Bahrain

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights abuses and UK assistance to Bahrain.

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chair-personship, Ms McDonagh—I think this is the first time I have had the privilege. I very much welcome the opportunity I have been given by the Backbench Business Committee. We do not often get the time to debate some of the smaller Gulf countries, and it is long overdue that the House look in some forensic detail at the issues in Bahrain.

Much could be said in general terms about the appalling human rights record of the al-Khalifa regime, even in the seven years since the Bahraini people played their part in the Arab spring protests of 2011. For a short time, the attack by regime forces on the protest camp at the Pearl roundabout, the invasion by the Gulf Co-operation Council—mainly Saudi—forces, the cancellation of the 2011 grand prix and the systematic crackdown, particularly on the majority Shi’a population, caught public attention, but then other, more momentous events in the region pushed Bahrain into the shadows. Indeed, Bahrain is often in the shadows of its much larger neighbour, Saudi Arabia. I am pleased that we are going to debate Yemen, and no doubt the Saudi intervention there, in the main Chamber, but that is, of course, a Gulf Co-operation Council intervention, in which Bahrain also plays its part. Bahrain also plays its part in the boycott of Qatar.

I am pleased that Bahrain is still a priority country—a euphemism, I am afraid, for what used to be “country of concern” on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office list. I am also pleased to report that, in a Foreign Affairs Committee publication that is hot off the presses today, Bahrain is cited as a country not just where there are human rights concerns but where—this is in line with the theme of the debate—the UK Government are not acquitting themselves well in the recognition of those concerns.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend is pursuing the argument. Does he share my concern that, after an apparent moratorium on the death penalty since 2010, Bahrain went ahead and executed three people last year? Is that not a matter of deep concern, along with all the other human rights concerns we have?

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend, who is a distinguished lawyer and is particularly keen on human rights, touches on an issue I will spend some time on. I am afraid that this will be a rather long speech because I am taking advantage of the fact that we do not often get the opportunity to debate such matters, and I will come on to horrific examples of the capital punishment that has resumed in Bahrain.

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf, I really welcome this debate. The Government must be held to account for their complicity in the suppression of human rights in the region. Female political prisoners in Bahrain, including activists Najah Yusif and Medina Ali, have been subjected to torture, sexual abuse and unfair trials. I am calling on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to acknowledge and condemn the abuse suffered by Bahraini female political prisoners and to call for their immediate release. Will my hon. Friend join me in that call?

[Andy Slaughter]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Her position as chair of the APPG is an onerous task, as the group covers not just Bahrain but other Gulf countries. I held that position in an early incarnation of the group—the all-party group for democracy in Bahrain. My hon. Friend does an excellent job, and I will come on to the matter she mentions.

I would like this debate to shine a light on the continuing human rights abuses in Bahrain, specifically to gainsay their whitewashing by the regime, its paid apologists—the Bahraini Government often contract dozens of public relations and other companies in the UK to spread their message—and its political supporters. I also wish specifically to question the UK Government’s role, deliberate or otherwise, in sanitising the regime’s behaviour.

When the Prime Minister addressed the leaders of the Gulf Co-operation Council nations in December 2016, she noted the importance of UK-Gulf trade and security co-operation and advocated a strong UK role as the Gulf’s partner of choice, embedding international norms and seeing through reform. Indeed, as UK security co-operation and arms sales to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have increased, so too have statements from the FCO and other parts of Government that they wish to see human rights reforms in Gulf monarchies, starting from what is a very low base.

That has been especially true in Bahrain, where the UK Government have strong military, defence and trade co-operation, including a recently opened naval base, a history of offering military training and substantial arms sales. In addition, the UK has spent more than £5 million since 2012 on a package of technical assistance, which it specifically claims is to improve Bahrain’s poor human rights record. The FCO has funded training for various arms of the Bahraini Government, including the Ministry of Interior, police officers, prison guards and the public prosecution office. The pursuit of human rights reform in Bahrain is certainly an important goal, but the evidence suggests that the UK’s reform efforts in the country, spanning six years and costing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, have failed.

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

This is a timely debate in a number of ways because the whole question of the Arab spring—why it happened and where it is now—touches on human rights. More importantly, I wonder whether the Government, in terms of their trade with Arab countries in particular, ask what the human rights caveat is any negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a caveat to ensure human rights and that equipment is not used against the population?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I am glad to see so many Members here. I am not an absolutist in these matters—it is a balancing act. My argument is that things have gone too far in relation to Bahrain and some of the other Gulf countries. Britain has a substantial history of good relations with those countries, but that leads to turning to a blind eye to obvious abuses.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

Surely it is the exact opposite. It is not turning a blind eye; the fact that we have a good working relationship of many years’ standing allows us to have a greater influence and to guide progress in human rights.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful for that intervention because it goes to the heart of my argument. The hon. Gentleman’s point is one that we often hear, but my argument is that exactly the reverse is true and that the intervention by the UK at a time when the human rights situation has worsened in Bahrain gives cover to those abuses.

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

If the UK has a strong relationship with Bahrain, should it not use it? For instance, I hope that we will hear from the Minister today a strong condemnation of the detention of Nabeel Rajab, which is a clear abuse of human rights that many organisations, including the United Nations, have recognised.

[Andy Slaughter]

The right hon. Gentleman is, as always, ahead of me—he is on to the next page of my speech.

Since Britain’s reform assistance programme in Bahrain began, that country’s human rights record has deteriorated. Detainees held in Bahraini detention facilities have made frequent and sustained allegations of torture and forced or coerced confession, and courts have routinely convicted defendants on the basis of such confessions. Meanwhile, Bahrain refuses to allow the UN’s torture experts to enter the country.

The Bahraini Government have also persecuted and imprisoned peaceful human rights defenders, not least Nabeel Rajab, the founder of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights and a shortlisted candidate for this year’s Václav Havel human rights prize, awarded by the Council of Europe, who was recently sentenced to five years in prison for tweeting. Sayed Alwadaei, the director of the London-based Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy—BIRD—has watched as his family members in Bahrain have been tortured and imprisoned in retaliation for his human rights advocacy in the UK. I note that Mr Alwadaei is here today. I thank him for his bravery and tenacity, and for continuing his laudable work in the face of such persecution, and I hope that the Minister does the same.

Hassan Mushaima, now 70 years old and a founding Bahraini opposition leader, was arrested alongside 12 other political leaders in 2011, and then tortured and sentenced to life imprisonment. He is being denied access to his most basic rights, including medical assistance, while in Jau prison, a detention centre that in July 2018 was criticised by the UN for its inhumane conditions. Hassan’s son, Ali, escaped arrest because he was in the UK in 2011. Fourteen days ago he started a hunger strike outside the Bahrain embassy in London, asking that his father be given access to adequate medical treatment, family visitations and books. Ali Mushaima is here today. I hope the Minister will also join his call for more humane treatment for his father and all other political prisoners in Bahrain.

Worst of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) pointed out in his intervention, during the UK’s current assistance to Bahrain, Bahrain broke a seven-year moratorium on capital punishment, with the execution of three torture victims by a secret firing squad in January 2017. The UN special rapporteur on summary executions swiftly declared the executions of Abbas al-Samea, Sami Mushaima and Ali al-Singace to be extrajudicial killings. After those unlawful executions, the size of Bahrain’s death row tripled in less than a year, and 21 individuals now await execution. It is a particular concern that specific Bahraini institutions trained by the UK have been responsible for serious violations of international human rights law, either while receiving UK training or shortly thereafter. Those violations have been especially severe, with catastrophic consequences in the case of death row inmates.

I want to spend a little more time talking about some of the people who have directly suffered violations and about the grave abuses they have experienced at the hands of Bahraini bodies supported by the UK. Al-Samea, Mushaima and al-Singace were executed in January 2017. Mushaima and al-Singace were the nephews of prominent peaceful opposition political activists in Bahrain, which their families believe is the real reason they were falsely accused of terrorism offences. All three men were tortured by police and forced to confess. Methods of torture included beatings, electric shocks and sodomy with metal objects. Al-Samea was tortured and al-Singace was raped by prison guards at a facility at which the UK was training 400 members of staff.

Al-Samea and Mushaima filed complaints about their torture with UK-trained torture investigators: the ombudsman for the Ministry of Interior and the Special Investigation Unit, the SIU. Those institutions, which are mandated to conduct inquiries into torture complaints lodged by detainees in Bahrain, failed to properly investigate any of the complaints made by the men. Mushaima’s lawyer submitted complaints about his client’s torture and false confession to both bodies, neither of which ever conducted an investigation. The SIU later rejected al-Samea’s torture allegations without interviewing him or commissioning an independent medical examination. The three men were never allowed to meet with lawyers and were eventually convicted and sentenced to death in trials that relied almost entirely on their torture-tainted confessions.

Mohammed Ramadan and Husain Moosa face imminent execution for alleged terrorism offences while they insist on their innocence. Both men were arrested and tortured by Bahraini police. Ramadan, a policeman and father of three, was blindfolded, stripped and beaten with iron rods and threatened with the rape of his family members. Moosa was hung from a ceiling by his wrists for three days and beaten with batons. Both men eventually signed false confessions and have since been tortured further by prison guards in a facility where the UK has trained staff. Despite receiving complaints about their torture and forced confession shortly after arrest, the ombudsman refused to investigate for two years, during which time the men were sentenced to death on the basis of their coerced confessions. Neither man has ever been allowed to meet with a lawyer. After their trial, the ombudsman and the SIU both agreed to finally investigate their torture allegations. The investigations have now been closed, but neither institution has released its findings. Both the ombudsman and the SIU refuse to tell the men or their lawyers whether the investigations confirmed their torture allegations. The SIU eventually recommended a retrial for both men, but their forced confessions, extracted through torture, may now be reintroduced as evidence.

Maher Abbas al-Khabbaz faces imminent execution for alleged terrorism offences, despite insisting on his innocence. He was disappeared by Bahraini police for a week and tortured so severely that he had to be transferred to a military hospital. Police forced Maher to sign a false confession, which was used to secure his death sentence in a patently unfair trial. Despite official complaints from his family and lawyer, the ombudsman has never investigated his torture. The SIU has also yet to investigate his torture, despite receiving a formal complaint from the human rights advocacy group Reprieve, which is assisting him, in late July.

Those defendants were failed every step of the way by Bahraini bodies the UK sees as reform partners. They were tortured by police and prison guards until they made false confessions, and their torture and ill treatment were covered up by torture investigators. Three of them have been illegally executed; the other three could be killed at any time. It is deeply concerning that the UK’s Bahraini partners are responsible for human rights violations as serious as torture and obscuring acts of torture in furtherance of unlawful death sentences. This is a poor result for a reform programme that aimed to improve Bahrain’s human rights record.

Of equal concern is the British Government’s reluctance to issue strong criticism of Bahrain’s human rights abuses, in spite of the growing human rights crisis there. In 2017, after the executions, the Foreign Office’s response was to state that Bahrain was aware of the UK’s opposition to the death penalty. It raised no public concern about the torture or unfair trials. Shortly thereafter the Foreign Office stated that it would not support a joint statement on Bahrain’s human rights record at the next UN Human Rights Council session because the statement would

“not recognise some of the genuine progress Bahrain has made.”

Indeed, the Government have maintained that, while Bahrain

“is by no means perfect and...has...a long way to go in delivering on its human rights commitments...it is a country that is travelling in the right direction. It is making significant reform.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 66.]

The British Government count the advent of the ombudsman and the SIU among the “reforms”. The Foreign Office continues to describe the ombudsman and the SIU as

“independent human rights oversight bodies”

that enjoy “increasing public confidence”, and it has not acknowledged their wrongdoing in the cases of prisoners facing imminent execution. That stands in stark contrast with UN human rights experts, including the special rapporteurs on torture and summary execution and the Committee Against Torture, which have expressed concern that the ombudsman and the SIU are “not independent” and “not effective”, and that their activities result in “little or no outcome.”

There is real concern that the UK’s defence of Bahrain on the global stage has served to deflect international scrutiny of Bahrain’s human rights record at a time when such scrutiny is sorely needed. There is now a false perception among many in the international community that Bahrain’s human rights record has improved thanks to British assistance. Bahrain aggressively promotes that idea. Government-affiliated newspapers there now refer to a supposed British belief that

“Bahrain’s human rights record is flawless.”

Meanwhile, despite mounting violations, states have failed to agree to a single joint statement criticising Bahrain’s human rights record at the UN Human Rights Council in the past three years, and Britain has been unwilling to support such statements.

UK reform assistance programmes are too often cloaked in secrecy. That is particularly true when it comes to the human rights risk assessments that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is obliged to carry out in approving assistance of that nature. The Government’s policy on overseas security and justice assistance—OSJA—is designed to prevent UK involvement in human rights abuses such as the death penalty or torture. The policy sets out a human rights risk assessment process that British officials must follow before approving UK assistance to overseas bodies that might be involved in such abuses.

When the OSJA policy was introduced, the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, claimed that it would demonstrate the UK’s commitment to

“tackling issues related to human rights in an open and transparent way”.

In practice, however, the Government have adopted a blanket policy of refusing to disclose OSJA assessments, which have been used to approve UK assistance to human rights abusers. Bahrain serves as an example of this. The Foreign Office has refused to disclose any of the OSJA assessments completed in respect of its work in Bahrain, leaving Parliament and the public unable to determine whether the risks of such close co-operation with Bahrain’s security apparatus have been properly considered. It is also unclear whether the assessments, which the Foreign Office initially performed in 2011, have been repeated or reconsidered in the wake of serious and documented violations of international human rights law by the Bahraini Government since then.

The funding of such programmes also lacks transparency. Technical assistance to Bahrain was initially funded largely from the conflict, security and stability fund—the CSSF—a £1.13 billion cross-departmental fund that has received parliamentary criticism for its lack of transparency and accountability. In 2017, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy described it as “opaque”. This year, both the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and the International Development Committee criticised the fund. ICAI noted that, owing to serious problems with the Government’s human rights risk assessments,

“we do not know if CSSF programming is causing harm”,

as working with security forces accused of human rights violations

“risks legitimising them and their actions, or even becoming complicit in violations.”

The IDC noted that cross-departmental funds of that kind risk being slush funds, the lack of transparency and accountability of which “undermines trust” in their use and

“risks undermining faith in the UK aid brand.”

That is an alarming message, which is very much repeated in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, published this morning.

The Foreign Office has shifted the funding stream for those programmes away from the CSSF and to the global Britain fund and the integrated activity fund, about which even less is known. When asked, Ministers have refused to provide details of those funds, including their objectives, safeguards or assessment frameworks, so Parliament has been unable to provide scrutiny or oversight.

It should also be noted that after several years of disclosing basic information about its Bahrain reform projects, the Foreign Office now refuses to disclose such details about its current and future work in Bahrain. In response to freedom of information requests and parliamentary questions, the Foreign Office has refused to tell the public and MPs the true scope of its current and future technical assistance activities in Bahrain, including who the Bahraini recipients are, how much is spent on each programme and which programmes are funded by which funds. It is unclear why human rights reform programmes should be subject to that level of secrecy. By formally shielding the details of such assistance from public view, the Government risk creating the impression that they are unwilling to accept scrutiny or criticism of their activities in Bahrain. That hardly reflects the values of good governance and openness that the Government apparently seek to advance in that country.

The efficacy of the British Government’s reform efforts in Bahrain are in serious doubt. Bahrain, already a repressive autocracy in 2012, has grown only more so since. The country’s only two opposition political societies have been forcibly dissolved. The only independent newspaper in the country has been forcibly closed. A recent constitutional amendment paved the way for military trials of civilians. The UN has described

“a clear pattern of criminalizing dissent”

and abhorrent cases of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders. Freedom House ranks Bahrain as less free and more repressive of civil and political liberties today than it did in 2012. In terms of press freedom, Bahrain ranks l66th of 180 countries, and the past six years have been marked by torture in detention, unlawful death sentences resulting from unfair trials, and illegal executions. Deprivation of nationality—so-called statelessness—is also now routine. That cannot be the result for which the Foreign Office hoped.

Rather than safeguarding human rights and democracy, the UK’s reform programme has coincided with a brutal assault by the Bahraini Government on the basic rights and freedoms of their citizens. The UK has shielded Bahrain from international censure and avoided criticising arms of the Bahraini Government that have received UK training. That problem is exacerbated by insufficient transparency related to the reform programme’s risk assessments, funding streams, and other details as basic as which arms of Bahrain’s Government will receive UK assistance in future. Given the violations carried out during the course of UK assistance to Bahrain, the British Government cannot keep UK taxpayers in the dark regarding what their money is doing in Bahrain.

The Foreign Office has urgent questions to answer. The UK’s reform efforts in Bahrain have been described as a failure on the basis of the deterioration of Bahrain’s overall human rights records, as well as human rights violations committed by the UK’s reform partners in Bahrain. Does the Minister disagree with that characterisation? If so, on what basis would the Minister describe the UK reform programme in Bahrain as a success? All the violations committed by the UK’s Bahraini reform partners in the cases I have raised have been put to the Foreign Office in writing on several occasions. Does the Minister dispute that those violations took place?

The UN special rapporteur on summary executions deemed the executions of Abbas al-Samea, Sami Mushaima and Ali al-Singace unlawful and an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. Does the Foreign Office agree with that assessment? If not, why not? Does the Foreign Office accept that confessions extracted through torture must be excluded from criminal proceedings? If so, what steps is the Foreign Office taking to ensure that the special investigations unit and the ombudsman disclose the yet unreleased findings of their investigation into the torture of Mohammed Ramadan and Husain Moosa?

Does the Foreign Office accept the international position that no death sentence can be handed down without strict adherence to fair trial and due process rights, among other safeguards? What assurances has the Foreign Office received from the Bahraini Government that the retrial of Mohammed Ramadan and Husain Moosa will comply with such standards, in particular so that they will not risk a conviction and death sentence on the basis of confessions extracted through torture?

Maher Abbas al-Khabbaz faces imminent execution, and his torture leading to the procurement of a coerced confession has not been investigated by the ombudsman or the SIU, despite official complaints submitted on his behalf. Do the Government accept that they should be extremely concerned that Bahrain may carry out yet another round of unlawful executions without any steps being taken by the relevant authorities or bodies to investigate whether torture was used to secure a death sentence?

Sayed Alwadaei’s family continue to be the subject of reprisals by the Bahraini authorities, not only for his work as a human rights defender but for complaints against the very bodies that have failed adequately to investigate the ill treatment of his loved ones. Do the Government accept that Bahrain’s treatment of Mr Alwadaei and his family amounts to reprisals? Also, what steps are the Government taking to secure the release of Nabeel Rajab and Hassan Mushaima?

The Foreign Office has refused to release any of the OSJA assessments that it has performed in respect of its work in Bahrain. Given the obviously grave concerns about violations of human rights by the UK’s partners in Bahrain, and given the intention of openness and transparency underpinning the OSJA policy, will the Minister commit to releasing those assessments?

The Foreign Office has also refused to release any information on its continuing assistance programmes in Bahrain, or information related to the funds by which the assistance is carried out: the global Britain fund and the integrated activity fund. Will the Minister commit to providing sufficient information about those programmes and funds to ensure proper oversight by the public and by this House?

I am grateful for the assistance I have received from Reprieve and the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy in preparing my remarks, and to their representatives for attending today’s debate. I gave some indication of the areas I would cover in my speech to the Minister’s officials. I understand that it might not be possible to cover all of them in his response today, so I hope he can write to me with answers to any remaining questions.

I know that the Minister cares personally, as I do, about the human rights of people in the Gulf and the UK’s record as a defender of human rights around the world. I fear that both of those are under threat and deserve proper scrutiny and investigation. I am grateful to many colleagues for attending today’s debate. I look forward to their comments and to the responses from the Front Benches.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

Russia does have historical connections with this part of the world, but it is also important to recognise that we are talking about independent states that have the right to determine their own direction of travel. Russia wants to weaken the European Union and stop its enlargement. What Russia is trying to do—it tried to do this explicitly in Montenegro—is change the internal politics of some countries in order to stop their association with NATO and the EU, which is clearly not in our interests or in the interests of the region’s peoples or Governments, who have the right to make their own political choices.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend for his Committee’s report and his statement. He mentioned the irony that we are supporting the accession of the western Balkan states to the EU at a time when we are leaving it, and I am sure that he noticed the words of the Macedonian Foreign Minister who, when asked why that was the case, said:

“Perhaps those inside forget how cold it is outside.”

Even outside the EU, we will still have the close relationship that my hon. Friend talked about, particularly with Kosovo. We have a particular bond with Kosovo, and many Kosovans have settled in this country. Still only a minority of countries in the world have recognised Kosovo as an independent state, so does my hon. Friend agree that Her Majesty’s Government should be doing more to ensure that Kosovo gets security recognition and is brought into the international fold and international institutions, such as the EU?

[Mike Gapes]

As I said in my statement, the British Government were among the first to recognise Kosovo as a state, which happened in 2008. The reality is that although more and more countries around the world have recognised Kosovo, there are some problems. Some EU countries have still not recognised it and that, combined with Russian weight and its veto within the United Nations system, has meant that Kosovo is not represented in all the international bodies that it should be. However, I am sure that the British Government will continue to give its support to Kosovo, just as we do at the moment.

Demolition of Khan al-Ahmar

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am not sure whether the UK is in a position to make that judgment, but certainly, as has been made clear, the United Nations has already said that it could constitute forcible transfer and clearly now that things have actually begun that matter becomes a much sharper one for consideration.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I have visited Khan al-Ahmar twice and have met many of the families there. This is a personal violation for them, as well as a war crime, but it is also a strategic step. There are 46 Bedouin villages and their future may well hang on whether the Israeli authorities get away with the demolition of Khan al-Ahmar. This allows for the splitting of the west bank and for the annexation, which is now openly talked about, of the west bank by Israel to take place. If not now, when are the Government going to act? When are they going to act against illegal settlements and end trade? When are they going to recognise Palestine and when are they are going to recognise their historical obligations and take a lead internationally, rather than wringing their hands?

[Alistair Burt]

I say again that it is my view—and, I think, the view of the Government—that we want to keep the opportunity of the two-state solution open and viable. That requires remaining in contact with the Government of the state of Israel. All these issues—the concerns about the building of settlements and their strategic position—are a vital part of the land jigsaw that the envoys are presumably working through and they must come forward as the basis for negotiations between the Palestinians and the state of Israel. It should be the United Kingdom’s job to do everything it can to keep those channels and opportunities open, and the actions that we will take in response to this will be in accordance with those principles.

Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I regret that I do not have a statistic of that detail in front of me. I am not sure whether it appears in the Committee report, but I will investigate and write to my hon. Friend if the information is readily available. I do not guarantee that, as I am not sure what statistics are in the public domain.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

When the then Leader of the House made his initial statement on winding up the Gibson inquiry in January 2012, the then shadow Lord Chancellor, now Mayor of London, asked that it be paused. The reason given as to why it was not was that the process would take so long, and three times the Leader of the House said there would be an independent judge-led inquiry, so it was always contemplated that it would take this long. In the interim, the ISC inquiry has been inadequate by its own admission, and for this reason a number of torture survivors have not taken part. There are many people who could have given evidence that has not yet been given, so will the Minister say why this will take 60 days and what criteria he is using to decide whether to go ahead with the inquiry?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Her Majesty’s Government will respond within the 60 days to the Committee report. I do not think there is much more that I can add to that at this stage. Many years have elapsed since the statements were made in 2012 and 2013, and the question of whether anything could be added that would be of benefit to our knowledge or usefulness is increasingly in doubt as time passes.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing it. It is also a pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.

Last week, Jamie McGoldrick, the director of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, spoke to the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group here. A very experienced UN diplomat, he took over recently, and he gave us a horrific picture of both the current and the long-term situation in Gaza. As has been said, there is very little electricity or clean water. There are appalling levels of unemployment, poverty and reliance on aid. One statistic that he gave stuck in my mind. It was that 1,700 people were shot in one day. It is not just the 135 people who have been killed but the thousands of people who have been injured recently. We are talking about really quite unimaginable figures. Nearly 15,000 people have been injured, and the injuries of a large number of those—4,000—related to the use of live ammunition. This is firing into largely unarmed crowds of people who do not pose a threat to the state of Israel.

We can go back 200 or 100 years to events in our own history, such as Peterloo and Amritsar, in which the military engaged in attacking civilian populations. The idea that that is happening now in a country that says it is a democracy and is an ally of this country is just horrific. I am waiting to hear the condemnation that we should hear on this, because it relates to an illegal occupation that has gone on for 60 years. What has happened over the last 25 years—long before Hamas came on the scene—is the separation of Gaza from the west bank so that a Palestinian state becomes impossible. It is no longer possible to travel, not just for health reasons but for any reason at all, out of Gaza. In effect, the people of Gaza are being told, “You are sealed off. You will continue to be occupied. You will be subjugated and humiliated, but you will no longer have the right, just as people in East Jerusalem do not have the right, to travel to the west bank.” This is the fracturing of Palestinian integrity and society in a way that is clearly deliberate.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I will give way—no, having looked at Mr Paisley, I will not; that was a stern shake of the head.

I end by asking this one question. Tomorrow Omar Shakir, a director of Human Rights Watch, will appear before an Israeli court. Can the Minister deal with the question of whether there will be British attendance there from the consulate or the embassy? It is important that voices in Israel speaking up against what is happening are defended and supported, because otherwise the truth simply does not get out. I ask the Government to do their bit, not just in condemning, but in supporting those who are trying to make a difference to the lives of people in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing the debate and on making such an eloquent and heartfelt speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to him.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the shocking number and nature of the casualties sustained by Palestinians in Gaza due to recent events. In particular, he spoke about the fatal shooting of the volunteer paramedic, Razan al-Najjar, despite the fact that she was clearly identified as a paramedic. He said that that was a war crime, and I endorse that. He stressed the importance of an independent investigation of that death and of all the other deaths that took place, and the importance of people being held to account.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the nature of the weapons and the ammunition used, and made the demand, which many hon. Members agree with, that until those matters are looked into properly, arms sales to Israel should be suspended. He spoke about the humanitarian conditions on the ground, which was taken up very eloquently by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames).

Like me, and the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex supports a two-state solution, but recognises that that is becoming less likely because of the situation on the ground and the settlements in the occupied territories. In connection with that, I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In October 2016, I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the Council for Arab-British Understanding and Human Appeal. It was sobering to see the size and nature of those settlements and the way in which they make the two-state solution unfeasible. I agree with his description of what is going on in Gaza as “collective punishment”, and he is also right that it is legally and morally wrong.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has long worked on these matters. He spoke about a briefing by Jamie McGoldrick last week that several hon. Members present attended. Mr McGoldrick described the situation in Gaza as polarised and visceral—a crisis on top of an unfolding disaster, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) said. He said that there would be no humanitarian solution without a political solution. I asked what his key asks were, and he said that we had to address the United Nations Relief and Works Agency shortfall; shore up the health sector in Gaza; and support education so there can be a depolarised place for children to spend time, rather than getting sucked into the conflict.

Mr McGoldrick also said that the parties to the conflict must exercise restraint, and that is the message that the UK Government must put to the Israeli Government. Of course, Hamas must exercise restraint, but democratic Government should speak to democratic Government, and we must tell the Israeli Government to exercise restraint too.

[Andy Slaughter]

Mr McGoldrick also indicated not just that there had been a lack of restraint but that the weaponry used against civilians was designed to cause maximum injury. In contrast to some of the bizarre things that we have heard from Government Members, there was no attempt to treat the injured, so even minor wounds are causing amputations and infections. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I travelled to Palestine with Medical Aid for Palestinians last year.

[Joanna Cherry]

Mr McGoldrick made strong reference to the terrible injuries that have been sustained. He said that Gaza was running out of external fixators because people have suffered such terrible fractures from a bullet going into their foot and essentially exploding it, so that it does not even look like a foot any longer.

Yemen

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. and learned Lady asks a perfectly fair question. If we have information in relation to an attack, our responsibility is plainly to let those who might be affected know. As soon as such a danger has passed, aid agencies will be able to move back. Again, this is another reason why we have sought to discourage such an attack.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The UAE is only one force in the Gulf that is increasing belligerence and destabilisation, but it is a very close ally of this country. Why are the Government not either using their influence with the UAE or reconsidering some of those links and co-operation? They appear to be doing neither at the moment.

[Alistair Burt]

As I have indicated, we have been in contact with the parties in the coalition over a lengthy period. The Foreign Secretary has been in contact with them this weekend, and it has been our consistent position to seek to discourage the attack on Hodeidah, while understanding what drove the coalition to be involved in the first place, which is to seek to defend the Yemeni people.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last November, I travelled to the west bank as a guest of Medical Aid For Palestinians, which does excellent work not just in the west bank but in Gaza. I am grateful to it, to Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, Palestine Briefing, and of course the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for the briefings that they have provided for the debate.

We have the rare privilege of time this afternoon. I do not intend to abuse that, for once, and I will not repeat the excellent speeches that have already been made, not least that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who gave a superb introduction to this subject. I congratulate her on securing this debate from the Chairman of Ways and Means.

I hope that this debate gives the Minister time to answer questions at greater length than is normally possible in Question Time or during statements in the Chamber. I do not want to butter him up, but he has immense knowledge of his brief and thinks about it in a considered way. Let me put it this way: Opposition Members are always very indignant when junior Ministers turn up when Secretaries of State should be there, but I never hear that in the case of the Foreign Office. However, there could be two reasons for that. I will leave it at that.

Rather than going through the facts and figures we have heard—they are important—I will give my impression from my visits to Gaza. I first went nearly 10 years ago with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield. We went through Erez from Israel in 2009. I think we were probably the last parliamentary delegation that was allowed in. A couple of years later, I had an exciting fast drive with the military across Sinai to Rafah with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and Lord Steel. I wish I had been able to go to Gaza since then. I have been to the west bank several times since, but I do not believe it is possible to go to Gaza now. I think Sinai is too dangerous at the moment. Can the Minister address whether we can get Israel to allow, in addition to the visits it allows from humanitarian organisations, parliamentary delegations to visit?

The visit I made at the beginning of 2009, which was less than three weeks after the conclusion of the first war on Gaza in recent years—Operation Cast Lead—was the most traumatic experience I have ever had. The only thing I can think of that compares with it is Grenfell last year, and that was not an intentional act and was on a much smaller scale, although it was much closer to home. Some of the things I saw there were utterly horrific and barely describable. I met survivors in families in which 20 or 30 members had been killed. Some had been killed by sniper fire. Others had been killed by more severe weapons of war, such as jets, gunboats and tanks.

What really made an impression on me was visiting hospitals that had been shelled by tanks. We visited industrial estates and villages that had been completely razed to the ground. We saw mosques, other public buildings and the Parliament, which had been deliberately destroyed. I visited a garden in the hospital that had been funded by DFID where phosphorous—illegal weaponry—was still smoking three weeks later. Those are war crimes. They are breaches of international humanitarian law and the Geneva convention, but Israel commits such breaches every day.

In three wars on Gaza—not just Protective Edge, which was the most recent in 2014, but Pillar of Defence in 2012 and Cast Lead—more than 5,000 Palestinians died. Most of them were civilians, and many were children. That is a consequence of waging war on a very densely populated civilian area. Obviously those wars were far more severe than what has happened in recent weeks, but we saw what happened in recent weeks. Often we do not see what happens in Gaza as a result of bombing and shelling, or we can only bear witness to it afterwards. Some 53% of injuries between the end of March and the middle of May were by live fire—the majority. We saw people a long way back from the border being picked off by sniper fire, and weaponry being used that maimed and permanently maimed. That is not accidental; it is a deliberate strategy. Even if one accepted a need for Israel to use force in the circumstances, I do not believe for a moment that that type of force or that type of weaponry or live fire needed to be used. That is what is so outrageous.

According to the Medical Aid for Palestinians briefing, 238 health personnel were injured in that period. Some 38 ambulances were damaged and 16 medical workers were hit by live ammunition. One was killed. That is targeting, as often happens, of medical and relief facilities, which again is illegal. That is the situation we find ourselves in. The counter-briefing about it all being Hamas people and so forth does not explain those facts.

We need to remind ourselves of certain basic facts in relation to Gaza. First, as the UK Government acknowledge, Gaza is still under occupation. Even though there was a withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops to the border of Gaza, it is, under international law, considered to be under occupation because it is completely constrained.

The point is often made by supporters of the Israeli Government that although Israel withdrew, that did not solve the problem. The motivation for withdrawal, given what has since happened with the wars and blockade, was less to do with the withdrawal of relatively small numbers of settlers—certainly as compared with what has happened in the west bank—than it was about demography. It is about Israel having its cake and eating it. As the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, Israel does not want a one-state solution, but it makes a two-state solution impossible, so the compromise is the creation of these Bantustans like Gaza. That is what withdrawal from Gaza is about: it is about isolating almost 2 million Palestinians so that they do not count, and do not raise questions about why they do not get a vote and why a one-state solution is not possible.

I would like to hear from the Minister on some issues, if he has time to address them. The march and the demonstrations were primarily about the right to return. That issue is not often addressed by the British or other Governments because of the other more pressing matters, but it is a real concern. The vast majority of the population of Gaza are refugees from ’48, or possibly from ’67 more recently, or from elsewhere. What is our policy on that? It is one of the final status matters that has to be addressed. That is a specific issue that is being raised here. In what Palestinians refer to as Nakba, 700,000-plus people were forced to leave their home or fled in terror. They want to know what the solution is to that issue. It is a perfectly reasonable request to make, but it is one that is not addressed.

The more immediate problem that we often address is the blockade, the imprisonment of 1.8 million people in this open prison, and the act of collective punishment, which is clearly what this is. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) gave the example of the rationing of food, bringing people down to starvation levels to put pressure on the Government. That is a clear indication of that collective punishment. What is the UK Government’s response to that punishment continuing—and accelerating because of the effect on water and sewage systems, and the cumulative effect of this having gone on for a decade or more? What are we doing to help the peace process, and the process of Palestinian unity?

I have no more time for Hamas than anyone else who has spoken. It did win a free and fair election in 2006, but its conduct since then has placed it beyond the pale. There has not been the opportunity to have an election since then, and Israel’s active co-operation is needed for that to happen. Of course the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas and the other parties also need to enable that to happen—that is not impossible with international support—but Israel is the key, as are the attitudes that we and other EU countries take. Elections would be an important step forward—one that we do not hear much about.

Earlier this week, I raised the issue of human rights organisations. In response, the Minister said he thought I had made my mind up on the issue. I referred to the case of Omar Shakir, the director of Human Rights Watch in Israel and Palestine, whom I met last year when I was over there. He is a well respected, hard-working individual in the international human rights community, but he is threatened with deportation. Yesterday, a court granted an injunction to allow him to stay in Israel until proceedings have completed. That is good news, and it is right that we recognise that an Israeli court made that decision, but I do not agree with the Minister that there is nothing the Government can do in such cases. Other Governments have raised concerns about that.

If I have made up my mind about this, it is on the basis of evidence. The organisations that we meet, both here and when we are over there—B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence and Israeli human rights organisations; Palestinian organisations, inlcuding al-Haq; and international organisations such as Amnesty International —are constantly under pressure from the Israeli Government and parts of the Israeli establishment in a way that they have not been before. They are made enemies in their own country. We have to support them not just financially, by encouragement, and by meeting them and listening to them, but by taking up their case, because they do extraordinary good work and are instrumental in trying to bring communities together.

I make no apologies for raising the issue that we always raise: recognition, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) mentioned. It is difficult to see, given not just the vote in Parliament but the facts on the ground, why the UK Government will not recognise the state of Palestine. The answer given is: “We don’t believe it’s the right time.” I would like the Minister to say why he does not think it is the right time, and what indicators might lead us to suggest that it is the right time.

Settlements are a huge part of the problem, and not just because they are a form of colonisation. With settlements come the whole infrastructure of occupation—the wall, checkpoints and everything like that—which then need security, for the protection of the settlers. I am not talking about boycott, divestment and sanctions. I have never been a particular supporter of BDS because it is a blunt weapon. We should address the specific issues where Israel has got it wrong, and where we have got it wrong. One is on recognition; another is on trading with settlements.

I cannot for the life of me understand why, given that—as we repeat constantly—settlements are illegal under international law, we say that it is a matter of choice for people in the UK to buy settlement goods. Settlement goods should not be available, and British companies that support settlements, financially or otherwise, should not be doing so. Those would be good steps, along with those already mentioned. I cannot better what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, said about arms, an issue that he has looked into. Where atrocities have been committed—as they are being at the moment—including during the wars on Gaza, we should not have supplied arms to the Israelis. I accept that Israel is an ally and a friendly country to us in many ways, but we have to be tough with our friends sometimes. I cannot see why we continue to do that.

The issue at the bottom of this is always the occupation. This is a 60-year occupation, which is very unusual, even in what is an incredibly dangerous and quite horrific world at the moment, given the many things that are happening. It is a matter of shame to the international community that we have not done more to address it. What causes most difficulty for those of us who advocate for the Palestinians is that there is very little recognition by Government of the inequality of arms. It has to be, “Yes, 5,000 Palestinians have been killed, but some Israelis have been killed as well.” Of course every single death is a tragedy, but I was struck by the column that Gideon Levi wrote in Haaretz this week, in which he posed the question: what would happen if it was the other way around? What would happen if 60 Israelis had been killed while the Palestinians were celebrating a music festival and opening an embassy in Ramallah? I think there would have been extraordinary international outcry. I cannot bear the double standard.

There is so much to admire about the state of Israel and everything that it has done in that time, but its treatment of the Palestinians is a stain, and is something that we should not shy away from, but confront. If the Minister were able to put a bit more flesh on the bones of these issues than is normally possible, we would all be very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I have been to Khan al-Ahmar, as colleagues know, and as a number of colleagues have. We disagree with the possible demolition. We will continue to make representations to Israel on our sense of the damage to the community, and because this is something that would demonstrate renewed commitment to resolving issues by looking to find a pathway forward together, rather than taking action that might be legally possible but not seemingly appropriate. The UK maintains its position on demolitions and settlements as set out before.

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not know when the Minister was last in Gaza or if he plans to go again—I know that successive consul-generals from Jerusalem go there regularly —but will he or his Department make representations to the Government of Israel that Back-Bench Members of Parliament from any party should be allowed to travel to Gaza?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, we will. Ultimately, it is a decision for the state of Israel to take, even in relation to my trips. If I seek to go, they have to be sure of the circumstances and everything else. I would not want to take that away, but I always feel that contact is vital, helpful and necessary, and of course I would encourage it.

The UK is committed to addressing the underlying cause of humanitarian strife in Gaza—it is so pertinent to what we have been discussing—by increasing our support for economic development. The Palestinian economy is not growing at the rate needed to create the necessary jobs for a growing labour force or to improve living standards. As a result, unemployment continues to rise. Israeli constraints on movement, access and trade are the key impediments to economic growth.

In Gaza, that is compounded by the dire water and energy situation. Issues over power and energy remain. As colleagues have said, Gazans currently have access to only four hours of electricity per day. Our support will help to lift the overall standard of living by increasing trade and job creation, enabling greater movement and access for people, and enhancing the supply of electricity and clean water.

There is a glimmer of positivity through the work that the special envoy, whom I spoke to last week, is moving forward in an otherwise difficult time. We will continue to channel our support to that work, in addition to diplomatic efforts. We are keen to focus on areas where there is Israeli-Palestinian co-operation, of which there is much more than I think some people outside this place would necessarily recognise, and to support the financial sustainability of the Palestinian Authority.

As I have the time, let me deal with one or two of the specific questions raised. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about Omar Shakir. We are obviously aware of the case but, as I said in the House the other day, ultimately it is a matter for the Israeli Government. We have been in touch with Human Rights Watch about the case. Officials from the embassy in Tel Aviv have also raised the gentleman’s case with the Israeli authorities, and did so two days ago.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, who I think knows more about the subject than I do after all the long years he has spent on it, spoke about increasing funding to UNRWA, and I have already mentioned that. He spoke about the recent conference in Washington, which a UK senior official attended. We discussed projects to help to transform Gaza, and we will continue to support those efforts and US leadership. US engagement is vital, of course, to help to encourage and support Israel in its work on that. In view of the fact that we might not get movement on the middle east peace process as quickly as we would like, Gaza is something that could be done more quickly, and because it is urgent, putting some emphasis into that is the right thing to do. He also mentioned MPs visiting Gaza, and I have answered that point.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley spoke about both mental health and UNICEF. I answered the question about UNICEF, but the situation is such that we are reviewing what support we can give, particularly looking forward to the projects in Gaza that I mentioned. On mental health, our support to UNRWA helps to support mental health services. All our experience of seeing trauma in many places around the world leads us to recognise that the damage done to people by being part of this situation, and particularly the damage done to children by what they may have witnessed, requires that attention is given to mental health services.

I have detained the House for far too long. I am grateful for the opportunity to have been able to say a little more than in the rushed five minutes I usually get at the end of a debate. As I said earlier, I know that all colleagues who have taken part in the debate care about this issue very deeply. I know also that there are often things that the House would like the UK Government to do that we cannot do, but there are positions that we believe are the right way to try to move forward, and we will continue to press those. We remain absolutely convinced both of the need to recognise Israel’s existence and its needs for defence and security and of the legitimate right to justice of the Palestinians.

We recognise that the windows that we have all been looking for are closing very quickly. If not two-state, what? If we are not now to move forward, when? We will continue to press that. I hope and believe that the balanced position we seek to take, recognising the complexities, and having this debate read in many different capitals around the place will enable states and friends of both Israel and the Palestinians to recognise Parliament’s desire for peace, its understanding of the complexities of the situation, and its determination to recognise that the humanitarian situation of those affected has now reached such a state that there must be an even greater degree of urgency than before.

This is something that cannot be left or managed or that will disappear of its own accord. Hopefully, the sort of determination and comments that colleagues have expressed today will make a difference, and the United Kingdom will be able, in time, to be part of a process that will deliver what so many colleagues in this House desperately want to see.

Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

By supporting an independent and transparent element in its inquiry, Israel has an opportunity in these circumstances to ensure that its long-standing statement of democratic principles is demonstrated to the rest of the world.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Government of Israel will not tolerate any independent scrutiny of their actions, and increasingly obstruct and persecute international and domestic human rights organisations. What representations has the Minister made about the current plan to deport Omar Shakir, the well respected director of Human Rights Watch in Israel?

[Alistair Burt]

The first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question demonstrates the difficulty of dealing with the issue. He has already made up his mind about all this, and he is welcome to do that, but, as I have said, the United Kingdom Government cannot.

I have made no personal interventions in the case of that gentleman. I said last week that immigration processes were for each individual state, but we have made representations about the closing down of political space. We believe it is much better to interact with people than seek to bar them from a country; however, that is Israel’s own immigration right, as it would be ours.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What recent assessment his Department has made of the extent to which the human rights of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are protected.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

16. What assessment he has made of the effect of the long-term displacement of Palestinians on stability in the middle east. [R]

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

We are committed to protecting the human rights of Palestinian refugees. In 2017 and 2018, we provided £50 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to support Palestinian refugees across the middle east. Ultimately, to promote stability across the region, there must be a fair, agreed and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I have indeed made representations to US counterparts in relation to this. We have brought forward our own next tranche of support to UNRWA, and we continue to believe that support for UNRWA is vital, particularly in the present circumstances. We will be further reviewing what we can do—not just ourselves, but with other donors as well.

[Andy Slaughter]

Today, Nakba Day, is the 70th anniversary of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from what is now Israel. Israel chooses to mark it by escalating the murder and maiming of civilians in Gaza, including hundreds of children. Can we hear from the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, as we have from the shadow Foreign Secretary, an unqualified condemnation of the actions of the Israeli Government and security forces, and support for international law, including the right of return? Is the Minister prepared to take action, starting with the suspension of arms sales to Israel?

[Alistair Burt]

That were three questions in one there. I will deal with the centrality of the issue in Gaza later. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that our statements make it clear that we deeply regret the extent of the use of live fire yesterday. We understand the reason why Israel would seek to protect its border and its border fence—it knows what would happen if there were a significant breach of it—but we are also concerned about the events that will have led to people being pushed towards the fence. However, it is a complex situation and we will cover it in more detail shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but I would advise the House to be a little cautious about some of the reports coming out in relation to Socotra. I spoke just this week to the Foreign Affairs Deputy Minister of the United Arab Emirates, and the circumstances on the allegations being made are not particularly clear at present, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that we will be able to make a further statement about that in due course.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Bahraini criminal court has today locked up and taken citizenship from 115 people in a mass trial, of whom 53 have been given life sentences. Will the Minister look again at the co-operation between this Government and the Bahraini authorities, which only gives credence to their farcical regime?

[Alistair Burt]

As was indicated earlier, the relationship with Bahrain recognises the pressures brought about on that Government, but the challenges that they are trying to meet in relation to human rights and other matters will continue to be part of our dialogue. We will continue to raise difficult issues publicly and privately with the Government of Bahrain.

Gaza Border Violence

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. If I remember rightly, if there was advance notice it was pretty short, simply because it is a sovereign decision for the United States and Israel.

On the relationship, this is always a very difficult point: if the relationship is such that our views are always in line with the United States, people claim that we are a poodle of the United States. Where our views clearly differ, we are accused of losing the special relationship. The truth is that if we disagree, we disagree openly and clearly. We did not agree with this decision on the embassy, for some of the reasons we have seen and experienced.

We still feel great concern about the symbolism of the move. It means one thing in Israel and to Israelis, and something completely different to others. We were alert to that and to the sensitivity of others, and we will continue to press those in the United States. Notwithstanding its rightful support for the state of Israel, the US sometimes does things that it thinks are in support of the state of Israel when they actually might make its life rather more difficult.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Not a single Palestinian needed to be killed or maimed in the current protest. That they were was the result of the choice of munitions and tactics deployed by the Israelis. I appreciate that the Minister wants to see all sides of the issue in the longer term, but does the current crisis not demand a more robust response from the Foreign Office, which might just save some lives in the short term?

[Alistair Burt]

In terms of saving lives in the short term, we have continued today, as a result of yesterday’s events, to maintain our contacts with both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian authorities through our consulate in Jerusalem and through the embassy in Tel Aviv. We do not need to draw attention to the events of yesterday to say that the pleas for restraint we have made over many weeks have clearly not had the desired effect on those who might have been in a position to exercise it. It has not happened. We will continue to make them, but the evidence of the dreadful circumstances yesterday should make everyone who played a part in it pause and realise what they have done, and bring the conflict and violence to an end so that we can get a chance to get other things moving forward.