Arms Exports and Controls

Ann McKechin Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Stanley]

The Committees most certainly do. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, we included in our report specific questions to the Government about how particular items that have been approved for export to Bahrain can be regarded as compatible with the export criteria that they supposedly follow. We therefore have responded specifically to that.

I come now to our second area of disagreement with the Government on arms export policy and internal repression, which is with particular reference to exports to authoritarian regimes. In successive reports the Committees have made—again unanimously—the following recommendation:

“the Government should apply significantly more cautious judgements when considering arms export licence applications for goods to authoritarian regimes which might be used for internal repression.”

Regrettably, in successive responses, the Government have declined to accept our recommendation.

I shall set out one of the most striking differences between what has happened under the present Government and what took place under the previous one. Under the previous Government, going right back to their election in 1997—shortly after which came the foundation of the Committees, thanks to the initiative of the late Robin Cook, who was the first Foreign Secretary to produce an annual report on arms exports—the number of revocations or suspensions of existing licences stood at a mere handful. However, during the lifetime of the present Government, there has been a massive use of some 400 revocations and suspensions. I do not think that can be attributed only to the fact that there has been a considerable amount of international turbulence and conflict during this Parliament, as there were wars and turbulence during the previous Government’s lifetime.

I make it clear to the Government and the Minister that I am in no way critical of the huge number of revocations—indeed, I believe they are entirely justified. The key question, and the issue that has been exercising the Committees, is whether export approval should have been given to all the licences in the first place. To reflect what was said by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), in broad-brush terms, the Government’s policy on the export of goods that could be used for internal repression to authoritarian regimes has been that if the situation in a particular country looks to be reasonably quiescent, there is a fairly considerable presumption that the export should be approved, with the Government no doubt saying to themselves, “Well, if things turn really nasty in that country we can always revoke the export licence.”

I suggest to hon. Members that nothing illustrates the weakness and limitations—and indeed the perils—of that policy more clearly than what has happened in Libya. Prior to the Arab spring, there was a significant arms export trade, approved by the Government, to Libya under the Gaddafi regime. Not surprisingly, when the Arab spring came and the Government announced their total list of revocations of arms export licences to Arab spring countries, the greatest single number—a total of 72 licences—was for licences for Libya.

We all know what happened when Gaddafi fell from power. Back in the UK, the Government had imposed their revocations, but they were of very limited effect, for the simple reason that they are of no use whatever for exports that have already been shipped. As I have said before, it was an exercise in shutting the stable door after the arms had bolted. What happened in Libya itself? The security arrangements around Gaddafi’s arms dumps vanished and people ransacked them, principally for financial gain, as they saw an opportunity to make quick and substantial money. As UN experts have reported, those stockpiles were then sold on and dispersed all over the middle east and north and west Africa.

I suggest that nothing better illustrates the cogency of the Committees’ recommendation for a significantly more cautious policy when dealing with arms export licence applications for arms that can be used for internal repression than what has happened in Libya. It is regrettable that, in their response to successive reports, the Government have failed to accept our recommendation for caution. I certainly hope that a future Government will take a different view.

I turn now to the Government’s export policy towards a few individual countries, starting with Russia. The publication of the Committees’ latest report happened to coincide almost exactly with the appalling shooting down of the Malaysian airliner MH17 over eastern Ukraine. That created something of a dilemma for the Government, because although, on the one hand, Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, were rightly condemning the Russian Government for being complicit in the shooting down of the airliner and the terrible loss of life, on the other, as was shown by our Committees’ report, there were no fewer than 285 extant British Government-approved arms export licences to Russia, with a value of some £131 million for the standard individual licences alone.

That led at one point to an unknown spokesman in No. 10 announcing to the media that many of the British Government’s arms exports to Russia were for the Brazilian navy, which I have to say came as news to me, as I suspect it did to a considerable number of other people. However, I thought that I should follow that one up, so I wrote to the Business Secretary to ask him for the stated end user of each of the 285 extant arms export licences to Russia. Disappointingly, he refused to give the Committees that information unless we agreed not to make it public. I see no justification for imposing that condition on the Committees. It is hardly in accordance with the Government’s supposed commitment to transparency on arms exports, and it raises a significant issue of policy for the Committees and, therefore, the House. The Government already make public the countries to which approved UK arms exports are going, but in many cases we need to know not just the names of the countries, but the end users in those countries. For example, will the end user be a Government body, a Government security authority or a civilian user? That is key information, but at the moment, the Government simply pick and choose when they will disclose the end users. They gave the Committees the end users when we wanted to know who they were in relation to the export of dual-use chemicals to Syria. They told us the end users when we wanted to know who they were for sniper rifles exported to Ukraine. However, they have refused to give us that information for Russia on the basis that it may be made public, and the Committee will want to address that policy issue further.

What is the Government’s present policy on arms exports to Russia? The Prime Minister said in the House:

“On the issue of defence equipment, we already unilaterally said—as did the US—that we would not sell further arms to Russia”.—[Official Report, 21 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1157.]

I would be grateful if the Minister clarified two points. First, when the Prime Minister said that we would not sell further arms to Russia, was he saying that all or only some will not be sold to Russia? If he was saying just some, which will continue to be sold? Secondly, on new licence applications, will the Minister clarify whether the Prime Minister’s statement means that all new licence applications to Russia are being refused, or only some, and if only some, which? The Minister’s clarification will be helpful.

I am sure that there was great concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about some of the measures taken by the Hong Kong security authorities against those who were exercising their right to demonstrate peacefully, and especially the fact that tear gas was used against demonstrators. I am in no doubt that if the Metropolitan police had used tear gas against those who recently demonstrated peacefully in Parliament square, there would have been considerable concern and perhaps outrage on both sides of the House.

I thought that the Committees should do their own analysis of precisely what items of lethal and non-lethal equipment that could be used for internal repression the Government had recently approved for Hong Kong. We took the information from the website of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for the last two years from January 2012. Our analysis showed that the Government had approved tear gas exports to Hong Kong in four of the past eight quarters since January 2012. If those licence approvals were given on the grounds that the security authorities in Hong Kong would never use tear gas against those demonstrating peacefully, that was a questionable assumption, given mainland China’s track record of dealing with peaceful demonstrators. Our analysis of lethal equipment approved for export to Hong Kong since January 2012 showed that it included pistols, sniper rifles and gun silencers, which were all stated to be for use by a law-enforcement agency.

I have written to the Business Secretary to ask a series of questions about the Government’s policy on arms exports to Hong Kong, including:

“Have any extant Government approved export licences to Hong Kong been revoked or suspended?”

I also asked:

“What is the Government’s present policy on approving new licences for the export of arms and equipment to Hong Kong that could be used for internal repression?”

We have just received the Business Secretary’s reply, a key paragraph of which is:

“No licences for Hong Kong have been revoked, suspended or had Hong Kong removed from a multiple destination open licence. The Foreign Secretary has advised me that the use of tear gas by the Hong Kong police was an uncharacteristic response at an early stage of the protests, the scale of which caught the police by surprise, and was not indicative of a wider pattern of behaviour that would cross the threshold of criterion 2. In his view that, since that incident, the Hong Kong police have generally approached the protests carefully and proportionately. I have accepted this advice.”

I am sure that the Committees will want to reflect on the Business Secretary’s response and then report to the House. My own view, having received that letter only a short time ago, is that the reply seems to reflect the more relaxed approach to arms exports that could be used for internal repression to which I have referred. It certainly makes me wonder whether, if the original wording in the October 2000 statement by the right hon. Member for Neath had been retained instead of dropped, those arms exports of both lethal and non-lethal equipment would have been approved in the first place.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given the political situation in Hong Kong and the concerns that have been expressed internationally, there must be a real risk of a recurrence of exactly the sort of event during which tear gas was used against civilian protestors? There has not yet been a resolution of that protest; it continues in Hong Kong today.

[Sir John Stanley]

There is certainly a risk of a recurrence of exactly what the hon. Lady describes. I hope that a lesson has been learned by the Hong Kong police that it is not acceptable to use tear gas against those who are demonstrating peacefully. It remains a matter of concern to me, and I am sure that the members of the Committees will want to look closely at the analysis that accompanied my letter to the Business Secretary. The Committees will want to scrutinise closely whether it was wise in the first instance to approve exports of the sort of equipment—lethal and non-lethal—to which I have referred.

In turning to Israel, I want to make it crystal clear at the outset that I condemn unreservedly Hamas’s indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel. However, Israel has serious questions to answer about its use of lethal weapons that has resulted in the recent death of well over 2,000 Palestinians—men, women and children—in Gaza, the great majority of whom were certainly not Hamas fighters.

The Foreign Office, in its annual human rights report, includes Israel—entirely rightly in my view—in its list of the 28 countries of top human rights concern to the British Government. In our latest report, we have listed for each of those countries the extant UK Government-approved arms export licences. Our report shows that Israel has the third largest number of extant arms export licences of those 28 countries, with a total of 470—a figure exceeded only by China and Saudi Arabia. In addition, our report shows that of those 28 countries’ extant arms export licences, the largest by value is Israel’s, totalling £8 billion in value. However, I want to stress this very important point: that £8 billion is largely made up of a gigantic cryptographic equipment export order, valued at £7.7 billion, which the Defence Secretary, when he was Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, assured the Committees was

“for purely commercial end use.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 426WH.]

Early in August, following what happened in Gaza, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary, asking him to list the controlled goods that the British Government had approved for export to Israel and that the Government had reason to believe may have been used by Israel in the recent military operations in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary gave me his reply on 19 August, saying

“officials have judged it unlikely that many of the components that were the subject of extant licences were for incorporation into systems that would be likely to be used offensively in Gaza”.

However, he went on to say, significantly in my view, that

“12 licences have been identified…where, in the event of a resumption of significant hostilities, and on the basis of information currently available to us, there could be a risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”

I think that is a very significant statement by the Foreign Secretary, and it once again reinforces the Committees’ recommendation for a significantly more cautious policy when dealing with the export of arms that can be used for internal repression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon, Mr Bayley. First, I want to look back to the debate last November about the work of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, in which we spent quite a bit of time discussing concerns about past and possible future exports to Syria. That was not surprising, given the recall vote that had taken place in September last year on arming opposition groups in Syria, and given the media controversy that had emerged about chemical weapons components coming from the United Kingdom.

At that debate, none of us talked or even knew about ISIL. Very few anticipated the descent into statelessness that we are now witnessing in Libya, to which the Chair of the Committees, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), has referred. Nobody could have foreseen the devastation and loss of innocent life caused by the conflict in Gaza this summer. That is why I urge all Members of the House to consider whether we are truly comfortable with our current arms export strategy. If we cannot foresee what events will occur in the next 12 months, let alone the next five or 10 years, and as most arms exports have a considerably longer shelf-life, there has never been such a need for a principled, precautionary and risk-based approach in a world of increasing volatility.

The Committees’ work has become more important with each passing year of this Parliament. I take the opportunity to convey my thanks, and that of the other members of the Committees, to our esteemed Chair, to our excellent Clerk, Keith Neary, and to the other staff who service our Committees for their unstinting dedication, thoroughness and unparalleled expertise in the preparation of the substantial and important report that we are discussing.

As the Chair has indicated, our report contains conclusions that are both positive and negative from the Minister’s point of view. The work on the arms trade treaty is a genuinely good sign. I am looking forward to participating next week in the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference here in London with delegates from across the world on how we can use the treaty to make real differences to people who live in conflict-afflicted areas. I hope that the United Kingdom, as it has done throughout the arms trade treaty process, will continue to take a leading role in the development of the treaty. The increased direct involvement of Ministers in the examination of sensitive export applications is also welcome. As the Chair has mentioned, I think that there is a direct correlation between that involvement and the number of licences that have been suspended and revoked in the past few years. Good work has been done on ensuring that applications are dealt with in a timely way and reducing the time-lapse in appeals.

As the Committees have made clear, it is more than disappointing that the Government’s record on transparency has been worryingly regressive this year. Although there is some merit in the aim of easing unnecessary bureaucracy by transferring more of our export licences from individual to open, we must not do that at the expense of transparency on sensitive issues where there are many legitimate concerns and where the geopolitics are changing at great speed.

The scaling back of the transparency initiative, which has included the reversal of previous public commitments by the Government to publish more information on the type, value and quantity of equipment transferred under open licences, sends a worrying message to the wider world that our stated principles may be only superficially adhered to. The fact that that occurred at the same time as the UK signed the arms trade treaty has exasperated many of the NGOs that supported the campaign for the treaty. The Government’s response to our recommendation to reverse that decision was grudging. They said that

“we concluded that the administrative burden would be too high.”

However, no substantive evidence from the industry was offered to justify that conclusion, and there was no such evidence in the Government’s consultation exercise. I believe that the Committees will want to probe that issue more closely in our next set of evidence sessions next month.

As well as transparency, we need consistency. The Committees’ Chair has already stated his concerns about the definition of the common criteria, and I support his views. The Government’s defence was to designate the relevant paragraph

“as a general statement that formed part of the introductory text”.

As such, apparently, it was of no importance. That is, frankly, nonsense. The text is designed to be read as a whole, and the reader is entitled to presume that it is consistent throughout. If it was not, a caveat would be added to that effect. There is no caveat in the definition of the common criteria, and it is simply unconvincing to try to present one retrospectively after our Committees have been trying to probe the matter for almost two years. That is not a mere grammatical point or a fixation on detail. In a volatile world, where many accepted wisdoms and assumptions have been torn apart and where western nations are increasingly castigated for being driven purely by self-interest, the need for the highest standards and the greatest caution about those to whom we export arms is more pronounced than ever. Much of the turmoil that we are witnessing in the middle east has developed from the impact of internal repression over prolonged periods of time, where, too often, we in the west have not given sufficient weight to the consequent risks.

Another use of language in the Government’s lexicon to ease them out of difficult dilemmas is the term “significant hostilities”. Our annual report predated the dreadful events during July and August in Gaza and Israel, which resulted in the death of more than 2,000 Palestinians, 67 Israelis and one foreign national, as well as the indiscriminate destruction of schools, hospitals and homes and the displacement of more than 470,000 people. As the Chair has done, I condemn the operation of Hamas and the indiscriminate bombing of Israel, but I also condemn the Israeli Government for the disproportionate nature of the attacks on Gaza, the consequences of which the civilian population had to take.

The UK working group on arms has stated its concern that the Government’s failure to suspend or revoke any of the existing licences is contrary to their obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the arms trade treaty, within which the Government have indicated that they are operating. The Government did not even follow their own domestic licensing criteria. As soon as hostilities commenced in July, there was a clear risk that the United Kingdom might be supplying military equipment that could be used, as the former Foreign Secretary indicated in a letter to the Committees, in the commission of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. The only proper response should have been the immediate suspension, if not the revocation, of the 12 licences identified by the Government in their internal review. In the Government’s response of 19 August, however, a new criterion appears to have been added. Suspension or revocation would not occur unless there was

“a resumption of significant hostilities”.

As the UK working group pointed out, that phrase has set a new, arbitrary and subjective threshold and a dangerous precedent.

I am looking forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that he will tell us on what basis that new test was agreed. Was there a discussion between No. 10, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Foreign Office or the Department for International Development about setting that qualification? I am sure that the document went past every single relevant ministerial desk before it was issued to our Committees. Has there been any discussion with our EU partners about a common approach on exports to Israel following the summer hostilities? Are the Government now prepared to remove that additional test and revert to their original criteria? If so, will they reconsider the licences and act to suspend them if those criteria have not been met?

As always, the Committees’ report contains a paragraph on the annual international arms fair in London. Frankly, it is time to put that embarrassing saga to an end. I fail to understand why the review has had to take 18 months so that the results are conveniently announced as the Government wind up business in time for the general election in the hope that attention is diverted elsewhere so that we do not see the report’s conclusion. Given that the organisation of such a large and substantial trade fair probably starts the day after the conclusion of the previous fair, surely the organisers, participants and Government staff tasked with enforcement need to know what may be required by the end of this year. Rather than waiting the full 18 months, is there any possibility that the Government can respond much more speedily to conclude the review and provide our Committees with the review’s conclusions so that we may comment on the conclusions in our final report before Parliament is dissolved?

Finally, I am concerned about the increasing use of surveillance equipment, including intrusion software, which I raised in last year’s debate. It is welcome that changes to controls have been reached this year via the Wassenaar agreement process, but we still await implementation. In their response to our report, the Government stated that they anticipate an amendment of the EU dual-use regulation by the end of this year. Will the Minister confirm whether the timetable will definitely be adhered to? There has been a suggestion that we may be falling behind the timetable for technical reasons. If so, will he confirm that the United Kingdom would consider unilateral measures, along the lines proposed earlier this year by our German partners? Have the Government conducted any recent review of the human rights concerns raised by a number of organisations, including Privacy International, that the current criteria may not be effectively catching exports of surveillance equipment? Privacy International mentions the UK Government’s export of such software to the Indonesian Government with an export credit guarantee this year. Any information that the Minister is able to provide today would be very helpful. If not, I suspect that we will want to probe further when we have our oral evidence session.

As I stated at the start of my speech, we live in a world of increasing volatility. Traumatic events with long-lasting impacts that require complex responses are occurring simultaneously in different regions of the world. The resources of even the most technically sophisticated Governments have been stretched as never before. Last week I heard a member of the US Administration with responsibility for defence matters state that they do not have time for routine meetings, such has been the demand on their time due to the crises across the world in recent months. We need to stop relying on old assumptions and appreciate that the risks are changing rapidly. Our response has to change, and arms exports are a key part of that policy. It can be all too easy for any Government to resort to shortcuts and sticking-plaster responses to avoid difficult choices, but that must be resisted. Clear principles, consistently adhered to with maximum transparency must be the way forward. I urge the Government to continue working with our Committees to achieve that aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not want to move into hypothetical situations. We will continue to review matters, but I have explained the situation as it stands. If events move forward and circumstances change, we will review that and react responsibly according to criterion 2.

The Export Control Organisation has continued to perform efficiently over the past year in spite of various pressures. The ECO has maintained its performance targets despite an increasing volume of licence applications, with standard individual export licences up 3% on last year, and ECO’s high priority advice service to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on the licensability of goods stopped at ports and airports up 30% in the same period. Together with extra work caused by the Russia sanctions, that has meant increased pressures on the ECO, which has worked hard to maintain both service levels for its customers and the robustness of our export controls, as the objective of giving applicants a decision as quickly as possible cannot outweigh the need to give every application very careful consideration.

The ECO has two main targets for processing export licence applications: a primary target to process 70% of applications within 20 working days, and a secondary target of completing 99% of applications within 60 working days. Year-to-date performance to the end of September on the primary target stands at 76%. We have now had a full year of working towards meeting the new ambitious secondary target of 99%; the target previously stood at 95%. The new target was introduced to improve the efficiency of the licensing system further. As of the end of September, I am pleased to announce that we are now meeting the new target for the year to date.

My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary decided last year that it was appropriate to look at the proposal for a pre-licensing register of arms brokers; that has been mentioned in the debate. The Export Control Organisation made a public call for evidence this year to help to gather the necessary evidence to allow the Government to decide whether to introduce such a register. Our emphasis when looking at the proposal has been on the relative costs and benefits, and the likely effectiveness. The feedback from the call for evidence is being analysed and discussed. We intend to publish the results as soon as possible, most likely towards the end of the year.

The Government remain committed to greater transparency in export licensing, as demonstrated by the transparency initiative announced last year, which expanded reporting activity under certain open export licences. As has been explained to the Committees previously, in making the final preparations for the initiative, it became apparent that we may not have had the right balance between the twin objectives of increasing transparency and avoiding unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary became concerned that the proposed reporting would put UK exporters at a disadvantage in relation to exporters from other countries. That is why he decided that users of certain open licences would be required to make reports on their usage of those licences on an annual basis, rather than quarterly as originally envisaged.

It is important to reiterate that we have not reduced the overall level of reporting; we will publish considerably more information about the usage of open licences than we do now. All such initiatives are subject to review, but the new reporting requirements came into place at the start of this year, and the data for this year are due to be published in 2015. It is important to allow sufficient time for the new measures to be established before we can consider whether further changes are necessary. We therefore intend to commence a review of the initiative towards the end of the year.

I want to touch on the arms trade treaty. I had the privilege of participating in a number of decisions at the UN General Assembly in September. I am delighted to say that 54 countries have now ratified the treaty, which will enter into force on 24 December—Christmas eve. The successful conclusion of the arms trade treaty was a significant achievement for the UN, but also for the UK, which has worked tirelessly with the co-authors group, and bilaterally. We are, as has been requested, encouraging other nations, in the course of regular contact with them and via the EU ATT outreach project, to sign and ratify it. The UK places a great deal of importance on as many nations signing up as possible; and I believe that we are heading in that direction.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) spoke about the spread of conflict in Libya and Syria, and that is a massive concern for the Government—and for others. We are concerned about the flow of weapons systems, and the loss of control over what is happening spilling down to Mali, and so forth. The situation reflects the changing circumstances that we must deal with. The hon. Lady also spoke about intrusion software. The pace of the technology that we are aware of can sometimes run ahead of legislation, so the work of the Committees and the Government to keep pace with changing technology is always important.

It is worth mentioning that the controls on monitoring equipment were agreed in the 2011 Wassenaar arrangement, and implementation through the EU dual-use regulation amendment is expected by the end of 2014. There will be a publication, and a journal put forward, in due course.

[Ann McKechin]

Will the Minister confirm—or, if he cannot do so today, write to confirm—whether his Department or fellow Ministers are assured that implementation will occur by the end of this year? If not, are alternatives being considered?

[Mr Ellwood]

That was going to be my next point. I cannot give the hon. Lady an answer today, but I had written down “timetable”. I will certainly get in touch with her to provide more information.

The hon. Lady and others mentioned the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition. I have visited it many times and find it a little bizarre that one can buy things that are illegal in this country. The Government are reviewing their response to DSEI 2013 to consider any improvements to the processes that can be made before next year’s event. Officials from across Government will continue to work closely with Clarion Events to ensure that exhibitors comply with export and trade controls and understand their obligations.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—I almost called him my hon. Friend—and I have met four times in debates or meetings over the past few days. I will be astonished if we meet tomorrow at the Conservative party away day, but he is always welcome. I join him in paying tribute to the late Robin Cook, who pioneered much of the work that we are now taking forward. That is his legacy. Members on both sides of the House remember him for that, pay tribute to the work that he did in ensuring that Britain plays a more responsible role in arms exports, and encourage other countries to do the same.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Gaza and the cycle of destruction. The matter came up at the UN General Assembly; Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General, was almost in tears when discussing whether destruction, reconstruction, destruction, and then reconstruction is what now happens. I digress slightly, but Britain must play its part with the EU and the international community to try to break that cycle.

The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about Bahrain. There is no evidence of UK equipment sold to Bahrain being used in breach of the EU or national consolidated criteria on export licensing, but we have refused licences to Bahrain for internal security forces, where we are not satisfied about the risks around internal repression. If he has anymore thoughts on that, he can write to me and I will be delighted to respond.

I do not have the details to respond to the hon. Gentleman on Sri Lanka, but he mentioned the Prime Minister’s visit. It was bold to go out and make a case about the Tamil people’s concerns. I will write to him regarding our position on arms exports and Sri Lanka.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Vienna conference, which we discussed at Foreign and Commonwealth questions. The trouble is that it is unclear what the conference wants to achieve other than the removal of all nuclear weapons. It is Britain’s long-term intention to reach that position, but if we drop our guard before other hostile countries with nuclear weapons do, we will leave ourselves vulnerable. We share the long-term ambition, but differ on how we will get there.

The shadow Minister mentioned brass-plate companies and enforcement action. Existing legislation would, in certain circumstances, allow such action to be taken against brass-plate companies and their officers. However, any action must be justified by sufficient evidence. With other relevant agencies, the Government continue to pursue the possibility of using other legislation to discontinue the UK registration of such companies on public interest grounds. As he will appreciate, the issue is complex and raises difficult questions about the nature of the evidence that might be disclosed in any proceedings. We will update the Committees and the shadow Minister when any firm conclusions have been reached.

In conclusion, I again thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and other hon. Members for their attendance today. I reiterate my thanks to the Committees on Arms Export Controls for their report and work. The Committees’ scrutiny remains an important aid to the licensing process, and I continue to look forward to their contributions and continuing dialogue over the coming year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ann McKechin Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I join in the tribute to Margo MacDonald on her passing and to her strong record in this House in the past.

On the very important question of what happens to the whole population of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I spoke about it on Saturday with other EU Foreign Ministers, including those from EU candidate countries, and stressed the very point the hon. Gentleman has just made. An unstable Bosnia threatens the stability of the whole of the western Balkans. That is why we have to make sure there is a functioning state in that country in the coming years.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of progress in peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

In the past few days, I have discussed progress with Secretary Kerry and President Abbas, and I will speak to my Israeli counterparts in the coming days. Secretary Kerry’s tireless efforts provide an unparalleled opportunity to achieve a two-state solution. I urge both parties to show the bold leadership needed to resolve this conflict once and for all.

[Ann McKechin]

I certainly welcome the information provided by the Foreign Secretary, but he will be aware of press stories that the latest report by the European heads of mission in East Jerusalem states that Israeli policies in Jerusalem are aimed at

“cementing its unilateral and illegal annexation of East Jerusalem”,

with an unprecedented surge in settlement activity. Does the Foreign Secretary concur with that view and, if so, what is he doing to ensure the future of Jerusalem as a shared capital as part of the negotiations?

[Mr Hague]

Jerusalem, as a shared capital, is part of what we believe is a characteristic of achieving a two-state solution, along with a solution based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps and with a just, fair and agreed settlement for refugees. It is vital that that possibility is kept open. That is why so many of us on all sides of the House have voiced such strong disapproval of settlements on occupied land, which are illegal. We make that point regularly to the Israelis—indeed, I will do so to an Israeli Minister this afternoon—and we urge them to take the opportunity of peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

T5. In a recent report on Colombia, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights again emphasised her concerns about human rights. Will the Minister confirm what recent discussions he has had with the Colombian Government on protecting the safety of human rights defenders and trade unionists?

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

Human rights continue to be a very important part of our relationship with Colombia. We discussed human rights with President Santos and Defence Minister Pinzon during the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Colombia in February. He also met a range of non-governmental organisations that work in the human rights field and hosted a high-profile event on sexual violence in conflict. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) will want to be aware that we are also publishing our annual human rights report on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ann McKechin Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think not, actually. That is a very important matter, but it does not directly relate to human rights or peace talks. The Minister of State requires no encouragement, and on this occasion I do not wish to offer him any.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

14. When he plans to issue guidance to UK businesses through the overseas business risk register on trade with illegal settlements.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)]

We will update our online guidance for citizens and businesses on overseas markets, including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in the coming weeks, in line with the UK action plan on business and human rights.

[Ann McKechin]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I ask him urgently to review the documentation on the UK Trade & Investment website’s “Doing Business in Israel” section, which, according to Oxfam, encourages British businesses to invest in settlements in the Jordan valley by giving details of Israeli grants available for settlements business?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, I will certainly look at the guidance the hon. Lady mentions. The UK Government’s policy on this is very clear: settlements are illegal and they are an obstacle to peace, but we work in concert with our EU partners in producing guidelines that affect this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ann McKechin Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

A lot of this type of information is likely to emerge from submissions by businesses and their representative organisations to the balance of competences review which is now under way. To take one example, British car manufacturers would probably face tariffs of just under £1 billion a year were we to be outside the single market and paying the 10% tariff to export to the EU. Membership of the single market directly sustains jobs and prosperity in places such as Swindon, Solihull and Washington New Town.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to encourage Israel to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

During the recent Gaza conflict, I underlined to Israel the need to abide by international humanitarian law and avoid civilian casualties. I welcome the ceasefire reached on 21 November, and I am urging all parties to fulfil their commitments under that agreement.

[Ann McKechin]

Although I welcome the ceasefire, does the Foreign Secretary share my concerns that UN figures show that since 2003 as many Gazans have died during periods of calm as they have during periods of conflict? That appears to show that there has been systemic failure by the Israelis in protecting civilians in Gaza. What he is going to do about that?

[Mr Hague]

Of course we are concerned about the wider situation, including the humanitarian situation—I spoke a moment ago about the visit of the Department for International Development and the consul general. It is why we urge all parties concerned to take the opportunity that might arise from the tragic events of the past few weeks not only to observe the ceasefire but to go on to make agreements that will open up Gaza to trade and to development more effectively, and to end the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. If those things could be achieved, the situation would be much brighter for all the people of Gaza.

UK Constituent Parts (EU)

Ann McKechin Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Good morning, Mr Crausby. It is a great pleasure to have you chairing this important debate.

The 2014 referendum on Scotland’s future is a landmark in our constitutional history, although it is extraordinary that support for the proposition is steadily declining, even before the introduction of the enabling legislation at Holyrood. The fact that it is occurring at a time of increasing volatility, at home and globally, makes the arguments for and against even more contentious. I shall return to volatility later in my remarks, but let me make one observation at the outset: we most definitely will witness in the next two years a period of relentless tricky questions. I noted at the weekend that the university of Dundee is launching a project on “5 Million Questions”, which may take us up to the end of the current century although it is certainly a worthwhile programme. The vast majority of Scots are clearly unconvinced by the proposition of separation, and will be asking many complex, multifaceted questions about the effect that such a move would have on them, their families, their communities and their nation. Ironically, however, in the Scottish Government are masters of avoiding tricky questions. In the political arts, they could win numerous plaudits for their ability to body swerve many difficult areas of policy over a sustained period. That has served them well up to now, but those days are over and, as was evidenced at the Scottish National party annual conference this year, many of its own members are in for a difficult and unsettling experience.

My colleague, Catherine Stihler, one of Scotland’s Members of the European Parliament, asked a deceptively simple question in a freedom of information request last year, but it has been explosive in its effect and deeply revealing about the lack of transparency at the very heart of the Scottish Government. Regardless of how anyone views the European Union, everyone in the Chamber today agrees that whether Scotland would automatically be an EU member if it separated from the rest of the United Kingdom, and whether it would be required to renegotiate the major terms of its membership are both key questions on which the public require clear information.

About 70% of Scotland’s exports are to other EU nations. Let us not forget that if Scotland were not part of the EU, it would probably also face renegotiating entry into the World Trade Organisation, which is responsible for setting the criteria for just about all the remaining 30% of our export markets, including our valuable whisky market.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has already made a compelling case in the first few minutes of her contribution. Will she also reflect on the fact that recent Scottish Enterprise figures show that two thirds of Scotland’s “exports” actually go to the other component parts of the United Kingdom?

[Ann McKechin]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If Scotland were not part of the EU in a post-separation scenario, obviously its trading relationship with the rest of the UK would be in question—what criteria, tariffs and so on would be in force? Scotland’s economy relies heavily on having a stable export market, and many thousands of jobs depend on foreign trade, but the manner in which the Scottish Government have twisted and turned at every corner to avoid a clear answer as to what legal advice they had on such questions can only corrode public trust. I shall give way in the hope that the questions may be elucidated.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying but, given the increasing Euroscepticism in the UK population and what is happening in this Parliament, how can she even be sure that the UK—with or without Scotland—will be a member of the EU in the next five to 10 years?

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that on that issue I am united with them. The quality of our alliances and partnerships is what will allow Scotland to succeed, which is why I want to be part of a strong European Union, as much as I want to be part of a strong United Kingdom.

Let us return to the question of our status in Europe. Every time that the Scottish Government have been asked about the question of status, they have always sought to give the firm impression that continued EU membership was guaranteed and that no real material change in membership obligations would result from separation. One example of that sorry story is the interpretation of the Scottish Government ministerial code. That document was apparently altered—in a way that begs even more tricky questions—between the FOI request being made and the truth being forced out last month. Paragraph 2.35 of the code states, and I emphasise the first sentence:

“The fact that legal advice has or has not been given to the Scottish Government by the Law Officers and the content of any legal advice given by them or anyone else must not be revealed outwith the Scottish Government without the Law Officers’ prior consent. The only exception to this rule is that it is acknowledged publicly that the Law Officers have advised on the legislative competence of Government Bills introduced in the Parliament…Views given by the Law Officers in their Ministerial capacity are not subject to this restriction.”

I am grateful for the comments made by Ian Smart, the former president of the Law Society of Scotland, in a recent blog, which points out the revelation that legal advice given by “anyone else”—not the Scottish Law Officers—does not require the consent of the Law Officers; only the content of that advice must not be disclosed. Ian Smart said:

“And that is, on any view, deliberately the way the code reads for otherwise the first sentence would be the much simpler.”

The First Minister, however, in his interview on “Scotland Tonight” four weeks ago stated:

“That’s quite clear in the Ministerial code. It’s both the fact of whether it exists, and the content. I would need to clear it with the Lord Advocate if I wanted to say that I had not sought legal advice.”

That is simply not the case if we read the code accurately. Given the outcry about his remarks in the now famous TV interview with Andrew Neil back in March, we might have thought that the First Minister would have taken the opportunity to reread his own ministerial code before rushing into the TV studio. The tricky question that needs to be answered now is whether the First Minister sought legal advice from “anyone else” before that FOI request or his interview with Andrew Neil in March. If so, who was that from and what was said?

There may be some clues. On Tuesday, 30 October, the Lord Advocate wrote to Ruth Davidson, MSP. The third paragraph of that letter contains an interesting statement:

“As was made clear by the Deputy First Minister the Scottish Government has now requested specific legal advice from the Law Officers on EU membership. As you will be aware legal advice on many issues is provided by the lawyers in the Scottish Government Legal Department…but in relation to certain matters the Government will seek a legal opinion from the Law Officers. That is what is happening in relation to the matter of EU membership.”

That same afternoon, Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, summed up a debate on this very matter and, soon after 16.38 in the Official Report, said:

“Clearly, if ministers have sought legal advice, the law officers will provide that legal advice, so to reveal that legal advice has been sought from the law officers reveals the fact of such advice and puts us in breach of the ministerial code.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 30 October 2012; c. 12755.]

Both of those statements cannot be true, however. Catherine Stihler’s inquiry remains whether the Government have been given any legal advice, and on that point there is still deafening silence.

The First Minister and his colleagues may argue that, when they make contentions on EU membership, they are speaking about evidence from a variety of experts—“in terms of the debate” is the phrase most commonly used—but that is not the same as legal advice. They know the difference. Some of the people quoted are not lawyers; some have died; and most of the statements seem to have been made prior to the Lisbon treaty, which made fundamental changes to the European Union’s constitution. None of those represent a legal opinion, and just as many eminent people disagree with those expert opinions, including no less a person than the current EU President.

Here is one simple question the Scottish Government should clarify urgently. Have they already had legal advice from their legal directorate? It is difficult to imagine that, when the Scottish Government issued their White Paper, “Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation” in 2009, they did not run it past their own legal department. That document contains examples of ambiguous phrasing in its comments about EU membership. I draw hon. Members attention to page 110, paragraph 8.12:

“Settling the details of European Union membership would take place in parallel to independence negotiations with the United Kingdom Government”.

That phrase sounds as though it were written by a lawyer, and as I am a lawyer and a member of the Law Society of Scotland, I speak with some experience. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has received any information about whether the legal department was consulted on that document, and whether it asked his office for advice or information about EU membership if Scotland were to separate?

That brings me back to volatility. As other hon. Members have said this morning, the EU is undoubtedly experiencing the most challenging and volatile period in its history. Its fiscal policies are under constant stress, there is significant unrest in many regions caused by massive hikes in unemployment and cuts to public services, and there are major differences of opinion in the political leadership. That is where legal opinion hits realpolitik.

Yes Scotland’s latest leaflet states without reservation:

“We can all see the one thing holding us back—we let someone else take decisions for us.”

lf the Scottish Government want our country to remain part of the EU come what may—that seems to be what the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said—the painful truth is that other people will make decisions for us on how long the application process will take, the conditions for membership, the size of our contribution, our entry into the eurozone, and our entitlements under the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries agreement. As one small nation in 28, our negotiating position, at best, will be fairly weak.

[Mr Weir]

That is all very interesting, but has the hon. Lady bothered to listen to the news from Europe, where the Prime Minister is going to discuss the European budget? It seems that the rest of the EU is ganging up to cut the UK out of the EU, and to cut the famous rebate that everyone goes on about.

[Ann McKechin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for proving my case about volatility and disputes in the European Union. Any union or partnership that lasts a long time has difficult phases, and this is one. He has proved my point that the negotiations will not involve simply providing a list—that is what the First Minister always seems to suggest—saying what Scotland would like and expecting people to nod and say, “That’s fine. Don’t worry. That’s okay with us.” That will not happen, and any attempt to try to prove the opposite shows the weakness of the argument.

On the national central bank and financial regulators, Croatia’s recent entry negotiations show that they are not tick-box exercises, and again there is no guarantee that other EU members would be attracted to the solution that the Scottish Government prefer at the moment of relying on another EU member to provide both important institutions, and that is if that EU member agreed to that in the first place.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. I remind her that the most recent entry to the EU, Croatia, had to satisfy stringent tests about guaranteeing bank deposits, the independence of its central bank, monetary policy and financial security. Does she see anything in any of the plans produced by the Yes Scotland campaign that deals with any of those points?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. It is understandable, given the financial and economic crisis that the EU has suffered over the past five years, that it would take a precautionary approach on any banking issue and financial regulation particularly. The Scottish Government’s proposals are untested. They have never been used by another EU member in the way proposed, and we have no idea how they would work, because we have received no details in response to the many questions that the Scottish Government have been asked. Apparently, we must wait until autumn 2013 for the revelation, apparently in tomes. The questions should be asked now if we want a proper analysis and expert opinion not only in our own country, but throughout the EU. We need that information now.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

As far as I know, Croatia does not have a particularly large international banking presence—I hope that I am not being unjust—but Scotland is still the headquarters not just of some UK banks, but of international banks. Does that not emphasise that in any new treaty, if Scotland were to become independent, the EU would be keen to ensure that proper regulatory arrangements were in place for the Scottish banking sector?

[Ann McKechin]

My hon. Friend has spent much of his time campaigning on financial services, because they are relevant in his constituency. He hits the nail on the head, because we have a significant financial services sector in Scotland. It is the second largest outside the City of London, and has many jobs, not just in banking, but in other financial services, such as equity markets and insurance funds. Many of the people who use those funds and many investors live not in Scotland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom.

There are many questions to be asked about the currency that will be used, and the regulations. We can take it as certain that the EU will take a precautionary approach, and will ask for those issues to be tested and examined in great detail. As yet, the Scottish Government have not produced a comprehensive document setting out the proposals. At the moment, they seem to think that the rest of the UK will continue to act as the financial regulator, but there is no guarantee that it would be tempted to do so. Why would it take on the risks and responsibility for institutions outwith its borders and over which this Parliament would have no direct control or responsibility? The UK Parliament’s risk would increase.

Given the gridlock of other membership requests, and that other EU states are much less relaxed about national referendums for secession, there is every risk that the application and negotiations could drag on with consequent risks and uncertainty to our economy and particularly our financial services. I would be interested to hear today the Foreign Office’s perspective on such a scenario. Will the Minister confirm what the legal standing of a separate Scotland would be with the World Trade Organisation if at the point of secession it was not a member of the EU? Have the Scottish Government ever asked his Department for information about that? Has there been any formal dialogue with the EU Commission on the proposal for another EU member’s central bank to be Scotland’s bank of last resort?

We have discovered in the last few weeks that the truth can be difficult to admit, but surely anyone who believes that a country’s citizens should be able to make the right choices also believes that they should be provided with full answers to those tricky questions, because they will not go away.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

I will call the Front Bench Members at about 10.40 am. Although I am not going to impose a time limit, it would be helpful if Members kept their contributions to not much more than five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady.

These people sometimes use the example of Russia when it comes to these situations, but not even the most rabid cybernat has ever compared the United Kingdom to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is how ridiculous their argument has become. When it comes to European membership, whatever happens to an independent Scotland will happen to the rest of the United Kingdom, but let me reassure all the English Members who are sitting here today: their European place is safe. There is simply no precedent or process to kick a constituent part of the European Union out. That just does not happen—there is no way. This fox was effectively shot by Graham Avery of Oxford university, who is a senior adviser at the European Policy Centre in Brussels and honorary director general of the European Commission, when he said to Westminster’s Select Committee on Foreign Affairs:

“For practical and political reasons the idea of Scotland leaving the EU, and subsequently applying to join it, is not feasible.”

It is not feasible.

[Ann McKechin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady.

There is only one part of Europe that has left the European Union—the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will recall this—Greenland. It took something like two years for Greenland to get out of the European Union, and it wanted to go. It had a vote that said that it wanted to leave the European Union. It was only after complex negotiations that it was allowed to go.

These people believe that somehow Scotland will be stripped of its European Union membership and all the European rights that we have built up in the course of 40 years. Scotland is actually enthusiastic about Europe, unlike the hon. Member for Stone and his hon. Friends. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that an independent Scotland would not be welcomed with open arms to the European Union. We are talking about oil-rich Scotland, fisheries-rich Scotland, renewable-energy-rich Scotland. Scotland complies with every single piece of European legislation and is enthusiastic about its European membership. The idea that Scotland would be kicked out of the European Union is totally absurd.

These people also say that we will be forced into euro membership. That was blown out of the water by Dr Fabian Zuleeg, chief economist at the European Policy Centre, who reminded the Scottish Parliament’s European and External Relations Committee that euro membership is based on strict criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir) is absolutely right about this. There are five conditions for joining the euro. One is membership of the exchange rate mechanism. Joining the ERM is voluntary. That is why Sweden is not in the euro. I do not know how many times we have to explain this to Labour Members. Scotland will not join the euro, because Sweden has not joined the euro, because it is based on ERM membership.

There is a threat to Scotland’s European membership. It does not come from an independent Scotland. It comes from the Union; it comes from the Westminster Tories, because they are at it again. They are even prepared to defeat their Government to ensure that they get this country out of the European Union. I looked at William Hill yesterday. It is offering odds of 2:1 that by 2020 there will be a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU—a straight in-out referendum. It is offering odds of 6:1, which I think are very generous, that the UK will be out of the EU by 2020. That is the threat to Scotland’s EU membership. It does not come from an independent Scotland; it comes from the Westminster Tories. Westminster Tories are running absolutely terrified of the UK Independence party, which is now odds-on favourite to win the next European election. That is what is informing Government policy when it comes to Europe. What we have now is a surly, sulky UK as a member of the European Union. That is what Scotland has to put up with as it secures its EU membership. The UK is looking for the “Out” door—

[Ann McKechin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady; I have told her that.

That is what we have in terms of Scotland’s EU membership represented by the UK. What would be better? An independent Scotland, independent in Europe and seated at the top table. Our number of MEPs would be increased from six to 13; there would be 13 champions putting Scotland’s case. That is what Scotland needs; that is what Scotland requires.

There is a clear choice facing the Scottish people when it comes to European Union membership: independence in Europe, a seat at the top table, our own representation in Europe, or isolation in a United Kingdom that is on the way out of the European Union and almost relaxed about its decline and failure. I know the choice that the Scottish people will make in 2014. It will be the positive choice—it will be for Scotland’s independence and national liberation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing this debate.

It is the passionate belief of the Labour party that the United Kingdom is stronger together and that the United Kingdom is stronger in the world as a member of the European Union. The referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 is an incredibly serious matter that will affect all of us in the United Kingdom and, as has been stressed by several of my hon. Friends, when the Scottish people vote in that referendum they deserve to have at their disposal the full facts about the implications of a separate Scotland.

Unfortunately, far from providing clarity about the facts, the Scottish Government have created a great deal of confusion about the potential consequences of Scottish separation for Scotland’s relationship with the European Union. It is pretty extraordinary—indeed, it beggars belief—that, as has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North, in response to a freedom of information request from one of our colleagues in the European Parliament, the Labour MEP Catherine Stihler, the Scottish First Minister initially said that he would not disclose legal advice, only for him to be contradicted by the deputy First Minister of Scotland who said that such legal advice had not even been sought, let alone received.

[Ann McKechin]

Just in the last hour, it has been announced in the Court of Session papers regarding that FOI request that the Scottish Government stated that to reveal whether or not they had received legal advice would cause mischief. That is an extraordinary statement, given the Scottish National Party’s supposed links with the people of Scotland and given their ability to know what the facts of that case are. Does my hon. Friend agree that that lack of transparency, which included taunting people for the number of FOI requests that they had put in to the Scottish Government, is indicative of a Government who are actually scared of telling the truth?

[Emma Reynolds]

That lack of transparency is of concern to all of us, and it has blown a hole in the credibility of what the First Minister has said on this issue.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has made a speech today, which I have had the fortune—or misfortune—to have read before the debate, in which he made some strange references to giant pandas and “The X Factor”, but remarkably he made no reference to the European treaties and perhaps more tellingly he also did not refer to any other European Union member state. If he had cared to take a look at them, he would have seen that those treaties make it very clear that new member states must apply for membership of the European Union. Article 52 of the treaty on European Union lists the members of the European Union, including the UK, and article 49 of that treaty states that new member states must apply for membership of the European Union. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) has made clear, the European Commission President has also stated the clear facts. He has said recently:

“A new state, if it wants to join the EU, has to apply to become a member of the EU, like any state.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Ann McKechin Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to promote compliance with international law in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

7. What assessment he has made of the prospects for a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Progress in the middle east peace process is needed urgently. We have urged both sides to focus on dialogue, to avoid steps that could undermine the prospects for peace and to work towards the resumption of direct negotiations. We are in regular contact with the Israeli authorities on legal issues relating to the conflict, and we urge Israel to comply with its legal obligations, including those arising under international humanitarian law.

[Ann McKechin]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to this area, which is particularly important in the light of the problems that are affecting the region, to which he referred in his statement yesterday. Does he, however, understand the concern being expressed by many people that, on 24 July, the EU-Israel Association Council agreed to extend into a further 60 areas of trade co-operation while, at the same time, the increase in the number of demolitions and settlements and the blockade of Gaza are continuing apace. Will he tell us what his Department’s role was in that agreement, and whether he is going to hold Israel to account?

[Mr Hague]

We have repeatedly made clear to the Israeli authorities our serious concern at the 40% increase in demolitions last year, as recorded by the United Nations. We view such demolitions and evictions as causing unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians, as harmful to the peace process and, in many circumstances, as contrary to international humanitarian law. I can reassure the hon. Lady about the EU-Israel Association Council, which discussed some practical co-operation in line with the existing EU-Israel action plan. The EU has been very clear that no progress can be made on upgrading the wider EU-Israel relationship until there is substantial progress towards a two-state solution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ann McKechin Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Rwandan National Election Commission on the forthcoming presidential elections in that country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

We are working with the National Election Commission, encouraging it to implement recommendations of previous EU election observer missions. The recent electoral code addresses most recommendations, but it is important that the presidential elections in August comply with international norms.

[Ann McKechin]

I am sure that the Minister will share my concerns about the increasing reports of incidents of harassment and intimidation of opposition leaders, including the arrest of one of the leaders of the opposition party just less than two weeks ago. Will he impress it on the National Election Commission and the Rwandan Government that such continued reports will stain Rwandan’s reputation, which has made much progress in the past decade, and that it is vital that they show real signs of ensuring that democracy is fully protected?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that constructive question. I share her concern about the arrest of Victoire Ingabire, who is a prominent opposition leader, and about the fact that her American lawyer, Professor Erlinder, was also arrested on what were basically trumped-up charges. We are also concerned that so far just one party outside the ruling coalition has been registered, and we are applying as much pressure as we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Yes. The International Development Secretary, who will also speak about this, visited Pakistan before my visit earlier in June. He announced a four-year programme of £665 million of British aid for Pakistan. A huge amount of that is dedicated to education— £250 million. Pakistan has literacy rates of only about 50% and raising the quality of education is critical to its economic development.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

T3. Like the ministerial team, I welcome the recent easing of the blockade in Gaza, but what specific reassurances has the Foreign Secretary received from the Israeli Government that those within Gaza who need to travel outside for medical treatment, including children and elderly and disabled people, will receive unrestricted access out of Gaza?

[Mr Hague]

We have not yet received specific assurances on that, but the hon. Lady is right to raise the issue. It is one of the things that we want to see happen. It should be possible for goods and exports to leave Gaza, but it should also be possible for people such as she describes and others to move freely in and out of Gaza. So that is one of the things that we will continue to press on the Israeli Government.