Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the light of the report of potential breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen.

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

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government take their arms export responsibilities very seriously and operate one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking into account all relevant factors at the time of the application. A licence will not be issued for any country if to do so would be inconsistent with any provision of the mandatory criteria, including where we assess there is a clear risk that it might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law. All our arms exports to Saudi Arabia are scrutinised in detail through established processes and against the EU and national consolidated criteria.

The Government are aware that UK-supplied defence equipment has been used in Yemen. We take very seriously any allegations of IHL violations and regularly raise the importance of compliance with the Saudi Government and other members of the military coalition, as I did when I visited Saudi Arabia on Monday. We have said that all allegations of IHL violations should be investigated.

The Ministry of Defence monitors incidents of alleged IHL violations using the available information, which in turn informs our overall assessment of IHL compliance in Yemen. The Government are satisfied that extant licences for Saudi Arabia are compliant with the UK’s export licensing criteria.

As the House knows, the situation in Yemen is complex and difficult. The UK supports politically the Saudi-led coalition intervention, which came at the request of the legitimate President Hadi, to deter aggression by the Houthis and forces loyal to the former President Saleh and allow for the return of the legitimate Yemeni Government.

We have been clear with all parties that military action should be taken in accordance with IHL. The coalition has played a crucial role in reversing the military advance of the Houthis and forces loyal to the former President, which is now helping create the conditions for the return of the legitimate Yemeni Government.

The military gains of the coalition and the Yemeni Government must now be used to drive forward the political process. The UN-facilitated political talks are the UK’s top priority, and they are likely to recommence in February.

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the Minister for his reply. As the House knows, there is a humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen as a result of the civil war, in which more than 7,000 people have been killed, 2.5 million displaced, and millions more left without food. We all want to see the return of a legitimate Government to Yemen, but non-governmental organisations, including Médecins sans Frontières, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have reported serious potential breaches of international humanitarian law by all sides, and the UN has spoken out about what is happening.

Yesterday, it came to light that the final report of the UN panel of experts has

“documented that the coalition had conducted airstrikes targeting civilians and civilian objects, in violation of international humanitarian law.”

It refers to weddings, civilian vehicles, residential areas, schools, mosques, markets and factories. I understand that the Government received the report on Monday. Will the Minister set out what specific action, if any, has been taken since receiving it?

The panel documented 119 coalition sorties relating to violations of international humanitarian law, and we know that UK armaments and planes sold to Saudi Arabia are legitimately being used in this conflict. However, our arms export licensing criteria state clearly that

“the Government will...not grant a licence if there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”

Will the Minister explain how many of these incidents have been examined, and why he is satisfied that IHL has not been breached? How many of the 119 Saudi-led coalition sorties have the British personnel on the ground provided a “quick check” on given that the Foreign Secretary told the House that

“our people on the ground have reported that there is no evidence of deliberate breaches of international humanitarian law”?—[Official Report, 12 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 697.]

Can the Minister explain how he squares that statement with the conclusion of the UN panel of experts? Will the Minister assure the House that he has not received reports from our personnel of any breaches of international humanitarian law and not just “deliberate” breaches?

Given all the reports, particularly the findings of the new UN panel, will the Minister explain on what grounds he thinks that there should not be a proper investigation into whether there is a clear risk that British items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law? Given the detail of the UN panel’s report and the extreme seriousness of its findings, will the Government now suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia until that investigation concludes? This is about whether the Government are implementing their own arms control rules. Appearing to be reluctant to do so does them no credit nor does it help those who are affected by this conflict, which urgently needs to come to an end.

[Mr Ellwood]

First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone and manner in which he has raised these very important issues. He was absolutely right to start by outlining the humanitarian catastrophe that we face, with so many people failing to get the food and water necessary to survive.

Unfortunately, NGOs are prevented by the conflict from getting to the very areas they need to reach. Sadly, however, we have also seen the Houthis using food—denying it to people—as a weapon of war. Not only have they taken away trucks from NGOs and UN organisations, but they have taken away the trucks that Saudi Arabia has provided. The kit, trucks, food and water have all been stolen by the Houthis and distributed by them to favour their supporters in a country that—we should understand this—is extremely complex. Even the concept of the nation state is very modern in a country that, for thousands of years, has been conducted as a tribal society, where loyalty is to the family, the community and the tribe.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned potential breaches. I am pleased that he used the words “alleged” and “potential”, because it is important that this is evidence-based: we need to see the evidence and the details to make firm judgments, rather than rely on hearsay or, indeed, photographs. That is what we should do to understand such a dynamic situation, in which asymmetric warfare is being used.

We are aware that the Houthis, who are very media-savvy in such a situation, are using their own artillery pieces deliberately, targeting individual areas where the people are not loyal to them, to give the impression that there have been air attacks. That is not to exonerate Saudi Arabia from any of the mistakes it might have made, but it is why it is so important to have a thorough process to investigate absolutely every single incident. During my visit this week, I made it very clear that while we now have a process to be followed in Saudi Arabia—as in Kunduz, and in countries such as Afghanistan—it must be improved: every time an alleged incident is put forward by an NGO or another country, Saudi Arabia must conduct the necessary process to confirm exactly what happened and whether its aircraft were involved. If the Saudi Arabians were involved, they must put up their hands and follow the due processes of international law.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the report by the UN panel of experts. He has a copy of it, and so do I. However, it is the leaked report. It was received by the UN on Monday, but not given to us. We have not officially received the report. [Interruption.] Yes, of course I have got it, but I have not received it or had time—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) should hang on for a moment. I have not received it officially, and it is important to have a chance to digest it.

From what I have read of the report, I can say that I take it extremely seriously, as we absolutely must. I commit myself to inviting the Saudi Arabians to sit down with us at a very senior level. There are two opportunities to do so next week: first, in Rome, where the counter-Daesh coalition will meet; and secondly, in London, where, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are hosting the Syria conference. We will sit down and discuss with them the allegations and all the information in this important report.

We should however recognise, as I know from having been able to glance at the report, that the people who wrote it did not visit Yemen. They did not actually go there, but based the report on satellite technology. That does not mean that we should dismiss it; we are taking it very seriously, and I commit myself to sitting down with the Saudi Arabians to go through it with a fine-toothed comb. I just make it very clear, however, that we must do so in a methodical way, on the basis of the evidence and following the process itself.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the number of sorties that have taken place. Yes, there are questions about many of the sorties, but we must understand that thousands of sorties are taking place and we must put the questions about those sorties in that context.

As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said, it is clear that we are not part of this coalition—we are not in the targeting cell—but it is important, because of the equipment we are selling to Saudi Arabia, that we make sure due process is followed absolutely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

I was in Bujumbura last month and urged the country’s Foreign Minister to attend talks in Entebbe, so it is disappointing that the Burundian Government have not followed up and continued the talks in Arusha either on 6 January or this Friday. While in Bujumbura, I met the US ambassador, and my US opposite number was there only the day before. The international community speaks with one voice in saying that the Burundians should come and discuss the issues with all parties to develop a dialogue about what can be done to bring Burundi back from the brink of civil war.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

All our thoughts are with those killed and injured in what the Foreign Secretary has just reported as a terrorist attack in Istanbul.

The conflict in Yemen between the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition has so far claimed over 7,000 lives and created, in the words of the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator, Johannes van der Klaauw, a “humanitarian catastrophe”, with more than 2.5 million people internally displaced and 7.5 million people without enough food. Last week, Sky News reported that six British personnel are advising the Saudis on targeting in connection with the conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us exactly what assistance these individuals are giving, and, if it is related to targeting, whether they have reported any potential breaches of international humanitarian law?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I cannot tell him whether it is six people, but we do have a military presence in Saudi Arabia, and we are working with the Saudi Arabians to ensure the following of correct procedures to avoid breaches of international humanitarian law—to ensure that target sets are correctly identified and processes correctly followed and that only legitimate military targets are struck. It is important that we ensure Saudi Arabia has that capability.

We also use the personnel who are present as a quick check—it can only be a quick first check—when we receive reports, as we have recently, of breaches of international humanitarian law that would, for example, involve the deliberate striking of civilian targets. So far, in every case, our people on the ground have reported that there is no evidence of deliberate breaches of international humanitarian law.

[Hilary Benn]

Last week, the Minister of State told the House that he wanted to see “genuine intelligence evidence”. However, we know that human rights organisations have already reported what they regard as potential breaches. For instance, a hospital supported by Médecins Sans Frontières in northern Yemen was hit by a missile recently, and another MSF hospital in Sadaa was destroyed last October.

In the light of those reports, and given that the Government’s own policy is not to grant arms export licences if

“there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL”

—international humanitarian law—will the Foreign Secretary launch an immediate review of arms export licences for Saudi Arabia relating to the use of British-supplied weapons?

Saudi Arabia

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it. He is right to refer to the long-standing relationship between the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, to our trade relations, to the vital importance of intelligence and security co-operation in countering terrorism and to the efforts that both countries are making to defeat Daesh brutality. But with the region already in ferment, with the brutal civil wars in Syria and Yemen and the threat from Daesh not only in Syria and Iraq but in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere, the Minister must recognise that the execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and 46 other people has caused a major diplomatic and political crisis. Surely the basis of any close relationship must be that the two parties can be honest with each other.

We, too, oppose the use of the death penalty in every circumstance, including what has happened in Saudi Arabia. But we on this side of the House believe that the Saudi Government were profoundly wrong to execute Sheikh al-Nimr, a Shi’a cleric, and three young Shi’a men whose alleged offences appear to have involved taking part in political protests and demonstrations against the current Government. The House will have noticed that neither the Prime Minister’s comments nor the Minister’s statement today mentioned Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr by name, and that is a matter of great regret.

These mass executions have caused dismay and outrage around the world. Amnesty International has described Sheikh al-Nimr’s trial as “seriously flawed”, and reported that he was denied the most basic means to prepare for his defence and was not represented by legal counsel for some of the proceedings because the authorities did not inform his lawyer of some dates of the hearings. Does the Minister share those concerns? Can he confirm the basis on which he has just told the House that the Government still believe that the sheikh’s nephew, Ali al-Nimr, who was convicted and sentenced to death as a juvenile, will not now be executed, given that his uncle has only just been put to death?

In the last few days, the Saudi embassy in Tehran has been attacked and there has been a breakdown of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Gulf states. This is a very dangerous moment. In agreeing with the Minister’s call for calm and restraint, may I ask what he thinks the implications of this crisis will be for the Vienna talks on Syria? What are the prospects for the urgently needed ceasefire there, and does he still think that face-to-face negotiations between the parties will start by the end of this month? What is his assessment of the impact of all this on the Yemen peace talks, given that the Saudi-led coalition, which has been bombing the Iranian-allied Houthi movement in Yemen for nine months, announced on Saturday the end of a ceasefire that only began on 15 December?

The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is increasingly desperate, and many civilians have been killed in airstrikes. There have been reports of potential breaches of international humanitarian law by the Saudi military, which uses British-supplied weapons, among others. Before Christmas, in the light of those reports, I called on the Government to launch an immediate review of arms export licences relating to Saudi Arabia. Will the Government now carry out an independent investigation into whether there is a risk of UK arms being used in breach of international humanitarian law? I ask this because the Government say that they have urged Saudi Arabia itself to investigate any such breaches of international humanitarian law. Will the Minister tell the House what investigations have been undertaken by the Saudis, and what assessment he has made of their credibility?

Following the cancellation of the proposed UK prison contract, will the Government now publish the memorandum of understanding on judicial co-operation signed with Saudi Arabia on 10 September 2014? What discussions have taken place since then, and does the Minister think it would be appropriate now to suspend any co-operation on judicial matters with Saudi Arabia in the light of these mass executions?

Finally, it has been reported that in 2013 the UK assisted Saudi Arabia in its candidacy for a place on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Can the Minister confirm whether that was the case? If it was, why did the UK Government take that action, given that his own Department’s human rights and democracy report lists Saudi Arabia as one of the countries of human rights concern, relating not only to its use of the death penalty but to access to justice, to women’s rights, and to the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion or belief—all of which this House and our country are deeply committed to?

[Mr Ellwood]

Before I reply to the right hon. Gentleman’s important questions, may I just say that I am delighted to see him in his place today, following so much speculation? He commands a great deal of respect, and Parliament is all the wiser for his expertise in foreign affairs. I am pleased to see him back in his place.

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions, some of which related to the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. He mentioned the importance of the work being done in Yemen and in Libya and also in Syria. It is fair to say that we ended 2015 in a better place—marginally—than we started it, so far as the middle east is concerned. We had a ceasefire in place in Yemen. We had agreement around the table from adversaries from Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and France, and from other participants and stakeholders in Syria, after waiting four years for all the necessary players to work together and agree on the requirements for a ceasefire and a transition process and on the necessary steps to put in place an 18-month approach towards elections. That could not have happened had Iran and Saudi Arabia not come to the table themselves.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out the involvement of Saudi Arabia in Yemen. It leads a large coalition—he is fully aware that it is not just Saudi Arabia that is involved there—and had that action not been taken, the Houthis would have moved all the way down to the port of Aden. The consequences of that would have been dire. So yes, Saudi Arabia has participated in the push-back, but it is following resolution 2216, as he is also well aware.

Saudi Arabia is bringing together the opposition parties that have not been at the table at the Vienna talks, and that is absolutely critical. That illustrates the work that Saudi Arabia needs to do. I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees that we need to de-escalate the tensions. We have had confirmation from Saudi Arabia that it wants to continue to participate in the Vienna talks, and I am pleased that the President of Iran has condemned what happened at the Saudi Arabian embassy and at the consulate. That condemnation is important if we are to see a de-escalation of tension.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned arms sales. He is aware that Saudi Arabia has the right to defend itself and to participate in UN-approved actions in places such as Yemen. We have in place a robust system of licensing and scrutiny. We will look at any aspect of this where we feel that UK arms have been seen to be used inappropriately. We are working to make sure that the coalition, comprising not only Saudi Arabians but Emiratis, Jordanians, Egyptians and all those who are involved, tries to follow the standards of military engagement that we honour in this country as well.

The right hon. Gentleman specifically asked about—or made reference to—judicial co-operation under the memorandum of understanding. I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), that there is no agreement on judicial co-operation in that MOU.[Official Report, 11 January 2016, Vol. 604, c. 3-4MC.] We are working behind the scenes with Saudi Arabia and we are endeavouring to improve the situation in Saudi Arabia, but this country is pivotal to overall peace in the middle east. Only with agreement to de-escalate the current tensions will we see Iran and Saudi Arabia come back to the table to make sure that we can build on what we did in 2015, in Yemen, in Syria and in places further afield such as Libya.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Our view, and the strong view of, I think, all our partners and allies, is that we need to preserve the territorial integrity of Syria. I can promise my hon. Friend that if we start opening up boundaries in the region, we will prolong the agony.

As for the reports that have been coming in this morning of the shooting down of what was possibly a Russian air force jet near the Turkish-Syrian border, we are seeking further details urgently in both Moscow and Ankara. Clearly this was potentially a serious incident, but I do not think it would be wise to comment any further until we have more certainty about the facts.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Following its shockingly brutal attacks in Paris, no one doubts that we must defeat Daesh in both Iraq and Syria, and that that must be linked to the urgent need for a peace plan to end the Syrian civil war. When does the Foreign Secretary expect a decision to be reached on which opposition groups will take part in the talks that are due to start on 1 January, and what is his current assessment of the chances of securing a ceasefire during the discussions about the formation of a transitional Government?

[Mr Hammond]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, both those issues—the ceasefire and the definition of the opposition groups who will take part in the talks—have been at the heart of the International Syria Support Group’s work. Working groups have been tasked with drawing up an agreed list of opposition participants, and I hope that when the ISSG next meets—we expect it to do so during the second week of December—we shall be able to approve a list. However, I should emphasise that there are still some differences among members of the support group. The Russians and the Iranians do not necessarily take the same view of who is an acceptable interlocutor as many of our other partners.

[Hilary Benn]

The unanimous agreement of United Nations Security Council resolution 2249 last Friday was a significant moment in the fight against Daesh, because the world community has come together to fight this evil using, in the words of the resolution, “all necessary measures”. What is the Foreign Secretary’s latest assessment of how Daesh’s base in Syria is contributing to and co-ordinating threats both to its neighbours and to the rest of the world, as we have seen recently and tragically in the killings in France, the suicide bombings in Lebanon and Turkey, the blowing up of the Russian airliner, and, of course, the killing of British tourists in Tunisia?

[Mr Hammond]

As the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, there is no doubt that the head of this multi-tentacled monster is in Raqqa in Syria. Its logistics, its controlling brain and its strategic communications, which are extremely effective, are all run from that headquarters. We will not destroy it by cutting off its limbs; we can destroy it only by going for the head and the heart. I should add that while some of the activity that is being conducted around the world in the name of ISIL is clearly directed from Raqqa, in other cases it is inspired by ISIL propaganda but not directly controlled from Raqqa, so it is a mixture.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I have discussed the situation in Syria with my Chinese counterparts on several occasions. At the moment, I judge that the Chinese are not willing to take a diplomatic initiative that would separate them from the Russians. Let me be clear that we are part of coalition activities in Syria. We are not carrying out kinetic actions, but we are flying reconnaissance and surveillance missions and feeding back the output of those missions to the coalition.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Russia’s military intervention has certainly changed things, but one thing that remains unchanged is the suffering and agony of the Syrian people. Given that we can now expect more people to flee their homes, and recognising, as we heard earlier, that the neighbouring countries are almost at bursting point, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what discussions he has had with Foreign Ministers about the possibility of establishing safe zones for people in Syria?

[Mr Hammond]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there have been extensive discussions about safe zones, which were originally a Turkish idea, over many months. At the moment, we judge the creation of safe zones to be impractical and impossible to enforce. We are acutely conscious that if we create something called a safe zone, it must be safe. There must be someone who is willing to enforce the safety of that zone. We judge that that means boots on the ground, and we and the United States are certainly not prepared to put boots on the ground in northern Syria.

[Hilary Benn]

I take the point that the Foreign Secretary makes, but that does not mean that we should not try. The boots could be those of neighbouring countries.

Something that there is widespread agreement on, as we have just heard, is the threat from ISIL/Daesh, with over 60 countries now being part of the coalition that opposes it. What steps are the Government taking to secure a UN Security Council resolution to authorise effective action to end the threat from this murderous organisation, including disrupting the huge flow of funds from its oil extraction and trading operations, which was revealed by the Financial Times last week and referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) today?

[Mr Hammond]

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s response to my comments, I say that it is easy to volunteer others to put boots on the ground, but it is pretty difficult to tell people to do what we are not prepared to do ourselves.

UN Security Council resolutions are already in place and we will continue to test the appetite of the permanent five for going further, but the Russian intervention in Syria complicates matters not only on the ground, but in the Security Council.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We very much welcome the state visit by the President of China and Madame Peng, which starts today. Of course, China is hugely important to us in terms of bilateral trade, but so is the Commonwealth.

This Government have unashamedly put the Commonwealth back into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We have reinvigorated our network within the Commonwealth and look forward to the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta. We are an early investor in the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. Trade between two Commonwealth countries is much cheaper than trade by one Commonwealth country outside the Commonwealth. This is an area that we are concentrating on and we want to see far greater trade within the Commonwealth.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It was reported yesterday that 14 cleaners who work at the FCO were called to an investigatory meeting by the Department’s contractor, Interserve, because they had the temerity to write to the Foreign Secretary to congratulate him on his reappointment and ask to discuss the living wage. Given that a basic freedom is the right of any individual to contact us as elected representatives, without fear or favour, will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning this attempt to intimidate staff for having exercised that right?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman wrote to me about that matter last night and I have investigated it. I have confirmation from Interserve that although a review meeting was held, no disciplinary action was taken against any cleaner as a result of their writing that letter. It has been reported that some of the people involved in writing the letter were the subjects of redundancies. Redundancies were unfortunately necessary because the Foreign Office is surrendering the Old Admiralty building as part of the campaign to reduce the estate footprint of Government Departments and save the taxpayer money. He will be pleased to know that all the redundancies announced by Interserve in connection with the Foreign Office contract were carried out in consultation with the Public and Commercial Services Union.

[Hilary Benn]

I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary did not feel able even to condemn the calling of those cleaners to a meeting—it seems to me that people should be able to write to whoever they want. One cleaner who works full time said that they want to be paid the living wage for cleaning offices in the right hon. Gentleman’s Department because they cannot afford to pay their rent without claiming housing benefit. The letter states:

“I really don’t want to receive any benefits, but at the moment I have no choice.”

Given that other Whitehall Departments currently pay the London living wage of £9.15 an hour, why are staff cleaning the offices of the right hon. Gentleman paid so much less?

[Mr Hammond]

The good news is that from next April all cleaners working for Interserve, including those on the Foreign Office contract, will receive the national living wage when it is introduced.

Arms Sales (Human Rights)

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir David. I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this debate and above all on her passionate and determined campaigning on this issue over many years. I also thank the Members who served previously on the Committee on Arms Export Controls. I echo the comment on the need to re-establish that Committee as quickly as possible in the new Parliament.

I begin by saying that in an uncertain world, we need to acknowledge—uncomfortable though it is for some—that the defence industry plays a part in enabling us to protect our own security. States have the right to acquire the means to defend themselves. We are commemorating the 75th anniversary of the day in the battle of Britain when the RAF in effect defeated the Luftwaffe. If we had not had Spitfires and Hurricanes, where would we have been as a nation?

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised an important point about Daesh. She is absolutely right that it has in all probability acquired weapons that had been supplied to others: the Government of Iraq and perhaps the peshmerga, to whom we have supplied some heavy machine guns. We did that because they are trying to protect themselves from a brutal group of people who rape, enslave and sell women, decapitate aid workers and recruit child soldiers. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) spoke about the effect that that has on children. Their childhoods have been stolen, which is something I saw for myself in the Democratic Republic of the Congo when I was International Development Secretary. We have to acknowledge that defence is an important industry in the UK, providing 160,000 jobs directly and 100,000 indirectly.

Just as arms exports can be a force that enables countries to protect themselves, the opposite can also be the case, and that is why it is vital that we have a responsible trade in arms exports. It is why we have to ensure that the system has proper accountability and transparency and is correctly exercised, including in respect of human rights. We have the export licensing criteria and the EU consolidated criteria, which show what can be achieved by working together within the European Union. I pay tribute in particular to the last Labour government and the late Robin Cook, who played such an important part in bringing that about. Reference has also been made to the arms trade treaty, which Britain campaigned on for many years and was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2013.

It has been said in the debate—we will no doubt hear this from the Minister—that we have one of the toughest regimes in the world. The rules are there and they are clear; the issue is how they are applied in respect of particular applications, and scrutiny of that is the responsibility of the Committee on Arms Export Controls. We have heard how during the Arab spring, there was a great deal of controversy over UK arms exports to middle eastern and north African countries, including Bahrain and Libya. The Committee expressed some concerns, which led to some of the licences being revoked. The Committee asked questions about the decision-making process that led to the granting of the licences in the first place and about the speed with which decisions are taken when it is finally decided that there is a risk of breaching the guidance. I think that that led the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, to announce that the Government would

“introduce a mechanism to allow immediate licensing suspension to countries experiencing a sharp deterioration in security or stability.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 7WS.]

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) that there is a question on how that is applied. Improvements have been made to the transparency of the system, and transparency is important, because it allows all of us to hold the Government and the Committee to account.

The Committee expressed concern when the Government decided that they would delete from the consolidated criteria the words:

“An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by…concern that the goods might be used for internal repression.”

The Government’s argument in response was that it was a general statement that formed part not of the criteria, but of the introductory text. If that is the case, I wonder why it was felt necessary to remove the words, because they did seem to send a signal. Sir John Stanley, who chaired the Committee, expressed concerns about that. At the time, he expressed the concern that too many licences were initially being given that subsequently had to be suspended or revoked. I think that change was in a backwards direction. The Government may try to argue to the contrary, but the change sends a signal.

The question of Yemen and the great humanitarian crisis there has been raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) described how more than 80% of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance, including 10 million children. Some 500,000 children are severely malnourished. The aid agencies have serious access problems and report aid being diverted, not on the basis of need, but depending on where people were and who they were believed to be supporting in the conflict. I know the Minister has a lot to reply to and will not have time—if he could write to us all, it would be appreciated—but will he respond to reports of attacks on civilian targets, including those on “Newsnight” last week? What discussions are he and his FCO colleagues having with their Saudi counterparts about the conflict and these concerns? Given that it is reported that since the conflict began, the Government have issued a further 37 arms export licences to Saudi Arabia, does he know whether the defence equipment we have sold has been used in that conflict? Has he made an assessment of whether that is consistent with the consolidated criteria?

In the “United Kingdom Strategic Export Controls Annual Report 2014”, published in July this year, the Government set out that their policy on arms exports to Israel would be “subject to further review”. Will the Minister confirm whether that remains the case?

Finally, will the Minister comment on the invitations issued to countries to attend the biennial Defence and Security Equipment International arms fair this week? We heard from a number of Members that they include countries on the FCO’s list of countries of concern on human rights grounds. What criteria were used to judge whether those countries, given that they are on that list, could be invited? Were any countries not invited because they were on the list and the Government thought it inappropriate? Given what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) said, will he confirm that no cluster bombs or torture equipment are being displayed or sold at the fair?

The debate has been extremely important, and we are all grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley for giving us the chance to raise these matters. Like everyone, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

European Union Referendum Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

This Bill will set before the British people a clear and simple question: should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? It is 11 words, but the answer will have profound consequences for the future of our country, as the people of the United Kingdom make the most important decision on our place in the world for 40 years. It is a decision that will affect the future journey of our proud and great islands; it is a decision the consequence of which will be felt by the people of our country for decades and generations to come; and it is a decision that will shape not only how we view our place in the world but how the rest of the world sees us.

We support the Bill and its passage through Parliament, but we also support Britain remaining a member of the EU. The same cannot be said of all the right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am delighted that the Labour party now agrees that the British people deserve a choice and a vote, but does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the British people want a very substantial reduction in migration into this country, and does that not require this Parliament to regain control of our borders from Brussels?

[Hilary Benn]

We agree that the European Union needs to change. Like many people, we want to see reform in Europe on benefits, transitional controls, the way the EU works and how it relates to national Parliaments. We also want to see the completion of the single market in services to boost jobs and economic growth here in the United Kingdom. We need to co-operate to achieve those things, but the EU needs to recognise that there is a growing demand across societies in Europe for greater devolution of power at the same time. We need to co-operate and devolve, and the EU’s task in the years ahead is to reconcile those two forces.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Given that the EU has fundamentally changed since the early 1970s when we joined it, it is right that the Bill has been introduced. Whatever the result of the referendum, we can now all agree with that. Will the right hon. Gentleman address the issue of fundamental change in our relationship? Given that the majority of European capitals are moving closer and closer to political union, does he accept that the negotiations aiming to accommodate countries that do not wish to go down that road are terribly important? What guarantees will the Labour party be looking for when it comes to those negotiations?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman would recognise that there are differences of view within the EU about its future direction. Membership of the euro is an example of that. The last Labour Government took the decision that we would not join the euro. We are still against joining the euro, and I cannot foresee any circumstances in which it would be in the British economic interest to do so; but other European countries take a different view. The challenge for Europe is to accommodate those, while keeping together 28 countries for which co-operation is vital in the modern world.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The Conservatives criticised us when we were in office for taking the people further into Europe, but let us remind them when they complain about the free movement of labour that they signed up to the single market and the British people never got a referendum then; they signed up to Maastricht and the British people never got a referendum then; and they implied that we would have taken them into the single currency, but we had the five economic tests.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There are lots of people who have changed their minds on Europe. I remind the House that as recently as June 2012 the Prime Minister told a press conference in Brussels:

“I completely understand why some people want an in/out referendum. . . I don’t share that view. That is not the right thing to do.”

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who were in the House for John Major’s Administration watched the Government party fall apart under the pressure of their rows on Europe, and that we look forward cheerfully to it happening again?

[Hilary Benn]

It is clear that my hon. Friend takes great pleasure from the discomfort that is already evident on the Government Benches. For those who wish to study the history, it is interesting that here we are, 40 years on from 1975, and the same thing is happening, but in mirror image. It is the Conservative party that has agreed to a referendum in order to try to deal with splits.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I shall make a little more progress, then I will give way further.

Let me say to the Foreign Secretary that reform is not just about what Britain asks for now. It is about the building of alliances and the making of friends, as the Prime Minister now understands only too well, and it is an approach that can bring considerable change over time. I think I made the point previously, with reference to the proportion of the EU budget that is spent on the common agricultural policy, that there has been a very significant reduction over a period of 40 years. That demonstrates that change is possible by building alliances and arguing the case. The EU will need to continue to reform in the years ahead.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that an example of the need for radical reform of our relationship with the European Union and reform of the European Union as a whole is that if the UK were not currently a member of the EU, no one would be suggesting that we join? What does he think?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this referendum is to be considered free and fair it would be wise to ensure the neutrality of the civil service and the machinery of government? Would he look sympathetically at any amendments to try to enshrine in the legislation an appropriate period of purdah?

[Hilary Benn]

We would be very happy to look at all amendments that come forward during consideration of the Bill on the Floor of the House. We have some amendments that we will table. I shall come to those in a moment. I agree with the Foreign Secretary in this respect: once the Government eventually reach a view, they are entitled to explain it to the British people. Indeed, they will have to explain their view to some of the members of the Cabinet. Therefore, it is reasonable to ensure that the Government are able to do that.

[Mr Jenkin]

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he thinks Ministers will have to be able to do that they were not doing during the Scottish referendum or the AV referendum? I seem to remember Ministers giving lots of explanations of their view. Is he concerned that this might be an opportunity for the Government to call the referendum so soon after the deal has been concluded that the British people do not have a chance to digest what has occurred—a snap referendum designed to get a certain result?

[Hilary Benn]

As I understand the argument, it relates to section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the definition of “material”. That is what that section says. It would not be sensible for any Government to find themselves constrained from explaining to the people the Government’s view, because the people are entitled to hear from the Government of the day, as happened in 1975.

[Clive Efford]

My right hon. Friend will realise that the issue is so toxic to the Conservative party that it caused a previous Prime Minister, John Major, to question the parentage of some of the members of his Cabinet at that time. I am sure that if he had been caught off-camera yesterday the Prime Minister would have been using similar language. On the point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), is it not true that we might reach the date of the referendum but agreements significantly changing our relationship with Europe will not have been agreed? That will be subject to subsequent negotiation, particularly if treaty change is required, so we will be asked to vote for something that will take place in the future and we will not have the final detail agreed across Europe.

[Hilary Benn]

Everybody in the country and in the House will have to wait and see what deal the Prime Minister brings back, then people will have to make their own judgment.

[Ian Austin]

In order for the result to be accepted and for it to be long lasting and settle the question for a generation, it is very important that the process is seen to be fair on all sides. Ministers are perfectly at liberty to say what they like in interviews and as they go round the country making speeches, but there is a big difference between that and public money being used to send out leaflets and promote one side of the debate. It is very important that the spending limits are designed to ensure that spending is equal on both sides and both sides have a fair say.

[Hilary Benn]

Everybody in the House would agree that the referendum must be fair and must be seen to be fair, but at the same time the Government—any Government—are entitled to argue their case.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way one more time at this stage, then I will make progress.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is extremely generous with his time. A number of constituents have already been in touch with me, as the House might imagine, about the issue, and some have raised the question itself. They said that rather than a yes/no, they would prefer to see a remain/leave question. Does my right hon. Friend have a view on that?

[Hilary Benn]

My view is that the question is perfectly clear and very simple. I do not think that anyone who goes into the polling station on the day, whenever it is, will not understand the consequence of voting either way.

As well the negotiations taking place in Europe, it is clear that an equally important set of negotiations is taking place within the Conservative party on this subject, and they are not going terribly well, are they? We have been asking the Prime Minister for his list of negotiating demands and we are still waiting. We are still not clear whether there will be treaty change or not. This week, the Prime Minister apparently told journalists at the G7 that he had decided that he would succeed in the negotiations and therefore all Ministers would be expected to support the line. We know that that did not go down too well with certain Ministers, who came face to face with the prospect of having to choose between their jobs and their Euroscepticism.

Then, lo and behold, faced with a choice between backing the national interest or the Conservative interest, the Prime Minister did what he always does—give in to his party. The explanation was that his remarks had been “over-interpreted”. I do not know whether this was a case of lost in translation, but the newspapers today were pretty disobliging about the Prime Minister’s decision, with references to “Downing St chaos” in The Daily Telegraph, “weak and uncertain” in The Times, and “great EU-turn” in the Daily Mail.

We are none the wiser as to where the Government stand or what the answers are to those questions, so for the benefit of the House let me try to summarise where it seems the Government have got to on our membership of the EU. The Prime Minister is probably for in, but he cannot say definitely that he is in or out because a lot of his MPs are for out, unless they can be persuaded to be in. Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary, who used to be leaning out, now appears to be leaning in, while other members of the Cabinet who are for out read yesterday that they would be out unless they campaigned for in. Now it seems they might be in even though, after all, they are probably for out. In, out, in, out—it is the EU Tory hokey-cokey, a complete mess.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

It is perhaps an ill-chosen day to talk about the history of parties changing views on the matter, as 32 years ago to the day Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were elected to this House, as was I. They were elected on a manifesto of leaving the European Union. They subsequently changed their views, as the right hon. Gentleman has changed his view on the need for a referendum and the need for a renegotiation. Can he explain the reasons for his change of view and what changes he wants to see in Europe prior to the referendum?

[Hilary Benn]

First, I set out earlier the changes we would wish to see, but change is not just a function of one particular moment in time. Secondly, there has been a general election and there is now going to be a referendum. As we argued consistently, uncertainty about Britain’s place in Europe is not good for the British economy, so we should get on and make this decision so that the British people can have their say, and I hope they will reach a decision to remain in the European Union.

[Bill Esterson]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to make some more progress, because I have been extremely generous in giving way.

On the franchise, the Government are right to use the same basic approach as 40 years ago in the last European referendum and as 33 days ago in the general election—in other words, the parliamentary voting register. I do not begrudge extending the franchise to a particular group of 790 people, but I say to the Foreign Secretary that if we are going to extend the franchise to 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90-year-olds in the House of Lords, I think we should also extend it to 16 and 17-year-olds. On this side of the House we are in favour of giving these young adults the right to vote in all elections. This is an issue of principle—it is about giving them as citizens the right to participate in our democracy.

I suspect that during the course of this debate and the Bill’s Committee stage we will hear arguments against doing that, but I simply say that they will have a ring of familiarity about them, because on every single occasion in the past 200 years that someone has had the temerity to suggest that the franchise should be extended, the forces of conservatism—with a small c—have said, “Don’t be ridiculous”; “It’ll undermine the fabric of society”; or, “They are incapable of exercising the necessary judgment.”

After all, during debates on the Reform Act 1832, landowners said that the only people who could vote were those who had an interest in the land—the people who owned it. In 1912, Lord Curzon said about votes for women:

“Women do not have the experience to be able to vote.”

If we substitute the words “16 and 17-year-olds” for the word “Women”, we will see that exactly the same argument is being made today. Indeed, the same argument was made when a Labour Government lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. It is the same old excuse of an argument against giving people a say, and it is completely at odds with the other rights we already give to 16 and 17-year-olds, including the right to work, pay tax and join the armed forces. [Interruption.] I am well aware of what the Foreign Secretary is saying, but they can also be company directors and consent to medical treatment—it is a long, long list.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is odd that the Government’s position on the Wales Act 2014 is to devolve to the Welsh Government the power to decide whether 16 and 17-year-olds can be given the vote? The Government are giving that power to Wales and it has been exercised in Scotland, yet they are blocking it in this instance.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point as to why the franchise should be extended.

[Paul Farrelly]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister was not forced to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in the Scottish referendum? He agreed that that would happen, so what is different now? Why should English and Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds, and Scottish 16 and 17-year-olds, be treated differently for this referendum?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. When the Minister for Europe winds up the debate, perhaps he will give the House an explanation as to why the Government are not minded to move on this issue.

After taking evidence on the subject last year, the British Youth Council Youth Select Committee said:

“We are very proud of the democracy in which we live and of its history and traditions. We are absolutely convinced that 16 and 17 year olds have the aptitude and the appetite to take a full part in that democracy.”

I agree. This House has debated on many occasions how we can encourage more young people—the Foreign Secretary made the point about the lower rate of participation—to participate in our public and political life. How can we get more young people involved in our democratic life? What better way to do so than to give 16 and 17-year-olds the opportunity to take part in this momentous decision, which will affect their lives and their futures just as much as it will affect ours?

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Does the shadow Foreign Secretary agree that, since nearly one in four 16-year-olds can expect to live to 100 years of age and will be living with the consequences of this decision for far longer than Members of this or the other House, and given that they have the mental capacity to weigh up these decisions and the enthusiasm to take part, we should extend the franchise?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with the hon. Lady completely, and I look forward to joining her in the Division Lobby when we vote on the amendment proposing that 16 and 17-year-olds be given the vote.

The second thing I want to say about the detail of the Bill is that we feel the referendum should be held on a separate day. The Bill specifically allows Ministers, by regulations, to make provisions to combine the referendum with other polls, but, as the Foreign Secretary will be aware, that contradicts the advice of the Electoral Commission, which could not have been clearer:

“The Bill should be amended to make clear that an EU referendum cannot be combined with the significant elections already scheduled to take place in May 2016, and should be held on a suitable separate day to any other poll.”

To those who argue, “If we combine it with other polls, that will lead to a higher turnout,” I simply pray in aid the example of last September’s Scottish referendum, which was held on a separate day.

The evidence is very clear: if we put before the British people a big decision with very considerable consequences —that is what this referendum will be about—they will know what is at stake and they will come out and vote, and we should trust them to do so. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider that aspect of the Bill.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Turnout is obviously an issue of concern for all of us. Does my right hon. Friend agree that using the low turnout of 18 to 24-year-olds to deny the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds defeats the object? Surely we should be using this Bill and a healthy, vibrant debate about the future of Europe to get both age groups out to vote in the referendum.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a powerful point. We want a debate and for everybody to participate, and we want the British people to make that judgment.

The third thing I want to say on the detail of the Bill is that, as I have already argued, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that voters have enough information to be able to make an informed decision. That should include an independent assessment of the economic consequences of leaving the European Union and what that would mean compared with our remaining a member. I presume that that is why, as the Foreign Secretary has said, section 125 of the 2000 Act is to be disapplied.

Finally on the detail, the Bill requires that the referendum must take place by December 2017. That should give the Prime Minister long enough to conclude the negotiations, but I hope the Foreign Secretary will agree that the sooner the decision can be taken, the better, because uncertainty is not good for anyone, not least when businesses have begun to say, “We will need to consider our future place in the United Kingdom.” Uncertainty does not contribute to that.

[Bill Esterson]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to bring my remarks to a close, because so many other Members want to speak and I am bearing in mind Mr Speaker’s strictures, which were kindly put.

This Bill is important, because it will give the British people the chance to have their say, but it is in the end just a mechanism for that decision; the really important thing is the decision itself. The notion that Britain’s future prosperity and security lie somehow in turning away from the European Union, in the hope of somehow getting a better deal, makes no sense in a world that is increasingly interdependent. It is not that Britain could not manage outside the European Union—[Interruption.] I have said that before and I say it again, because we have to have an honest debate. The truth is that it would come at an economic cost, because our partnership with Europe helps us to create jobs, secure growth, encourage investment and ensure our security and influence in the world.

It is not that we do not understand that some communities feel more of the consequences of a rapidly changing world than others.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

No; I am going to bring my remarks to a close.

All of us have a stake in answering the following questions. Where will the jobs for our children and grandchildren come from? How will we grow our economy so we can continue to support the NHS and an ageing population? How do we combat climate change, terrorism and insecurity? The answers lie in co-operation. We should have confidence: we are a nation full of ideas. We invented the television, the jet engine and the world wide web. The best way to continue to use the talents of this great country of ours to turn ideas into jobs is to work with others and to take advantage of the investment that comes from being in the European Union. We gain from ideas generated in other countries, from lowered trade barriers and from people coming in with their talents. We have always traded with neighbours near and far, and we must remain an outward-facing country.

We also believe that, in this year of all years, we should remember the contribution that European nations coming together has made to the cause of peace on this continent of ours. That achievement is all too easy to take for granted, but it would have seemed extraordinary to our forebears and ancestors sitting here 100 years ago, after centuries of war across Europe, if someone had said, “I’ve seen the future, and this is what Europeans working together can achieve.” We believe in the strength of the argument for remaining part of the European Union. Labour Members are already making it, and we will continue to do so. It will be for the British people to decide.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

On the contrary—what is happening to Switzerland is an important lesson. I have heard many people outside this House and one or two inside it talking about the Norwegian model or the Swiss model, implying that it is possible to partake fully in the single market without having to comply with single market rules. Of course, that is not the experience that the Norwegians or the Swiss have had. Access to the single market has a price, and the price is contributing to the EU budget, complying with all the EU’s rules and having no vote on how those rules are made.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister created utter confusion yesterday on the subject of collective Cabinet responsibility and the Government’s position on the EU referendum. Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify for the House whether Ministers will be allowed to campaign against the Prime Minister’s position during the referendum?

[Mr Hammond]

The Prime Minister has made the position clear. Ministers who are part of the Government are all signed up to our proposal to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the European Union. We are all committed to success in that exercise, but we do not yet know what the outcome will be, and until we know what the outcome will be, we do not know what position the Government will take. It is simply hypothetical at this point to talk about who will be allowed to do what in relation to a position that we have not yet defined.

[Hilary Benn]

The question was not about what position the Government will ultimately take. It was about whether Ministers will be allowed to campaign against the Prime Minister’s view, whatever view he finally reaches. Having got no answer on that one, let us try another. Once the renegotiations are completed, the Government will have a responsibility to put their view forward and provide the British people with information that they need to take their decision. With this in mind, and bearing in mind that the Foreign Secretary last year indicated that the Government would need to be prepared to stand up from the table and walk away if necessary, what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the consequences for jobs, growth and investment if Britain were to leave the European Union?

[Mr Hammond]

The Government’s position on that is very clear. We believe that Britain will be better off in a reformed European Union. The British economy clearly benefits from access to a single market of 500 million people, but this is a democracy and we are very clear that there are areas in the way the European Union operates which have become unacceptable to the British people. We need to get reform in those areas in order to have the continued consent of the British people for our membership, and thus access to that vital single market.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s interest in this area. In an effort to remove connections to past civilisations, ISIL is indeed tearing down ancient monuments and selling them on the black market. The International Council of Museums, to which she refers, and its red list will help tackle illegal sales, and the Government very much support it.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

As more and more people try to make the perilous boat journey across the Mediterranean, the dedicated men and women of HMS Bulwark are having to rescue an ever-increasing number of desperate people in very difficult circumstances. Given that about half a million people are now gathering in Libya, does the Foreign Secretary think that there is currently sufficient capacity in the EU maritime force to cope with this crisis?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

First, let me join the right hon. Gentleman in recognising the heroic work that the crew of HMS Bulwark, in particular, are doing. They have just landed another 1,200 migrants, bringing to well over 2,000 the total number of people plucked from the sea by that one single vessel. I think the best criterion by which to judge the answer to his question is the number of deaths, and, although we cannot be certain, we believe that since the naval force has been deployed in the Mediterranean the number of migrants’ lives being lost at sea has declined to close to zero. I think that means that the scale of the operation is, for the moment, adequate.

Britain in the World

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having been reappointed as Foreign Secretary, and I wish him well with his important responsibilities. From the start I assure him that where we believe it is right to do so, I and my colleagues will fully support him and the Government in matters of foreign policy.

I shall also say something about my predecessor as shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander. For nearly 18 years, he was committed to serving his constituents, and as a Cabinet Minister and as shadow Foreign Secretary he made a distinguished contribution to public policy and our debates; he will be much missed.

I pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. Whether it is their courage and sacrifice in Afghanistan, conducting air missions in Iraq, helping the people of Sierra Leone affected by Ebola or saving the lives of frightened families in overcrowded boats in the Mediterranean, their unfailing bravery, professionalism and dedication are in the finest traditions of our nation. I would also like to acknowledge all those who serve in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, here and abroad, for their outstanding work on behalf of our country and the world. In all my dealings with them as a Minister, I was unfailingly impressed.

In this century more than ever before, we as human kind are having to come to terms with our interdependence and what it means for relations between countries and peoples. One hundred and fifty years ago, when the British empire was at its height, Parliament was much concerned with what was happening overseas, but, unlike now, much of that debate focused on what Britain’s unilateral diplomatic or military response should be. Today’s world is very different. The empire has gone. New global powers and trading blocs have emerged and grown in strength and influence—most notably China—as power and wealth have shifted from north to south and from west to east. Events across the globe are seen and reported as they happen and their effects are felt and debated by people in this country as never before, as the imperial interests of the past have been replaced by the community of interests that reflects our nation today.

The challenges we face are changing too, and the end of history is nowhere in sight. Who would have thought that 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, we would see fighting between Russia, through its proxy forces, and Ukraine? Who would have believed that 350 years after the Enlightenment dawned, an ideology bitterly hostile to other faiths and the rights of women would rise up and use brutality and terror to conquer and seek to roll back progress in countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria?

[Rehman Chishti]

In tackling extremism, one has to create a tolerant world, but in 130 countries there is persecution of people based on their faith. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have to do much more to protect religious freedom, whether it is reforming blasphemy laws in Pakistan affecting Christian and other minority communities or in respect of Burma and the Rohingya community? Does he agree that that should be a key pillar of our foreign policy?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and shall have a word to say about it a little later.

Who would have thought we would be grappling with the potentially catastrophic consequences of loss of biodiversity and climate change—a threat that is the ultimate expression of our interdependence as human beings, because no one country on its own can deal with it? Make no mistake: if drought causes crops to fail or families to go thirsty, if flooding and rises in the sea-level wash people’s homes away or if conflict breaks out, human beings will do what human beings have done throughout the whole course of human history; they will move somewhere else to try to make a life for themselves and their families.

Despite these changes, Britain retains influence and reach in global affairs. We are part of the Commonwealth; we are members of the European Union, NATO, the G7 and the G20; and we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Our history and our exports, material, political and cultural—democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the BBC, the English language—give us a voice that makes itself heard, and because of that heritage and good will, the Government have a particular responsibility to use Britain’s place in the world for the greater good by showing that we aspire to continue to be an outward-looking, not an inward-facing, nation.

That is why the mess the Government have got themselves into over the Human Rights Act is so damaging to Britain’s reputation internationally. Does the Foreign Secretary really believe it helps his cause when he raises human rights issues with other countries while back home his Cabinet colleagues talk about leaving the European convention on human rights, which we helped to draft after the second world war?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Does the shadow Foreign Secretary accept that the European convention on human rights was set up to prevent a repetition of the holocaust, that it was not set up to allow foreign judges to usurp the authority of this Parliament to decide whether prisoners in this country should have a vote, and that it should not be entitled to impede the lawful authority of this Government or any British Government to decide whom to deport or not?

[Hilary Benn]

Let me gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the convention was part of Churchill’s legacy and that we should be proud of the part Britain played in asserting the primacy of human rights—indeed out of the ashes of that terrible conflict that was the second world war. It is one of the reasons why a number of voices now say that Britain is not pulling its weight.

It cannot have been much fun for the Foreign Secretary to get his press cuttings delivered over the last few months, when General Sir Richard Shirreff, the former NATO commander, told The Times that the Prime Minister was

“a bit player”, a “foreign policy irrelevance” and that

“Nobody is taking any notice of him”,

when The Economist described “Little Britain” as

“a shrinking actor on the global stage”,

and the Washington Post ran a piece headed “Britain resigns as a world power”. In fairness to the Prime Minister, he has been a little distracted by the problems in his own party over the European Union.

[Boris Johnson]

I may have missed something. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has changed his mind about having a referendum on the European Union, and if so why, and when he did so? What reforms does he hope to achieve in Europe?

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, and if he will bear with me for a just a moment longer, I shall address exactly the points he has raised.

The Prime Minister might temporarily have stopped his Back Benchers banging on about Europe, but I fear that many of them will be a bit disappointed when they discover that the Prime Minister is not the Eurosceptic they wish he was.

To answer the question of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear in the opening of this Queen’s Speech debate, we will support the European Union Referendum Bill next week. [Interruption.] Well, circumstances have changed. There has been a general election and we listened to what people said on the doorsteps. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited, he should reflect on the time when the Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary were bitterly opposed to holding a referendum—they, too, changed their minds, did they not? The issue now is what is the Government’s strategy for the renegotiation, when will the referendum be held, and who is going to make the argument for Britain remaining part of the European Union?

I listened very carefully to what the Foreign Secretary had to say just now about renegotiation, and I hope he will forgive me if I say he was a little hazy on the detail, especially given that he told the “Today” programme last week that we have

“a very clear set of requirements”.

It would be very nice if he shared them with the House.

On treaty change, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary seem to have been in different places at times. Shortly after the general election, the No. 10 spokesperson briefed the newspapers to the effect that the Prime Minister was committed to securing treaty change. A few days later, however, the Foreign Secretary told the Financial Times:

“It does not mean we need treaty change for the politics”.

Which is it? The Foreign Secretary also told the “Today” programme last week:

“if we are not able to deliver on these big areas of concern that the British people have, we will not win the referendum when it comes.”

Could the Foreign Secretary clarify, for the House’s benefit, that when he said

“we will not win the referendum”,

it meant that he would, after all, be campaigning for a yes vote when the referendum comes, notwithstanding the contrary impression he has given in recent years?

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

On a point of clarification, does the shadow Foreign Secretary agree with me that the leader of the Scottish Labour party, Kezia Dugdale, has seen the light, as she backed the SNP position that EU nationals should have the opportunity to vote in the EU referendum?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with that proposal because I think the basis on which we take that decision should be the same basis on which every single one of us was elected to this House. That was the basis on which we took the decision in 1975. If the hon. Gentleman cared to do his research and look at the franchise in other EU countries that have held referendums on matters to do with Europe, he would find that they have not allowed EU citizens from other countries to participate. If it is good enough in the rest of Europe, it seems to me that it is good enough for the United Kingdom.

That is not to say that the European Union does not need to change. Like many people, we wish to see reform in Europe on benefits, transitional controls, the way in which the EU works, and the completion of the single market to boost services, jobs and growth. The EU also needs to recognise that it must work for the countries that are, and will continue to be, outside the euro, and that there is growing demand from countries throughout Europe that want a greater say. When global politics are caught between the pull of nationalism and the necessity of internationalism, the global institutions that will prosper in the years ahead will be those that are able to respond to the cry for more devolution of power where that is possible

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, at the last election, political parties that did not trust the British people with a referendum on their relationship with the EU were ultimately not trusted in the ballot box—except in Scotland, whose population have, I believe, had enough of referendums for a generation, if not a lifetime? His party is now suggesting that 16 and 17-year-olds should vote, but four weeks ago he did not want anyone to have a vote. He has no credibility in relation to the EU referendum, and neither does his party.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I encourage Members, in the kindliest spirit, to be economical with their interventions? Given that 56 Members wish to speak, some consideration of each other would be appreciated.

[Hilary Benn]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I shall deal shortly with the hon. Gentleman’s point about that part of the franchise.

Let me also say to the Foreign Secretary that reform in Europe is not solely down to what one country asks for at one moment in time. It is about building alliances and making friends, as the Prime Minister is now discovering, and that approach too can bring big change over time. The fundamental challenge that we face now is to make the case that Britain’s place lies in a reforming European Union. Why? Because this is about jobs, investment, growth, influence and security.

Last year we marked the centenary of the outbreak of the great war—the muddy slaughter that claimed the flower of a generation from Europe—and this year we commemorate the end of the second world war. We should never forget, bearing in mind that what we thought would never happen again is now happening in other parts of the world, that as the leaders of post-war Europe looked upon the names of the fallen carved on their gravestones, row upon row upon row, they resolved they would bring the nations of Europe together in the interests of peace. Seventy years on, that has lasted, but we can never take it for granted, and we can never take for granted the other benefits that membership of the EU has brought.

The removal of barriers to trade has helped to create and sustain jobs. It gives us access to a market of 500 million people. Nearly half the trade and foreign investment in this country comes from the EU, and competing in the single market with the best companies in the world helps to drive innovation and creates new markets for British businesses. The EU has improved living standards throughout Europe and for British workers by giving them, for instance, the right to paid holiday and equal treatment.

Given all that, it makes no sense for us to turn our back on Europe, and to leave it on the wing and a prayer of a better deal outside. Those who point to Norway and Switzerland should note what the Foreign Secretary himself told the House recently, when he drew attention to the terms that those two countries had negotiated for access to the single market. He said:

“those terms require the Swiss and Norwegians to accept wholesale the body of EU law without having any say in the making of it, to contribute financially and to abide by the principles of free movement.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2015; Vol. 593, c. 807-08.]

Those are some of the many reasons for Labour’s belief that the European Union is central to our future prosperity, and by the end of 2017 the British people will make the most important decision about our place in the world that they have faced for 40 years when they vote on our membership of the EU. We will campaign for a yes vote, and we will argue for British 16 and 17-year-olds to be given a say in that decision, because it is about their future too—just as we argued in the general election so recently fought that the franchise for all elections in this country should be extended to them.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman argue that 16 and 17-year-olds should be sent into battle? I think it wrong that although we do not allow our soldiers to go into battle until they are 18, we—or some people—are quite prepared to envisage 16 and 17-year-olds voting to send them into battle.

[Hilary Benn]

No, I would not change that age, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that, when one thinks that the law allows a 16 or 17-year-old to give full consent to medical treatment, leave school, enter work or training, join a trade union, pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits and welfare benefits, consent to sexual relationships, get married—albeit with the parents’ consent—change their name by deed poll, become a director of a company and indeed join the armed forces, it seems to me that we ought to be able to trust them to participate in that democratic decision.

Ensuring peace and security around the world must be at the heart of our diplomatic and security efforts. We live in a differently dangerous world today, with a multiplicity of threats, military, political, natural and cyber. The ultimate responsibility of Government is to defend the nation, and we remain committed to a minimum credible independent nuclear capability delivered through continuous at-sea deterrence while supporting global, multilateral disarmament negotiations and further reductions in stockpiles and numbers of weapons. We are also committed to upholding the rights of the Falkland islanders to remain British, including by ensuring the defence of the islands.

[Alex Salmond]

I have just heard what seems to be a support for renewal of the Trident nuclear system. The shadow Foreign Secretary has already disagreed with Kezia Dugdale on the question of the participation of European citizens. Is the shadow Foreign Secretary aware that the sole remaining Labour MP from Scotland does not share his opinion on Trident renewal?

[Hilary Benn]

I am setting out for the right hon. Gentleman what the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is, and I know he takes a different view, but a decision about the defence of the nation is not a matter for any one part of the United Kingdom: it is a matter for the whole of the United Kingdom and for this House.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to make a little more progress as there are many who wish to speak.

The crisis in Ukraine, which the Foreign Secretary referred to, has demonstrated how an aggressive Russia can threaten its neighbours and reminds us of the importance of NATO and of the EU in standing up to external threats in Europe’s eastern and southern neighbourhoods. As he said, the Minsk agreement represents the best hope of progress, but it needs to be implemented.

We support the action the Government have taken to participate in the high readiness NATO force in eastern Europe, including sending four RAF Typhoon jets to be part of the Baltic air policing mission, because that is a clear demonstration of the UK’s commitment to collective security.

The threat from al-Qaeda and the growth of ISIL and other Islamic jihadist groups not just in the middle east but in Somalia with al-Shabaab and in Nigeria with Boko Haram, represent a considerable threat to global and domestic security. The flow of young British men and women into Syria via Turkey, some of their own volition and others having been groomed, is as inexplicable to their parents as it is alarming to this House. Recent advances by ISIL in Iraq, in particular the seizure of Ramadi, reveal the continuing weakness of Iraqi forces and of the Baghdad Government’s capacity to deal with this threat, despite the aerial support the Foreign Secretary referred to. Sectarianism has caused great suffering to the people of Iraq and only an inclusive politics can overcome it. Back in October the Foreign Secretary told the House that, while there would be tactical ebb and flow in Iraq, the coalition air campaign had “stabilised the strategic picture”. Is that still his view given that what is being done at the moment does not seem to have halted ISIL’s advance?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I am happy to respond briefly to the right hon. Gentleman on that point. Of course Ramadi is a setback, but it is not a strategically significant point. Ramadi was already partly occupied by ISIL and the town itself is not of strategic significance.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that response.

Meanwhile, as we have heard, the humanitarian crisis grows in Syria, Iraq and the neighbouring countries of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, which are bearing a huge burden. There are now over 4 million Syrian refugees, which is the largest exodus of people since the end of the second world war—that is the scale of what we are having to deal with. I welcome the Government’s significant contribution to meeting the needs of these refugees, but the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs appeal is still way short of the funding it needs and we must continue to encourage other partners to live up to their responsibilities.

[Keith Vaz]

I remind my right hon. Friend of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about those who are seeking to cross the Mediterranean to come into Europe because of the crisis in north Africa. A thousand Syrian refugees have now arrived on the island of Kos. Is it not essential that the EU has a plan to deal with the Maghreb countries? The answer is not quotas. All quotas will do is play into the hands of those who exploit vulnerable refugees.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that both the EU and the United Nations need to have a plan to deal with that. The UN special representative, Bernardino León, said at the weekend:

“Libya is on the verge of economic and financial collapse”.

He also said that Libya is

“facing a huge security threat”

from ISIL. The movement of migrants across the Mediterranean has indeed reached crisis point. As we know, thousands of innocent people have died and hundreds of thousands of others have been put at risk. It is clear that the traffickers are to blame for the conditions in which people make that perilous journey, but it is important that any action taken to deal with that trade is backed by the UN Security Council, has clear rules of engagement and has the consent of the relevant Libyan authorities. The Foreign Secretary will no doubt have seen the comments made over the weekend by the head of the rival Government in Tripoli about defending Libya’s sea and land from any EU operation.

I welcome the negotiations that have been taking place to reach a deal with Iran. After many years in which Iran has chosen to exploit regional tensions by supporting terrorist groups, under its new leadership there is an opportunity for it to play a more positive role. A nuclear-armed Iran would clearly pose a threat to peace in the region and the world, which is why a deal that ensures that Iran’s nuclear programme is purely civilian is so important, but for a deal to be concluded it must encompass all the elements: limits on Iran’s nuclear programme; strong and credible inspection; and assurances about the breakout period.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way, but I will then make some progress.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way on the issue of Iran. Is he confirming that the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is that no deal is better than a bad deal? That would allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and therefore threaten the stability of the region.

[Hilary Benn]

The policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is that we need the right deal to address the threat and to offer the opportunity of a way forward. We should support those talks as they continue. One reason for that is the situation in the middle east where, as the whole House would acknowledge, the only way forward is a comprehensive two-state solution: a secure Israel alongside a viable and independent state of Palestine. There can be no military solution to that conflict, and all sides must avoid taking action that would make peace harder to achieve, including firing rockets and building illegal settlements, but we should also be straight about where things are. There is no peace process to speak of at the moment, and the fear is that, with each passing day, the window on that two-state solution is closing. That is why every effort must be made to press for an immediate return to negotiations, but the blunt truth is that nobody can want that, or an agreement, more than the parties to the conflict themselves. That is going to require compromise and courageous political leadership on the part of both Israel and the Palestinians, which sadly is not currently evident.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he, as shadow Foreign Secretary, stands by the official Labour party vote last October to recognise the Palestinian state?

[Hilary Benn]

I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance.

Each of these conflicts has its own causes but, as well as being about who has power in a country, one of the threads that runs through many of the conflicts is the uneasy relationship between the secular and the religious. We should understand that all too well in this country, given our history of power struggles, religious intolerance and persecution, but we have now reached a state in which we have shown that it is possible both to uphold universal human rights and to enable people to be absolutely free to practise their religion. That is one of the reasons why Britain is admired by many countries across the world for its genuine freedom, but we cannot be complacent here and we have to be on our guard against the rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia as we stand up against religious and other persecution across the world, whether it be of Christians, of those who are lesbian, gay, transgender or bisexual, or of the Rohingya who have been affected by the recent crisis in Burma.

I welcome the work that Ministers have done to highlight the terrible effects of sexual violence on girls and women in armed conflict. Anyone who has visited the Panzi hospital in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as I had the privilege of doing when I was International Development Secretary, will have been deeply moved by the stories told of rape, sometimes by children too young to understand what had really happened to them, and inspired by the work of Dr Denis Mukwege and his team as they provide care and treatment with the utmost compassion.

The most important human right is the right to life, and this year marks the 50th anniversary of the suspension of capital punishment in Britain, which was followed by its abolition four years later. I hope that, as we oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, as do the Government, the number of people on death row should lead us further to strengthen our efforts around the world to abolish the death penalty.

No debate about Britain and the world can ignore the threat of climate change. As the impact of floods in Britain has shown, climate change is now an issue of national, as well as global, security. We have seen drought in California, floods in Texas and typhoons in the Philippines—these are things the world thought would be experienced only by our children and our grandchildren. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear that, if we are to hold global warming below 2°, emissions need to peak in 2020 and then rapidly decline. That is why we need a strong agreement at the United Nations framework convention on climate change conference in Paris in December that sets ambitious targets; has a goal of net zero global emissions in the second half of this century; has common rules for measuring and verifying; and has a fair deal in which richer countries help to support poorer nations to combat climate change. Britain’s development and climate change assistance will help.

Britain’s record on development assistance and the passing into law of the 0.7% target are shining examples of the power of political movements to change things, just as those who advocate slashing our aid budget are narrow-minded, selfish and wrong. The work we do as a nation to help to send children to school and to vaccinate kids against diseases that our children do not die of, and the help we give to fragile and conflict-affected states, are powerful examples of what being a good neighbour means in this century. The sustainable development goals summit later this year will be a chance, after seven years in which the world has faced inwards because of the global economic crash, to turn our face back outwards and renew our commitment to our fellow citizens.

Ultimately, this is about political will. Progress will depend on our ability as a world to come together and co-operate in tackling poverty and conflict—the two great engines of the movement of people around the globe. We know that civil wars result, on average, in 20 years of lost development. It is no accident that Afghanistan has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world and that many of the Earth’s poorest people live in countries at risk of, or recovering from, war. In the years to come, we may well see people fighting each other not about their politics and their religion, but about water, energy and land. Whatever their character, what these conflicts have in common is that the countries in which they are happening have been unable or unwilling to secure the lives of their citizens. The way forward is clear: replace violence with good politics—its your choice; compromise; build good governance, security and the rule of law; promote economic opportunity, land rights, and trade; improve transport and telecommunications; and encourage openness to the world.

Those are the characteristics of successful states, and the responsibility of the rest of the world is to help this happen. That does not mean the United Kingdom has to do everything—we should not and we cannot—but we should seek to build the world’s capacity to do so. Nor does it mean that, if we propose to act somewhere, we should feel reticent for fear of being accused of inconsistency. Not doing the right thing somewhere because you cannot do the right thing everywhere has never struck me as a compelling reason for inaction.

Martin Luther King put it like this:

“On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway.”

That is why we should stand by the United Nations, despite the fact that it too often lacks the will of its member states and the means to act, because it remains the best hope of a new world order. We face a very simple choice as a world. We cannot shut the door, close the curtains and hope that the rest of the world will go away, because it will not and we will feel the consequences anyway. What we should do is seize the opportunities that our increasingly interdependent and interconnected world offers Britain: new export markets, investment, jobs and a voice. That is why an outward-facing country is what we must continue to be.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

European Union Bill

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have ruled on the matter. The appointment has been made; the disqualification is a fact. Beyond that, I do not think that I can realistically or reasonably be expected to elaborate.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is quite an important issue here about the nature of an application, because if, for the sake of argument, a Member were to express the view that they might feel like resigning from the House, the Chancellor might then appoint them and they would find themselves disqualified. Surely there must be a clear procedure for making it transparent that the Member in question has applied for the Chiltern Hundreds. The question that is being asked—a question to which the House would like an answer—is: was an application made in this case specifically for the Chiltern Hundreds which then led the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the appointment, and was it accepted?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order, but the matter to which he has just referred—whether an application for the Chiltern Hundreds has been made—is, I am afraid, not a matter for me. The matter has been addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the execution of his responsibilities, and this is one of those occasions on which it is right for me to communicate the facts of the situation, but not to wallow in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, if I can put it that way.