Pauline Neville-Jones answers all of the questions asked of her here.
Michael Mcgough: Are you in favour of the new constitutional/amending/reform treaty?
Let’s be clear about the Reform Treaty. It is the Constitution in all but name and almost every European leader has said that 90% of the content is the same. The Conservative Party promised a referendum on it because of the powers it would transfer to the EU. Promises should be kept.
As for my own feelings about the Treaty, I am not a eurosceptic. But I am not happy with this document. I do not believe, for instance, that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom that our ability to represent ourselves in the world, to conduct business directly and to cast votes- and vetoes- in the UN Security Council on fundamental issues of war and peace, should be displaced by a proxy. These are not rights and duties we should be giving away.
James Burdett: Whilst embroiled in the Cold War and then ecstatic at its conclusion, almost everyone missed the growth of Al-Qaeda based terrorism. Where should we be looking to avoid the danger of repeating the mistake, that with the massive focus on the current Al-Qaeda and associated threats we miss the emerging security threats?
I agree that the threat of terrorism is the most serious threat to the UK now. But there are other important threats we can clearly identify. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear is one, exemplified by Iran’s refusal to come clean about her nuclear programme or to honour her commitments under the NPT to allow inspection.
Down the road, one can see the risk of renewed interstate warfare of a more “conventional” kind. Issues disputes over borders or resources could spark war as pressure on natural commodities – such as water - grow. Climate change, if extreme, leading to loss of landmass and big migrations of people could generate tension and even fighting. In a globalised economy, even if the location of the conflict is far away, British interests are likely to be involved and our security could be threatened. We need active policies to protect our interests and reduce the likelihood of war.
Tony Makara: Should Britain openly support and give financial assistance to democratic opposition groups in countries like Zimbabwe and Burma?
Governments conduct relations with each other – the basis of the UN Charter and international law-and they need to be cautious about themselves directly supporting financially the political activities of opposition groups in non-democratic countries because of the difficulty of either foreseeing or controlling the possible consequences, which among other things could be dangerous for those being supported. Giving them indirect support e.g. through depriving oppressive governments of international support and legitimacy eg by the application of sanctions or other restrictive measures against oppressive regimes can achieve ends which the opposition groups themselves cannot.
Ataturk: Is it in Britain's national interest to give shelter to wanted criminals like Boris Berezovsky or those suspected of terrorism like Akhmed Zakayev, especially since, in the case of Berezovsky, they have freely admitted to using London as a base to overthrow the democratically-elected government of another country (i.e, Russia). Didn't we make this mistake in the 1980s and 1990s when we allowed large numbers of radical Muslim "dissidents" into Britain to carry out their political activities against other countries unchecked and unopposed?
In the past, the UK has granted asylum to people who have subsequently shown they had subversive intentions. Nevertheless, unless we are to abandon our tradition of protecting human rights and the persecuted, we must recognise that there will be mistakes in individual cases.
I do not think your premise that Mr Berezovsky has used London as a base to attempt the overthrow of the Russian government is correct. However international asylum treaties rightly allow the UK to reserve the right to reject or remove those whose political activities may harm the interest or the people of this country.
Charlie Buxton: Should Britain continue to 'punch above its weight' at an international level and if so, how?
Britain should match its assets and ambitions. Delivery is as important in foreign policy as it is in domestic. In particular we should not ask our armed forces, who risk their lives for us, to do more than they are equipped to do and we should ensure they have the equipment for the job they are asked to do.
This country has a tradition of involvement in international affairs and as a country that largely generates its national income by external trading of various kinds, we should continue to be active. A significant threat to our security arises from societies where populations do not participate economically or politically in their societies and where governments are corrupt. The ensuing political tensions have given rise to competing ideology and terrorism. With other allies and democracies, the UK needs to begin to work for political reform in such countries by helping build the institutions of open societies. We are well equipped to do this but it will take time and we should not expect quick fixes.
Ay Up: Do you agree that withdrawing our presence from Iraq within the next few years would be a disaster for Iraq and a betrayal of what our lads have been fighting for?
Any withdrawal from Iraq must be based on the situation there. The military mission must be focused on helping Iraqis develop security forces that can keep order in their own country. There remains a long term task of political stabilisation, reconstruction and economic development. As I said in my report we need a multilateral effort to get Iraq’s neighbours to work together to stabilise the country. This will allow coalition forces to be drawn down.
If there has been any betrayal of what our soldiers have been fighting for, it has been in the unwillingness of the Labour Government to support them properly either in theatre or at home. They must be given the resources and support they need for the job they are asked to do.
Terry: In the future, which countries, if any, should continue to have a veto in the UN?
The Security Council is badly in need of enlargement to include more permanent members to reflect the rise in power of countries like Japan, India and Brazil. This would itself give the UNSC greater legitimacy – an important attribute of its decisions which are a major element in the body of international law.
Because it is going to be almost impossible to get agreement on increasing the number of veto holding powers, these new countries should not have a veto. I am not in favour of the UK giving up its veto.. There is absolutely no question of a Conservative government agreeing to Britain’s veto to be replaced by a single European vote. Thus the number will probably stay at five.
Teck: In an environment of globalised migratory pressures, international and national homeland security are issues in the same continuum. What policies, if any, would you wish to see introduced to lessen the risks of home-grown and imported terrorism in general, and in particular what would your priorities be for immigration in the context of security?
I totally agree with your premise that national and international security have to be considered together, which is exactly what the Policy Group Report has done.
At home, effective cooperation between the intelligence services and police to prevent terrorist attack is vital, but long term our security has to rest on a cohesive society. We should oppose the promotion of ideologies which have as their goal the destruction of our democratic values, which we should ensure our schools teach our children. We should do more to help individuals from minority groups get on in society and to integrate and reverse current policies which entrench differences between different communities.
Preventing the import of terrorism from abroad is a question of integrating our immigration and border security to ensure that individuals likely to bring extremism or violence are prevented from entering the country in the first place. A new Border Protection Service, with real powers, combining law and customs enforcement with immigration will help.
Immigration into this country cannot be uncontrolled. Policy has to be guided by the skills needs of this country and the social impact of migrants on the communities they come to. The Conservative proposals for a points based system for work permits and an annual limit is directed at these goals. Those applying for settlement must become proficient in English.
Gillian Watson: My relatives are Chief Immigration Officers at Gatwick Airport. They tell me that Govt. inconsistencies cause many of their problems, and that department is seriously short of the physical area required in which to safely undertake their work. For instance asylum seekers sometimes have to be seated outside the department whilst enquiries are processed and then are found to have disappeared. Michael Ancram has details of other issues they have mentioned. When the Conservatives gain power will we address these issues rather than encouraging more shopping at Airports?
You are right. Government inconsistencies, duplication of effort and a lack of cooperation between departments and agencies is a problem. Gordon Brown thinks he can resolve it with cosmetic changes to both. This won’t work. The Conservative proposal for a new, dedicated Border Protection Service which I mentioned above, will iron out many of the problems which your relatives face.
The ability of immigration officers at our ports of entry to do an efficient job in tolerable conditions for both them and for those applying for entry is fundamental. Revenue related activities of the airport must not get in the way.
Londoner: When did you join the Conservative Party? Are you worried about the "surveillance society"? Do you agree that an incoming Tory Government should scrap ID cards and stop collecting the DNA of people who have not been convicted of, or cautioned for, any criminal offence?
Although I became a member only recently, I have always been a Conservative at heart. A life of public service though meant staying politically neutral.
The danger of developing a surveillance society is real and a Conservative government is pledged to scrap identity cards. The circumstances in which an individual’s data is to be entered on the police DNA data base should strictly defined and access regulated. It should not be used as a general or universal national DNA data store. The Scottish system, where the DNA records of those not found guilty are destroyed is preferable and should be considered for England and Wales.
Michael Clarke: With the emergence of a newly confident Russia, President Putin is using energy supply as a diplomatic tool or cut off as a threat. Given the U.K's new dependence on importation of energy from eastern Europe, should increased recourse to nuclear be a sensible response? France is self sufficient and far less vulnerable.
To reduce vulnerability to external political and economic manipulation, the UK needs to take several of the following measures: conserve domestic sources of supply, increase energy efficiency, increase the reliability of external supply and diversify the sources as well as types of energy. Replacement of the internal combustion engine for transport with an alternative technology would make a major contribution to the problem of climate change as well as reducing oil dependence. I personally have no objection to nuclear power as part of the mix, though we need to recognise that it is controversial, that the economics remain problematic and that the issue of waste still has not been resolved. France still needs imported oil by the way.
Patricia Wilcock: Regarding the EU Constitution/Treaty, if the EU is to have one foreign policy and Intelligence is to be shared amongst the Member States, this throws up some alarming issues. In particular is the strategic importance of Cyprus to the gathering of information on the Middle East and to the monitoring of traffic and weapons movements. Britain retains sovereignty over large parts of the island, including Akrotiri Air Base and the island is bristling with military equipment and personnel. How comfortable will the Americans be if "our" joint Intelligence is shared by EU Member States, some of which are openly hostile to the USA? In fact how comfortable should British Intelligence Services be?
As I said above, I do not believe that the EU Constitution/Treaty is in Britain’s best interests, precisely because it would begin to erode our powers and capabilities in relation to issues which pertain to our security and defence.
However, I do not believe that the treaty will lead to the outcome you cite: the UK will continue, so far as I can tell to have control over the intelligence it shares with EU partners. But the government should be willing to be to give you specific and bankable assurances on such points. It is quite wrong that Labour are not willing to explain and defend in detail their actions to the British people.
Anthony Broderick: Do you regret opposing intervention in Bosnia and doing business deals with Milosevic?
I was part of a government that led the intervention in Bosnia. Contrary to popular and misleading impression, I did not do any business deals with Milosevic.
B Garvie: Do you agree that we should have a referendum on the EU Reform treaty? It contains some alarming details about the introduction of a 'blue card' (similar to USA green card) for citizens from outside the EU. After 5 years they will be granted permanent residency. Do you think this is compatible with migration policy? Do you view this as another layer of bureaucracy that will hinder detection of terrorists?
As I said above, the Reform Treaty is the Constitution in all but name. The Conservative Party promised a referendum on it because of the powers it would transfer to the EU. The government should keep the promises it makes and not hide behind linguistic subterfuges.
The UK has to be able to keep control of its immigration policy against criteria relevant to the security requirements and economic needs of this country. In the case of non EU citizens, it should be able fully to control who and how many come in, guided by the security requirements and economic needs of the country. This is not one of the Government’s ‘red lines’, but it should be.
Alan S: Is the British military underfunded, overfunded or does it have just the right level of funding?
The British military does not have the resources for the task they are currently being asked to undertake. It is one of the greatest failings of the Labour Government that they have sent our Armed Forces abroad to fight four times and have invested so little in providing the resources they need or in caring for their welfare.
Kevin Lohse: I would suggest that there are two major tasks in defeating home-grown terrorism: winning the military struggle and winning a "hearts and minds" campaign. Unfortunately there are several dichotomies in acheiving these aims. What is your strategy for reducing the ease with which Al Quaida recruits young britons to carry out atrocities in the name of Islam?
We must strike a careful balance between fighting effective military campaigns where necessary and consistently making policy to win hearts and minds.
That is why the next Conservative Government will give our Armed Forces the resources they need for the job we ask them to do and why with other allies and democracies, the UK needs to continue to work for political reform in such countries by helping build the institutions of open societies. We are well equipped to do this but it will take time and we should not expect quick fixes.
