Aleppo and Syria

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on initiating the debate and on opening it in such an extraordinary fashion. His deep personal commitment, which he has exhibited over a number of years, to those in the Syrian National Coalition and the High Negotiations Committee and others has been evident in what he has said. He has long championed their needs, and that was evident today.

I thank the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who spoke for the Opposition, for proposing a difficult case in trying to find an answer. There are no easy answers, but I hope that a little bit of background will help further.

I pay tribute to those in the Syrian National Coalition and those who have worked for peace in Syria over a lengthy period. I met members of the Syrian National Coalition. I met them in Gaziantep. I met them in Jordan. I met them Paris. I met them in London. I met Riad Hijab. Part of the background is to recognise that what has happened in Syria today did not just spring out of events in 2011—the Syrian regime has long been repressive, and the roots go back a long time and are very deep—but not to recognise the extraordinary courage of people in Syria to make a political case for change, which has been the cause of so many deaths in Syria over many decades, is to miss something. They have consistently proposed a plan for a democratic Syria, with the engagement of all elements of the community, and they have done so for several years. Again, any future for Syria must recognise that the SNC and the High Negotiations Committee have had a plan for a long time, and I wish they had been listened to even earlier.

While in Gaziantep in Turkey I met members of the White Helmets. At that time, the Foreign Office was working to support its members and give them training in their work, and they have done an extraordinary job in the chaos and disaster that is Syria. The work of the White Helmets has been quite extraordinary. Again, we need to pay tribute to the White Helmets, as we do to those such as David Nott, the surgeon who has worked in the extraordinary circumstances of the hospitals in Syria and who writes so eloquently on the subject.

The United Kingdom has to look at many parts of this issue in terms of what has been achieved. We have played a part in trying to alleviate some of the suffering. There is little need, I am sure, to elaborate further on the degree of suffering. We have seen it on the television. We have seen the brave films produced by BBC “Panorama”, giving cameras to people. There has been what our excellent ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, described only last week as “an onslaught of cruelty” in Aleppo, which he said could not possibly be the work of the Syrian forces on their own.

The tragedy of Aleppo and Syria is that it is an entirely human construct devoid of any natural disaster component. It has happened in front of our eyes—eyes that have witnessed in my time as a Member Rwanda and Srebrenica too. It has happened with so many other memories of previous conflicts in our minds. It has happened because of, as much as despite of, international mechanisms such as the UN and the International Criminal Court—mechanisms that we have all hidden behind, to a certain extent, believing that they could find the answer, as we watched them being stripped of their authority, week by week, action by action in Syria, and actually reduced to ridicule. If international mechanisms cannot prevent an Aleppo, what actually can they now prevent?

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who was one of the best Ministers in the Foreign Office over a long period, for bringing great knowledge to the House from what he did in the Foreign Office. Many Syrians in my constituency—I meet them regularly—say that they just want people to give them some help. He mentions some international organisations, but does he think that the UN is doing enough? If it is not doing enough, do we need to consider reforming that organisation, so that it can help in such crises?

[Alistair Burt]

The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and myself, and the point of the hon. Gentleman’s question, is that Syria demonstrates the failure of these international mechanisms now. If a veto is continually used on the UN Security Council, what can we do? My right hon. Friend rightly argued—this was recognised on both sides of the House—that the League of Nations was damaged by the stripping of its authority. That is the point that we have reached, and if we cannot rely on these mechanisms, what are we now going to do?

European Union Referendum Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

16:56

Division 21

Ayes: 267

---

Labour: 204
Scottish National Party: 55
Plaid Cymru: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
UK Independence Party: 1
Conservative: 1

Noes: 308

---

Conservative: 306
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mrs Laing. For the third time this week the House has taken a position in votes that will be recorded in Hansard and in the official record of the House. Unfortunately shortly after those votes have been taken certain SNP MPs have tweeted out completely the contrary to the result of the votes. That happened on the Scotland Bill on Monday, the European Union Referendum Bill on Tuesday and again this evening. Can you rule on whether that is bringing the House into disrepute and how we stop that happening?

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and he has done well to draw it to the attention of the House and, no doubt, further afield, but he will appreciate that it is not a matter on which I can rule from the Chair at present. One would hope that a reasoned report of what happens in this Chamber will be disseminated widely throughout the country by many means of communication, not just on social media, and that people will always choose which report they wish to believe.

Shaker Aamer

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The Foreign Secretary has raised this matter, but as I say, we have called on the President to use all available powers, and this is simply one mechanism that could be used.

I certainly welcome this opportunity to highlight the Government’s commitment on this issue. The UK has long held that indefinite detention without fair trial is unacceptable. Mr Aamer has been detained in Guantanamo Bay for 13 years, yet has not been charged with any crime. As a result of the UK’s long-standing opposition to the operation of the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, the UK Government exceptionally requested Mr Aamer’s release in 2007, and that request also included four other former UK residents who have since returned to the UK. The UK Government are committed to bringing Mr Aamer back to the UK, and we have made our position very clear to the US Government. We want to see him released as a matter of urgency, and we know that they fully understand this request.

As hon. Members will have noted, the Prime Minister personally raised Mr Aamer’s case at his meeting with the US President on 16 January this year. We welcome President Obama’s commitment at that meeting to prioritise the review of Mr Aamer’s release to the UK.

Supporters of Mr Aamer often cite the fact that he was cleared for release, and this has been repeated here today. He was cleared for release some years ago, and given the President’s commitment, people cannot understand why he is still in detention. I need to clarify, however, that Mr Aamer has been cleared only for transfer to Saudi Arabia, not cleared for release either in Saudi Arabia or indeed the UK. This is an important distinction under the applicable US legislation.

President Obama’s statement means that Mr Aamer’s case has been prioritised for review through an inter-agency process. This comprehensive process undertaken by six US Government Departments involves a complex case-by-case review. We do not have a timetable for a decision, but we are confident that this review is under way. We hope, of course, that Mr Aamer will soon be released.

However, it is important to understand that President Obama’s decision to close the detention facility and release its inmates remains a contentious political issue in Washington, as hon. Members have outlined in today’s debate. Stark differences of opinion exist in Congress across the political spectrum about the wisdom of doing this at a time of heightened terrorist threats. Within that, there remain real concerns about recidivism and the actions that detainees may take after they leave Guantanamo. Let us be clear, however, that Mr Aamer has not been charged with or convicted of any crime.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to the debate and to the Minister’s contribution so far, so I hope I am not pre-empting what he is about to say. He has not yet told us, however—perhaps I have missed the clarity on the matter—what reasons the US has given to the Foreign Office for not releasing Shaker Aamer. What are the reasons behind not processing his release?

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present at the beginning of the debate. I should like to make some progress, but I shall come to the point that he has raised.

As I have said, Mr Aamer has not been charged with or convicted of any crime, but the United States Government have made it clear that any action taken to release him would have to remain consistent with United States national security.

Palestine

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has brought this very important debate to the Chamber. He says that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. Is he as dismayed as I am that the current and former Foreign Secretaries have consistently said that the building of illegal settlements in Palestine narrows the window of opportunity for a two-state solution, yet they have failed to do anything about it?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I respect the current Foreign Secretary and previous Foreign Secretary; I believe that they are men of good will, as is the Minister. Unfortunately, however, our rhetoric falls short of action. We need to address the situation on the ground and see how we can move things forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has implied, we have witnessed an alarming expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. Estimates suggest that some 560,000 illegal settlers now control 40% of the land area of the west bank.

We need to think about a number of issues. The construction of an illegal de facto annexation barrier continues unabated. Restrictions on movement continue to be a daily source of outrage for ordinary Palestinians. The economic decline and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which we have debated in this Chamber on previous occasions and which has been caused by a cruel and highly illegal blockade, has left 1.8 million Palestinians without adequate shelter, sufficient food or access to safe drinking water. Not only is the status quo immoral and illegal, but it lays the foundations for the next major escalation.

It is not enough to focus exclusively on negotiations while failing to hold Israel accountable for its human rights violations and its continued annexation of Palestinian land. More than half the members of Israel’s Government, whose political positions range from the right to the far right, reject the two-state solution and the international consensus out of hand. Recently, the Israeli Defence Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, said:

“I am not looking for a solution, I am looking for a way to manage the conflict and maintain relations in a way that works for our interests”.

By “our interests”, he means the interests of the Israeli side. This summer, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who had previously claimed to support a two-state solution, let his mask slip and revealed his true intentions:

“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

For decades, Israel has maintained the rhetoric of peace and negotiations for an international audience, while simultaneously entrenching and deepening the occupation. Now even the rhetorical fig leaf of a negotiated solution has been stripped away, leaving Israel’s expansionist aims naked and clear for all who have eyes to see.

Arms Exports and Controls

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Bayley, for calling me to speak. It is always a great pleasure to serve on Committees or attend debates with you in the Chair.

As I have done for the last few years when we have debated this issue, I thank and congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on the extensive work by his Committees, and on the way in which he has driven the Committees forward during the past few years. He has given more than 40 years of public service both to this House and to his constituents, and he will be a sad loss to discussion of this particular subject when he moves on after the next general election. Nevertheless, he has left a lasting legacy in this place as the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, and we wish him well in the next chapter of his political life outside this House, whichever chapter that may be and wherever it may take him.

We must scrutinise the Government’s policies in this sector, because arms control is critical. The Committees’ report is hugely valuable and must be highly commended. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) said, 12 months ago we could not have projected forward to where we are today in the international scene and landscape, and I hope that in 12 months’ time—when we come back to look at any further reports from the CAEC—things are better and not worse than they were last year, because I am sure that 12 months on from last year we would all agree that things are now worse, not better.

I will start by touching briefly on the contribution that the UK defence sector makes, not only to our country’s security but to our economy, because it shows how important it is for the Government to get arms export controls absolutely right. The arms industry generates annual revenues of more than £22 billion, including exports worth £6.5 billion per annum on average during the past decade. Consequently, it makes a significant contribution to the economy of the UK. It also plays a vital role in training, up-skilling and developing UK skills; it directly employs 162,400 staff in the UK, sustaining more than 100,000 other jobs through the supply chain; and, crucially, given the highly skilled nature of the workers in this industry, it employs nearly 5,000 apprentices across the sector.

It is within that context that it is important that the UK plays a key role in the international defence market, not only for the economic benefits but for the responsibilities that the market places on the UK Government in that international context. As I said when I outlined where we were last year compared with where we are today, globalisation of course brings countries into closer contact—mostly harmoniously, but as we have seen throughout the report, there are often areas of tension and friction when that contact happens.

It is right that we recognise the defence industry’s part in providing security, both here in the UK and in other countries as we help them to fulfil their right to self-defence. But that role, of course, comes with a heavy responsibility. The industry itself has a responsibility, but the Government are responsible for overseeing arms exports properly, ethically and robustly.

I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to some of the questions raised by the report. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who replied to the debate last year, skipped all the big questions asked in the report, so I hope that the new Minister, whom I congratulate on his recent elevation to the Foreign Office, will be able to respond in a more robust fashion.

I want to look at Labour’s record in government to give us some context for where we are now. It is worth reflecting on how we have come to this current position of oversight and why we are able to talk about these issues today. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) rightly mentioned the role that the former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, played in putting pressure on the then Government in relation to the arms to Iraq inquiry. The inquiry culminated in the Scott report and the bringing together of national export licensing criteria. He was proud to be able to bring that about. It was one of the first issues addressed by the Labour Government in 1997. It was not only the right thing to do; it brings transparency to this House on one of the most important issues that we deal with, not only in terms of defence but in terms of responsibilities and who we sell the items to around the world. On entering government, Labour introduced some of the toughest arms export regulations in the world at that time.

It is also important to reflect on where we have come from. In 1999, when the tough arms export regulations were put together, it was the first time that the matter had been looked at in a UK context since 1939. If we think the world has moved on significantly in the 12 months since we last discussed these issues, the world had certainly moved on significantly between 1939 and 1999. So we have had the consolidated criteria in 2000 and the Export Control Act 2002, and since 2004 the quarterly report has brought much greater scrutiny and transparency to our arms exports across the world. I am sure Members of Parliament of all parties recognise the importance of such changes. Although it is a difficult issue for a Government to deal with, it is right that the Minister should be here to answer the key questions in the report.

It remains the strategic approach of the Opposition that arms must not be sold to nations that will use them for external aggression or internal repression, and that they should be used for defence. That reflects the written ministerial statement that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling read out at the start. It was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) in 2000. It is still the approach that we champion in opposition. We would not deviate from that. We recognise that nations have the right to defend their sovereign lands, but they do not have the right to oppress their people and use weaponry sold to them by this country to stamp on legitimate demonstrations, as we have seen on our television screens in the past few months.

The Committees on Arms Export Controls report is a voluminous report: more than 1,000 pages. The Chair of the esteemed Committee, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, asked whether I had received a copy of the report and whether I had read it. I am glad that it was published in an executive summary format, which was a little more digestible. It is important that the Government take on those 1,000 pages. It is not a political report with which to kick the Government but a very helpful document that runs through all the areas of concern about arms export controls. I want to concentrate on four aspects. Hon. Friends who have already spoken have concentrated on other aspects, but I want to concentrate on the four that I think are the most important in the report.

First, the change in the consolidation criteria. Significantly, the report criticises the Government’s removal of a key line from the consolidated criteria in March this year. We have mentioned this already. The line is:

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

Despite taking such positive steps with the arms trade treaty last year, we have now gone backwards in terms of the clarity that was required from the Government in that sentence. There has been justification from the Government for the removal of those criteria— the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling has already mentioned that—but it significantly weakens the test for arms exports. We are concerned about its removal and urge the Government and the Minister to reflect on that. Will the Minister explain—the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks did not do so last year—why there is dubiety about the removal of those particular criteria, and what is to become of “a more relaxed approach” to arms exports? Have the Government made a substantial change to policy without acknowledging it? I think the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling asked that before. The questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North on this issue must be answered directly by the Minister today. If that is the only answer we get, we will have moved on substantially from the report that is in front of us.

The second issue that I wish to raise was mentioned in the report this year and last year—it might have been mentioned in previous reports. It is the issue of the brass plating of companies. We discussed this at length during last year’s debate, and as the report says, the Government are still to take action. So what action has been taken over the past 12 months and what action is in the pipeline?

Although brass plating in a UK context works well—we would not deny that that is the case—this is about brass plating across international communities, where companies that have brass plating in this country operate against the brass plating rules that would apply here when operating overseas. That must be looked at clearly, but it again highlights the globalisation of the issue and why the export controls market must be monitored closely. There are big issues around the international co-operation that is required to deal with the exploitation of brass plating in this country. That is why the Minister should look into ways of developing a strategy, closing loopholes and collecting evidence—possibly in conjunction with other countries—to get the necessary detail and put the measures that are needed in place to enable us to discontinue the UK registration of such companies that exploit brass plating.

Brass plating in the UK should not mean irresponsibility elsewhere. The report specifically touches on that. There is much concern about the operation of front companies registered in the UK which operate overseas with impunity. What does the Minister have to say about that particular issue?

The third issue that I want to raise is arms brokers. The Government issued a call for evidence in April this year on a proposed pre-register of arms brokers. They committed to provide a formal response by September. It will be November this weekend, and I am not aware that the Government have kept to that timetable and produced a response. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will publish the result of their call for evidence on the need for a pre-licence register of arms brokers? The Government have not been consistent in their record of delivery in response to previous reports from the Committees.

The fourth area that I want to address relates to some current case studies. There are a significant number. The report highlighted 12 countries that cause concern, and another five are mentioned. I want to concentrate on three to highlight some of the issues in the report that the Government need to address.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

Of course, there is the issue of Russia, which has entered into the Balkans, causing reverberations across Europe and the region. There is the conflict between Israel and Palestine, which we saw in the summer, and in recent weeks—mentioned already this afternoon—the mass pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong that prompted a very strong and aggressive response from Government authorities, which was not in line with what we would expect from anything that has been exported from this country. In all those events, questions have been raised about the use of British exports. Indeed, some serious allegations and concerns must be addressed. Will the Minister concentrate on the big issues in his response?

In the case of Russia, the Government have given conflicting messages on exports to Russia. Both the Prime Minster and the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), gave categoric assurances, with the latter stating in March this year:

“The UK will now, with immediate effect, suspend all extant licences and application processing for licences for direct export to Russia for military and dual-use items destined for units of the Russian armed forces or other state agencies which could be or are being deployed against Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 658.]

That is a fairly categoric assurance from the former Foreign Secretary. However, it was reported that, in July this year, 250 licences were still in force.

Can the Minister update the House and the Committees on whether the licences are still in operation? How many have been revoked, suspended or reissued? What assessment does he have for the Committees of the licence system and its effectiveness in these instances?

The second area of concern is the issue of Israel and Palestine. We can all recall the spiral of violence over the summer that engulfed Gaza, southern Israel and the west bank. We condemn, as we always have in this Chamber and across the House, the firing of rockets into Israel by Gaza-based militants. No Government on earth would tolerate such attacks on their citizens, but the disproportionate response, yet again—my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North mentioned Operation Cast Lead—by the Israeli Government to Gaza fuels even more conflict and even more distrust of the system. That is why the Government have to look seriously at whether the UK’s arms export controls and licences are helping the situation or making it worse.

The Government’s internal review identified 12 specific licences covering a range of military equipment—including components for military radar systems, combat aircraft and tanks—which, as the review states,

“could be part of equipment used by the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza.”

The review shows that there have been particular issues with Israel and Palestine. I was shocked to hear of the letter that was sent to the Chair of the Committees by the Foreign Secretary. To quote it directly, the Foreign Secretary was concerned that there was

“a serious violation of international humanitarian law”

in Israel’s response. We demand an immediate publication of the Government’s review. Our view was that no arms should be exported under existing licences while doubts remain as to whether any equipment could be used for internal repression, the abuse of human rights or to provoke prolonged arm conflict or violate international humanitarian law.

It is particularly important that we have transparency on the system in this case. The British public need assurances that the UK’s arms export sales have not been in contradiction of the consolidated criteria and have not contributed to that particular conflict. Directly on Israel and Palestine, does the Minister agree that the Government should suspend or revoke any licences for export to Israel of controlled items where there is a clear risk, or even a hint of a risk, that they will be used in combat operations in the occupied territories of Palestine? I am not an avid follower of the Minister on Twitter, but he tweeted a press release this morning condemning Israel for the continued building of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem. The Israel-Palestine peace process is fragile, and we should do all we can to ensure that arms exports are not contributing to the problem.

Finally, to travel a little further east, there are the issues in Hong Kong that are receiving international attention. At the start of the month, the Deputy Prime Minister summoned the Chinese ambassador to make clear his dismay and alarm at China’s handling of pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. As The Times reported on 29 September, in handling those demonstrations—Members have mentioned this—the Hong Kong authorities used CS gas grenades made in Britain to disperse protesters. While the Deputy Prime Minister met with the Chinese, the Defence Secretary dismissed the concerns raised about the use of CS gas on protesters and said that it was “a rather immaterial point” whether the grenades were made in the UK. I am not sure whether anyone in this Chamber or anyone on the Committees on Arms Export Controls would see the use of UK-made CS gas in dispersing pro-democracy protesters as “a rather immaterial point”. In fact, it is fundamental to the report we are discussing, and to the question of whether licences should be issued or revoked in these situations. Does the Minister agree with that statement? What can we do on these issues?

The Chair of the Committees said, in his useful speech on the report, that he wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on these gas canisters. When I looked into that, the Chair had not received a response, but he indicated to the Chamber that he has now. Will the Minister clarify the points raised by the Business Secretary’s response to that letter? Have the licences been revoked?

In conclusion, I would welcome clarity from the Government on some of these issues, and in particular on their commitment to not diluting this country’s approach to export licences. Does the Minister still stand by the commitment that he will not approve an export licence if he believes that there is a clear risk that an export might be used for internal repression? We support him in that approach, which dates back to 2000, and would welcome clarity on whether he has changed it.

In the debate on the Committees’ report last year, several Members urged the Government to adopt a more cautious approach to arms exports approval. The ability to revoke or suspend export licenses is a significant and important function, but as the Chair said, once the bullets have bolted, they have bolted irreversibly. That is one of the issues that we have seen in the 12 countries of concern. We believe that the Government should not only take a more cautious approach but strengthen the prior scrutiny of licenses, and not limit scrutiny to the review of ministerial decisions only when they have already been taken.

As my right hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) and for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) would have said in their respective roles as shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow Secretary of State for International Development, lessons could be learned from others in the international community. In Sweden, for example, there is an expert advisory body, headed by an independent official responsible for the oversight of export licensing, which advises on delicate pre-licence decisions before a Minister gives the final approval. In the US, Congress is given prior notification of all foreign military sales that are over specific cost thresholds and are planned for the following year and can object ahead of the Government making a final decision. Those mechanisms ensure that a more cautious approach is taken and that there is no rush to licence approval.

Alongside those domestic guidelines, there must be global ones, too. A global industry requires global guidelines. The Government are to be congratulated on their efforts on the arms trade treaty. We all welcome that being signed as early as possible. It will significantly boost efforts to stem the flow of arms to some of the world’s most volatile places and help end the transfer of weapons used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I urge the Minister and the Government to use that opportunity to show international leadership and push for ratification in all countries, and by the largest players in the globalised economy, particularly given the size of the UK defence industry.

Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the steps the Government have taken to encourage countries to ratify the treaty. It was signed with such fanfare last year and is such an important contribution to the arms trade in this country and in the international environment. I close by once again paying tribute to the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, and all the members of those Committees, who are each chosen from Select Committees. The Chair’s post is a distinguished one; he deserves great credit for the legacy that he has left the House in these reports. I hope that the Minister will fulfil that superb legacy and answer all the questions the Chair posed, not only in his speech on the report, but in the report itself.

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

It is a pleasure, Mr Amess, to work under your chairmanship today. It is also a pleasure to respond to this important debate on the Committees’ report. I begin by giving an apology on behalf of the Minister for Business and Enterprise, who should be responding to the report. That is his place, but unfortunately, as with other members of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, he is involved in a Bill Committee elsewhere and sends his apologies. It is appropriate, however, for the Foreign Office to be involved. We scrutinise the process of approving or not approving arms exports, although the final decision is with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, not the Foreign Office. I am delighted to be here anyway.

I join others in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) for his tireless and dedicated work in chairing the Committees, which are unique in bringing together the skill sets of other Committees. I was not aware that this was his final report. I do not know what he will find himself doing next year, but he will probably want to write about this issue in another context, because he has lived and breathed it for so long. The House is indebted to him for his dedication and commitment to this important subject. We are grateful for the knowledge and expertise he has brought to the House over many years, and we thank him for his hard work.

I also thank other members of the Committees for their contributions, and I will do my best to answer their points. A challenge was thrown down—not once or twice, but a number of times—in comments about how appallingly the last Minister failed to answer all the questions posed to him. I should make it clear that I am substituting for the Minister who should have replied to the debate, so I am not sure whether I will fare any better, although I can give a commitment that if I am unable to answer any questions, I will endeavour to write to right hon. and hon. Members individually. In that way, it will not be me who gets the grief next year, when Members return to this subject after the next general election.

I thank the shadow Minister for his words, his tone and the constructive manner in which he expressed his thoughts and concerns. He spelled out the situation Britain finds itself in. The defence industry is indeed sizeable, and it is important for jobs and UK security, as well as in terms of the UK playing a responsible role on the international stage. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of issues, and I will do my best to answer him. I should say how touched I am that he follows me on Twitter, although I am afraid I have not reciprocated. When I leave here, however, I will certainly endeavour to make up for that misdemeanour.

[Ian Murray]

I will block you.

[Mr Ellwood]

I hope that is as aggressive as the debate gets. Let me reiterate that the Government take their arms export responsibilities very seriously and aim to operate one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control systems in the world. Our core objective in export licensing is to promote global security, while facilitating responsible exports. That means preventing controlled goods from falling into the wrong hands. It also means that we must not impede legitimate trade in defence and security goods.

All export licence applications are carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, taking into account all relevant factors at the time of the application, including the prevailing circumstances in the recipient country, the nature of the goods, the identity of the end user and the stated end use. A licence will not be issued if doing so would be inconsistent with any provision of the criteria, including if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression or external aggression.

The Government support the responsible trade in defence equipment. All nations have the right to protect themselves, as enshrined in article 51 of the UN charter, and they have the right to acquire the means to do so. Moreover, defence and security exports help to strengthen the UK economy and to support growth. As the shadow Minister said, the industry employs tens of thousands of people across the UK. In 2013, the value of UK defence and security exports rose to £13 billion—a 13% increase on the £11.5 billion recorded in 2012. Those exports also helped the UK to forge close relationships with allies and partners in support of international security objectives.

We must therefore seek to operate an efficient export licensing system that not only ensures rigorous export controls, but facilitates responsible exports. The case-by-case assessment of export licence applications remains the most effective way to balance those concerns. We follow a clear and well-understood procedure for each application, which involves circulating expert evidence to other Departments as a matter of routine, to make the best assessment possible, based on the evidence available at the time.

I want directly to address the perception that, in the relatively rare instances where licences are subsequently revoked or suspended, the export licensing system is in some way broken. That is certainly not the case. In 2012, the then Foreign Secretary conducted a review of arms exports, which found that there were no fundamental flaws with the export licensing system. However, the review did identify some areas where the system could be strengthened. As a result of that review, a suspension mechanism was introduced to ensure greater responsiveness to changing circumstances overseas.

The suspension mechanism allows for the suspension of pending licence applications to countries experiencing a sharp deterioration in security or stability such that it is not possible to make a clear assessment of whether the consolidated criteria have been met. Following EU Council decisions, it has now been applied to extant licences as well as pending applications. The suspension of licences should, therefore, be viewed not as an admission that there has been a mistake, but as an indication that, on the contrary, the system is appropriately in tune with the reality that circumstances change and that the export licensing system must be able to react appropriately.

Moreover, we have the power to revoke any licence if we judge that changed circumstances mean that it is no longer consistent with the consolidated criteria. Again, revocations should be viewed as indicative of the fact that the system can respond to change, not as a sign that our case-by-case assessment of export licence applications is flawed. We make the best decision possible at the time of each application, and if circumstances change, we can react appropriately. Action to revoke or suspend licences is, then, not a sign that the system is broken; in fact, the flexibility to respond effectively to change is a sign of health and demonstrates how seriously the Government take the guiding principle of responsible exports.

Having set out that overview, I would like to touch on a number of specific issues my right hon. Friend and others have raised. First, however, it would be useful briefly to reiterate the Government’s policy on assessing the risk of goods being used for internal repression.

Criterion 2 of the consolidated criteria, which has been mentioned a number of times, states that an export licence application should be refused if there is a “clear risk” that the goods in question might be used for internal repression or in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

Some confusion arose following the former Foreign Secretary’s evidence to the Committees in 2012, which was interpreted as suggesting that the “clear risk” test in criterion 2 had been dropped. Let me emphasise: the threshold of clear risk in criterion 2 has been the policy of successive Governments since the criteria were established in 2000, and it remains our policy. As confirmed in recent correspondence with the Committees, we have no plans to change that policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that clarification. I hope that what I have said, and what my right hon. Friend has now said, has set the record straight. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills reaffirmed the “clear risk” test in criterion 2 while amending the consolidated criteria in March.

Let me turn now to Russia, which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. As I have outlined, the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances in any export destination is an essential aspect of our export licensing system. Our reaction to the events this year in Ukraine provides a good example of our responsiveness and our determination to ensure that UK exports do not contribute to internal repression or external aggression.

Restrictive measures have been put in place against Russia, with a view to increasing the costs of Russian action to undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and promoting a peaceful settlement of the crisis. It is worth making a distinction between a collective desire to bring in sanctions, which are themselves an attempt to affect behaviour, and taking action when weapons systems or other equipment that has been sold are used in an oppressive manner. There is a distinction between the two, but they can lead to the same thing, which is the removal of some form of arms exports.

In the absence of agreement among EU partners on taking concerted action against Russia, the UK took the initiative in reacting to the deterioration in events in Ukraine by announcing the national suspension of a number of export licences in March, and that is an example of what I was just talking about. The aim was to restrict exports of equipment to the Russian military that could be used in Ukraine. As we did before announcing the action, we encouraged other EU member states to follow suit. The national suspension was superseded by sanctions against Russia, introduced by the EU in July. The package included an arms embargo and prohibitions on the export of certain technologies suited to the oil industry, on the export of dual-use equipment to Russia for military end use, and on the provision of related services.

Further restrictive measures were announced in September in response to Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. In addition, during that period we reviewed existing export licences for Russia and took the decision to revoke 39 standard individual export licences and seven open individual export licences, and to remove Russia as a permitted destination for 50 multi- destination open individual export licences. The Government will continue to monitor conditions in Ukraine and will keep export licensing restrictions under review. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling asked whether what the Prime Minister said on the matter referred to all or only some licences, and if I may, I shall write to him about that detail.

I am limited in what I can say about the recent conflict in Israel and Gaza, because it is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings. As hon. Members may know, the Government conducted a careful analysis of existing export licences for Israel. That review, the outcome of which was announced on 12 August, found that the vast majority of exports currently licensed are not for items that could be used by Israeli forces in operations in Gaza. During the review period, no new licences were issued to supply equipment to the Israel defence forces. However, as was mentioned in the review, 12 licences for components were identified as potentially able to contribute to equipment that could be used by the Israel defence forces in Gaza.

Following the review, the Government announced that if there was a resumption of significant hostilities, the 12 licences would be suspended. In addition, the Government continue to monitor the situation in Israel and Gaza closely, and existing licences that are found to be no longer consistent with the consolidated criteria will be revoked. It remains our overarching priority to ensure that there is a lasting settlement that enables Israelis and Palestinians to live alongside one another securely and peacefully. The UK Government will continue to work closely with colleagues in the EU and elsewhere to help achieve that. I visited Gaza, Jerusalem and Israel last month and saw what was happening on the ground. I am conscious of the mood of the House, after the Palestine debate last week. We will continue to monitor the situation.

There has been extensive interest in the recent protests in Hong Kong and the use of tear gas by the Hong Kong police. There is one extant open individual export licence to Hong Kong that includes tear gas. After careful consideration, the Government have decided that no action should be taken to revoke or suspend it. In our assessment, the use of tear gas by the Hong Kong police, with whom we have a close relationship, was judged to be an uncharacteristic response at an early stage of the protest and not indicative of a wider pattern of behaviour that would cross the threshold of criterion 2 of the consolidated criteria.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister for answering the questions that have been asked. He has said that that use of tear gas was uncharacteristic, so will he give a commitment that if it were to transpire that the Hong Kong authorities used it again, the licence would be revoked?

[Mr Ellwood]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Not to my knowledge. We take the view that this is a matter for the Government of Ireland. Clearly, there are strong bonds of friendship and history between the two countries, but it has to be a matter for the Irish people and the Irish Government to decide about any relationship with the Commonwealth.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on repatriation of powers from the EU.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Foreign Secretary and I regularly speak to our European counterparts about all aspects of EU reform, including the powers and competences of institutions.

[Ian Murray]

Given that Lord Heseltine has now admitted that the Prime Minister’s approach to Europe is based on narrow party interest rather than the British national interest, will the Minister at last—this is the third time I have asked him at the Dispatch Box—tell us what his top policy priority is for repatriation from Europe and whether that would mean that the Government would then campaign to stay in the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

Our top policy priorities in European reform are to make the European Union more democratically accountable, more globally competitive and more flexible than it is today, that arrangements should be fair to eurozone members and non-members and to ensure that power can flow in both directions between Brussels and member states. I would have hoped that those were objectives that the Labour party would share, but it seems that I am to be disappointed.

European Council

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The Prime Minister and the Government have always made it clear that we will abide by the law in respect of Romania, Bulgaria and other accession countries. The treaty of accession, which was negotiated by the last Government and agreed by the House in the last Parliament, laid down that the transitional controls on migration from Romania and Bulgaria should continue for a maximum of seven years. We were right to put transitional controls in place for the full seven-year period. Unlike in the case of the 2004 accession states, we are lifting the transitional controls at the same time as every other country in the EU that has maintained such controls. The situation is therefore somewhat different.

The measures that we have announced and are implementing to make it more difficult for people who are not workers to access social security and public services ought to provide considerable public reassurance, as should the knowledge that under this Government about two thirds of new employment is being taken up by United Kingdom citizens, whereas under the last Government the figure was only 10%. That is the first sign that this Government’s reforms to welfare, education and training are having the beneficial effect of making more of our young people employable and willing to take the work that is available.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I have asked this question of the Minister for Europe before. Now that another European Council meeting has concluded, is he able to tell the House whether he is any closer to determining what is the top policy priority for repatriation that would encourage the Government to campaign to stay in the European Union?

[Mr Lidington]

I have to confess to the hon. Gentleman that he is not the first person with whom I will share the secret. The Government have a clear policy on reform of the European Union to make it more competitive, democratic and flexible. In his party capacity, the Prime Minister has set out that at the next election he will advocate a programme of further European reform, including treaty change. The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself and see what is in the Conservative manifestos this year and next. They will give him a bit more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

9. What his priorities are for reform of the terms of UK membership of the EU.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

10. Which EU powers and competences he plans to renegotiate back to the UK.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

12. Which EU powers and competences he plans to renegotiate back to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I warmly welcome the useful contribution that Fresh Start has made to the debate on EU reform, and I think my hon. Friend puts it extremely well. Indeed, many other countries are now also seeing that it is time to move on to new arguments and a new perspective on the European Union. For instance, following their investigation into subsidiarity, the Dutch Government said it should be ensured that EU action is taken only where necessary, with national action always pursued where possible.

[Ian Murray]

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House his top policy priority for renegotiation, which will have most influence on him and whether he votes to stay in or leave the EU?

[Mr Hague]

I am not going to choose from among the five priorities as they are all important. Global competitiveness, democratic legitimacy, powers flowing back to nation states, flexibility, and fairness for the non-eurozone are all crucial priorities and important to this country’s future in the European Union.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

I would not want to upset my hon. Friend further, but he makes a good point. I will come to the Scottish referendum in a moment.

I have never bought the argument that young people are not interested in politics, even if, sadly, like the rest of the country, they do not hold politicians in high regard at the moment. As my hon. Friend might recognise, there is a palpable disconnect between many young people and the political process. I believe there is consensus throughout the House that we must address the worrying trend of poor voter turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds, and amendment 44 could help with that ambition. I understand that people in that section of our society are among the least likely to vote. One MORI poll showed that only 39% of 18 to 24-year-olds were likely to vote, which is a worrying statistic.

We know that voting habits are formed at a young age, so if someone votes at the first election for which they are eligible, they are more likely to continue voting for the remainder of their life. Would it not be sensible for young people to have their first voting experience—in this case in a possible referendum—collectively while still at school or college? When I visit schools or colleges throughout the parliamentary year—it is particularly interesting to visit sixth forms and colleges at general election time—I see the excitement of some of those potential first-time voters who are carefully weighing up everything being said and deciding in whom to put their trust. Whenever there is an election or referendum, should we not be able to go into schools, sixth forms and colleges and talk to all those young people over the age of 16, and tell them that we value their views?

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about 16 and 17-year-olds voting, and he is right to talk about engaging people in schools. When I go to high schools and speak to 16 and 17-year-olds, they are much more engaged in the political debate now they know they will have a vote in the Scottish referendum. In fact, they are so engaged in political debate that the vast majority are voting no.

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and perhaps I could encourage him to have a further conversation outside the Chamber with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). By including 16 and 17-year-olds in a debate, we would be involving in this discussion about a referendum an often passionate voice. If this issue is of such importance, as Conservative Members seem to believe, should not those with their lives ahead of them and those facing the particular challenges I have outlined—jobs, university fees and so on—have their voice heard too? Without the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, 16 and 17-year-olds will be excluded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

This is the crux of a very important debate not just about the Bill, but in general about membership of the European Union. Does my hon. Friend think the Government will object to the amendment on the basis that they do not want to hear the answers from those august organisations because they disagree with the Government’s position?

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend points to the inconvenient truth for the Government and for the promoter of the Bill that we have already had some of the answers this week, with the CBI setting out that the benefit of being part of the European Union means that every household is £3,000 a year better off and every individual in this country is at least £1,200 a year better off. What is clear from the Bill is that neither its promoter nor the Government have any idea about the consequences of a yes vote, because they cannot say on what terms they wish the UK to remain part of the EU, and even more damagingly, they cannot set out the consequences or implications of a no vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Through these amendments, I seek to give Parliament and, indeed, many interest groups in wider society the degree of consultation that was given in the 1975 referendum.

[Ian Murray]

The CBI has consulted its members and said that eight out of 10 of them, including 77% of small and medium-sized enterprises, say that we should remain within the European Union. That is why it is important that this amendment is accepted, so that the number of bodies that are consulted on this very important constitutional change is as wide as possible.

[Mr Bain]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

It is interesting to explain the purpose behind these amendments, and I can best do so by contrasting the referendum proposed in this Bill with the referendum that was held in 1975, when two White Papers were issued on the terms of the renegotiation between the United Kingdom and our European partners. That was prior to the Bill’s publication and its being presented to Parliament. When Parliament was asked on that occasion to consider legislation to establish a referendum, it knew the full details of the implications of a no vote and, indeed, a yes vote for the electorate. That is what my amendments seek to put into the Bill, because, as drafted, it simply does not achieve that aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

I was discussing Wales, where there is a surplus of £40 per person in relation to the money contributed to the EU, compared with the money that comes back. I shall not go any further into my answer to my hon. Friend, as that would take me beyond the terms of the debate.

A consultation of the people of Wales, organised by Welsh Government, would overwhelmingly endorse our continued membership of the European Union. More importantly, it would put objective facts before Parliament for us to assess. That is what the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East would provide for.

A full consultation would reveal that the values that the British people have long supported are also fundamentally European values. They are the values of community, solidarity, social justice and cohesion, and a fair chance in life for all. Those British values are also European values, and they are best realised through co-operation with our European colleagues. Consultation under sub-paragraph (j) would allow us to consult the Royal United Services Institute. I think it would say that the idea of Britain pulling up the drawbridge and declaring ourselves alone is nonsense. Anti-Europeanism has no answers to the increasing interdependence of our globe. I am sure that RUSI would endorse that position. I do not speak for it, but it would at any rate have the opportunity through this consultation to express its point of view and it will then be for all of us to make an assessment of it.

It seems to me that we need to emphasise the importance of that to the promoter of the Bill. Why he will not accept these amendments, I have no idea. I have no idea either why the Government will not support them or why the Minister will not support them—unless he is going to surprise me; I hope he does. From the way he is smiling enigmatically at me, it does not look as if he is going to surprise me. I believe that these amendments, however, would enhance the strength of the case for this Bill.

Another opportunity for this consultation would be the laying out of the facts about the consequences for Britain of those who argue that European withdrawal would be replaced by joining the North Atlantic free trade area. If we consulted the CBI, or for that matter the Institute of Directors or independent groups such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, I am sure it would reveal that British trade with the EU was three times that with North America. We have over twice the amount of trade with Holland than with the major south-eastern economies. The rest of the EU buys three times as many UK exports by value as the UK’s next most important export partner, the US—equivalent to 15% of UK gross domestic product. Again, we would be able to assess those facts. No doubt UKIP and others would make their arguments, but without a proper assessment and without the proper consultation for which we are asking, none of those arguments will have a chance to be assessed in the run-up to the short, concentrated, volatile and highly-charged referendum campaign.

[Ian Murray]

My right hon. Friend is making a strong case showing why these issues need to be examined in great depth. If he reflects on the referendum that is currently happening for Scotland, he will find that the debate has not risen to the levels he mentions, because we have not had the in-depth analysis of issues surrounding the Scottish referendum. The debate has left so many unanswered questions that the people of Scotland are demanding more information.

[Mr Hain]

As a Scottish MP of high repute in this House, my hon. Friend presents his evidence with some credibility. He is right that the Scottish referendum process reinforces exactly the case we are putting for these amendments.

Those who want us to withdraw from the EU suggest that we can have our cake and eat it by staying within the European single market to retain the great bulk of our trade, which is with EU countries. Once again, this could be assessed through a proper consultation, as specified in amendment 68 and new schedule 2. Those who want to withdraw first argue that we would avoid the costs of membership, which they denounce as too high; secondly, they insist that EU regulations make our economy uncompetitive; and thirdly, they allege a loss of sovereignty that comes with European political union.

Our amendments would enable us to assess what those arguments amount to and how seriously we should take them. They would provide an opportunity properly to consult all the different groups involved and all the different sources of expertise, which would reveal that the facts are rather different. It would reveal first that the price of Britain’s EU membership is rather more modest than the anti-Europeans would have us believe. The Government contributed £7 billion to the EU in 2012, which is around 1%—

Europe

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

The right hon. Gentleman missed the “Today” programme on Saturday morning, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke. The position I set out last week in the studios reflected the fact that we could not sensibly and should not make a judgment now. As I have said, Europe is changing. The timing, character and impact on Britain and our national interests of those changes is as yet unclear. That is not a party political position but simply the reality. I do not start from a prejudiced view towards the EU. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) published a book called “The Death of Britain?” in 1999. As far as I am aware, Britain still exists. In that sense, I am not sure that his concerns—[Interruption.] He seems uncertain because he is adopting the shadow Chancellor’s hand gestures. I hope he soon adopts the shadow Chancellor’s economics as well.

On economics, senior British figures, including Sir Richard Branson and Sir Martin Sorrell, warned that the Prime Minister’s approach risked creating damaging uncertainty for British business. The Foreign Secretary did his very best to use the expertly drawn-up brief from the Foreign Office to suggest that British business was rushing to endorse the Prime Minister’s approach last week, but he was careful to give a series of quotes that endorsed a process of reform—not a single quote welcomed the prospect of a referendum, which is the basis on which economic stability has been put at risk. The Foreign Secretary does not need to take my word for that. On 24 October 2011, he himself claimed that an in/out referendum

“would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time.”

For the record, since the Foreign Secretary made those remarks, it has been confirmed that the UK economy has shrunk by 0.3%, so perhaps he will take this opportunity to enlighten the House on how calling for an immediate in/out referendum creates, as he suggests, “additional economic uncertainty”, but committing to an in/out referendum years from now does not. The sound of silence speaks volumes. For all his best efforts today, we know that the origins, timing and content of the Prime Minister’s speech on the EU lay in the politics of the Conservative party much more than they lay in the foreign policy of the country.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend highlights the Conservative party’s difficulties, but does he agree with Ian Birrell, the Prime Minister’s former speech writer, who has said that the Prime Minister’s speech was the biggest gamble of his career? He also said that the Prime Minister is not only throwing a block of meat to the Conservative right, but giving them the keys to the abattoir.

[Mr Alexander]

Ian Birrell is an engaging and illuminating columnist, and his point on the lack of specificity in the Prime Minister’s speech is an important one. Of course, it is important to recognise that the Prime Minister did not wake up last Wednesday morning suddenly filled with a new-found democratic impulse; he woke up with the same headache he has had for years—a set of Conservative Back Benchers banging on about Europe. He used to oppose that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). Given the events of the past 24 hours, I am surprised that he is still sitting across the Chamber from us and that he has not joined us on the Opposition Benches, especially in the light of the speech that he has just made.

Is it not strange that on this, the 1,000th day of the coalition Government, we should find ourselves in the Chamber discussing the Conservative party’s favourite obsession: Europe? That is a surprise indeed. As the economy hurtles towards a triple-dip recession, the Prime Minister and the Government have decided to create economic uncertainty that could damage any recovery and the long-term prospects for economic stability by adopting a policy that is designed to fix the Conservative party rather than this country’s economy.

It is the job of any Prime Minister to stand up for the national interest. Indeed, that has been the motto of this coalition since 2010, but the Prime Minister has compromised the national interest by responding to the increasing Euroscepticism of his Back Benchers. We have a Prime Minister who simply cannot reconcile the demands of his party with the demands of his country. Let us look at the potential consequences.

The EU brings the UK a considerable amount of investment, but that could be put at risk. Some estimates put the number of UK jobs reliant on the EU at 3 million. Those jobs could be put at risk. The EU remains our single biggest trading partner and represents a de facto domestic market of 500 million people. That market could be put at risk. At a time when economic recovery seems like a distant goal, that creates uncertainty for business, which could put any economic recovery at further risk. Businesses large and small are already warning about the potential dangers to investment. We have heard many such voices being quoted in the Chamber this afternoon. The head of the CBI has said that the promise of a referendum

“builds in a degree of uncertainty and business never welcomes uncertainty.”

The problem is that the Prime Minister wants to renegotiate with Europe, but he has no strategy and no thoughts on what he wants to renegotiate. How can he renegotiate anything when there is confusion over his own position? He has talked about the repatriation of powers since he became Prime Minister, but he has yet to tell the House and the country which powers he wants to repatriate. Many Government Members have been challenged to give us some examples this afternoon, but they have failed to do so. Does the Prime Minister’s shopping list include the progressive policies of the social chapter? Does it include the right to four weeks’ holiday for British workers, the right to parental leave and extended maternity leave or the right to request flexible working? Does it include protection for part-time workers, the working time directive, the TUPE regulations or collective redundancy provisions?

There is an obvious distinction between repatriation and repeal. The British people deserve to know not just the list of powers the Prime Minister wishes to repatriate but what the Government would do with those repatriated powers. We have already seen the Beecroft report on workers’ rights, which would take this country back to Victorian times. Would the Government repatriate and repeal? Would they just repatriate? Or would they even repatriate and improve? Those key questions need to be answered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) was absolutely right to say that, whether we are in Europe or out of it, British business will still have to conform to EU directives to be able to trade. That is a critical point, but I think that the Government have missed it. If the Prime Minister has a menu for repatriation, how many or how few items on it will have to be met before being satisfied that he will go for an in/out referendum?

It would be remiss to talk of the EU in this Chamber without mentioning Scotland. It will not surprise the House to hear that the Scottish Government’s response to the Prime Minister’s speech was confusing at best. The Deputy First Minister wrote to the Foreign Ministers of the EU and said that Scotland had no intention of leaving it and that Scotland, after a successful independence vote, would continue to be a constructive member of the EU. That was despite the Irish Foreign Minister and the President of the European Commission stating that Scotland would have to reapply and that it could be a lengthy process with conditions attached.

Even more astonishingly, the Scottish Government responded to the Prime Minister’s speech by declaring that a referendum on the EU would create uncertainty for Scottish business—despite the referendum due to take place in 2014 being four years in the making. We could be in a position whereby, come 2014, Scotland is not just not in the UK, but not in the EU.

In the past two and a half years, the Government have never said anything positive about the EU. We know that the Prime Minister does not want a referendum, as he voted with us in the House only a few months ago. Back in June last year, he posed the question whether he wanted to stop the bus and get off, and he answered no. One thing is for sure: the Prime Minister can do none of this while he is away from the EU decision-making table and locked out of the room in a sulk. He should be at the table, thumping his fists on it and using this country’s considerable influence to make the patriotic case, founded on the national interest, for a flexible Europe that can stimulate economic growth, respect national sovereignty and change better to reflect current circumstances. Europe cannot be changed from an isolated position.

In his speech, the Prime Minister referred to

“a tantric approach to policy-making”.

In reality, this is not a tantric approach, but complete impotence. Having been bounced by his party on Europe and bounced by the Liberal Democrats on boundaries, we could be talking about the one-term Prime Minister who broke up the UK, took Britain out of the EU and inherited a growing economy, only to take it three times back into recession.

My constituents are concerned about the real issues of the economy, jobs, the cost of living, protecting those who are most in need and getting young people and graduates into work, but their Governments on both sides of the border are putting their future prosperity in further—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.