Palestinian Education System

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ryan]

I do not believe it is compatible with seeking co-existence; to warp the minds of young children is a serious form of child abuse.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Joan Ryan]

For the last time, I think, yes I will.

[Ian Austin]

We find extremists and people who foster hatred in all communities on all sides of all conflicts. What worries me about this is that some of the material is in books that are officially sanctioned by the Palestinian Authority. Is the answer not to use more of Britain’s aid budget to promote projects that bring young people together, such as the Middle East Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow project that I have visited in Jerusalem, where young Israelis and young Palestinians work together, co-operate and discuss the issues? Is that not a building block for the peace process that we all want to see?

[Joan Ryan]

My hon. Friend is right. There is no question that co-existence projects work. They are crucial in building that constituency for peace and in demonstrating that Palestinians and Israelis can live alongside each other.

Palestinian Communities: Israeli Demolitions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

A moment ago, my hon. Friend was talking about Gaza. Is it not the case that Israel signed an agreement on movement and access in relation to Gaza with the Palestinian Authority; gave the Palestinians control over the borders for the first time in history; allowed imports and exports; planned for the construction of a sea port and an airport; and pulled out of Gaza and removed the settlers? But Hamas took over; expelled Fatah; murdered rival Palestinians; armed itself with hundreds of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, which were provided by Iran; and dug tunnels to attack civilians on kibbutzes? That is what happened in Gaza. What responsibility does my hon. Friend ascribe to Hamas for the situation in Gaza, and how does he think it is possible to resolve it?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree that many of the things that my hon. Friend listed have taken place, but the fact remains that there has been a land, sea and air-based blockade of the Gaza strip throughout that entire period. Gaza is now described as the largest open-air prison in the world, and the UN has declared that it will be unliveable by 2020, so there is a humanitarian crisis that has to be resolved, and it is in the gift of the Israeli Government to take that forward.

I have described the harsh reality of the facts on the ground. I met the commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency yesterday, and his message to the international community was clear: conflict management is not enough, and we must do more to support an actual resolution to the conflict. I agree that we cannot continue with a wait-and-see approach. Where has that got us over the last 50 years, 25 years or the 10 years of the Gaza blockade? We are where we are because of choices that have been made—choices on both sides of the conflict. Foremost among them has been the active choice to continue the expansion of illegal settlements on Palestinian territory and the forcible transfer of Palestinian families and communities from their homes. Both those policies have created a coercive environment that seeks to undermine the ability of Palestinians to continue living where they are. They are at great risk of forcible transfer, which is a clear violation of the fourth Geneva convention.

Just over a month ago, a UN report found that Israel’s role as an occupying power in the Palestinian Territories has

“crossed a red line into illegality”.

International law is clear. An occupying power cannot treat occupied territory as its own or make claims of sovereignty. Occupation must be temporary, and the power must act in good faith and in the best interests of the protected or occupied population. However—these are the findings of the UN and its special rapporteur—that has been the repeated pattern of behaviour of successive Israeli Governments over the 50 years of the occupation.

A central plank of the occupation and spread of settlements has been the demolitions. It is estimated that almost 50,000 Palestinian structures have been demolished since 1967, with 1,500 homes demolished in Rafah alone between 2000 and 2004. That is despite warnings in 1968 from Theodor Meron, later the president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, that the demolitions, even on security grounds, broke international law and the fourth Geneva convention. Article 53 of that convention prohibits the destruction of private property by an occupying power, and it is unequivocal, so how do the Israeli Government respond? They respond not by denying the substance of the claims of demolition, but by claiming that Palestine is not a party to the Geneva convention because it is not a state. Astonishing! Stepping beyond the fact that the policies of the Israeli Government are the main obstacle to Palestinian statehood, that is an utterly specious argument, because a basic and fundamental principle of human rights law is that international human rights treaties apply in all areas in which a state exercises “effective control”, and the occupation clearly constitutes such control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I certainly welcome the Prime Minister’s comments earlier today. I hope there can be cross-party support for restating the clear and long-held position of the British Government on this matter.

As we speak, a swathe of communities remain at risk of forcible transfer. Susiya, Khan al-Ahmar, Ain al-Hilweh, Um al-Jamal and Jabal al-Baba are under imminent threat—824 people, 464 under the age of 18, reside in these communities. Just a few days ago, 35 UK rabbis wrote to the Israeli ambassador regarding the impending demolitions in Susiya, to urge the Israeli Government to stop and think. Demolition, displacement and forced transfer in Susiya and other Palestinian communities in Area C would constitute a war crime under international law.

I am sure that all hon. Members here will wish to join me in urging the Israeli Government to think again and withdraw its threat to demolish and displace these communities; these are violations of international law that set back the cause of peace and security. I believe we must respond to these illegal acts of occupation, as we would have done to other such acts around the world. The UK and the European Council prohibited the trade import of all goods from Crimea after the Russian illegal occupation and annexation in 2014. We should follow that precedent when it comes to the illegal settlements. This is land that has been illegally seized and annexed. Palestinian property and homes have been destroyed and seized. Communities have been uprooted, displaced and destroyed. Therefore I see no way in which we cannot cease to trade with the illegal settlements. I categorically do not propose an end to trade with the state of Israel, of course, but let us be clear: the illegal settlements are not part of Israel proper; they are part of occupied Palestinian territory. How can we continue to support this illegal settlement enterprise? Surely that makes us complicit in illegal activities. Continued trade with illegal settlements creates an economic incentive for more illegal acts. It encourages the demolition of homes and communities to make way for settlements, simultaneously denying Palestinians access to economic opportunities.

Tamir Pardo, the former head of Mossad, has said that in that coercive environment, which is so insidious and dangerous,

“Israel faces one existential threat,”

and it is not external—Iran or Hezbollah—but rather “internal.” It is the result of a divisiveness in Israel, resulting from a Government that has decided to bury its head

“deep in the sand, to preoccupy ourselves with alternative facts and flee from reality”.

Those are the words of a former head of Mossad, who makes clear that the existential threat facing Israel is one of its own making, namely the occupation. As Pardo has gone on to argue, the blockade, the occupation, the demolitions and the aggressive annexation of Palestinian land are matters that we should all be concerned about, not because it is a pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian position, but because they undermine peace, as well as the moral, political and legal fabric of Israel.

[Ian Austin]

How can my hon. Friend argue that the existential threat that Israel faces is one of its own making, when on day one, the day of Israel’s establishment in 1948, the country was invaded by five Arab armies, when the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Hamas have been dedicated to Israel’s destruction for the past 70 years, when Iran is committed to wiping Israel off the map of the earth and is arming Hezbollah and Hamas with rockets to do that?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I remind him that I am quoting Tamir Pardo, the former head of Mossad, who has named that as the existential threat.

[Ian Austin]

That is not what you think, but you are quoting it.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with Mr Pardo—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I was going to make a number of points, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who opened the debate, focused on settlements, so that is what I will address in the time available.

Settlements are obviously not making things easier, but the truth is that they can be dealt with. Some 85% of the settlers live on the Israeli side of the security barrier, on 8% of the west bank, in areas largely adjacent to Israeli urban areas. That can be dealt with by land swaps, which were the basis of the talks as far back as Camp David and Annapolis and which have been supported by the US, the EU and the Arab League; by moving settlers, as happened in Gaza; or by allowing others to stay under Palestinian sovereignty, just as there are, always have been and always will be Arabs living in Israel too.

Far from concreting over the whole of the west bank, as has been suggested, the settlements beyond the major blocks account for just 0.4% of the territory of the west bank. They are not mushrooming and do not represent a permanent physical barrier to a viable Palestinian state. Of course I am worried about settlements, but to say that they are the only or biggest issue is clearly absolute nonsense.

The truth is that, over many years and many negotiations, the issue of the settlements and land has the broadest agreement on how to solve it. Instead of demonising one side in what is a complex conflict, we should promote dialogue, because the alternative to negotiation and compromise is more conflict and more violence. Instead of pretending, as my hon. Friend’s speech does, that all the fault lies with one side or the other, Britain must play a role in working towards peace, promoting co-existence and doing what we can here in the UK to develop a lasting solution. We should support co-existence projects, increased economic ties between the Israelis and Palestinians, and measures to bring people together, like the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, which I hope the Minister will tell us today he will do more to support.

Balfour Declaration

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. The Balfour declaration was an historic event that led to a giant political fact: the creation of the state of Israel, which I believe to be one of the most stunning political achievements of the 20th century. As I said, I do not think anybody in this House could seriously wish the undoing of that fact. Nobody looking at Israel—a democracy and a liberal, tolerant society in the middle east—could seriously wish away that achievement. We should celebrate the existence of the state of Israel—we certainly celebrate our relationship with the state of Israel here in this country—but we must recognise and accept that for others the fact of the Balfour declaration carries very different overtones. They remember it in a very different spirit, so it is important we mark this anniversary with sensitivity and balance.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The best legacy of the centenary of the Balfour declaration would be to make concrete progress towards the two-state solution we all want to see. Does the Foreign Secretary agree, in this centenary year, to support and properly invest in the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, which could help us to take that big step? I desperately want to see a Palestinian state and have campaigned for that all my life, but it is very important that Members understand there is no legalistic, unilateral or bureaucratic route to that objective. It will not be achieved by being imposed from the outside or by unilateral declarations here or anywhere else. It will only be achieved by getting Israelis and Palestinians to work together to build trust, to negotiate and to compromise, and for economic development and trade in the west bank, and the reconstruction and demilitarisation of Gaza.

[Boris Johnson]

I completely agree with the aspiration the hon. Gentleman sets out. I believe that the future is economic interpenetration and mutual prosperity. That is why next year we are investing £3 million in co-existence projects of exactly the kind he describes.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

I have only recently been appointed to the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs and have not done this before, so bear with me until David Crausby, who should be the Chair, arrives.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the centenary of the Balfour Declaration.

I did not turn up for my previous Westminster Hall debate because I was stuck on the tube, so there is something about me and Westminster Hall debates that does not seem to work. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin.

It has been almost a year since we last convened in this place to discuss the landmark anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. It is my pleasure to reflect once more on the words of a Conservative Foreign Secretary that ultimately led to the re-establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel. In his letter dated 2 November 1917, Foreign Secretary Balfour informed Lord Rothschild, a leading member of the UK’s Jewish community, that

“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

I shall move on with my speech, but I will take further interventions shortly.

The work of the UK-Israel working group highlights the importance of our trade relationship. I hope that Israel will be one of the first countries that the United Kingdom signs a free trade deal with when we eventually leave the European Union. Israel’s and Britain’s security services are working around the clock to keep us safe in our fight against the threat posed by Islamic terrorists, and our scientists work together to find cures to the world’s deadliest diseases. An Israeli company, Teva, provides more medicines to the NHS than any other supplier.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Instead of boycotts, sanctions and other measures that drive people apart, is not the answer to promote dialogue, build trust, encourage negotiation, and promote economic development, trade and investment in the west bank? Are not prosperity, trade and jobs the building blocks of the peace process?

[Dr Offord]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Boycotts are divisive, counterproductive and harm everyone. The way forward, as he says, is through trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

I agree, and I will come on to what happened in 1948 and again in 1967. It is often forgotten that Israel has not been the aggressor. Others have decided that they want to attack Israel, and Israel has decided to defend herself.

[Ian Austin]

We should remember that the original UN partition plan of 1947 proposed a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The great tragedy is that, instead of allowing that to be established at the same time, five Arab countries chose to invade Israel on day one.

[Dr Offord]

They did, and the people who were harmed the most were those who fled the fighting, many of whom were Palestinians and others who had resided in Israel and no longer do—a point I will come on to.

There can be no doubt that Lord Balfour would have been proud of the unbroken bond between Israel and the United Kingdom that we share today. Since its inception, the state of Israel has stood as a bastion of freedom and democracy in a region where liberties cannot be taken for granted. By accepting the United Nations’ partition plan for Palestine in 1947 and absorbing up to 200,000 Arabs who remained in Israel after the war of independence in 1948, the Jewish leadership upheld Balfour’s principle of protecting the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish population. Their descendants today make up Israel’s 1.7 million-strong Arab minority, forming over 20% of Israel’s population. Today there are 17 Arab Members in the Knesset, out of 120—that is an increase from 12 in the last Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

Yes, I do. I have also viewed Rawabi, which not only is a great example of what can be achieved in peaceful co-existence with other parts of Israel, but gives a great opportunity to the very people who need assistance. I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

It is time that the Palestinians and their Arab brothers reversed the fateful decision in 1947 to reject the internationally endorsed partition plan. It was a historic mistake, which began the cycle of violence that continues today. That is why the gradual warming of Israel’s relations with its Arab neighbours is so especially encouraging. With shared concerns over Iran’s hegemonic ambitions and destabilising influence, Israel is now working more closely with the likes of Egypt and Jordan as well as countries that do not even have diplomatic relations with the Jewish state, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait.

In recent months, there has been a regional push towards a peace process and talk of a revival of the 2002 Arab peace initiative. This year, our Foreign Secretary said aptly that Israel’s Arab neighbours “hold the key” to the peace process. It is only with the support of these Arab partners that the Palestinian Authority will be able to make some of the difficult compromises needed by both parties in the peace talks. The Palestinians need support from their Arab brothers to return to peace talks, and I urge the Minister to encourage dialogue in that regard. Will he update the House on the progress of on any initiatives that he has promoted to achieve that?

Polling regularly shows that more than half of Israelis and Palestinians still support a two-state solution, so the window of opportunity is still open—but it might not be forever. Inexplicably, the Labour party’s youth wing has this month seemingly repeated the historic mistake of the Arab leadership in 1947 by rejecting a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. I hope that does not become official Labour party policy.

[Ian Austin]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that whatever anybody thinks, it remains Labour party policy to support a two-state solution. The Labour party has supported a two-state solution throughout its history, and, as Harold Wilson said, it would not have been possible

“for a political party to be more committed to a national home for the Jews in Palestine than was Labour”.

[Dr Offord]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful clarification. I hope that that remains the stance of the Labour party, and I am sure that he and other sensible members of the Labour party will continue to ensure that it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I also saw that the proliferation of settlements in the west bank is sadly making a two-state solution almost impossible. I think all of us in this room agree that a two-state solution is the answer. I can certainly say that is the policy of the Scottish National party, as it is of the Labour party.

[Ian Austin]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

No; as I said, I was talking about the treatment of Palestinians living in the west bank in the military courts, which I observed with my own eyes, and which has been widely reported on by lawyers from across the globe.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I do not want to take up too much more time, Sir David. I have taken rather a lot of interventions. I just want to say that it is a matter of law that the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories is contrary to international law under the fourth Geneva convention. That is recognised by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Court of Justice. By all means, today, let us celebrate and protect the state of Israel; but let us not forget, as British people, the other aspects of the Balfour Declaration, and our responsibility to make sure that the rights of Palestinians living in the west bank and occupied territories are respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to you, Sir David, for the opportunity to sum up on behalf of the Scottish National party. The Balfour Declaration has clearly been one of the pivotal events in the tragic and often violent history of the middle east, but I do not think that its centenary can be met with unbridled celebration and joy. The Balfour Declaration and the thoughts that went into it have contributed to the history of the middle east in the past 100 years being more tragic and more violent than it might otherwise have been.

Before I explain that, I will reiterate the SNP’s position, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) outlined. We fully support the principle of the establishment of a two-state future for the middle east. We absolutely support the right of Israel to continue as an independent state. We support early and, I would argue, immediate recognition of Palestine as an equal state to Israel. I want to see a future in which the two can co-exist as equals in every way, with each fully recognised by the international community, each fully recognising the rights of the other and each fully accepting the responsibilities under international law.

That means that the state of Palestine has to take appropriate action against any of its citizens who engage in acts of violence against Israel or any of its citizens, and it also means that the state of Israel must stop using those murderous attacks as an excuse to launch military action that it knows for certain are likely to result in the deaths of innocent children and other unarmed civilians. Two wrongs do not make a right. As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said very powerfully, the first step in any peace process is that all the killings have to stop.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I will give way briefly, because we are short of time.

[Ian Austin]

When the hon. Gentleman alleges that Israel is looking for an excuse to bomb people in Gaza, is he suggesting that the Israeli Government want to do that, and that the Israeli people have some desire to wipe the people of Gaza off the map? Is he saying that the people of Israel have no right to defend themselves against rockets being fired into Israel? What exactly is the point he is making when he uses the word “excuse“?

[Peter Grant]

The point I am making is that I entirely respect the right of any nation to use targeted and appropriate military action to defend itself against an aggressor. All too often, the military action from Israel has not been targeted, and arguably it has not been proportionate. The number of civilians who have been killed is far too high for it just to be an accident.

Let me also make it clear that it is completely unacceptable for anyone to use legitimate criticism of the actions of the state of Israel to defend or justify any form of anti-Semitic racism against Jewish people in Israel or anywhere else. People should never blame an individual for the disagreeable actions of the Government of the country in which they live.

I said I would come back to my reasons for saying that I did not think the Balfour Declaration was something to be celebrated without at least some sense of regret. The first part of the declaration has been mentioned, but a huge principle of it has been completely ignored in the past 70 years. The rights of the Palestinian people, certainly in the parts of Palestine that are illegally occupied by Israel, have been violated time and again. Until that stops, we cannot celebrate the Balfour Declaration. We cannot celebrate it while one of the main parties to that declaration is deliberately and repeatedly violating some of its most important principles.

We also need to look at the background of the declaration, and I am surprised that no one has picked up on this point. The declaration was not the act of a Foreign Minister who was a friend of Israel or who cared particularly about the welfare or plight of Jewish refugees. A few years earlier, when he was Prime Minister, the same Arthur Balfour had talked about

“the undoubted evils which had fallen upon portions of the country”—

this country—

“from an alien immigration which was largely Jewish”.—[Official Report, 10 July 1905; Vol. 149, c. 155.]

Those are not the words of a friend of the Jewish people; those are the words of a racist and an anti-Semite. I believe that that was part of the attitude behind the whole Balfour Declaration and all the manoeuvring and double-dealing that went into it. It was not primarily about the welfare of the Jewish people; it was primarily about ensuring that the desperate problem of Jewish refugees was kept away from the shores of Great Britain. The parallels with the plight of Syrian refugees today are far too obvious to have to be made explicit.

As far as the wider foreign policy agenda was concerned, many of the actions of Balfour and his successors were more about looking about the narrow, selfish, colonial interests of the United Kingdom than about caring for the people of Israel or Palestine.

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

[Ian Austin]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

As I have very little time, I really cannot give way.

I genuinely wish Israel well. I wish my Jewish friends and those who want to celebrate well, but in all conscience I cannot celebrate with them this year. I want to be able to celebrate with them in future. I want to be able to celebrate the fact that this year’s celebrations gave an impetus to creating the kind of middle east that we should all be looking for: a middle east where the two peoples who call Palestine/Israel their ancient homeland can genuinely live together in peace and security. I believe that a significant and symbolic step towards that would be for the United Kingdom to recognise Palestine and at the same time call on Palestine to accept its responsibilities as a nation among the international family of nations.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Like many others, I will begin by thanking the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) for securing the debate. The centenary of the Balfour Declaration is an opportunity to reflect on the history of the state of Israel and Britain’s role in the region, particularly as a friend and ally of Israel.

Back in 1917, Arthur Henderson, the then leader of the Labour party, said:

“The British Labour Party believes that the responsibility of the British people in Palestine should be fulfilled to the utmost of their power. It believes that these responsibilities may be fulfilled so as to ensure the economic prosperity, political autonomy and spiritual freedom of both the Jews and Arabs in Palestine.”

We remain committed to those important aims today. We want a viable and secure state of Israel alongside a viable and secure state of Palestine.

[Ian Austin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Liz McInnes]

I am reluctant to, because we have so little time and I want to hear the Minister’s response. I am sorry.

There can be no military solution to this conflict. Both sides must stop taking action that is going to make peace harder to achieve. That means an end to the blockade and settlements and an end to rocket and terror attacks, but it also means that those on the extreme fringes on both sides of this debate who believe in a one-state solution must step down from their entrenched positions. Until both sides can live in security, it is difficult to imagine the ambition of a negotiated two-state solution becoming a reality. Leaders on both sides must behave like statespeople. The Israeli Government must stop the building of settlements, and the Palestinians must do far more to stop and condemn the epidemic of terror and rocket attacks against Israelis.

Later this year we will also mark another important anniversary. It will have been 70 years since the UN partition plan that specifically addressed the idea of two states with an international zone in Jerusalem and guarantees for the rights of religious minorities. The Labour party has been clear that it would recognise the state of Palestine. When will the Government do the same?

As we have heard today, the Balfour Declaration did not only agree to the establishment of a national home of the Jewish people, but clearly stated that,

“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

There is more work to be done. The levels of poverty and the lack of opportunities open to those living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, particularly in Gaza, are shocking. Oxfam estimates that about 80% of the 1.9 million population are reliant on humanitarian aid to survive. Gaza needs more than simply aid; its residents need to be empowered to support themselves. The unemployment rate is 41%—one of the highest in the world. We must ensure strict adherence to international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The UK should use all diplomatic means to pursue accountability for all violations of international law, such as through bilateral relations and multilateral forums such as the UN Human Rights Council.

I will finish with a few questions for the Minister. Last December, UN Security Council resolution 2334 was passed and adopted. It stated that settlements have no validity and pose a major obstacle to a two-state solution; it also condemned all acts of violence against civilians and urged the Palestinian Authority to confront all those engaged in acts of terror. What steps have the Government taken since last December to put these recommendations into action? Over the coming weeks, there will be a number of events to mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration. I will be grateful if the Minister elaborates on the wider ways that the Government are marking this important anniversary.

In many ways, the anniversary is a sobering reminder that the words that Lord Balfour wrote all those years ago are still not a reality. What steps will the Government now take to make sure that today’s speeches result in a more proactive approach towards the middle east peace process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

It does. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I will mention our commitment for the future, as colleagues were keen for me to do so.

[Ian Austin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

I will, but only once more; otherwise I will not get everything on the record.

[Ian Austin]

Does the Minister agree that ascribing colonialist motives to Britain and to the Balfour Declaration, as we heard from the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), is complete nonsense? Britain restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine until the war, and then put holocaust survivors in camps in Cyprus to prevent them from going to Israel as well. How could that be described as colonialism?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point. If I may, I would like to get back to what I want to put on record about the declaration.

The Government are proud of the role that the UK played in the creation of the state of Israel. We will welcome the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a guest of the Government on the centenary of the Balfour Declaration. We will mark the centenary with pride and respect, but also with a degree of sadness, as issues between Israel and the Palestinians remain unresolved.

Although history is not everything, it is important to recall the context in which the declaration was written. It was a world of competing imperial powers, in the midst of the first world war. Jews had suffered centuries of persecution, and in that context, establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the land to which they have strong historical and religious ties was the right and moral thing to do. That is why we are proud of the role that the UK played—a vital role in helping to make that Jewish homeland a reality.

Today, we continue to support the principle of such a Jewish homeland, and the state of Israel. Israel is a symbol of openness and a thriving democracy. It is a beacon for upholding the rights of women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The energy, innovation and creativity of Israel’s people stand out as an example to the world, and the existence of the state of Israel is not up for discussion.

The UK’s relationship with Israel is a partnership that continues to grow in areas such as trade and investment, innovation and technology, and defence and security, as a number of Members have mentioned. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met Prime Minister Netanyahu in February and March, and reiterated the UK’s commitment to building on the strong ties that already exist between our two countries.

Although it is of course right to mark the Balfour centenary, we understand and respect the sensitivities many have towards the declaration and the events that have taken place in the region since 1917. That is why we are resolutely committed to establishing security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians through a lasting peace. The UK remains clear that the best path to peace lies in a two-state solution, and we believe the declaration remains unfinished business until a lasting peace is achieved.

We are clear that a solution can only be achieved through a negotiated settlement that leads to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and with a just, fair and realistic settlement for refugees. Just as we fully support the modern state of Israel as the Jewish homeland, we fully support the objective of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, and we also recognise the continual impediment constituted by the occupation to securing those political rights.

The Foreign Secretary reiterated the UK’s support for a two-state solution when he visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in March, and also expressed concern about Israeli settlements and demolitions. It has long been our position that Israeli settlement activity is illegal under international law. The viability of the principle of two states for two peoples is being undermined by the increased pace of settlement advancement, plans for the first new settlement deep in the west bank in more than 25 years, the first new housing units in Hebron for 15 years, and the retroactive approval of unauthorised settlement outposts.

I am gravely concerned by reports this morning that the Jerusalem municipality planning committee conditionally approved building permits for 178 housing units in Nof Zion, a Jewish settlement within Jabel Mukaber, a Palestinian neighbourhood of east Jerusalem. As a strong friend of Israel, and one that continues to stand by it in the face of bias and unreasonable criticism, we are continuing to urge Israel not to take such steps, which move us away from our shared goals of peace and security.

We should also be clear that settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. As the Quartet set out in its July 2016 report, terrorism and incitement also undermine the prospects for a two-state solution. We deplore all forms of incitement, including any comments that could stir up hatred and prejudice. We have regular discussions with both the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel, in which we reiterate the need for both sides to prepare their populations for peaceful co-existence, including by promoting a more positive portrayal of each other. Hamas—an organisation supporting violence and denying the existence of the state of Israel—cannot be part of that future unless it moves towards the Quartet principles.

Our unwavering commitment to the two-state solution is why the UK has also been a leading donor to the Palestinian Authority and such a strong supporter of its state-building efforts. The Department for International Development is developing a programme of support for projects intended to bring people together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

T4. We should all be very worried about the malevolent involvement of the Iranian hard-line al-Quds force using American heavy weapons against our brave allies the Kurds. Will the Minister make it clear that Iraqi forces must not enter the four provinces of the Kurdistan region, and that the only way forward is co-operation in Kirkuk and wider dialogue based on the Iraqi federal constitution, which is supposed to guarantee Kurdish rights?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I spoke this morning to the Foreign Minister of Iraq, and I am speaking later to representatives of the Kurdish Regional Government to do exactly what is being expressed in the House—to urge caution on all sides, and to continue a careful dialogue to make sure that there is no possibility of a miscalculation leading to conflict. It is essential that matters are pursued on a constitutional basis, but there is a difficulty at the moment in getting accurate information about precisely what is happening in the region. We are doing all we can to verify all stories, but we are also doing all we can to cool down the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I think my right hon. Friend is referring to some work done by the EU. The EU has not sought compensation from the state of Israel in relation to that, and no decision has been taken on any further action.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Settlements are a barrier, but they are far from the only barrier to peace. The building blocks for the peace process are trade and economic development in the west bank; demilitarisation and democracy in Gaza; and support for co-existence projects that get Israelis and Palestinians working together, the funding for which, I am sorry to say, this Government have stopped. Will the Minister reinstate funding for co-existence projects, to build the peace process?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman understands this issue extremely well, and I agree with his analysis that this is a complex issue, where there are many different building blocks to try to revitalise the peace process, and settlements are far from the only barrier to that. Trade and investment remain important, but we will be looking further at what prospects there are for any new initiatives. I am aware of the co-existence projects that he mentions, and I will certainly be looking at that when carrying out my joint responsibilities in the Department for International Development.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I will give way when I have developed my argument.

On Monday night, when a Bill was passed in the Knesset retrospectively legalising 4,000 homes in illegal settlements, the Israeli Minister of Culture welcomed the result, saying that it was

“the first step towards complete…Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.”

The words “Judea and Samaria” were chosen carefully.

When President Trump was elected, the Israeli Interior Minister, no less, welcomed it by saying that we are witnessing

“the birth pangs of the Messiah when everything has been flipped to the good of the Jewish people”.

On Monday, Mr Speaker put a rather different gloss on Mr Trump’s election but, nevertheless, it is absolutely clear that a significant proportion of the Israeli political establishment is in thrall to an increasingly strident settler movement that regards Palestine as a biblical theme park—Judea and Samaria.

The more strident and aggressive outriders of the settler movement are not people we would necessarily welcome as our neighbours. I particularly refer to what is now happening in Hebron. Setting aside some of the ruses that are used to acquire property, when the settlers move in, it is actually their Palestinian neighbours who have to erect grilles and meshes over their windows, and fences around their yards, to exclude projectiles and refuse. The reaction of the security forces to protect their newly resident citizens is to impose an exclusion zone, and to cordon off and sanitise the access and areas around those properties. So proceeding, Palestinians find that they are excluded from the heart of their city and, indeed, from the environs of their own homes. It has all the appearance of what we used to describe as petty apartheid.

Secretary Kerry explained at the turn of the year why the United States would no longer pursue its policy of exercising its veto in respect of UN Security Council resolution 2334. He said that if the two-state solution were abandoned, Israel could no longer be both a democracy and a Jewish state because, as a consequence of abandoning the policy, it would have to accommodate Palestinian citizens and all their civil and political rights within the state of Israel.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

But did not John Kerry also say that

“this is not to say that the settlements are the whole or even primary cause of the conflict—of course they are not. Nor can you say that if they were removed you would have peace without a broader agreement—you would not”?

That was what he said. The right hon. Gentleman could have tabled a more balanced motion that reflects—look, he is sneering—all the barriers to a two-state solution, which is what I want to see.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I certainly was not sneering. I entirely accept that that was what John Kerry said—I do not dispute it for one moment. Frankly, the motion could not be more anodyne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

The whole point of the Chamber—for those chuntering from a sedentary position—is to expose and discuss those arguments, not to merely rehearse entrenched positions. What, otherwise, is the point of a debate?

[Ian Austin]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. The truth is that a Palestinian state was proposed in 1947, but it was not established by other Arab countries, which chose instead to invade Israel at the moment of its establishment. A Palestinian state could have been established at any point in the following 20 years by Egypt, which controlled Gaza at the time, or by Jordan, which controlled the west bank. He is completely right to make that point.

[Mike Freer]

I am grateful for that intervention. Of course, the debate is one-sided. People criticise Israel for demolishing tunnels, building walls and raising buildings, but they make no comment when Egypt does exactly the same. The international community is silent on Egypt, and only vocal on Israel. As the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) said, where is the balance? I said that some people believe that the settlements are not illegal because the land is ownerless. I do not subscribe to that view, but it is important to mention because people hold that view very firmly and the issue is divisive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I must say that I do believe the point that has been made: the best way to resolve this apparently intractable problem is the same way as peace processes around the world have resolved problems—through face-to-face negotiations between people on the ground, and not through grandiose schemes that play to certain galleries and certain outside influences. That is an important starting point for any peace process ultimately to work.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Paisley]

I will not at the moment.

Settlements are a symptom of the conflict in Israel; they are not the cause. If anyone thinks they are the cause of the conflict, they do not understand what has happened in that land. History shows that the unilateral removal and evacuation of settlements did not generate peace at all, but inspired more rocket attacks and the deaths of more innocents in other settlements—that is what it actually did. Instead of being part of a peace process, the unilateral removal of settlements would be a piece-by-piece process—a step-by-step process towards more attacks on innocent people. So let us stop the hand-wringing and the pretence that a unilateral move on settlements will make peace—it will not. For some—not in this Chamber—it is a cover for more aggression, and for most it reflects a misguided view of what is happening on the ground. You cannot negotiate away settlements in advance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I oppose anything that stands in the way of the creation of the two-state solution that I have believed in and campaigned for all my life. It is wrong, however, to suggest, as I believe this motion does, that the settlements are the only barrier, or even the biggest barrier, to the peace process. We have to look at the actions of the Palestinian Authority, too: the denial of Israel’s right to exist; the depiction of all of modern Israel as part of Palestine; the incitement to, and glorification of, violence by its media, senior officials and Ministry of Education.

[Joan Ryan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and de-legitimisation of Israel that questions its very right to exist?

[Ian Austin]

That is completely right. That is why the Palestinian Authority’s denial of Israel’s right to exist will not build the trust that we have discussed here this afternoon. Nor will the incentivising of terrorism through the payment of salaries to convicted terrorists.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Austin]

Not at the moment.

Does anyone seriously believe that the settlements are a bigger barrier to the peace process than Hamas’s terrorism and extremism? Its charter sets out its goals with an explicit rejection of not just Israel’s right to exist, but the very idea of a peace process, which it says would involve the surrender of “Islamic land”. This is an organisation that spends millions, and uses building materials, which could build hospitals, schools and homes, for tunnels and terror. It pioneered suicide bombing in the middle east, and then celebrated the murder of Israelis in bars and restaurants.

[Crispin Blunt]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Austin]

Not at the moment.

Settlements do not, as has been suggested in the debate, make the prospect of a two-state solution impossible. I do not defend settlement-building, but the House should recognise that Israel has shown its willingness to evacuate settlements before—from Sinai in 1982, as part of the Camp David accords, and when it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

[John Howell]

Will the hon. Gentleman congratulate Israel, because only last month it removed 50 families from land at Amona?

[Ian Austin]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to raise that important point. I am pleased that it has been raised because it has not been discussed or mentioned by anyone who has spoken so far.

It is important for the House to recognise that 75% of the settlers are on 6.3% of the land, so when people talk about the west bank being concreted over, they are factually wrong—it is not true.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

rose—

[Ian Austin]

I will not give way any more—I have given way twice.

This issue can be dealt with through land swaps. That was accepted as a principle for building a peace process in all recent negotiations. In 2008, Ehud Olmert outlined a plan under which this could have been achieved.

I say all this because I want to argue that with compromise, creativity and concessions on both sides, the rights of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to self- determination and to peace can be secured. There are considerable further challenges facing a two-state solution, such as the status of Jerusalem, security, and refugees. However, it is also important to recognise, as has not been sufficiently recognised in this debate so far, that majorities on both sides still favour a two-state solution. None of these issues is insurmountable if there is a willingness on both sides to negotiate, to compromise, and to make concessions.

The solution is not one-sided, simplistic motions and calls for grand international gestures unilaterally imposed on the peoples of Israel and Palestine. In fact, grand gestures are counter-productive to the cause of peace because they suggest to the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority that there is a route to a Palestinian state that can be imposed from outside that does not involve face-to-face direct talks and negotiations, which is the only way this issue is going to be solved. The truth is that there is no alternative that will end the bloodshed.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Ian Austin]

I have given way twice.

We should be doing everything we can to develop dialogue, to promote direct negotiations between the two sides, and to build trust instead of boycotts, sanctions and other measures that just drive people further and further apart. I want Britain to support organisations like the one we heard about earlier, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and I visited recently in Jerusalem, that bring Israelis and Palestinians together to work to build the foundations for two viable states living peacefully alongside each other. It would have been really good if more Members had been in the Strangers Dining Room yesterday to hear about the WIZO project and what women—Jewish, Muslim and Christian women—in Israel and in Palestine are doing to work together to create the building blocks for peace. I want Britain to be doing more to promote economic development, trade and investment on the west bank, encouraging brilliant projects like one that I have been to see—the new Palestinian city of Rawabi on the west bank. I want to see Britain pushing internationally for the demilitarisation and reconstruction of Gaza.

Peace talks have produced results in the past, they have come close to a breakthrough on several occasions since, and they will have to do so again, because the only way this conflict will be resolved is by people on both sides negotiating, compromising, and working together towards the two-state solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of Arab children treated by the Israeli doctors at the hospital is phenomenal, and it sets a brilliant example for the whole region.

[Ian Austin]

I want to emphasise this point—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) is laughing and sneering in his usual way, but he ought to listen to this point, because it is really important. The truth is that we come into debates such as this one and hear a binary—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, hon. Members can shout as much as they like, but I am going to speak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. No one can shout as much as they like. The hon. Gentleman will be heard.

[Ian Austin]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We hear a binary, simplistic, polarised debate, when the truth about Israel and Palestine is that people on the ground are working together, co-operating, talking and building the peace process that we all want to see. It is about time people listened to that argument instead of laughing at it.

[John Howell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman kindly for his comments. I was about to come on to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is extremely important that we recognise and reaffirm the importance of two states—Israel and Palestine—in resolving this tragic conflict between two peoples who are both legitimately seeking self-determination. Together with that, there must be a very clear understanding from the Palestinians that Israel, as a majority Jewish state, is there to stay as part of the middle east, and is not, as they too often suggest, an imposition from outside the area.

The origins of the settler movement, which I do not support, are not often known or understood. In 1967, Israel survived a defensive war, and then found that it was ruling Gaza, which had previously been under the control of Egypt, and the west bank, which had previously been under the control of Jordan. There were strong movements in Israel at the time to trade that land for peace—to trade it for recognition, which is the most basic part of peace. It is tragic that the Arab League Khartoum conference held in 1967 stridently declared to Israel: no peace, no recognition, no negotiation. That gave the green light to the settler movement that followed.

[Ian Austin]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. She is also showing why comparisons between Israel and Russia are utterly fatuous. In 1967, Israel was invaded, but it managed to deal with the invasion. That was when the west bank and Gaza came under Israel’s control. That is the issue that both sides ought to be sitting down to try to resolve at the moment.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Settlements are a problem, but they are not the only problem, and they are certainly not the only barrier to peace. In Sinai in 1979, in an agreement with Egypt that survives to this day, Israel withdrew not just from Sinai but from its settlements there. Israel unilaterally withdrew 8,000 settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005. It demolished its settlements and, tragically, that has not led to peace. In every attempt to make peace—there have been a number in recent years—with Palestinians and others, a solution has been found to settlements, whether that means land swaps or settlements becoming part of a Palestinian state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I hope that the Minister will address that in his response to the pertinent question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). What more are Her Majesty’s Government going to do to let the Israeli Government know that we are opposed to settlements—and that we mean it? What more will we do apart from just shouting from the touchline?

[Ian Austin]

What evidence is there that sanctions and boycotts, which drive people further apart, will achieve anything? Surely we should be arguing for trade and investment with the west bank—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you. Would anyone else like to tell us of their travel experiences?

[Ian Austin]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not realise we were required to do this. I said in my speech that I had been to Israel recently. Given that everyone else has done so, I feel that I ought to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I visited Israel recently. I met politicians in Israel and Palestine. The trip was funded by Labour Friends of Israel.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that. I recall him saying it. We have now taken up the time allowed for an entire speech, but it is right that hon. Members behave honourably in these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

This has been a very difficult matter. As the House will know, the Egyptian Government are strongly desirous of our resuming flights to Sharm el-Sheikh. Unfortunately, we are not yet able to do so. Perhaps the best I can say is that consultations and work are still going on between our two Governments and between our security services to give the UK Government the reassurance that they need.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

In South Africa, black people were not able to vote, all political opposition was outlawed, and different races could not even get married. In Israel, there is freedom of movement, assembly and speech, all governmental institutions are integrated, and all citizens can vote, so is it not a disgrace and an insult to the middle east’s only democracy and to the black people who suffered under apartheid to hear Israel described as that, as we have heard a former Minister do this afternoon?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes two separate points, and we need to consider both distinctively. I will be visiting South Africa in the new year and I will be looking at some of the election processes that take place. We are supportive of both countries, but in the case of Israel, it is a democratic country in a very tough neighbourhood and Britain stands by our friendship. We are an ally of Israel and long may that continue.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, because it is important to emphasise that further lessons need to be learned, some of which I hope to address. I will not spend time repeating any of Chilcot’s factual findings, because, looking to the future, we need to consider the lessons and make sure that we do not make any of the same mistakes again. The Secretary of State for Defence will speak later about operational lessons that the military must learn, and it seems to me that there are more lessons than the five that Ministers have outlined so far.

I want to outline some of the points that jump out at us from the report. It seems to me that we have continued to make mistakes during the current Prime Minister’s time in office, and I will explain why.

On the flawed intelligence, although Chilcot finds that no deliberate attempt was made to mislead people, the intelligence on which the war was based was clearly flawed and did not justify the certainty attached to it by the Government. Has that lesson been learned? Last year, the Government asked this House to authorise military action in Syria. By contrast with Iraq in 2003, the military action did not include the deployment of ground troops.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of an attempt to get the House to consider a contempt motion against Tony Blair? Does she agree that, whatever else is in the Chilcot report, it does not give grounds for such a motion?

[Emily Thornberry]

That is a serious point, and I hope that Members will consider it. The question is whether the House was deliberately misled. Chilcot concluded that, although the intelligence may have been flawed and the House misled, it was not deliberately misled. Therefore, in my opinion, if the House tried to make any findings of fact and act on them, it would move away from those previous times when the instrument of a contempt motion has been used. When it has been used previously, there has been a finding of fact upon which the House has been able to act, meaning that someone has either been found guilty or admitted an offence. There has been no admission of deliberately misleading the House, so if the House attempted to make a factual finding, it would become a kangaroo court, because the person accused would not be allowed to represent themselves or speak. In my view, such circumstances would fly in the face of this country’s established principles of justice. Opposition Members are particularly interested in the Human Rights Act, and in article 6, on the right to a fair trial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) had been able to give evidence to Chilcot, no doubt the report would have concluded otherwise. However, we now have the report as it has been concluded. I am not talking about individual pieces of evidence; I am talking about the conclusion of the Chilcot inquiry itself. This is why The Times was undoubtedly right to describe the events as “Blair’s private war”.

On the question of collective responsibility in this place, I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe on one point. If Parliament is to hold future Executives to account, it will not just be a question of changing the process of decision making, although I accept that some changes have been made. I do not accept the Foreign Secretary’s confidence that the mistakes could never be repeated, and I do not believe that his distinction between a land campaign in Iraq and an aerial bombardment in Libya fully explains why this country—never mind its allies—spent 13 times as much on bombing Libya as we spent on the budget for reconstruction in Libya. That might be a lesson that has not been carried forward. The changes that must be made relate not only to the process of government but to parliamentary accountability, the most fundamental aspect of which is Parliament deciding whether it has been misled.

[Ian Austin]

The fact is that Libya was already in a brutal civil war before western air forces prevented Gaddafi from slaughtering innocent people—women and children—in Benghazi. That was what was happening. The question that the right hon. Gentleman has to answer is what he would have done to help those women and children in Benghazi. [Interruption.]

[Alex Salmond]

As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) says from a sedentary position, I probably would not have supplied arms to people like that over a period of time. Not doing oil deals in a tent with Colonel Gaddafi might have been another thing.

[Ian Austin]

rose—

[Alex Salmond]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make my speech.

My point was about the lesson of reconstruction, not the argument for the conflict. It is fair to point out that this country spent 13 times as much bombing Libya as we did on the budget for the reconstruction of Libya. That might provide a lesson about the priority given to the aftermath of conflict, and I am unsure whether the Foreign Secretary has taken it fully on board.

This is about not just the process of government but parliamentary accountability—that is the most fundamental point of all. Parliament has held people to account in the relatively recent past—there was Profumo and the sex scandal, and if I remember correctly, Stephen Byers was accused of misleading Parliament because he nationalised a railway company. Those things were no doubt important, and that line of accountability is crucial, but how much more important is the line of accountability on peace or war, when hundreds of thousands of people lose their lives as a result of decisions made by the Executive?

My contention is that Chilcot provides a huge array of evidence for a lack of parliamentary truthfulness, in that one thing was being said to the President of the United States and quite a different thing was being said to Parliament and the people. That did not happen in just a single speech or parliamentary statement, although the immediate run-up to the war provides ample and detailed examples. For example, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to the total misrepresentation of the situation in the United Nations. How do we know that it was a misrepresentation? Because Chilcot has published what was being said within Government, and we can compare that directly with the explanation that Parliament was being offered. The process of Parliament being told one thing while George W. Bush was being assured of something else took place not over a few weeks but over 15 months—that is amply demonstrated in the evidence presented to Chilcot. We know now why Chilcot fought so strongly to have the private memos as part of the report.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe rightly pointed to the motivation of regime change and the difficulty that regime change could not make the war legal in generally understood international terms. That is amply demonstrated in a private memo from Tony Blair to George Bush in December 2001, which states that

“any link to 11 September and AQ”—

al-Qaeda—

“is at best very tenuous; and at present international opinion would be reluctant, outside the US/UK, to support immediate military action though, for sure, people want to be rid of Saddam.

So we need a strategy for regime change that builds over time.”

At the same time, however, when pursuing the Prime Minister in the House, Charles Kennedy was being told that the “two phases” of war included the war in Afghanistan and the pursuit of

“international terrorism in all its different forms. That is a matter of investigating its financing, how terrorists move across frontiers”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 867-868.]

The House was being told that stage 2 of the war on terror was not an assault on Iraq—far less regime change in Iraq—but the pursuit of international terrorism. The two things are totally incompatible. One thing was being said to George Bush in private and another thing was being said to this Parliament and the people of the country.

Moving into 2002, there was something that was amply picked up by the press after Chilcot reported—the memo of 28 July to George Bush, stating:

“I will be with you, whatever.”

I heard the former Prime Minister explain that to John Humphrys on the “Today” programme by saying that of “whatever” meant somehow “wherever”, and that the memo did not give an unconditional commitment to stand with the United States in a war. I am not sure I fully understood that explanation, and crucially, nor did John Chilcot or Jack Straw, a crucial member of the Administration.

Jack Straw’s memos to Tony Blair have also been published. The report shows that on 11 March 2003 Straw wrote to Blair:

“When Bush graciously accepted your offer to be with him all the way, he wanted you alive, not dead!”

That referred not to the mortal danger to troops or civilians that would ensue from a war, but to whether the then Prime Minister would be alive or dead politically. Jack Straw was under no illusions whatever about the commitment that had been given to George Bush. Nor were Tony Blair’s own advisers, who advised him to take it out of the memo, or George Bush and his advisers, or Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Sir John Chilcot concludes, on the meaning of the memo:

“Mr Blair’s Note, which had not been discussed or agreed with his colleagues, set the UK on a path leading to diplomatic activity in the UN and the possibility of participation in military action in a way that would make it very difficult for the UK subsequently to withdraw its support for the US.”

But that was not what Parliament was being told at the same time. Parliament was not told of assurances to George W. Bush on military action. Parliament was told that the Prime Minister was striving for peace and trying to find any way to avoid a conflict, and that it was all up to Saddam to choose peace or conflict. That deliberate misrepresentation, in what was said to Parliament, of what was being said to the Americans continued into the very onset of war itself.

I want to refer to the memo that my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) quoted earlier. When Blair was telling Parliament, even in his speech in the war-or-peace debate, that

“I have never put the justification for action as regime change”,—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 772.]

he was telling George Bush only a few days later:

“That’s why, though Iraq’s WMD is the immediate justification for action, ridding Iraq of Saddam is the real prize.”

We heard earlier that this was not a matter of one man. But that one man was the Prime Minister. We were told earlier that it was really about process of government, but it was the Prime Minister who dictated the process of government and indeed prevented government processes, meaning that checks and balances did not work. Above all, it was the Prime Minister who prevented this House from having the information it required to make a reasonable judgment.

Last week, I heard that one of the defences of intervention in Iraq was a counterfactual argument: what if Saddam Hussein had stayed in power? What would he have done? For example, what damage would he have done during the Arab spring? I have had another counterfactual argument in mind: what if the massive international coalition that was built to deal with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan had been held together? What if the hundreds of billions of dollars that were then to be wasted in the Iraqi desert had been applied to making a real success of the rebuilding of Afghanistan? What if the justification for a totally legal international intervention, which this country took part in, had resulted in a genuine benefit? What if that massive coalition, which extended even to approval from the Palestine Liberation Organisation, had been able to demonstrate that a legal war, correctly applied, could result in construction, reconstruction and allowing a country the investment required to be a shining light of a genuine international intervention?

The United States of America was, in a way, never stronger than in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. It was never more respected, because it had suffered a terrorist atrocity. What would have happened if an ever broader coalition had brought to fruition the situation that I have described, instead of this meandering into Iraq on a private vendetta of the President of the United States with his closet of neo-con advisers, aided and abetted by a British Prime Minister who subverted collective responsibility and prevented this Parliament from having the information that it required to hold the Government to account?

I once told the former Prime Minister that he would answer to a higher law than this Parliament, and I believe that to be absolutely true. In the meantime, this Parliament should hold him accountable at this stage, not because it is a matter of pursuing him but because it will demonstrate and illustrate that, even retrospectively, if a Parliament is systematically misled, it will say that up with it we shall not put. That is part of the changes that we should make not just in the processes of government, to impose collective responsibility, and not just in, I hope, learning the lessons of how to reconstruct a country, but, essentially, in parliamentary accountability. If we make those changes, we will be able to say legitimately that an Iraq could never happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I start by paying tribute to all who served in the forces in Iraq, especially those, and the families of those, who were injured or lost their lives. It is absolutely clear from this debate and from last week’s statement that the Chilcot report will never settle arguments about whether the war was right or wrong, but it should lay to rest allegations about bad faith, lies or deceit.

First, the report finds that there was no falsification or misuse of intelligence by Tony Blair or No. 10. Secondly, it finds that there was no attempt to deceive Cabinet Ministers. Thirdly, it finds that there was no secret pact with the US to go to war. That means there is no justification for saying that evidence was “confected” or that the case for war was a “deception”, which is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition claimed in his response last week. He claimed that it created a colonial-style occupation, although the UN endorsed the west’s presence after the invasion, and the 2005 elections and referendum on a new constitution gave power to Iraqis.

To listen to Tony Blair’s critics, anyone would think that Iraq had been a peaceful haven of tranquillity before 2003, but nothing could be further from the truth. In Iraq, Saddam Hussain perpetrated the largest chemical weapons attack against civilians in history, killing thousands. He led a brutal reprisal against Iraq’s Shi’a majority, slaughtering up to 100,000 Iraqis in just one month—more than in any year since 2003. Abroad, he supported terrorism, offering al-Qaeda sanctuary, training and assistance in planning attacks.

The report does not say that Tony Blair ordered the falsification of intelligence that stated that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. UN resolutions required Saddam to demonstrate that weapons of mass destruction did not exist, but he acted as though they did, presumably because that helped him to subjugate his people. His refusal to co-operate with UN inspectors led intelligence services right around the world to believe that he did, in fact, possess those weapons. Even countries that were opposed to military action, such as France, Russia and Germany, believed that he had those weapons. The debate in 2003 was not about whether Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, but about how to deal with them.

Of course, we must learn the lessons of mistakes made after the invasion of Iraq, but we must also learn the lessons of not taking action. British intervention in Kosovo and Sierra Leone prevented people from being slaughtered. Libya was already in a brutal civil war before western air forces prevented Gaddafi from killing innocent people in Benghazi, but without support afterwards the country is a huge problem for the whole of north Africa and the wider region. Not intervening in Syria did not prevent the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe, hundreds of thousands of deaths or millions of refugees, let alone terrorist attacks not just in Syria but in Tunisia and Europe.

I also want to deal with the claim that toppling Saddam led to ISIS or, as we are so often told, plunged the middle east into chaos. As Martin Chulov, The Guardian’s middle east editor and author of a definitive study of ISIS, says:

“The Syrian civil war was not driven by Isis. It fed directly out of the Arab awakenings and was a bid to oust a ruthless regime from power. Assad could not have prevailed against the will of the streets. So he tried to transform the uprising into something that was driven by internationally-backed global jihad. Isis grew out of the chaos. They flourished with Assad’s direct and indirect support until they became a monster no one could control.”

None of that will make the slightest bit of difference to Tony Blair’s critics, to the critics of the Government of the day who took those decisions or, especially, to those on the hard left. The facts make no difference at all to those people, because they are implacably opposed to the UK or other western countries ever taking military action.

[Dr Murrison]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s remarks very carefully. Does he accept that many of us here do not doubt that Tony Blair did not lie to the House, but that that is a pretty low test? The challenge is really whether he acted in a way that came anywhere close to competence. Chilcot clearly thinks that Tony Blair was incompetent, and that is the charge before him. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the Iraq war was in some way a success; manifestly, it was not.

[Ian Austin]

I said earlier that, clearly, mistakes were made after the invasion. But let us be honest; the charge that is made against Tony Blair and the Government of the time is of falsification and misuse of intelligence, and of wilfully misleading this House and the rest of the country. That is what people are saying, and I think the Chilcot report proves beyond doubt that none of those charges is true.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Austin]

No, I will not give way, because other people want to speak.

Tony Blair’s critics on the hard left opposed every attempt to use British forces, not just in Iraq or Syria, but even in Kosovo, where the UK intervened to prevent thousands of people from being slaughtered. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) described that at the time as “unpardonable folly”, even though Britain was intervening to prevent genocidal slaughter. I will take no lectures from the SNP on these issues.

The leader of the Labour party was a founder member and chair of the Stop the War coalition—an organisation that, under his leadership, praised what it said was the “internationalism and solidarity” of ISIS, and compared it to the international brigades. It supported what it called the Iraqi “struggle” against British troops “by any means necessary”, and among many other appalling things, it said that it stood with Saddam Hussein, compared Assad to Churchill, and promoted or provided a platform for Assad apologists. For the hard left, the world is a simple place: all the problems are caused by the west, and the solutions are easy.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Austin]

No, I will not give way. Of course we must learn the lessons from Iraq, but let us make sure we learn the right ones. For me, the central lesson is that taking action can lead to terrible consequences, and military action anywhere in the world involves huge risks. However, there can also be terrible consequences from not intervening. If we learn the wrong lessons, we might have fewer Iraqs but we could easily have more Syrias. Perhaps we ought to consider a Chilcot-style inquiry into the consequences of not intervening in Syria, where people have been slaughtered or displaced in their millions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the very passionate speech by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I pay tribute to him for his service in the Iraq war.

In 2003, The Sun ran a story under the headline “Open Fire on Traitors”. The piece, which has now been deleted from the newspaper’s website, called on readers to

“aim your own missiles at the cowards and traitors who opted to support Saddam Hussain”.

It meant “cowards and traitors” such as Robin Cook, Charles Kennedy and other Members from all parties of the House, all of whom stood up for their principles, spoke out against Tony Blair’s war and were vilified for it. Alongside these figures stood the 1 million people who marched on the streets of London to make their case and the 80,000 people who took to the streets of Glasgow. We were not traitors and it is not cowardly to promote a minority view. At that time, it was a minority view to champion peace over war, and we now know that war was not the last resort. It took courage and bravery, and we in this House must be courageous, brave and honest by calling out a predetermined commitment to war and a failure of government for what it was—just that.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I will not be giving way.

The publication of the Chilcot report last week was a vindication of all those in Parliament and across the country who were vilified for opposing this terrible, unnecessary and ultimately failed war. It exposed the sorry tale of misleading statements that preceded the House’s decision to support military action, and put our servicemen and servicewomen in harm’s way. We cannot allow that to happen again.

When I began reading the Chilcot report last week, my first thoughts were with the families of those servicemen and servicewomen, and those who have been saddled with the physical and mental scars of that war. Families such as that of Lance Corporal Andrew Craw from Tullibody in my constituency, who died in Iraq on 7 January 2004. How must they have been feeling when they read the report? They now know that we entered into a failed war, as Chilcot said, without adequate support for our own troops or proper thought for the aftermath and the millions of people in Iraq. To see these families’ bravery and dignity, as they publicly responded to the report last week, was humbling and inspiring. It is worthy of note that Blair’s team of spin doctors had 18 months to look at the sections of the report referring to him, whereas the families were given three hours. They must be reassured that Parliament takes its role seriously and acts truthfully at all times. They deserve no less.

The reports makes it clear that there was a complete absence of the Cabinet government essential to ensure the vital issue of national security. The evidence shows that Ministers around the Cabinet table did not effectively challenge the decision to take us to war or devote their energies to planning efficiently for the aftermath of the campaign of shock and awe at the outset of military operations. Most of all, it lays bare what took place in order that they might win the hearts and minds of the country and this House. As we have heard, Tony Blair said in his note to George Bush:

“I will be with you, whatever”—

whatever the facts, whatever the circumstances, whatever the consequences! What a damning indictment of a diminished figure!

As Tony Blair’s memos to President Bush demonstrate, he said one thing in this place and another behind closed doors. He stood here, in this place, and claimed that these acts were predicated on Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, but confirmed in writing to President Bush in private that regime change was their goal. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has articulated five falsehoods in the lead-up to the parliamentary decision in 2003 and in connection to the post-conflict plans. Paragraph 630 of the executive summary is indeed damning.

These actions have led to around 1 million Iraqi children under 18—about 5% of Iraqi children—losing one or both parents and resulted in 70% of children in Iraq suffering from trauma-related symptoms. This is not about binding the hands of Tony Blair’s successors but about showing that facts and evidence are central to everything we do. Lessons must be learned and the mistakes of the past must not be repeated. A modern Parliament needs a modern approach to transparency and accountability. If the public cannot trust what is said here, it places in peril our whole parliamentary system. Parliament must act now to protect its own integrity.

As I prepared for today’s debate, I reread the speech that my predecessor, Sir George Reid, made to the Scottish Parliament prior to war in 2003. He said:

“Above the doors of the Red Cross in Geneva, there is a phrase from Dostoevsky, which we should remember in time of war. It states that, in war,

‘Everyone is responsible to everyone for everything.’”

This House now has a responsibility to hold the former Prime Minister to account for his actions. This would be not a judicial process but a parliamentary one, for which there is precedent. This is our responsibility and we should rise to it.

Child Prisoners and Detainees: Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

I think that the whole room gasped when my hon. Friend read that out. We would be outraged, and I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that that behaviour is happening on an industrial scale.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way for a factual point?

[Sarah Champion]

I will.

[Ian Austin]

As I understand it, the age of legal responsibility in Israel and Palestine is 12. A nine-year-old could not be detained—they just could not. It does not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

No, the nub of this issue is that Palestinian incitement continues. As long as it does, we will not get peace in the area. We have to end the Palestinian incitement. I urge the Foreign Office to take action on that.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Howell]

I will not give way; I will finish there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I personally thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for bringing this extremely important debate to the House today.

I will be brief because so many Members wish to speak, and I will address some specific issues relevant to my background understanding. First, psychological research shows that children, particularly young children, are prone to suggestibility when interrogated under pressure, which makes it more likely that confessions or evidence given in such circumstances will be unreliable if the child is not treated as a vulnerable witness and accordingly given full rights. Those rights would normally include the presence of a lawyer and an appropriate adult for support and, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) described, the video recording of interviews to ensure that children understand what they are asked, to ensure that the way in which it is asked is not leading or suggestive and to ensure that evidence is not gained through emotional pressure, perceived threat or actual threat. Trained interviewers who are skilled in interviewing minors should be involved. Those are only some of the many safeguards accorded to child witnesses in the UK, in line with our best practice guidance. As a psychologist, I feel that such guidance must be enacted across the world in any situation in which children are interviewed.

The lengthy detention of children in the circumstances described has an impact, particularly upon their psychological health, which is likely to be gravely affected, causing concern due to the increased risk of mental health problems.

[Ian Austin]

As a psychologist, will the hon. Lady comment on the likely impact on children of the Palestinian Authority’s glorification of terrorists who have murdered Israelis, presenting them as role models? What is the likely impact on children of Palestinian schools using textbooks that glorify violence and of countless examples of hatred and anti-Semitism being promoted on children’s television programmes on official Palestinian Authority TV in the west bank?

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have already spoken in other debates, including a debate on child soldiers, about children’s vulnerability to influence, which is a concern where children, in any context across the world, may be affected by influences that promote violence.

Lengthy detention is not something that we would advocate; treatment is the optimal response, because we are dealing with children. If we imagine our own children being detained for a lengthy period in another country where there may be limited access to family, and where they are living in fear and uncertainty for their future and with a lack of appropriate support, we would feel distraught, helpless and angered. Our children would likely be terrified. I therefore conclude by urging the Minister to take account of the best practice to protect vulnerable children, which we hold so dear in this country, and I urge him to ensure that representations are made to Governments across the world, including Israel, on the importance of such fundamental rights, children’s human rights and legal rights, in the context described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I will respond very briefly. The fact is that the disproportionality of someone throwing a stone or a rock and being detained for it is not acceptable. That is the reality of what is happening with children.

[Ian Austin]

Last February, four-year-old Adele Biton died after being critically injured by youths in a stone-throwing incident. I am just as worried as my hon. Friend is about the detention of children, but she should not minimise the crimes and violence that are taking place on the other side as well.

[Naz Shah]

I will finish by clearly making the point that the Israeli Government have not provided any evidence of any child causing a death, or contributing to a death, using a stone. There is no evidence of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

The sheer number of people who have come to the debate and tried to speak shows the importance of this issue. I have to declare an interest, which many people are aware of, as I spent a considerable time in Gaza and Lebanon working as a surgeon. Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), I experienced these things well over 20 years ago. I was working in Gaza when the Oslo agreement started, and look where we are 23 years on: absolutely nowhere. For many people living in Gaza or the west bank, things are worse. When I was out there in 2010, I was shocked by the sheer scale of settlements. Members have talked about how the context is incitement, but there is no requirement to incite the Palestinian children, because they are completely surrounded by the issue all the time. We are talking about huge towns and housing estates flowing over the hills. One only has to look at the map on the front of the briefing from the House of Commons Library to see how little territory within the west bank is under the control of the Palestinian Authority. It is by far the minority. The industrial annexation of the west bank is the underlying problem, and we have allowed the issue to go down the agenda.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whitford]

No, I will not, because I am trying to leave time for a wind-up speech at the end.

We have allowed ourselves not to try to solve the problem. We are talking about how children are treated. I totally accept the point that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made; the Israelis must try these children in a military court—that is a requirement, otherwise they would be seen as annexing the west bank—but it is about the way that the children are treated. They are arrested by the military, held and interrogated and taken to a military court. There is no requirement for a military court to treat the children badly.

[Dr Whitford]

That is why I will not be taking any more interventions. If the hon. Gentleman compared the domestic civilian law in Israel and the situation in the military courts, he would find that they are nothing like each other. We have the reports from the delegation in 2011, the report in 2012, UNICEF’s report in 2013 and the update in 2015, and things have not changed. She is sadly no longer in her place, but the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about this. If we simply imagine a 12-year-old or a 14-year-old that we know going through this situation, whether they are in our family or are around us, what do we think it will produce? They are shaken awake to find two men with military weapons and they are dragged from their bed. They are blindfolded or hooded and their hands are tied behind their back. They are thrown on the floor of a military vehicle and driven for a couple of hours. They are then left with no food or drink and often no access to the toilet, and eventually their interrogation starts.

There is no audiovisual recording or evidence to show how the children were treated, but the affidavits collected by one charity after another, including B’Tselem, which is an Israeli non-governmental organisation, show that these children are being abused, threatened and frightened on an industrial scale, with more than two thirds of them being made to sign a confession in a language they do not understand. None of them reported having a parent with them. Only 97% reported not having a lawyer, so a whole 3% got access to a lawyer. The vast majority will meet their lawyer at the time of their first hearing. That leads to a high rate—it is in the nineties—of plea bargaining. They are told, “You have been held for three months. You will be held longer if you decide to contest this. Actually, that thing you signed is a confession.” They then end up in prison, miles away in Israel, with their parents unable to visit them for more than 45 minutes a month. Those parents have to get permission, which nowadays they are unlikely to get.

We have children who may be held for 18 months, without seeing a parent or family member, for throwing stones. What does Israel think that that produces? The child will have post-traumatic stress disorder. They will have missed schooling and will be suffering from all sorts of psychological problems, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). They will probably fail at school. They will not have work; work is hard enough to find in the west bank at the best of times. What we will have created is an angry young person who is ripe to be recruited to be violent and who hates Israel. That is not the solution to get peace.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whitford]

No, I will not. I need to conclude shortly. We need to get Israel back to the table and we need to get a peace process going. We need to realise what is happening in the west bank. It is simply being built over, and things boil over. If these children have committed crimes, they must be arrested and tried. The evidence must be brought, but it behoves Israel, even though it is through a military system, to ensure that it meets the terms of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which it signed in 1991, with the presentation of high-quality evidence taken from children who have been well-treated. At the moment we have the terrorisation and intimidation of children, confessions that cannot be trusted and children who will turn into the violent terrorists of the future. That is not in the interests of Israel or Israelis. It is not in the interests of Palestinians. We need to use our power not just to tut and to click our tongue, as was discussed last night in relation to what has happened in Saudi Arabia. The UK should stand up aggressively for human rights and not be a pushover.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

I think that every Member of this House would agree that the involvement of children in conflict is absolutely wrong. Before I go on to deal with some of the specific issues around the Israeli response to Palestinian child prisoners, I want to refer to the 2005 assertion from Amnesty International:

“Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks. Children are susceptible to recruitment by manipulation or may be driven to join armed groups for a variety of reasons, including a desire to avenge relatives or friends killed by the Israeli army.”

Moving on to the issue before us today—the treatment of child prisoners—in 2012 the Government convened a group of eminent lawyers with expertise in human rights and child welfare to investigate what was going on. I commend the Government for doing that and I commend all the lawyers involved, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Baroness Scotland. The report concluded that Israel’s treatment of Palestinian child prisoners amounted to a series of breaches of the rights of the child, including article 2 on discrimination and article 3 on the child’s best interests. More concerning still, the lawyers encountered significant evidence that Israel may be in breach of the general prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The following year, in March 2013, UNICEF released a report, “Children in Israeli Military Detention”, which prompted the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to express,

“its deepest concern about the reported practice of torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian children arrested, prosecuted and detained by the military and the police, and about the State party’s failure to end these practices in spite of repeated concerns expressed by treaty bodies, special procedures mandate holders and United Nations agencies”.

UNICEF made 38 recommendations to improve the treatment of child detainees. Many of these overlapped with the 40 recommendations from the UK legal delegation, which covered the five clear areas of arrest, interrogation, bail hearings, sentencing and the investigation of complaints. Those were all important recommendations. In response, there have been a few welcome military orders issued by the IDF, including military order 1711, which reduces the time a Palestinian child can be detained prior to appearing before a military court judge, and military order 1745, which requires interrogations to be conducted in a language the child can understand, and to be recorded. However, this order does not apply if a child is suspected of committing a security offence such as throwing stones, and that is of concern.

A 2014 UNICEF working group on grave violations against children gathered 208 statements from detained children and found that, among other things, 171 reported being subject to physical violence and 144 reported being subject to verbal abuse. Of the 38 recommendations made by UNICEF in March 2013, only five were deemed to have been addressed by March 2015, although 15 were partially addressed and 14 were under discussion. It is important to note that Israel has rejected only one recommendation outright. The British Government need to do much more to hold the Israeli Government to account in terms of what they are doing to meet the recommendations that have been made.

In a recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), it looked as though there was little tangible progress in implementing the recommendations that have been set out. Nor can I say there is much evidence that the Government are prioritising the issue. Although I welcome the efforts of our ambassador in Tel Aviv to raise the issue, I think Ministers can do far more. In conclusion—

[Ian Austin]

Before she concludes, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

No; I need to complete my speech.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister will make it unambiguously clear today that the UK Government stand behind all 40 of the UK recommendations and will explain to the House how he intends to encourage Israel to do far more to implement the recommendations as soon as possible.