Aleppo and Syria

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that we are all judged in the House by our actions and our resolve. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield who spoke of the will of the House. I am afraid that that was absent three years ago when, as several Members pointed out, we took an historic decision not to intervene. I hope that we will show a different measure of resolve this afternoon. Those who are conducting this bombing and who are, in my view, culpable of these crimes should realise that the mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind small.

The same penalties should apply to those involved in deliberate attacks on humanitarian convoys. As many Members have pointed out, on 19 September a UN aid convoy was destroyed near Aleppo and at least 20 people were killed. The vehicles were clearly marked, and the convoy had official permission from the Assad regime to deliver those desperately needed supplies. Satellite photographs that are in the public domain leave no doubt that the convoy was struck from the air. The incident took place after dark; by Russia’s own account, the war planes of Syria’s regime cannot strike targets after dark, and—also by Russia's own account—its aircraft were in the vicinity at the time. All the available evidence therefore points to Russian responsibility for the atrocity.

I trust that the UN board of inquiry will establish exactly what happened, and we in the United Kingdom Government stand ready to help. I emphasise that it is the UK which, week after week, is taking the lead—together with our allies in America and France, and all like-minded nations—in highlighting what is happening in Syria to a world in which, I fear, the wells of outrage are becoming exhausted.

I listened to the passionate speeches from the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), the co-chair of the all-party friends of Syria group, who is carrying on the tradition of Jo Cox, whom we mourn. I listened to all the speeches that made the point that there is no commensurate horror among some of the anti-war protest groups, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley: I would certainly like to see demonstrations outside the Russian embassy. Where is the Stop the War coalition at the moment?

It is up to us in the Government to show a lead, and week after week in the UN we are indeed doing what we can to point out what the Russians are up to and to build an international understanding of what is going on in Syria. I believe that we are having some effect. As Members have pointed out, the Russians have now been driven to mount a veto in the Security Council to protect their own position five times. This is not some anti-Russian campaign; we are not doing this out of any particular hostility towards Russia. Indeed, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, did his utmost to negotiate an agreement with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, that would at least have reduced the killing. Anyone who has studied the Lavrov-Kerry talks will know that John Kerry threw himself into that task in a Herculean way. However, on 3 October, he was driven to abandon his efforts by the attack on the aid convoy and the pounding of Aleppo, which destroyed all hopes of a ceasefire. The US Secretary of State has concluded, I think rightly, that Russia was determined to help Assad’s onslaught against the women, children and families of Aleppo regardless of any agreement.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to tell the House whether he supports the French proposal that, in the case of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council should voluntarily undertake to give up their veto in order to enable the Security Council to take action when these heinous crimes are being committed, as is clearly the case in Aleppo at the moment?

[Boris Johnson]

We are in constant touch with our French colleagues about this proposal. As I said earlier, I am personally very attracted to the idea of holding these people to account before the International Criminal Court, so that is certainly something that I would like to pursue.

Humanitarian Law (Yemen)

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government assessments of breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen.

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

I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for raising this important matter and to pay tribute to him for his work on keeping the House up to date on these matters and providing the scrutiny we need. Recognising the importance of the issue, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a written ministerial statement today to update Parliament on the situation in Yemen, and this update specifically includes references to international humanitarian law.

We are aware of reports of alleged violations of international humanitarian law by parties to the conflict. As I have said on many occasions, we take these allegations very seriously. The Government regularly raise the importance of compliance with international humanitarian law with the Saudi Arabian Government and other members of the Saudi Arabian-led military coalition. The Foreign Secretary raised the issue of international humanitarian law compliance most recently with his Saudi counterpart, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, on 22 August. I also did so in Jeddah on 25 August, at the Yemen conference chaired by Secretary John Kerry.

It is important that, in the first instance, the Saudi Arabian-led coalition conducts thorough and conclusive investigations into incidents where it is alleged that international humanitarian law has been breached. This follows international practice. The coalition has the best insight into its own military procedures and will be able to conduct the most thorough and conclusive investigations. This will also allow the coalition forces to understand what went wrong and to apply the lessons learned in the best possible way. This is the standard that we set for ourselves and our allies. In this respect, Saudi Arabia announced more detail of how incidents of concern involving coalition forces are investigated on 31 January. The Saudi Arabian-led coalition joint investigations assessment team publicly announced the outcome of eight investigations on 4 August, and further publications will follow.

I also want to reiterate that clarifications made in the 21 July written ministerial statement do not reflect a change in position. The changes were made to ensure that the parliamentary record is consistent and that it accurately reflects policy. The statement of 21 July outlines that it is

“important to make clear that neither the MOD nor the FCO reaches a conclusion as to whether or not an IHL violation has taken place in relation to each and every incident of potential concern that comes to its attention. This would simply not be possible in conflicts to which the UK is not a party, as is the case in Yemen.”

The MOD monitors incidents of alleged international humanitarian law violations using the available information. This has been used to form an overall view on Saudi Arabia’s approach and attitude to international humanitarian law. In turn, that informs the risk assessment made under the consolidated criteria on whether there is a risk that something might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We are not acting to determine whether a sovereign state has or has not acted in the breach of international humanitarian law. Instead, as criterion 2(c) requires, we are acting to make an overall judgment.

I am sorry that there has been confusion. We are responding to two written ministerial statements that were in error. After trawling through other such statements, of which there are more than 90, four more were seen to be in error. I came to the House today in order to clarify that, but as soon as I became aware of it I made a statement and wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and the Chairs of the International Development Committee, the Committees on Arms Export Controls, and the Foreign Affairs Committee. I hope that that has clarified the situation.

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the Minister for his reply. As he knows, there have been many reports by the UN and others of breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen by both the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition, which uses British military equipment. Ministers have been repeatedly questioned about that and the Government told the House that they

“have assessed that there has not been a breach of IHL by the coalition.”

Then, as we have just been told, on 21 July—by chance, the day on which the House rose—a written ministerial statement corrected that and other answers, stating that the Government have

“been unable to assess that there has been a breach of IHL by the Saudi-led Coalition.”

That is the very opposite of what the House had been repeatedly told. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say, but he offered no satisfactory explanation of why that happened. First, will he do so now? It was not a minor correction but a consistent failure to provide Members with accurate answers.

Secondly, the mistakes were identified on 24 June, as I understand it, but they were not reported to the House until 27 days later, even though the “Ministerial Code” says that Ministers must correct

“any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”

Why did it take so long?

Thirdly, after months of the Government being apparently incapable of doing an assessment of international humanitarian law, they have managed to undertake one during the recess in relation to the arms export tests, which state that a licence should not be granted

“if there is a clear risk... of a serious violation”

of IHL. The Foreign Secretary said in a written statement only this morning:

“Having regard to all the information available to us, we assess that this test has not been met.”

When is an assessment not an assessment? Will the Minister now tell us what detailed assessment preceded the conclusion that was reported to the House today and what information it drew upon? Will he publish both?

Finally, will the Government now suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia until they are able to assure the House that they have done a proper assessment and can explain why they believe that international humanitarian law has not been breached in Yemen when the UN clearly says that it has?

[Mr Ellwood]

Let us take a step back and make it clear why Saudi Arabia is leading the coalition to support President Hadi. It is allowed to because of UN resolution 2216, of which the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware. Were it not for that, the atrocities that we see and the devastation that is taking place would be a lot worse. The Houthis would have pushed far down through Sana’a, the capital, and all the way to the port of Aden. It would be a humanitarian catastrophe.

Having said that, we absolutely need to make sure that our allies and partners are honouring international humanitarian law, which is why we have regularly raised these matters. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to join me when the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister comes to this place on Wednesday to address any questions that are put by parliamentarians; it is at 10 o’clock and the right hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to come. I will make sure, because I will be moderating the event, that he is able to put some of these questions to the Foreign Minister.

On the general point, the right hon. Gentleman simply repeated the difference in the two lines, which I have endeavoured to correct. I have answered more than 90 parliamentary questions on this matter. We found out that two of them were incorrectly written, with a further trawl showing that four more were incorrectly written, and we immediately decided to correct the matter. I agree that the timing, first in replying to the various heads of the Committees, was slower than it should have been. If he knows me, he will know that I would not sit on this matter; the reason for this was simply that there was a change of government, and there were delays—I did not even know whether I was going to continue in this portfolio. As soon as I became aware of the situation, I made sure that the necessary information was out there and that we did a further trawl to make sure nothing else was erroneous. I then wrote to the relevant Committee Chairs and to the right hon. Gentleman.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

For those of us who took that fateful decision on 18 March 2003, the Chilcot report makes difficult and uncomfortable reading. Our thoughts today should, above all, be with the families, Iraqi and British, who lost loved ones in the conflict; but Members who voted for war—and I was one—did so in good faith.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett); I do not think that we were misled or lied to. Nor, more importantly, does the Chilcot report reach such a conclusion. However, we must all take our full share of the responsibility for that decision. As we now know, the intelligence was wrong, although, as my right hon. Friend said, many countries and many people—including Iraq’s neighbours, some of its own military, and the United Nations—thought that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Had we known the truth at the time, the House would never have voted for war, and nor would I. For that we should apologise, and I certainly do, but at the time we could decide only on the basis of what we thought we knew. Let me also say this, however. If I am asked whether I regret the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, my reply is “No, I do not”, because he was a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, and had used chemical weapons against them.

I want to reflect, very briefly, on three issues: the task of reconstruction that we faced, why Iraq was as it was, and some of the wider lessons. The problem faced by the Department for International Development in Basra and the surrounding provinces in 2003 was not the humanitarian crisis that we had anticipated, but a different set of circumstances altogether. There was the dysfunctional nature of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. There were the problems of the coalition provisional authority, caused by a failure to plan. There was the legacy of Saddam’s dictatorship—when we tried to persuade the authorities in the south to talk to Baghdad, that was the last thing that they wanted to do, because they remembered what dealing with Baghdad had been like in the past. There was the legacy of the repression of the Shi’a, there was the malign neglect of infrastructure, and there was the absence of the United Nations, which no one has mentioned so far this afternoon. The bomb that killed Sérgio Vieira de Mello and 23 of his staff in August 2003 in the Canal Hotel was, in truth, the beginning of an insurgency that grew stronger with each passing month.

The problem facing reconstruction was not money. The Chilcot report itself concludes:

“There are no indications that DFID’s activities in Iraq were constrained by a lack of resources.”

Iraq was, and is still, a middle-income country with oil. In fact, the problem was spending money, including money from the World Bank, because of rapidly deteriorating security. No sooner did we manage to fix something—we made a real contribution to improving the water and electricity supply in the south of the country—than people would try to blow it up.

I want to place on record my thanks for the huge contribution that was made by many courageous individuals with whom I had the privilege of working—people from DFID and other Departments, British and Iraqi, military and civilian, non-governmental organisation staff and humanitarian staff—who tried to help the people of Iraq in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. They all acted in the best traditions of public service, and we should thank them for what they did.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)]

I endorse 100% the thanks and the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman has just paid to DFID officials, but he has passed rather rapidly over the subsequent months during which there appeared to be no planning for reconstruction at all.

[Hilary Benn]

I freely acknowledge that one of the failures, which is set out clearly in the report, was the failure to plan in advance of the decision taken on 18 March 2003. Indeed, there are lessons that we must learn from that. The truth is, however, that Iraq was a suppressed, repressed and brutalised society in which Saddam was the lid on the pressure cooker, and when he left, the lid came off. We have seen that in other countries, too—Libya has already been mentioned.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South rightly said that those who seek to blame the decision to invade for all the subsequent events miss the responsibility that others have for what has gone on. We must take our share of the responsibility, and disbanding the Iraqi army—which meant that thousands of men had no salary and no income, but had a gun and a grievance—was a profound mistake. But Iraqi politicians also have to bear a responsibility for the sectarian policies they have pursued, and those who still engage in suicide bombing cannot turn to us and say, “Look what you made me do”. They must bear responsibility for what they themselves have chosen to do to their fellow citizens.

The best evidence for the difference that good politics and good governance can make in Iraq is shown by the Kurdish region, which, let us not forget, was as it was partly because of the support we had given it through the no-fly zone. As a result, it is now the most stable and relatively prosperous part of Iraq. I pay tribute, as others have, to the peshmerga for the role that they have played, and still play, in trying to defeat Daesh.

The Kurds regard the 2003 invasion as a liberation. Karwan Jamal Tahir, the Kurdistan Regional Government representative to the UK, wrote this week about the Chilcot report that

“there was an Iraq before the 2003 invasion, an Iraq that, for millions, was a concentration camp on the surface and a mass grave beneath.”

We only have to read the reports of Human Rights Watch to see what it had to say at the time about the mass executions, the mass disappearances, the use of chemical weapons, the suppression of the Shi’a majority, particularly after the 1991 uprising, and the attempt by Saddam to eradicate the population and culture of the Marsh Arabs, who had resided continuously in the marshlands for more than 5,000 years. That was what life was like, and we should not forget it.

At least today Iraq has a fragile democracy, and whatever our views on the decision 13 years ago, we have a continuing responsibility to assist, especially when the democratically elected Government ask for our help. That is why this House was right in 2014 to provide support in helping them defeat Daesh, and we have seen the benefit of that support in the progress made in the months since. We have also discovered more about what Daesh does as towns have been liberated. That is why this House was right to vote unanimously to describe what is being done to the Yazidis, Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and Syria as

“genocide at the hands of Daesh.”

I wish the Government would do what the House asked and take that to the UN Security Council so that it can be passed on to the International Criminal Court.

Finally, I turn to the wider lessons. For too long in foreign affairs, Governments have argued, “Better the strong man we know than the chaos we fear”, even when that strong man is a brutal murdering dictator. Yet look at what happens when the strong man falls in Libya, in Egypt and, indeed, in Iraq.

Three years after the end of the second world war, the UN General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the universal declaration of human rights. Article 3 states:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Article 28 states:

“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised.”

Yet for millions of people in the world those rights, so nobly expressed, have remained just words on paper, and they were certainly just words on paper during Saddam’s rule. Surely that will not do. Having created the UN, why do we not have the responsibility to ensure that the principles of the universal declaration of human rights are given universal expression internationally, exactly as we have managed to achieve, for example, in our own country over many years? It is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to do that. That was why we created the UN, which has a moral responsibility and a legitimacy to act, and it is why I am a strong supporter of the Responsibility to Protect. That principle says that state sovereignty is not absolute and the international community has a responsibility to act in certain circumstances.

Finally, even though this is unspoken in the report, I think Chilcot forces us to consider that while there are consequences to taking action—we meet here today to discuss them and their legacy—there are also always consequences of not doing so. For me, that is the most important lesson of Iraq, both before and after 2003.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to bring my remarks to a conclusion, because so many others wish to speak.

As a world, we have a responsibility to be much more effective and determined in dealing with countries and conflicts in circumstances such as these before they turn into brutal and bloody civil wars. I believe that the best way to do that is to demonstrate that multilateralism—countries working together—can provide the answer to the uncomfortable question: what is to be done? The more we do that, the stronger will be our argument against those who would act unilaterally—at times we have to act unilaterally, and we were right to do so in Kosovo and in Sierra Leone—that there is another, better way. For that to happen, however, the United Nations has to do the job for which it was created.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Europe, Human Rights and Keeping People Safe at Home and Abroad

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I begin where the Foreign Secretary ended, and join him in expressing the thanks of the Opposition to our diplomats for the extraordinary service they give to our country and the work they do around the globe. We are all very proud of them.

It is probably true to say that for every single Member in this Chamber today, this Gracious Speech debate has a significance in one respect that is unmatched by any of its predecessors. That is because it takes place on the eve of the referendum decision that our nation will take on 23 June. It is a decision, yes, about our membership of the European Union, but also a decision about something much more fundamental even than that. We will be deciding what kind of country we are and wish to be in a world that is changing, as the Foreign Secretary clearly set out in his speech, and will continue to change as this generation gives way to the next.

Ours is a remarkable country. We are less than 1% of the world’s population, yet its fifth-strongest economy. Our language is spoken by one in five people across the globe—granted, with varying degrees of fluency. We are among the world’s leaders in science, the arts, literature and Nobel prizes. For a small island nation off the coast of Europe, we have great influence around the globe. Every one of these is a reason why the decision we make will be watched closely by friends and others alike—not least because our future as a nation is now more intertwined with the lives and fates of others than it has ever been before.

Technological advance is expanding our knowledge of the world and shrinking the time it takes to discover more about it. An event can be seen almost instantaneously on a mobile phone on the other side of the world. Global flows of goods and services, information, finance, ideas and people are expanding. This world offers us great opportunity, but presents us with challenges too. It demands that we look beyond these shores if we are to ensure that Britain continues to be safe and successful. The national interest in this era is best served by an international approach. That means playing a full part in global institutions and not walking away from them, and it means defending human rights and our values both at home and abroad. I think it is fair to say that as some politics moves to the extremes, a struggle is taking place in Europe for the soul of the continent, and in that context I congratulate Alexander Van der Bellen on his election victory as the new President of Austria. We saw how close that result was.

With regard to the referendum, there has been much debate about the facts. “Give us the facts,” the people demand.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

May I draw attention to one of the facts that may well emerge from the referendum? If the European Union achieves more than 55% support in Scotland, will that not show that the European Union is more popular among Scots than the British Union, the United Kingdom?

[Hilary Benn]

I look forward to the contribution of voters in Scotland to ensuring that we remain in the European Union. I think it would be nice to see a more vigorous campaign from the SNP in support of a remain vote, but that is in the hands of those who sit on the SNP Benches.

The first of the facts is the fact of our membership of the European Union, and what it has brought. It has brought jobs, growth and investment. It has brought rights for workers and consumers that are guaranteed from John O’Groats to the tip of the Peloponnese, and from Lisbon to Riga. It has brought paid holidays, improved maternity and paternity leave, limits on working times, and a fairer deal for agency and temporary workers: all those are protected by the EU. It has brought environmental protection and progress, from cleaner air to cleaner beaches, and from better safeguarding of our most precious habitats to tackling dangerous climate change. Europe has acted together to make a difference. As the Foreign Secretary said, we have access to the largest single market in the world, to which we sell 44% of our exports, and indeed, through our membership, we have trade deals with 53 other countries’ markets. That shows how Europe’s collective negotiating strength achieves stronger trade with the rest of the world than we could hope to achieve alone.

When it comes to domestic security, whether we face the threat of terrorism or organised crime, we are made safer by working with our allies, sharing information and bringing criminals to justice through the European arrest warrant. In relation to national security and dealing with climate change, Europe has shown great leadership. The Iran nuclear deal was led by the European Union. As for standing up to Russian aggression in Ukraine, the sanctions to which the Foreign Secretary referred are clearly biting on the Russian economy. I am sure that the whole House will support what he said earlier about the renewal of those sanctions in July, until such time as the Minsk agreement is fully observed by Russia.

As well as thanking our diplomats, we should thank the police, the security services and our armed forces for their commitment and for the sacrifices that they have made in order to keep us safe. It is important that, in the legislation promised in the Gracious Speech, we update the law on investigatory powers to enable them to go on doing that effectively; but Labour will hold the Government to account to ensure that, by means of strong safeguards, the right balance is struck between security and privacy.

All this shows that the European Union gives us influence in the world, and a louder voice. It is the very opposite of the picture painted by the leave campaign of “poor old Britain”, put upon and unable to cope. For those who remember the ad, “The Seven Stone Weakling” is having sand kicked in its face by the other member states. What nonsense! What a lack of faith in our abilities as a nation! The truth is that we are a strong and influential member state. That is certainly how other EU member states see us, and it is time that the leave campaign stopped trying to sell us short.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Crispin Blunt]

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was making an excellent case in the first part of his speech, but he is now entering a different territory in which he is putting up Aunt Sallies to be attacked. Two internationalisms are competing here, one that takes a global view of the world, and one that is within the European Union. Those are both perfectly respectable views, and they are based on internationalism. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to make a positive case for his side of the argument, rather than putting up Aunt Sallies which are not actually true.

[Hilary Benn]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I am making a positive case. However, I can see that the charge that I just levelled at the leave campaigners has wounded precisely because that is what they argue: that somehow Britain cannot cope with being in the European Union—that we cannot manage the place that we have in the institution.

I also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a fallacy to suggest that somehow, in this referendum, we are faced with a choice between the one and the other. We hear that in the debate about trade. People say that we should be trading with other parts of the world, but our trade with China has doubled since 2010. Have we been prevented from increasing our trade with China because we are part of the European Union? Of course we have not. We can do both. Indeed, Britain’s tradition suggests that not only are we capable of doing both, but we will benefit from doing both.

[Mr Baron]

I cannot help observing that, actually, Aunt Sallies are being created here. The leave camp is not suggesting that we are being kicked around; that is a negative view that the right hon. Gentleman puts to the leave camp. What we are suggesting is that there is a much brighter future outside the EU. There is a fundamental difference.

Of course we can stand up for ourselves: we are the fifth largest economy in the world. We have the world’s most prominent language, and so forth. But the fact that we have a brighter future outside is illustrated by the fact that we are currently forbidden to negotiate trade deals with countries unless they are routed through the EU. If we were to come out of the EU, we could do that, and it would lead to greater prosperity.

[Hilary Benn]

Let me say first that damaging our economy and people’s job prospects is not my idea of a brighter future, and secondly that I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him down the Canadian road. We know that it has taken Canada seven years so far to negotiate its own trade deal with the European Union.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

As a fellow Leeds MP—along with the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who is also sitting on the Labour Front Bench—I recognise, as we all do, how important a role the University of Leeds plays in our city in terms of employment and investment. Members of the leave campaign are going around with posters which say that all the money we contribute to the EU will go into the NHS. That is their policy, whatever the rights and wrongs of it may be. Does it not concern the right hon. Gentleman that, in that event, there simply will not be the investment in our higher education research that currently comes from Europe, and that, therefore, either those people do not care or it is a lie?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman has identified one of many inconsistencies in the arguments advanced by the leave campaign. It is noticeable that every single university in the country has spoken out about the importance to universities of research, the flow of ideas across Europe—never mind the world—and the benefits and the money that are gained because we have world-class universities. We should pay attention to them, to every single survey of industry opinion that has been conducted, and to all the other warnings and assessments that have been undertaken. It is no longer any good for members of the leave campaign, every time a view is expressed that is counter to their argument, to wave their hands and say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”

[Tom Brake]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I will, but then I must make a little more progress.

[Tom Brake]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when the Brexiters campaign on the issue of trade, they should be aware of the fact that India currently invests more in the United Kingdom than in all the other EU countries put together, and that the UK invests more in India than any other G20 country?

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he has given me the opportunity to add to his point. We are the most successful country in the European Union—more successful than Germany, more successful than France—in attracting foreign direct investment. There are a number of reasons for that, some of which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, which the Chair of the Select Committee welcomed; but there is no doubt that one of the reasons is the fact that we are part of a single market consisting of 500 million people.

[Mike Gapes]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the free trade agreements. Is it not a fact that since the European Union signed the free trade agreement with South Korea, the UK’s trade with Korea has massively increased? We also have massive Korean investment in this country.

[Hilary Benn]

That is indeed the case, and it shows that we can have the best of both worlds because we are gaining from the trade deals that the European Union has negotiated at the same time as increasing our trade with other countries with which Europe does not currently have a trade deal.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the significant inward investment in the automotive trade in the north-east of England, not only at Renault-Nissan but at Nifco, at Elring Klinger and at A. V. Dawson in Middlesbrough, which are all part of the supply chain? If we had to wait seven years for a new trade deal to be reached, what would be the likelihood of Nissan or Hitachi continuing to invest in our region?

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The north-east, along with Wales, probably understands better than any other part of the country just how important membership of the European Union is to the economic prospects of the communities and families that depend on the jobs that come from that investment, not least because the north-east exports a higher proportion of what it produces to Europe than to other parts of the world.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Hilary Benn]

Oh heavens! I shall give way to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and then to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham); then I must make some progress.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Trade in the economy is very important, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that, but is there not something that is more important? Did not his late, great father say that when he looked at the European Union, what he saw was clearly not democratic? Is not our democracy more fundamental than all the points he is making today, and should not the sovereign right to govern this country rest in this House and with the British people?

[Hilary Benn]

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it does. My father and I were in agreement 41 years ago when we both campaigned to leave the Common Market, but the British people in their wisdom voted to stay. I change my mind, and my late, dear father did not. However, he taught me many things, one of which was stand up for what you believe in and to say what you think, and that is what I am doing from this Dispatch Box today. Also, every subsequent change relating to our membership of the European Union has been agreed by this House—by our democracy—and the referendum will give the British people the chance to take this really important decision. I am making my argument as to why we on this side of the House are passionately in support of remaining in the European Union.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on two points that in my view no one should be in any doubt about. First, trade is absolutely critical. All the countries with which I and all the other trade envoys deal are in no doubt that we will do much better with them by being within the European Union rather than outside it. I am also in no doubt that the 53 agreements that the European Union has entered into would take a very long time to replicate—if, indeed, that could be done at all. Lastly, on inward investment, I am also in no doubt that a wave of foreign direct investment that could come here is being held up at the moment as a result of uncertainty.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with all three points that the hon. Gentleman has just made, particularly the last one. We all know that what business hates more than anything else is uncertainty, and at the moment there is great uncertainty about our future in the European Union. We need to end that uncertainty as quickly as possible, and we need to end it in the right way.

Greater than all the benefits that I have tried to describe thus far is, for me, the most significant contribution that the European idea has made to our lives. That is, quite simply, 70 years of peace on a continent that had been at war for centuries. Anyone who has visited those graveyards in France and Belgium, as many Members have, will understand the significance of that achievement. You only have to walk along the rows of graves in which the flower of two generations of young Europeans rest, having given their youth and their lives, to understand the force of that achievement.

That achievement did not come about by accident. It was the sheer determination and vision of Europe’s founders to end the history of slaughter and to build something better out of the ashes of a still smouldering Europe that made it happen. The Schuman declaration said it all. It resolved to make a future war not merely unthinkable but materially impossible. What it achieved was peace, as the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames)—he is not here today—described most eloquently in his remarkable speech back in February. That peace even has the seal of approval of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who wrote two years ago in his biography of Churchill that Europe’s securing of the peace had been a “spectacular success”. What a pity that he has learned nothing from his own former wisdom.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the people who lie in those graves fought and died for a united Europe? Did they not die for the right of their own countries and the occupied countries to govern themselves? Does he really believe that in the decade before the European Economic Community came into existence there was any risk of war between the democracies created at the end of the second world war?

[Hilary Benn]

Like many Members of this House, I lost an uncle in the second world war. He was an RAF pilot and he was killed three weeks after D-day. He fought, along with everybody else, against the ideology of Nazism and what it did, which is why the rise of the far right in Europe should give us all cause for concern and remind us of the dangers of the past. The growth and stability of the post-war period have led people to believe that that is all done and dusted, but it is not. It is still with us. The values we are fighting to uphold are the values of co-operation between free democracies that have come together of their own volition in the interests of maintaining peace and building something better for the future. That is the difference between those who argue to remain and those who think we should leave.

[Stephen Doughty]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. My grandfather and great-grandfather fought in those wars, and the fact that we have not had to endure such wars is great testament to the European project. Does he agree that we have moved on inexorably from the era of dictatorships in Spain, Portugal and Greece? We had fascism, the horrors of the Balkans and the situation in Cyprus, but Europe has taken us forward from many of those conflicts and instabilities on our continent.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should learn from history, and we should recall that Europe has acted as a magnet to countries by offering stability, the rule of law and other values. Despite the occasional irritations and problems that 28 member states trying to reach agreement can cause from time to time, Europe has been a powerful force for good in our continent, and we cast it aside at our peril. I believe we would do so to our regret.

Those are the facts of our membership. We know what membership gives us and we know what it involves. What is the other fact? It is very simply this. The answer to the honest question of what would happen if we left the European Union is that we do not know. We have heard a number of answers from the leave campaign during the debate so far, one of which is that it will all be fine; another is that we will get a better deal outside. We hear a lot of that. I recently took part in a debate in which I heard the argument that nothing needed to change. That is an odd argument, because if nothing needs to change why on earth are they campaigning so hard for us to leave the European Union? So, what will happen if we leave? The honest answer is that we do not know—and there we have it: two facts. We know what remaining in the European Union will involve. We do not know what will happen if we leave.

I do not believe that it is a coincidence that the Foreign Secretary and his predecessor—both of whom it would be fair to describe as having been regarded as Eurosceptics—having now served in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, are campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union because they have seen at first hand precisely how being a member gives us influence in the world. We should therefore give thanks for the fact that this Government have not one but two departments of education in Whitehall. The first is called the Department for Education and the second is called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is a shame that the Prime Minister has been unable to allow more Conservative Eurosceptics to serve in the FCO and go through its excellent retraining and conversion programme.

Turning to Syria, the House will welcome the renewed commitment in the Gracious Speech to support international efforts to bring peace to this brutalised and war-weary country and its long-suffering people. The civil war has raged for five years. Half the population have fled their homes. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, more than 360,000 have lost their lives, mostly at the hands of President Assad, and Russian airstrikes have killed 1,700 civilians in the past six months alone. The determination of some of those fleeing that destruction to try to make it to Europe, despite the perilous, dangerous journey, shows their utter desperation. While the Government’s offering of humanitarian aid has been exemplary, their offering of a home to those fleeing has not. Time and again, they have fallen short and have had to be shamed and forced into action. The immediate priority, as the Foreign Secretary said, is to enable the next round of peace talks to take place, and the ceasefire has to be observed for that to happen. It is unacceptable for the Assad regime to continue to attack opposition forces when they are expected to sit opposite his representatives at the table to try and negotiate a peaceful solution.

We also need humanitarian access. I was struck when Staffan de Mistura said five days ago how unacceptable it is that “well-fed, grown-up” soldiers blocked the delivery of baby food to the town of Darayya. If access is not significantly and speedily improved, we should use airdrops to reach civilians, and I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said on that a little earlier.

Daesh has taken brutal and cruel advantage of the civil war, and its ideology is spreading across north Africa and other parts of the world. The whole House has agreed that we must stand up to its barbarity. It is good to see reports that its grip, particularly in Iraq, has been weakened in recent months as a result of the efforts of the Iraqis, the peshmerga, and the international military coalition. However, we must also hold it to account for what it has done.

The UK can be proud of our consistent support for the International Criminal Court as a means of dealing with crimes against humanity and war crimes. There is no doubt that Daesh is killing people in Syria and Iraq because of their ethnicity, race and religion and that what it is doing has all the hallmarks of genocide, of crimes against humanity and of war crimes. Look what it has done to the Yazidis. When some Members, of which I was one, sat and listened to a young Yazidi woman describe how Daesh came to her village, killed all the men, murdered her mother, and took her into sexual slavery, we were forced to look into the darkness of human depravity. On 20 April, when the House voted for the Government to refer the crimes immediately to the ICC through the UN Security Council, Ministers abstained, but I hope they will now demonstrate to the House that they are prepared to take that forward. It is important that the evidence is preserved, so that those responsible are held to account in the end.

As we heard earlier today, many across the House have deep concerns about the alleged war crimes committed in Yemen and the hidden humanitarian disaster there. According to Oxfam, 80% of the population urgently need humanitarian assistance, and because of the risks for journalists it is an unreported humanitarian disaster. The Opposition have repeatedly called for an independent inquiry into alleged violations of international humanitarian law and for the Government immediately to suspend all arms sales to Saudi Arabia until an inquiry has taken place. There is mounting evidence of serious breaches of international humanitarian law and a clear risk that British-made weapons are being used, but the Government are burying their head in the sand.

The Foreign Secretary will be well aware of the number of UN officials who have spoken out on the matter, including the Secretary-General, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, the humanitarian coordinator for Yemen, the special advisor on the prevention of genocide, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the special rapporteur on the right to food and the special advisor on the responsibility to protect. I do not need to repeat for the Foreign Secretary’s benefit the words of the UN panel of experts on Yemen’s final report, because part of what it had found was quoted earlier in the debate. UK and EU law could not be clearer. The Government should not grant arms export licences to a country if there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Government are simply not taking their responsibilities seriously enough. The answers we received during today’s urgent question do not really bear scrutiny.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I must pick up on that last point. The urgent question related to equipment that has not been manufactured for two and a half decades. There can be no question of any supply of that type of equipment. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman makes that point.

[Hilary Benn]

I welcome the fact that further inquiries will be made about what Amnesty International has found, but I am making a broader point about repeated allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law. The Government’s response seems to be that they will ask the Saudis to look at the matter and see what they say. It is time for an independent investigation.

[Alex Salmond]

If it was found that Saudi Arabia had used a cluster bomb that was manufactured in the UK—even one made some time ago—would that not in itself be a reason to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

It might depend on what aircraft or means was used to deliver it, because we have of course sold a large amount of military equipment to Saudi Arabia. There is mounting evidence of the use of cluster munitions, despite the denials that were reported once again to the House. I think the Foreign Secretary at one point said he believed we have got to a point at which we will have a commitment that such munitions are not being used, but I would like not only to have that commitment from the Saudi authorities but to see an absence of evidence on the ground, given what is being discovered by those who are examining what is occurring in the midst of this terrible conflict.

I welcome the Government’s commitment in their legislative programme to ratify the Hague convention on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict. We have been calling for that, and it will be an important step forward. I hope it will strengthen the UK’s commitment to the protection of cultural heritage in conflict zones around the world, including, given UNESCO’s concerns, in Yemen and Iraq.

As a member of the UN Security Council, Britain has a special responsibility to stand up for international law and fundamental rights. Indeed, the UK’s security is best protected when we do so, which is why any proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act would damage our reputation and give comfort to those who seek to undermine human rights in their countries. I heard the Foreign Secretary when he talked about what the permanent secretary at the FCO said, but it is troubling when the permanent secretary goes to the Foreign Affairs Committee and says that human rights are

“not one of the top priorities”

in the Department. I say to the Foreign Secretary that if the permanent secretary meant that human rights are being mainstreamed, the message has not been terribly well communicated.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Britain did not have a reputation in the world for the protection of human rights before the Human Rights Act?

[Hilary Benn]

Of course we had a reputation for that, and I am not saying we did not, but having taken the steps of, first, helping to found the European convention at the end of the second world war and, secondly, putting the Human Rights Act on the statute book, so that people in this country can access those rights without having to make the long journey to the European Court of Human Rights, it is a profound mistake to argue that we should weaken our position. Indeed, there are those who express concern about our membership of the European convention itself, and it is depressing that there are those who argue that, to “offer leadership” to the world, we should resile from the commitments we freely entered into, as some Conservative Members seek to do. [Interruption.] The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), nods approvingly in my direction, and I pay tribute to those who are standing up against them.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way one last time and then bring my remarks to a close.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about human rights, but I stand with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this. Britain’s history of human rights goes back hundreds of years—to, indeed, Magna Carta. On the human rights act, we are arguing not about human rights as they are practised in England but about the stretch of the judiciary into areas that are correctly the role of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that human rights should be used to circumvent Parliament by using law to intervene in other areas.

[Hilary Benn]

I am not arguing that. Let us take the most famous case of all—voting rights for prisoners, a subject dear to the Home Secretary’s heart. How many years ago was that judgment handed down? [Interruption.] Not that they should have voting rights—let me say that for the avoidance of doubt. Do prisoners in Britain have voting rights? No, they do not, because the way in which we constructed the Human Rights Act allows Parliament, in the end, to take that decision. Methinks those who argue that we should take these steps protest too much. We should be proud of our reputation, our history, and the foundations on which we have built our continuing commitment to human rights, including the European convention and the Human Rights Act, which the last Labour Government put on the statute book.

As the United Kingdom, we have always been at our best when we have been an outward-looking and confident nation. We helped to build the institutions that have given the world the best chance to make progress: the United Nations, NATO, and of course the European Union, where we were latecomers. Let us look at the challenges that our children and grandchildren will face: fighting climate change; reducing poverty; dealing with conflict—people fighting over religion, as we see currently, and over water, land and energy—the rise of the politics of the right; and dealing with the consequences of large numbers of people moving around the globe. Mark my words: that will be the story of this century. The question we have to ask ourselves is: what will give us the best chance to manage those challenges and deal with the changes they will see in their lives, just as we have seen in ours?

When I was born, the world’s population was 2.7 billion, but by the time my grandchildren reach my age it will be about 10 billion. The British empire has gone and has been replaced by the Commonwealth. The Berlin wall has given way to the new democracies of Europe. We have seen the rise of terrorism, new global powers and the astonishing economic development of China. The old divide between the domestic and the foreign is increasingly eroding and becoming blurred because globalisation is transforming our world.

As a nation, in 30 days’ time we will be confronted with a choice about how we will deal with that transformation. For me, it is a choice between optimism and pessimism. It is a choice between outward-facing patriotism and inward-looking nationalism—the former built on playing a proud and leading role through co-operation in the very institutions we helped to fashion, and the latter seeking to lure us into turning our back on them. Those are the two competing visions of Britain’s future, and I hope that on 23 June the British people will vote for co-operation, because it represents the best hope we have for that future and for the lives of those who will come after us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right: sharing information between European security agencies, intelligence agencies and border police is key to breaking the business model of the smugglers. That is one of the key elements to solving this problem. Such people are being exploited by the organised criminal gangs that are taking their money, often for very little in return, and we need to nail them.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

On migration to Europe, there has been a great deal of discussion recently about potential new EU member states. Article 49 of the treaty, which deals with countries applying to join the EU, says:

“The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously”.

It is therefore clear that each existing member state has a veto. However, this weekend a serving member of the Government went on national television and denied this. One of the seven principles of public life is:

“Holders of public office should be truthful.”

Will the Foreign Secretary therefore take this opportunity to confirm the correct position, as the Prime Minister has already done on Sunday?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, I am very happy to do so. As we have said ad nauseam, everyone single member state has a veto on the accession of any new member state. In our case, any proposal to expand the European Union would require the approval of this House. I can assure the House that those safeguards remain in place and are undiluted, and all my colleagues in the Government should be fully aware of that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I start by offering my heartfelt condolences to the people of Sri Lanka affected by the terrible floods and landslides that have hit so much of the country. I expressed that message personally to Foreign Minister Samaraweera last week.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will give his assessment of progress at the next meeting of the UNHRC in Geneva in June. Before then, I myself will visit Geneva to discuss with him how we can encourage and support the Government to deliver fully against their commitments. We recognise that there is still much more to be done, and the UK will continue to support and encourage the Sri Lankan Government to deliver fully against their commitments.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Amnesty International reported this week that unexploded British-made BL-755 cluster submunitions have been found in Hayran, Yemen. We know what these weapons can do, especially to children, who mistake them for toys. Amnesty also reports that on 1 March two children near the village of Fard were herding goats when they found some other cluster bomblets. They played with them until one went off, killing the eight-year-old and severely injuring the 11-year-old. Does the Foreign Secretary regard the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas as a breach of international humanitarian law?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the UK has long since given up the use of cluster munitions. Their use or supply is illegal under British law. As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said earlier, the weapons described were manufactured decades ago, but the Ministry of Defence is urgently investigating the allegations, and I believe there will be an urgent question on this subject shortly.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful for that reply. As the House knows, we are a signatory to the convention banning the use of cluster munitions, but sadly Saudi Arabia is not. It is alleged that this particular type of BL-755 was designed to be dropped from one specific jet—the UK-manufactured Tornado used by the Saudi air force. Under the cluster munitions convention, member states should

“make…best efforts to discourage States not party to this Convention from using cluster munitions.”

What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to discourage the use of British-made cluster munitions mounted on British-made jets by Saudi Arabia—an ally with which we have extensive military co-operation—and will he now commit to suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia and to making the strongest possible representations that it must cease the use of cluster munitions in this conflict?

[Mr Hammond]

We need to be careful. There is no evidence yet that Saudi Arabia has used cluster munitions. The right hon. Gentleman is right that Saudi Arabia is not a signatory to the convention banning cluster munitions, but nor is the United States. We have always made it clear to the Saudi Arabians that we cannot support the use of cluster munitions in any circumstances, as to do so would be unlawful for Ministers and officials in this country. We believe we have an assurance from Saudi Arabia that cluster munitions have not been used in the conflict, but as I said earlier, the MOD is urgently investigating the allegations. I am sure that my ministerial colleague will have more to say in response to the UQ.

Libya

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement. The situation in Libya over the past five years has been bloody and dangerous, and it is important to recall that it was Colonel Gaddafi’s brutal and violent response to the protests that erupted early in 2011 that triggered a civil war and United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, which authorised a no-fly zone and action to protect civilians. This House voted to support that action, but since Gaddafi’s fall, Libya has become a land of rival governments awash with rival militias. There is also the growing presence of Daesh and insecurity. Questions have been raised about the focus of this Government, and indeed of the international community, on what followed.

I join the Foreign Secretary in praising the enormous efforts of Libyan politicians, of the United Nations and of Special Representative Martin Kobler to reconcile the competing institutions and encourage them to form a single Government of national unity. I also join him in supporting UN resolution 2259, which has recognised the progress that has been made and called on member states to provide support to the new Government as requested .

We on this side of the House welcome the establishment of the Libyan Government of national accord led by Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj. As the Foreign Secretary said, they face a formidable task in ensuring security, restoring public services, building up the economy and tackling the threat from Daesh, but does he agree that their ability to do so will be determined by the extent to which they can gain support and consent right across Libya as they face the task of re-establishing governance in all parts of the country? Will he set out what assessment he has made of their capacity to do that, particularly in respect of the rival militias? Can he say anything more about the conversations he is having with our allies, including other EU Foreign Ministers, about what further steps could be taken to support stability and peace in Libya? Does he expect there to be a further UN Security Council resolution?

The United Kingdom Government indicated previously that they were not contemplating a British combat mission in Libya. Given the circumstances there, I think that that is the right approach to take, and I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for confirming again today that the Government have no plans to deploy British troops in such a role. Can he therefore give us a categorical assurance that, were that view to change, any proposal to deploy forces in a combat role would come before this House for a vote?

The Foreign Secretary has, however, spoken about the possibility of providing training for the Libyan military. Did Prime Minister Sarraj ask for specific types of technical or training support during their recent discussions? Does the Foreign Secretary envisage that any such deployment, should it happen, would take place in Libya, or might it involve providing training in a neighbouring country? Will he give an undertaking that he will come to the House before any such deployment takes place and seek its approval as appropriate?

On economic development, we support all efforts by the international community to assist the new Government in improving the lives of their citizens and getting the economy moving again, including through oil production. On migration, is further support being requested by the new Prime Minister, or is that being considered through the EU naval operation in the Mediterranean, Operation Sophia, to enhance Libya’s ability to disrupt criminal human smuggling and people trafficking? The people of Libya have suffered a great deal in recent years, and this moment is enormously important for their future. It is the responsibility of the world community to do all that it can to help the new Government to succeed.

[Mr Hammond]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Let me join in his praise of UN Special Representative Martin Kobler—it was remiss of me not to give that praise myself—who is an absolute dynamo. Since he was appointed, he has literally been shuttling between the parties, groups and power brokers in Libya. It is very much due to his energy and effort that we have got where we are today.

There is a Government of national unity, but we should be clear about Libya’s historical context: it is a country that has traditionally had a high degree of devolution in its governance structure, which is often held together by a strong man at the centre. We now need to find a new model, under which the Government of national accord will be a national umbrella organisation, but Prime Minister Sarraj has made it clear that that will work only if municipalities are empowered and prepared to take on a significant degree of devolution. A devolved model is the only model that will work.

I also need to make it clear that the Libyan Government are in a very early stage of operation. At the moment, the Prime Minister and his Ministers are sitting in a naval base, physically separated from the civil servants who could support them. Yesterday, they retook operational control of three Ministries, which is a good step forward, but it will only be as they are able to re-enter the Ministries and regain working contact with civil servants that they can start to do some of the detailed work. That situation underpins and shapes my answers to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, because he is absolutely right that the GNA can succeed only with the support and consent of the various factions in Libya.

Let me say one other thing by way of scene-setting. When I went to Tripoli yesterday, I was expecting to find the Government incarcerated in a heavily fortified military base, defending against all comers, but that is not the situation. The base is relatively lightly defended, and it was clear that the Prime Minister’s ability to operate there is based on the consent and acquiescence of the militias operating in that part of the capital. He is acutely conscious of the need to build a bottom-up consensus around his activities.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the European Union. I returned from Tripoli to Luxembourg last night, where there was a discussion at 28, including Defence Minister colleagues, about future support to Libya, looking at the possibility of extending Operation Sophia in a counter-migration role. No decisions were taken, but the matter is clearly high on the European Union’s agenda. The key will be to develop a package that also addresses Libyan top priorities. The Libyans are focused on migration, but it is in all honesty not their top priority. We have to create an environment in which delivering on Europe’s top priorities also addresses those of the Libyan people.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a UN Security Council resolution. I have not heard anyone suggest that there is an immediate need for a further resolution. The next moves at the UN will be the granting of some exemptions to the arms embargo, and possibly the unfreezing of some assets to allow the Government to function properly.

The House would of course be consulted were the UK Government to decide at any point that they wanted to insert ground forces, or any forces, in Libya in a combat role. We do not envisage that happening in the current circumstances.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in which a training deployment is contemplated, and asked me whether we would seek the House’s approval for a training deployment. I should be clear that it is a question not of approval, but of consulting the House and allowing it to express an opinion through a vote, and the history of the past three years shows that the Government will take great notice of that. However, that would not be the case in the event of a training deployment. We have training deployments around the world. In fact, my Ministry of Defence colleagues informed me just before I came to the House that we currently have 16 permanent training deployments. It is not appropriate for the House to be consulted on such a deployment as if it were a combat deployment.

Did the Libyan Prime Minister ask for training support? Not explicitly, but he did indicate that the Libyan Government may well ask the international community for some form of support as they develop their plans. I gained the personal impression that his instinct is very much at the lighter end of the scale. He clearly does not want to be seen to be dependent on foreign support and wants to do as much as possible internally, using Libyan capabilities. Of course, if there is any question of training, we would want to look at the options for training outside Libya, as well as the permissibility of training inside Libya.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Indeed I can. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the current visit by Their Royal Highnesses, which is going extremely well. We have incredibly good bilateral relations with India, and the visit here by Mr Modi was a great success. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the soft power we have in our diplomatic armoury, from the BBC, to the British Council, the GREAT campaign, the Newton Fund and the Chevening and Marshall scholarship programmes. All those are part of the jigsaw that helps us to do business and to project British values right around the world.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said yesterday that all of Britain’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies, apart from Anguilla and Guernsey, have now agreed to provide our law enforcement and tax authorities with full access to information on beneficial ownership. Why will there not be public access to the registers, given that the Prime Minister wrote to the overseas territories on 25 April 2014 to say that making such information open would help “to tackle crime”, and given that, from June this year, the British register of beneficial ownership will be open to the public? If openness is good enough for the UK, why should we accept a different position in our overseas territories?

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

It is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State does not congratulate the overseas territories on the enormous progress they have made on tax transparency and on opening up for law enforcement agencies. This is really superb progress, but as the Prime Minister outlined yesterday, it is not an international standard, and we need to move towards eliminating all corrupt, terrorist and money laundering practices across the globe. While there are states in the US where people can open companies and not have full public registers, it is only fair to say to the overseas territories, “Congratulations on progress so far.” Longer term, the Prime Minister and the Government are clear that we want greater transparency, and that will be about a move towards public access.

[Hilary Benn]

I do welcome progress; I was just asking why the overseas territories will not meet the standard Britain is going to set.

Our membership of the European Union helps us in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion—an example being the fourth anti-money laundering directive, on which the UK has taken the lead. The directive will, for the first time, oblige all member states to keep registers of beneficial owners and to make those open to tax and law enforcement authorities and to others who have a legitimate interest, including investigative journalists. Does that not show that leaving the EU could hinder the fight against financial criminality in Europe, because the best way to tackle such criminality is to work in partnership with our neighbours?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are many ways in which we benefit, in taking action against crime, through this kind of European co-operation. What I hear from the police service is that almost all serious crime these days has an international dimension of some kind, and countries need to work together to tackle that. The current system, where we can choose whether to opt in to individual justice and home affairs measures, really does give us the best of both worlds.

Syria: Russian Redeployment and the Peace Process

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the announcement by Russia that it is redeploying the main part of its force from Syria, and on the implications of this for the peace process.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

We have, of course, seen the media reports of a Russian withdrawal of forces, including a report this morning that the first group of Russian planes has left the Hmeimim air base to return to Russia. However, I should tell the House that, as far as I have been able to determine, none of the members of the International Syria Support Group had any advance notice of this Russian announcement, and we have yet to see any detailed plans behind Russia’s announcement yesterday.

We do not yet have any independent evidence to verify Russia’s claims that military withdrawals have already begun. We are monitoring developments closely, and it will be important to judge Russia by its actions. It is worth remembering that Russia announced a withdrawal of forces in Ukraine which later turned out merely to be a routine rotation of forces. If this announcement represents a genuine decision by Russia to continue to de-escalate the military conflict, to ensure compliance with the cessation of hostilities and to encourage the Syrian regime to participate in peace negotiations in good faith, it will be welcome.

Now is the time for all parties to focus on the political negotiations, which resumed in Geneva yesterday. Only a political transition away from Assad’s rule to a Government representative of all Syrians will deliver the peace Syrians so desperately need and so ardently desire and give us a Government in Damascus able to focus on defeating terrorism and rebuilding Syria. There can be no peace in Syria while Assad remains in power. Russia has unique influence to help to make the negotiations succeed, and we sincerely hope that it will use it.

Since it came into force on 27 February, the cessation of hostilities has resulted in a significant reduction in violence in Syria. However, there have been a significant number of reports of violations, including the continued use of barrel bombs, which we have been discussing with our partners in the ISSG ceasefire taskforce in Geneva. We have serious concerns that the Assad regime has been using the cessation of hostilities to pursue its military objectives and that it is not serious about political negotiations. Swift action to address these violations is therefore vital to reduce the violence and show the Syrian people, including the Syrian opposition, that both Russia and the Assad regime are abiding by the terms of the cessation of hostilities. Failure to do so threatens the prospects for continued political negotiations.

We look to Russia, as guarantor for the regime and its backers, to use its unique influence to ensure compliance and to make clear to the Assad regime its expectation that it must negotiate in good faith. After investing so much in Assad, Mr Putin must show the world that he can exercise control over his protégé. At the same time, we call for complete and unfettered humanitarian access across Syria and an end to all violations of international humanitarian law, in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 2254.

We are relieved that desperately needed aid convoys are now arriving in some besieged areas of Syria, including some of those named in the International Syria Support Group agreement of 11 February in Munich. It is imperative that that continues and, in particular, that access is provided to Darayya, which has not yet seen any deliveries. The Assad regime must lift all sieges and grant full and sustained humanitarian access across Syria.

No one will be more delighted than I if, after five months of relentless bombing, Russia is genuinely winding down its military support to the brutal Assad regime, but, as in all matters relating to Russia, it is the actions, rather than the words, that count. We shall be watching carefully over coming days to see whether the announcement’s potential promise turns into reality.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. The conflict in Syria has now raged for five years. Half the population have fled their homes. Neighbouring countries have borne the brunt of the refugee crisis. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, over 360,000 people have lost their lives, mostly at the hands of President Assad, and Russian airstrikes have killed 1,700 civilians in the past six months alone.

Yesterday’s announcement of the withdrawal of Russian forces will be cautiously welcomed by all of us, but I agree with the Foreign Secretary that it needs to be carried through, in particular if it is going to support the ceasefire and de-escalate tensions. The Foreign Secretary has told the House that he has received no direct information about the likely timescale and extent of the withdrawal, but will he comment on the statement attributed to a Russian Defence Minister, who said that Russian forces will continue to attack so-called terrorists, a term which Russia has used in the past to cover airstrikes on the Syrian opposition? Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what discussions, if any, he has had with Foreign Minister Lavrov about this?

How might the withdrawal of Russian aircraft change the type of missions that the RAF and others in the anti-Daesh coalition are undertaking in Syria? Given the Foreign Secretary’s latest assessment of the ceasefire, the extent to which it is holding and the violations to which he referred, what action are the British Government and other Governments proposing to take? Does he agree that a full withdrawal would improve opposition forces’ confidence in the ceasefire and help to ensure their full participation in the peace process?

Given the continuing concerns expressed by the International Committee of the Red Cross and others, what will be the impact of both the ceasefire and any withdrawal on the international community’s ability safely to provide the humanitarian aid to which the Foreign Secretary referred, in particular to the towns and areas that have been besieged? With the UN commission of inquiry on Syria due to report this week to the United Nations Human Rights Council on potential war crimes committed by all sides, what prospect does he see for any suspected war crimes being referred to the International Criminal Court by the UN Security Council, given that Syria is not a signatory to the Rome statute?

Finally, what recent discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with other members of the ISSG and Staffan de Mistura about the prospects for the latest round of peace talks taking place in Geneva? Does he agree that both Russia and Syria need to ensure that all the issues are on the table if the Syrian people are to see peace and stability finally return to their war-torn country?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As he rightly says, it is now five years since this terrible civil war began, and he correctly set out the scale of attrition that the Syrian people have faced over that time. He referred to the remarks attributed to Defence Minister Shoygu that Russia would continue to attack terrorists. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is exactly the formula used by the Russians in the past when attacking the moderate opposition. They have always asserted that they conduct airstrikes against terrorists only, so it is not terribly reassuring that, a few hours after the announcement of the withdrawal of their military forces, their Defence Minister is saying that they will continue to attack terrorists.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov. I have had no such discussions since the announcement was made, although I have spoken to American colleagues to assess what information they have. The UK mission in Syria will not change as a result of withdrawal of Russian forces; UK airstrikes are exclusively targeted against Daesh, primarily in the east of the country, and will continue to be so targeted.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the latest assessment of the ceasefire. We held a meeting in Paris on Sunday, in which we reviewed the situation on the ground. The reality is that, after a lull in the level of airstrikes immediately after the beginning of the cessation of hostilities, they have grown steadily. On 10 March, we assessed that Russian airstrikes were at the same level as they were before the cessation of hostilities, but there is evidence that the Russians had redirected the focus of their airstrikes so that they were more convincingly targeted against Daesh and al-Nusra targets than had previously been the case. If Russia carries out a full withdrawal of its forces—and I do not think even the Russian announcement is suggesting that would take place—that will certainly change the balance of power and military advantage on the ground in a very significant way.

It is not the Russians who have been impeding access for humanitarian aid, but the Syrian regime, and so the question is about how much leverage the Russians have over the regime and how much of that leverage they are prepared to exercise. One could speculate about whether this announcement is, in fact, an exercise by Russia in reminding the regime of its position as a client, operating at Russia’s will.

On the ICC, there are two major impediments. The first, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, is that Syria is not a signatory to the ICC convention. The second is that Russia holds a veto in the Security Council. Therefore, although we all seek to bring those responsible for the terrible crimes that have been committed in Syria to justice, I would advise him not to hold his breath just for the moment.

Finally, on ISSG discussions, the ISSG has not met in ISSG format recently, but we have had opportunities to talk to Staffan de Mistura about the agenda for the peace talks in Geneva. We are very satisfied with the sensible approach he is taking, which recognises that, to put it bluntly, as soon as we get to the difficult subjects, the talks may run into extreme difficulty, and which therefore seeks to begin by discussing some less controversial subjects to try at least to generate some momentum before we come to the more difficult issues. I have to say again that the sticking point is transition. We are clear, and resolutions of the ISSG are clear, that the way forward has to be through a transitional regime, which moves us from the current position with Assad in power to a new position with Assad out of power. The Russians, the Syrian regime and the Iranians still do not accept that principle, and unless and until it is accepted, the talks going on in Geneva may linger for a while but they will not ultimately be able to make significant progress.

European Affairs

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Almost 41 years ago, this House debated the terms of a renegotiation of our place in Europe prior to a referendum of the British people. On 7 April 1975, this is what the opening speaker in that debate said:

“for many hon. Members, as for millions outside the House, the issue is not limited to an assessment of the outcome of the renegotiations. Many…have already made up their minds…There will be a substantial body of opinion…who believe…that Britain should be in the Community for the greater economic good of Britain in a changing world…Equally there is a substantial body of opinion which is fundamentally opposed to British membership and which holds that no possible renegotiations could have changed the nature of the Community sufficiently to enable it to support British participation.”—[Official Report, 7 April 1975; Vol. 889, c. 821.]

Those were the words of the Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who, incidentally, gave the British people a decision about their place in Europe. Those words remind us that some things never change, although then it was the Labour party that was split over our place in Europe and the Conservatives who were united, whereas now there has been a complete reversal of roles. History is repeating itself in mirror image.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

As we are talking about history, can we at least agree that the right hon. Gentleman’s late, lamented and great father and Enoch Powell were right during those historic debates in the early 1970s that this was a unique endeavour and that what we were signing up to in the European Communities Act 1972 was quite unlike any other treaty, because it established the supremacy of the European Court of Justice over this House? Can we at least agree that there is no halfway house—we are either under EU law or we are not? That is what this referendum is about.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed, that is the case. The Labour party—not the Conservative party—decided that the British people should have their say precisely because that kind of transfer of sovereignty is a decision that should rest not with this House of Commons, but with the British people. The British people made their choice and decided by a significant margin to remain in the European Community.

I was about to mention the Prime Minister’s reception on Monday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) is fond of describing some right hon. and hon. Members as the “desperate to be disappointed”. It is fair to say that on Monday, those people were indeed disappointed, because they were never going to be satisfied.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman gives the impression that the Labour party is completely united in its position, but that excludes the public statements of some of his colleagues that they are in favour of leaving the European Union and the many Labour organisations around the country that are already campaigning for us to pull out.

[Hilary Benn]

I am not sure that I will bow to the hon. Gentleman’s alleged greater knowledge of the opinion of Labour organisations up and down the country on the European Union. Labour Members of the House of Commons overwhelmingly support Britain remaining in the European Union, as we shall hear in their contributions later, and in the trade union movement there is strong support for Britain remaining, for reasons that I shall come to later. The truth is that we have changed our view, and that strengthens our argument for remaining in the European Union.

The Prime Minister was never going to come back with a deal that he did not feel able to recommend because, as we know, he did not want the referendum in the first place and was forced to concede it only by the turmoil and disagreement on his Benches. The deal does contain some useful and important changes, some of which we called for. The red card, as the Leader of the Opposition reminded the House on Monday, was a commitment in our election manifesto. There is protection for the pound because we are not in the euro, and it was the last Labour Government that took the decision not to join the euro—and how wise a decision was that? We support reforming the sending of child benefit to children living in other European countries, and the establishment of the principle of fair contribution, namely that those coming to work in this country should pay in before they receive in-work benefits.

The choice that the British people now face will rest not on the terms of this renegotiation, but on something much bigger and more important: how will our economy and trading relationships, and our prospects for investment, be affected by taking a step into the unknown; how do we see ourselves as a country; and what is our place in the world and in Europe now and in the years ahead?

[Patrick Grady]

What is the Labour party’s position on whether it would be appropriate for Scotland to be taken out of the European Union against its will?

[Hilary Benn]

The Labour party’s position is to respect the decision that the Scottish people took in the referendum when they rejected independence. We are one United Kingdom, and the decision will be taken by the people of the United Kingdom. Labour Members are clear that we support Britain remaining a member of the European Union. We held that view before the renegotiation, and we hold it today. The European Union has brought us jobs, growth, investment and security, and I argue that it gives us influence in the world. Before exploring each of those benefits in turn, let me briefly address two essential arguments made by those Conservative Members who think that we should leave—namely, sovereignty and taking back control.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The right hon. Gentleman said that the EU has brought much in the way of prosperity and jobs, and that does apply to the United Kingdom. Sadly, however, it does not apply to other countries such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, which are also members of the EU. Why are they suffering so much unemployment and low growth, while the United Kingdom is prospering? Is the difference that we, as well as being members of the EU, are led by a Conservative Government?

[Hilary Benn]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman will not tempt me to agree with him on that particular observation at all—[Hon. Members: “Go on!] No, I will not be encouraged to do that. I will, however, make an argument about the precise way that the benefits that I have just described have been brought to us because of opportunities given to us by membership of the European Union.

On sovereignty, the original decision to join the European Union was taken by the sovereign House of Commons, and confirmed by a sovereign British people in the 1975 referendum. All treaty changes that followed, including those that introduced qualified majority voting, were agreed by Conservative and Labour Governments, and approved by the sovereign Parliament. That tells us that we have chosen as a sovereign Parliament to work with others in Europe for a purpose: to achieve things that we think benefit us and our neighbours.

The second argument is about taking back control, and for some I think this is a belief that Britain standing alone would somehow have the voice that it possessed 50 years ago. We must be honest with each other. We live in a different world to the one that gave birth to the European Coal and Steel Community after the end of the second world war. We have witnessed the end of empire, the creation of the United Nations and the European Union, the formation of NATO, the end of the cold war, and the collapse of the Berlin wall. We have lived through an era that has seen the rise of new world powers, alliances, conflicts, threats, and the blistering pace of technological change that is revolutionising our economies and shrinking the way we perceive our world. We cannot turn the clock back, and to argue that we can is to mislead ourselves and others. We can, however, use the qualities that we as a nation are blessed with to make the most of the opportunities that this new world presents to us, and that is exactly what our membership of the European Union helps us to do.

Look at the strength of London as a financial centre. Look at the openness and diversity of our society, and our talent for creativity. The UK computer and games industry—not one I am particularly familiar with—did not even exist 40 years ago, but it now generates £2 billion a year in global sales, and supports nearly 30,000 jobs. Consider the worldwide reach of the English language. All those things help to make us the fifth biggest economy in the world.

[Mark Pritchard]

When we think about the City of London, we often think of bankers, and unfortunately of some of the high and perhaps disproportionate banking bonuses. However, banking is a necessary part of this country’s economy. Indeed, the pensions of this country are often found in the City of London, and they affect every single person up and down the land. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an exit from the European Union would make it more likely that banks, institutions and pension funds would go to Frankfurt rather than London?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree that there are real risks, and the Foreign Secretary rightly made that point in his speech. It is perfectly legitimate to point out those risks, which even the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) acknowledged in his article in The Daily Telegraph, and we should take that important consideration into account. In truth, almost half our exports go to Europe precisely because we are part of the single market, and we must think about supply chains and services. We also export all the way around the world, in part because of deals that the European Union has negotiated with other countries.

The EU either has or is negotiating trade agreements with 90% of Commonwealth countries. I have heard it argued that being in the EU prevents us from having better trading relationships with other members of the Commonwealth, but that is not the case. Given that we are part of this huge market of 500 million people, why on earth would we want to exchange the certainty of deals that we currently have for the uncertainty of deals that we might not secure? As we have heard—the Foreign Secretary made this point forcefully—we already have good trade deals, and our only alternative examples are those such as Norway, but even the Norwegians say to us, “I wouldn’t do that if I were you.” I think the British people will look at that and say, “That looks like a pretty bad deal to us.”

In the late 1980s, when Mrs Thatcher was busy taking away trade union rights in this country, one reason that the British trade union movement changed its view was that it saw there was an opportunity for workers’ rights across Europe. The EU helped us to deal with some of the consequences of global change by protecting workers in every European country. Those protections include paid holidays, the right to spend more time with a new-born child through improved maternity and paternity leave, limits on working time, and better protection for agency and temporary workers. Those are striking examples of how, by working together across Europe, we can protect workers and prevent a race to the bottom.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The right hon. Gentleman has campaigned for many years on behalf of Africa and trade with Africa, supporting prosperity there. What does he say about the protectionist policies of the European Union, which prohibit and make trade with Africa more difficult?

[Hilary Benn]

When I was International Development Secretary I argued precisely that Europe should change its policies, including the common agricultural policy. I shall say something about development a little later in my speech, because that too is a really strong argument for remaining part of the European Union.

[Mr McFadden]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the list of employment rights that are guaranteed at EU level, it is important to point out that when those who would take us out of the European Union attack EU red tape and bureaucracy, they are usually talking about precisely those rights. For example, the right to equal treatment as a part-time worker and so on—those are measures of justice in the workplace, not needless bureaucracy.

[Hilary Benn]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, when one of the Ministers who advocates Britain’s exit from the European Union was asked on television at the weekend to provide an example of red tape, he referred to health and safety. Health and safety is not red tape, a burden or regulation; it is about protecting British, German and Spanish workers when they go to work in the morning, to make sure that they can do their jobs safely and securely. If we voted to leave, we could end up with a double nightmare. Unfortunately, there would still be a Conservative Government in this country and, given past records, I am not entirely sure that I would trust them to ensure that we keep the rights we currently have.

There is an even more important reason why we should remain a member of the EU: Britain’s influence in the world is strengthened by our membership. It promotes interdependence through trade and advances our economic security, because it works to tackle conflict and other global challenges, and it helps to protect us from crime and terrorism. There is nothing patriotic about diminishing the United Kingdom’s ability to make its voice heard by other nations. Stumbling out of Europe and pulling up the drawbridge would serve only to harm our position and influence in the world.

The global economic crash of 2007-08 shook the public’s faith in the ability of Governments, regulators and institutions to protect them. What it really brought home to us is the need for more, not less, co-operation with other countries, and stronger multilateral institutions, not weaker ones. If we are going to deal with the problem of big companies that show an aversion to paying tax, Europe is a very good place to start.

We should also acknowledge that the growth in the number of member states of the EU has been a very powerful force for change for the better on our continent. The prospect of membership offered the former communist states of central and eastern Europe a really powerful incentive to meet the conditions for joining. They were creating an alliance built on the values of democracy, respect for human rights, free media, the rule of law and individual freedom. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, that also helped us to be stronger in facing up to aggression and problems around the world. There is no doubt that the sanctions agreed against Russia have had an impact. They are biting. Although the Minsk agreement has not been fully implemented—the conflict is frozen—it was precisely because Europe was united and determined that we were able to have that impact. Let us be absolutely clear: Russia would see Britain’s exit from the EU as a sign of our weakness. It would see it as a sign of European weakness at the very moment when, in the face of that threat, we need to maintain our collective strength. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) wants to intervene, I will of course give way.

The deal with Iran is another really good example. Europe came together in solidarity and achieved something that many people thought would not be possible. We have heard reference to the action, through Operation Atalanta, to deal with piracy off the horn of Africa. Look at the sanctions on Burma. We are just about to see something we never thought possible: Aung San Suu Kyi’s party taking power by democratic change. Europe’s voice in saying that what the previous regime had done was not acceptable was a powerful force for good in the world.

These collective displays of solidarity remind us of the power, working with our European allies, to do good. I have to say the current problems in Syria remind us of our failure in that particular conflict.

[Wes Streeting]

In the event of a leave vote, there are only two possibilities: either we want to remain part of a single market and are therefore subject to pretty much exactly the same rules as we are now, in which case what is the point of the referendum; or we seek not just to realign our trading approach towards the rest of the world, but realign British foreign policy away from the democracies of western Europe and the north Atlantic to the dictatorships of the east. Surely that would not be either in our national interests or in the interests of western liberal democracy. I cannot understand why so many Conservative Members, who expect us to go out to bat for Britain at European Council summits, somehow expect our fellow European states to do otherwise in the event of a leave vote, in which case we will be punished.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I have just tried to demonstrate to the House the benefit that working with our European allies in trying to be a force for good in the world has brought. I was just in the process of saying that Syria is a terrible example of the world’s collective failure. Like the Foreign Secretary, in his comments at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday, we hope very much that the ceasefire will be implemented and upheld. However, that really depends on Russia, hence the point that I was making earlier.

What every single one of these examples teaches us is that we need stronger, not weaker, international co-operation. At this moment in this century, it would be extraordinary folly for our country to turn its back on this vital international alliance if we wished to help shape world events. That is why Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, said:

“Britain is a global player and a strong EU will also make sure that NATO has a strong partner in the European Union when we are facing the same security threats”.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way one more time, but then make progress because other Members want to speak.

[Sir William Cash]

On the broader foreign policy question in relation to Russia and all that, would the shadow Foreign Secretary like to comment on whether he thinks the Budapest agreement in the 1990s was a good idea?

[Hilary Benn]

To be perfectly honest, I am less interested in what happened in the 1990s. I am more interested in what is going to happen in 2016, which is the big decision that the British people will have to take. I argue that our national security is served by our membership of both the EU and NATO. Co-operation across Europe is essential if we are to deal with terrorist threats. The European arrest warrant is a really good example of that. The case of the failed 21 July 2005 bomber who was returned here from Rome, where he had sought to escape British justice, demonstrates the benefit of working with our allies. That is why the director of Europol, Rob Wainwright, warned recently that British exit would

“make Britain’s job harder to fight crime and terrorism because it will not have the same access to very well developed European cooperation mechanisms that it currently has today”.

[Richard Drax]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

No, I am going to try to bring my remarks to a close.

Underlying all those questions is the greatest challenge that the peoples and countries of the world face at the beginning of the 21st century: how do we come to terms with, and deal with, the interdependence of human beings?

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On that point, and as it is the first time I have tried to intervene, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

Since it is the hon. Lady I will give way, and then I am going to bring my remarks to a close.

[Caroline Lucas]

That is incredibly kind of the right hon. Gentleman. Just before he does bring his remarks to a close, I wonder whether he agrees about the importance of the EU when it comes to the environment. That has not been mentioned yet today, rather oddly, but the cross-border nature of environmental degradation means our involvement in the EU is more important than ever on everything from clean beaches, clean air, clean seas and a clean world.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Lady. The blue flag beaches are a really good example. We will not have clean beaches in Britain if we are not dealing with sewage coming from other European countries and vice versa. I shall make a point about climate change in a moment, on which Europe is absolutely vital.

The House is only too well aware that there are 7.2 billion people in the world, with 11 billion forecast by the end of the century. If we look at what has been happening on our continent in the past few months, we see the flow of refugees and Schengen under strain. That has tested Europe’s solidarity to the limit, but let us pause for a moment and imagine what the situation would be like now if the European Union did not exist. The truth is that it does not matter whether people are moving across the globe to flee persecution for a better life or to flee climate change. We are still going to have to deal with the consequences. We have not just a moral interest in dealing with climate change, poverty and conflict; we have a practical interest in doing so. From my experience as a Cabinet Minister, I can say that the fact that European countries came together in the run-up to Gleneagles and said, “This is what we are prepared to commit to” helped to unlock commitments on more aid and debt relief for the developing world. The fact that Europe went to climate change summit after climate change summit with a commitment it was prepared to put on the table, in the end, helped to unlock the deal in the Paris.

The final argument, which was the founding argument of the European project, is the fact that it has brought peace to a continent that for hundreds of years was scarred by war. Anyone who has walked along the rows of graves from the first and second world wars—what I would describe as the flower of two generations of Europeans—will see that some bear names and show how young they were. On other graves, there is no name at all. The gravestone simply reads, “A soldier of the Great War. Known unto God”. Nobody knew whose father, uncle, nephew or brother lay beneath those immaculately tended graves.

The one disagreement I have with the Foreign Secretary was when he said he felt no passion for Europe. I think we should be passionate about the greatest achievement of the European project, which was that by bringing nations together, originally through coal and steel, we would make future war, in the words of the Schuman declaration,

“not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.”

The British people have to make a choice between the fear that we have somehow lost our identity, our influence and our place in the world because we are part of the European Union, and our experience that being in Europe has actually amplified, extended and increased Britain’s voice in the world, through which process the British people have benefited economically.

I have changed my views since 1975. I have been on a journey, and the party of which I am proud to be a member has been on a journey. We live in a changing world and if we look at that world, we see that the case for Europe is stronger now than ever. The story of Britain over the last century is one of a nation that has been at the heart of world affairs. It is the story of a country that has been at its best when we have been outward looking and confident. In the 20th century, we helped to build the institutions that have given us the chance to make progress: the UN, NATO and the EU. In the 21st century, we cannot reduce our influence—we cannot shut the curtains, close the door and hope that the rest of the world will go away.

This choice is ultimately about whether we face the future with optimism, or not. I believe that Britain’s national interest is best served by remaining part of the European Union, and I hope that the British people will come to that decision, too. It is now their choice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hilary Benn Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Yes, I most certainly will. I was in Sri Lanka last month, where I met the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister and travelled to Jaffna in the north. I have subsequently spoken to Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the high commissioner in Geneva, who was in Sri Lanka from 6 to 9 February. We look forward to his update on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council in June.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

As events in Ukraine and the middle east have reminded us, nations that are committed to peace, security and democracy need to stand together in the face of aggression. Our membership of the European Union is one of the most important ways in which we do that. The Foreign Secretary knows that ending our alliance with the EU would send a dangerous signal, including to President Putin and Daesh. Why does he think some of his Cabinet colleagues cannot see that and are intent on a course of action that would weaken Britain’s voice and influence in the world and undermine our security?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Each person in this country will have to make up their own mind about the question before them in the forthcoming referendum. I have always said that this is a balancing equation—there are plusses and minuses in any international relationship. However, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that on the question of Britain’s security and influence in the world, there is no doubt that we are stronger, safer and more influential by being part of the European Union than being out of it.

[Hilary Benn]

I am very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. The report of the UN Human Rights Council’s commission of inquiry on Syria, which was published earlier this month, found that:

“Flagrant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law continue unabated”.

The ceasefire that is due to come into effect this Saturday is desperately needed, but it will relieve suffering only if it is adhered to, as the Foreign Secretary said. What is his assessment of the prospects of ensuring that Russia respects the ceasefire by ending its attacks on the Syrian people? If it does not, what further pressure can be put on President Putin to do so?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said, the Russians will say that they are complying with the ceasefire, and that continued attacks and airstrikes are justified by the terms of that ceasefire. It will be necessary to pore over individual attacks between the US and Russia in the co-ordination cell to identify exactly what happened. Whatever the technicalities, the big picture is this: unless the level of Russian airstrikes dramatically decreases, the ceasefire will not hold because the moderate armed opposition cannot and will not lay down their weapons while they are being annihilated from the air by Russian aircraft.