has been branded part of the “axis of evil” and has had conditions imposed on it by the United States that make it difficult for any such dialogue to proceed—namely, the cessation of any kind of nuclear enrichment and ceasing to sponsor state terrorism. The simple reality is that no Iranian politician, however moderate, would accept such conditions, so any dialogue that is to work must be based on a different sort of premise. The grim reality is that we have very little insight into the different elements of the country’s ruling group. We have no real intelligence on the ground and can make judgments based on assumptions but not hard evidence. Nevertheless, we must try to identify those in Iran who are more moderate and can persuade the more aggressive to get into some sort of dialogue with us. If we fail, the consequences for Iran, the region and the rest of the world will be very serious. The next few weeks will be crucial. No option should be dismissed in these alarming circumstances, but whatever course we pursue to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear device, we must do so in a tough but calculated and measured way, because we need to assess very clearly what the consequences would be.

The importance of the security and stability of Israel, as a homeland for the Jewish people, is universally accepted in this House, and so it should be. However, we are entitled to ask whether Israel is more secure today than it was, say, 10 years ago; I fear that the answer is no. I welcome the fact that Mr. Olmert and President Abbas appear to be moving towards an understanding. There are many contentious issues to be addressed, and the question is whether either of them can really deliver. I fear that there will be no viable two-state solution and no ultimate security for Israel unless—this is a very disagreeable proposition—Hamas is ultimately part of any deal agreed between Mr. Olmert and President Abbas, because any such agreement will have to be acceptable to the majority of Palestinians; indeed, President Abbas has talked about having a referendum to resolve the situation. As a long-term objective, the inclusion of Hamas in any talks will have to be entertained.

Mention has been made of the Annapolis conference. We must applaud that initiative. There are dangers in terms of whether it will be successful and expectations that may be too high, but it is good to know that Turkey is constructively involved. Yesterday, President Shimon Peres arrived in Ankara—President Abbas arrives today—for what the Turkish press describe as a mini-Annapolis. I hope and believe that Annapolis must succeed, but it should do so by being the first stage in a process of negotiation encompassing not only the Israelis and Palestinians but the broader region. If Annapolis fails, the pessimists will feel vindicated. The Palestinians naturally want a freeze on settlement construction, prisoner release and fewer roadblocks, while Israel understandably wants guaranteed security. All those aspects are hugely difficult. It may be wise to suggest that Annapolis is not some kind of finality but part of a process on the long road towards a resolution of the problem.

Looking beyond the direct Israel-Palestine relationship, there is a wider picture to consider. Israel has good working relationships with its neighbours, Jordan and Egypt, but there is a lively debate in Israel about its relationship with Syria. The Golan Heights, which are legally Syrian, are occupied by Israel. They have no strategic value any more, but for Syria this is a crucial matter. Seven years ago, a deal was nearly struck between the then Syrian President and the Israelis. Syria has offered normalisation and an exchange of ambassadors, and the Israelis should road-test that. I understand the difficulties, given the relationship between Syria and Hezbollah, but the prize would be a normalisation that would enhance the possibility of Israel’s security. Syria is a secular country where religious minorities are protected; indeed, it currently has many refugees from Iraq.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said, the middle east is of pivotal importance, not only for the region itself but for the world at large. Unfortunately, our reputation has been considerably degraded in the past decade. Our longstanding and firm friendship with the United States has not been successfully deployed. Annapolis beckons, and we all hope that it will work. It is vital that we should assist in this process in any way that we can. The peoples of the middle east—the crucible of our civilisation—whether Jewish, Muslim or Christian, do not deserve to continue in an atmosphere of such fear and insecurity.

Once again there were more people than ever attending Remembrance Sunday services in my constituency – in this instance in Mildenhall and Haverhill. I can’t help but feel it is something to do with the fact that each month our soldiers are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also people are aware of the terrorist threat to our society. 

It is very moving to hear the roll of honour: the same families tragically suffering losses in both world wars. My children’s great-grandfather was the ninth son and fourteenth child and inherited the family farm in Suffolk. Another great-grandfather was gassed and was never quite the same again. My own father’s heart was weakened in war; he was reluctant to have children, and sure enough he died when I was only nine. Another uncle acquired some sort of untreatable virus which meant that about once a year he had to spend time bed ridden with a high temperature. My father’s sister never recovered from a bomb blast in the West End of London, and died shortly after the war ended. In other words, although belonging to a generation never directly impacted by war, no family escaped its consequences. 

People in this country have a real sense of their own personal freedom. Some people today would like to destroy our way of life, not by conventional warfare. They will not succeed because the instincts of all those people who turned out yesterday will ensure that it will never happen. 

This week the British Computer Society gave a reception at the House of Commons to give awards to blogging MPs. To my amazement, my blog was highly commended and got runner-up status in the ‘engagement’ category. I was surprised and delighted because it is all pretty low key stuff compared with other rather more exciting MP blogs. 

It is curious. My website (www.richardspring.com) gets only a fraction of the 136,000 hits the blog is receiving each month. Yet a great deal of effort is made to maintain and update the former. It shows how blogging is now really part of modern life. 

A number of my blogging parliamentary colleagues have given up because of the time it takes to write something each day. Frankly I am never at a real loss about having something to write about, because there is simply never a dull day in the life of a member of the House of Commons! 

I recently received an answer to a Parliamentary Question  regarding the number of children being treated for cannabis misuse. The statistics are truly horrifying.

9,150 children (up from 7, 571 last year)  between the ages of 9 and 15 are being treated for drugs misuse. 56% of these are being treated for specific cannabis problems.

The decision made by the Government to downgrade cannabis to class C was a big mistake. It has given the impression that cannabis is a lot safer than it actually is and sends out a dangerous message to our children.

It was also revealed this week that despite the Government ploughing a massive £130 million extra funding into drug addiction treatment it has only led to 70 more users quitting drugs. Clearly the Government’s current policy of managing addiction by keeping addicts on drugs is failing.  It is surely now time to move on to more residential abstinence based rehab programmes.

We have seen a huge Government campaign to stop young people smoking cigarettes. Yet the carcinogenic properties of cannabis are much greater then nicotine. And cannabis is now much stronger then it was a generation ago.

It is truly heart stopping to think that so many very young people are already drug users. There is such a strong link between drug use and youth criminality. It is time cannabis is treated as a major health risk and acted upon accordingly.