Ukraine

John Howell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

I thank you, Mrs Gillan, and Mr Speaker for this opportunity to debate the situation in Ukraine. I also thank the Minister for Europe and the Americas for coming to respond to the debate, and my colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group.

Some people might ask, “Why should we be interested in what is happening in Ukraine?” Some might draw a comparison to what Chamberlain said about Czechoslovakia, that it is a “far away country” about which we know little. If they do, they make the same mistake Chamberlain made. Ukraine matters to us. It is a country in mainland Europe whose territory has been violated by an aggressive neighbour, and one that is on the frontline of what is becoming a new cold war.

I first visited Ukraine in 2008 with the all-party group, including, I think, the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan). At that time, Ukraine was under the leadership of President Yanukovych, a corrupt leader who was inclined toward Russia, but who nevertheless, at the time, was committed to Ukraine signing an association agreement with the European Union as an eastern partnership country. As is well known, in November 2013, President Yanukovych was instructed by Putin to reverse that position and drop the policy. Within a few weeks, Independence Square in Kiev was filled with thousands of protesters, the beginning of what was known as Euromaidan. Two months later, the shooting began. Over 100 people were killed, and they are known as the heavenly heroes.

The Revolution of Dignity led to the overthrow of Yanukovych and the installation of a new Government, but it also provided the pretext for Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its stepping up of support for separatist movements in Donbass. Doing so was a clear violation of the Budapest memorandum, signed by America, Russia and this country in December 1994, which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine in return for its agreement to give up its nuclear arsenal, at that time the third largest in the world. For that reason alone, I believe that we in the UK have a responsibility to Ukraine.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

What my right hon. Friend is saying makes perfect sense, particularly his description of the Russians’ involvement. Those of us who serve on the Council of Europe are determined that Russia’s bid to come back to the Council should be accompanied by concessions. The biggest concession I want to see is its removal from Donbass. Does he agree with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I welcome this debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on the situation in Ukraine, but I wish to go back in time a little and speak about the tragic legacy of the Ukrainian holodomor, from 1932 to 1933, which continues to have an enormous impact on the Ukrainian people today.

The holodomor was a forced famine orchestrated by Joseph Stalin’s communist regime and it resulted in the deaths of millions of Ukrainian people. It was a crime fuelled by a repugnant political ideology. Stalin wanted to starve the so-called rebellious Ukrainian peasantry into submission and force them into collective farms. Subsequently, the Ukrainian countryside, once home to the “black earth”—some of the most fertile land in the world—was reduced to a wasteland. The holodomor stole away between 7 million and 10 million people. Entire villages were wiped out, and in some regions the death rate reached one third of the population.

Inevitably, the events of the Ukrainian holodomor undermined national confidence. It continues to have an impact on the consciousness of current generations, as it will future generations. Indeed, the many descendants of Ukrainian people in this country are still very concerned about what happened. Last month, I held a Westminster Hall debate on the issue, in which I called for the Government to recognise the holodomor as a genocide. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said so pertinently in that debate:

“No one can visit Ukraine today without seeing that it is still a live wound, a bruise and a source of pain.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 551WH.]

[John Howell]

My hon. Friend mentions the word “genocide”. Does she recognise that without Ukraine, we would not have the term “genocide” or, indeed, “crimes against humanity”? As Philippe Sands pointed out in his book, it was the invention of those at the time of the second world war that has prompted all our subsequent activity in this area.

[Mrs Latham]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I will come on to that. It seems ironic that that is where the term “genocide” came from, yet this country does not recognise it.

On 7 December it was the 85th anniversary of this atrocity. I was pleased to see that the UK was represented by the British embassy’s chargé d’affaires during the commemoration service held by President Poroshenko on 25 November. The Ukrainian people have suffered for so long. Following the 85th anniversary, now is an appropriate time to officially accept that the holodomor was a genocide. Acknowledging that would be in accordance with the Ukrainian people’s wishes.

In 2006, the Government of Ukraine passed a law recognising the disaster as genocide against the Ukrainian people and have sought for the international community to follow suit. Many countries have recognised this, including the US, Canada, Australia and many others. Since the formation of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which was adopted by the UN Assembly in 1948, it has been possible to designate events. This has strengthened the hand of the international community, if it wants to take action in those cases.

The Government’s current position is that international law cannot be applied retrospectively unless subject to a legal decision. I understand that the holocaust, although it took place before 1948, has an exclusive status, since it was the basis for the legal determination of genocide by the convention. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) said, it was actually the holodomor that started it. It should be noted that the holodomor was directly referred to by Raphael Lemkin, the author of the convention, as a classic example of genocide. We recognise the Jewish holocaust retrospectively, so why do we not recognise the holodomor, which started before the second world war, nearly two or three years before the holocaust?

If the Government maintain their position, I ask again: will they consider initiating an inquiry or judicial process to help ensure the Ukrainian holodomor is given its rightful status as a genocide? I understand that the 1994 killings in Rwanda and the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica were both recognised as genocides as a result of legal proceedings. It is only right that the UK accepts the definition of the Ukrainian holodomor as a genocide. It would be a mark of our respect and our friendship with the Ukrainian people today. We must expose violations of human rights, preserve historical records and help to restore the dignity of victims through the acknowledgment of their suffering.

Enslavement of Black Africans (Libya)

John Howell Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 205476 relating to the enslavement of black Africans in Libya.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I would like to read the petition into the record. It reads:

“Put pressure on Libya to take action to stop enslavement of Black Africans.

CNN has released video footage of black Africans being sold into slavery in Libya. I am asking the UK government to put pressure on the Libyan government to take immediate action to stop these criminals from selling more people, to set current prisoners free, arrest the criminals and end this.”

I am delighted to welcome the petitioner, Constance Mbassi Manga, who has done a fantastic job in raising this issue and getting so many signatures in such a short space of time. I am delighted that she is able to join us today.

As of this morning, 265,272 people had signed the petition within only about three weeks of it going live, which is a real testament to people’s strength of feeling. It is interesting: the likes of Cara Delevingne, Naomi Campbell and Rihanna, and a whole load of rappers who are far too cool for me to even know who they are, have taken up this issue, put it on social media and shared it. All of that, including the petition system, is really part—not the end—of a campaign to make people aware of the horrific things going on in another part of the world that they might otherwise not have been aware of at all. Hopefully, as well as raising awareness, we can start to effect change.

It was international Human Rights Day a week last Sunday. A number of us were out and about, raising issues; I was talking about the situation that the Rohingya Muslim community face in Burma, the Tamils, the Ahmadiyya Muslims and a number of other issues that are close to me and to my constituents, given the various diaspora groups in my constituency. Only a week later, we are talking about something that we thought had long since passed. When the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, she brought in the Modern Slavery Act 2015—a fantastic achievement—which recognised that slavery still existed in hidden pockets of this country. However, this is not hidden; it is absolutely brazen and out-and-out across parts of Libya and its migrant routes. It has to stop.

I was chatting to the Minister a little while ago—I do not know if he will remember this—and we shared the view that when people believe that another group of people are subhuman, there is no depth to which they will not stoop in their treatment of them; they are treated worse than animals. People started being aware of this situation when the International Organisation for Migration started to hear stories and went to document people’s experiences, write reports and share what those voices were saying. However, it was only when CNN covered the issue a few weeks ago that it really came to the public’s wider awareness.

I want to read one piece of documented evidence from the IOM to illustrate what is happening. One of the operations officers in Niger reported on the rescue of a Senegalese migrant. He referred to him as SC, to protect his identity. SC was returning to his home after being held captive for months.

“According to SC’s testimony, while he was trying to travel north through the Sahara, he arrived in Agadez, Niger, where he was told he would have to pay 200,000 CFA—about $320—to continue north towards Libya. A trafficker provided him with accommodation until the day of his departure, which was to be by pick-up truck.

The journey—over two days of travelling—through the desert was relatively smooth for this group. IOM has often heard from other migrants on this route who report seeing the remains of others abandoned by their drivers—and of trucks ransacked by bandits who siphon away their fuel.

SC’s fate was different. When his pick-up reached Sabha in south-western Libya, the driver insisted that he hadn’t been paid by the trafficker, and that he was transporting the migrants to a parking area where SC witnessed a slave market taking place. ‘Sub-Saharan migrants were being sold and bought by Libyans, with the support of Ghanaians and Nigerians who work for them’”,

the IOM reported.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He mentioned Nigeria; when I visited it as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy, I had a discussion about this problem. We all agreed that if we did not help to get sub-Saharan Africa right, the catastrophe waiting to happen in Europe would be colossal, as more and more Nigerians put themselves in the hands of unscrupulous traffickers on the way to Libya and the Mediterranean coast. Does he agree that that is a realistic view of the situation?

[Paul Scully]

I understand my hon. Friend’s expertise and knowledge of the area and totally agree with him. There is a real risk. We can tackle the atrocities of the slave trade in Libya, and Libya’s power vacuum, but ultimately the biggest threat to that part of the world and many others is migration—and not necessarily just migration through conflict. Economic reasons, climate reasons and any number of other reasons are moving such a mass of people, which causes other situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I absolutely agree, because it is a matter of pull factors, and stopping people having to make the choice to migrate over such a treacherous route. They have so far to go: there are human traffickers; people may just be ditched at the side of the road as I have described, or sold out of a bus in the back of a car park, and then sold on again and beaten with wires; they may then be on the Mediterranean on a boat—and the technique used with those small boats is that as soon as a navy cutter comes to the rescue, they are deliberately capsized to tip the people in the water. The rescuers have to pluck them out of the water; they cannot just pull the boat somewhere. To return to the Greek example, while I was there I met a Yazidi Christian—someone on a different migrant route—with a 10-day-old child. They had gone through that whole process. How the child, who by then was aged three months, was still alive, I shall never know. Those are the most treacherous circumstances, so anything that can be done to stop the migration in the first place must be the only course of action.

[John Howell]

I want to pick up on the previous intervention. I think that there is a huge role for British companies in educating people in their country. I went to see Unilever in Nigeria; it has eradicated modern slavery from its whole supply chain, and that has had a big effect in the effort to convince Nigerians that they should stay and make something of themselves in their own country. Unless we do that, we shall run into a lot of problems.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend makes a typically insightful point, and it is right to use some of our big companies working in the areas in question to provide education and secondary industries. As we move into looking at trade agreements with Africa but while we are also a member of the EU, we could seek tariff reduction as well. Obviously a big concern is tariffs on the least developed countries, but with the slightly better-off countries such as Nigeria, the “Everything but Arms” rules do not apply. They are charged a lot in tariffs on coffee and chocolate and similar things, and cannot build up the secondary industries that would help to develop gainful employment, so that people would have a stake in their own area and not feel the need to leave to find a better life.

I have talked about the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and it is nearly 200 years since the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that William Wilberforce worked for. Only last year there was a remake of the seminal television programme of the book “Roots” by Alex Haley. I watched the original version, but the one I watched last year seemed to be of a time gone by. There have been other fantastic films about slavery that have also really hammered their point home, but they give the sense that “This happened so long ago; isn’t it wonderful that we have stamped it out?”—but we have not; that is the news. It is still going on every day.

I ask the Minister to answer my questions. Finally, what more we can do as a country to support Libya, improve conditions and ultimately end the need for detention camps there?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The number of refugees in the world is colossal; I think it is in the region of 60 million people. It is certainly more than the population of Britain. We need to remember that when we discuss the refugee situation and how to stop making it worse in the future. We have the opportunity in Africa to get the situation right the first time, and I hope we will take that opportunity.

In my intervention, I mentioned that I spend a lot of my time in Nigeria as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy. That is not just about trade; it goes right across the spectrum of political and DFID-related activities that occur in that country. I would like to say a little bit more about the conversations I had the last time I was there, because it is a very good example of how we can get it right if we try.

Nigeria has enormous problems with a terrorist group in the north-east and has contributed hugely to human trafficking in Africa. It has the potential to make an even bigger contribution, which I would not wish to encourage. Why would that occur? Why would people leave their homes and move away from where they live to entrust themselves to unscrupulous people traffickers on the coast of Libya? There are several reasons. One is clearly the terrorist situation in the country. The only way we will deal with that is not a military option but by ensuring that the growth we want to see in the country is shared out across it to the people who are participating in generating that growth. That goes to the heart of the second group of people involved, which is the population at large.

Unless we help to get sub-Saharan Africa right, which means contributing to the activities that Governments want to carry out to improve their countries so that growth can spread more evenly and more people can participate in it, the effect on Europe could be colossal. I mention Europe in that context because that is where we are and the perspective from which we are looking at the situation. We have to redouble our efforts as a Government and with companies there to ensure that that happens.

Many British companies are looking at the market in sub-Saharan Africa, and the Prime Minister’s emphasis on tackling modern slavery is providing an enormous competitive advantage to those companies. They can turn up in the Nigerian market and say, “We fully subscribe to the Prime Minister’s modern slavery agenda.” The people in Africa absolutely rise to that challenge, and it is really heart-warming to see.

As I mentioned, I have been to discuss this issue with Unilever, which is part-Dutch but principally a British company. It has been very successful in stamping out modern slavery from its entire supply chain. That company works, among other areas, in the agricultural sphere, in which many poor people are in need of something to live for and aspire to. It is a great triumph to have got rid of modern slavery, because that is just the sort of thing that will make the country right and ensure that people there have something to live for when they get up in the morning and go to work. I am very pleased to have been able to help with that.

I know there is a lot to do in the world in this area. For instance, there is a crisis that I do not think we have ever talked about in this Chamber: the second largest group of displaced people in the world is actually not in Syria or in Africa, but in Colombia.

I do not underestimate what we have to do to tackle this problem, but unless we are prepared to put the effort into tackling it and making sure our companies do the same, we will never solve it. That will not only be to the loss of Africa, which is an immensely rich and opportunistic continent—I mean that in the nicest possible sense of the word—with so much going for it, but it will also affect us. We all ought to bear that in mind. There is an element of self-interest in this, as there always has to be. By putting the emphasis on this issue and getting it right, we will help to make sure that the African situation does not extend into mass migration, with many millions of people putting themselves into the hands of unscrupulous people traffickers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

I would like to start by congratulating, as other hon. Members have, those who organised the petition that has prompted this very important and timely debate, especially Constance Mbassi Manga. I understand that as of 2 pm today, 265,278 signatures had been received, of which 666—I do not know whether that is significant—were from my constituency.

I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who opened the debate. He read us the text of the petition, and it is important to remember what is in that. He talked about the Modern Slavery Act, which other hon. Members have referred to. It is a very important piece of legislation that I hope will help to pave the way for this country being a prime mover in the abolition of slavery worldwide. He also pointed out that what is happening in Libya is not hidden, and it has to stop—all hon. Members have agreed with that. He mentioned the role of the International Organisation for Migration, which I will speak of again in a minute, and talked of the inhumane treatment of human beings who are being bought and sold as commodities. Sadly, 200 years since Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery in the UK, slavery still exists in other parts of the world. The hon. Gentleman also asked what more we can do for Libya.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) talked of her shock, and the violence towards and the betrayal of those cheated by an evil deception and left utterly alone and terrified in a foreign country, where they suffer torture, beatings and violence by traffickers. She also talked of the systematic abuse of those migrants and of their murder. The UN estimates that there are about 700,000 migrants in Libya at the moment. It is estimated that 40% of the children are forced into labour, as she mentioned. What are the Government going to do? She said something that has been echoed by many speakers this afternoon: “African lives matter.” All lives matter.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), who mentioned her shock, as a black descendant of slaves, that this can still be happening in the world. There was also an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who said that we have to do something about the state of Libya.

The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) talked of his role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Libya and, I imagine, the Maghreb countries as well—I do not know.

[John Howell]

Just Nigeria.

[Fabian Hamilton]

Just Nigeria; okay, sorry. The hon. Gentleman asked why people would leave their homes and trust themselves to unscrupulous traffickers in Libya, but we have had the answer this afternoon from many hon. Members who have contributed. He said that unless we get sub-Saharan Africa right, the effect on Europe could be colossal. I agree with him, but it is absolutely vital that we destroy this appalling practice of slavery not just because of the effect that it will have on us in Europe, but for the sake of the welfare of our fellow human beings on that continent.

[John Howell]

I did make it clear in my speech that we need to get rid of slavery both for the sake of Africans’ lives, and for the sake of our lives. It is a win-win situation.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I entirely accept that. I do not think that any hon. Member in this room or in this House would condone what is going on, not just because of the effect on us but because of the effect on those individuals, families, communities and nations. I totally accept that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) made a very powerful contribution. She talked of the harrowing footage that CNN showed, which shocked us all. She said that her constituents were extremely upset because many of them have that collective memory of slavery, and that she was shocked it was still happening in 2017. She said that these practices are, of course, not new and that this exploitation of the vulnerable has grown under the political turmoil. She also mentioned that climate change had a role in migration, as other hon. Members have done. She asked whether the Government could make their feelings felt on ending the arbitrary detention of migrants in Libya, and also talked of a vicious cycle of abuse.

I am sure that, like the petition organisers, everyone in this House was utterly appalled at the video footage of the apparent slave auction. That was something that we felt had been left behind in the world in a previous century, but sadly and tragically it is very much still with us today.

On its website, CNN talked about the United Nations-backed Libyan Government of national accord, or GNA, who apparently say that they are keen to address violations against illegal immigrants but call on regional and global partners to provide assistance. The website says:

“Libya ‘is going through difficult times which affected its own citizens as well. It is, therefore, not fair to assume responsibility for the consequences of this immigration, which everyone unanimously agreed that addressing this phenomenon exceeds the national capacities,’ the GNA statement read. ‘We affirm again that the practical solution is to address the real reasons that drive people to leave their home countries, treat them and develop final solutions for them,’ it continued.”

CNN went on—this was back in November—to say:

“On Tuesday, Libya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that a committee has been established to investigate the auctions but asked ‘the international community to intensify in a spirit of responsibility and joint co-operation to assist Libya.’”

It says, as we know and have heard this afternoon from many hon. Members, that:

“In recent years, Libya has been flooded by migrants hoping to travel to Europe. The United Nations estimates there are now between 700,000 and a million migrants in the country. Those who have crossed the Mediterranean have shared stories about beatings, kidnappings and enslavement. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres said Monday”—

I guess that is Monday last week—

“he was ‘horrified’ at reports of migrants being sold as slaves, which could amount to crimes against humanity.”

They certainly do, from what we have heard this afternoon. The website continues:

“Guterres called on the international community to unite on the issue and said the auctions were a reminder of the need to manage migration flows in a humane manner that addresses the root causes, increases opportunities for legal migration”—

which has been referred to by many hon. Members this afternoon—and, most importantly,

“cracks down on smugglers…Mohammed Bisher, head of the government’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Authority, said detention facilities are overwhelmed and he urged countries from which migrants travel to take more responsibility. ‘We are 278 million Libyan dinars (nearly $210 million) in debt. We have to provide food, medicine, transportation... If the African Union wants to help, they can help,’ Bisher told CNN. Bisher said Italy has been providing some assistance, co-ordinating with Libyan officials and, in some cases, helping with deportation but more needs to be done.”

The Guardian reports:

“The latest reports of ‘slave markets’ for migrants can be added to a long list of outrages [in Libya]”.

It says that Mohammed Abdiker, IOM’s head of operation and emergencies, says:

“The situation is dire. The more IOM engages inside Libya, the more we learn that it is a vale of tears for all too many migrants.”

It continues:

“Even growing international awareness of the problems migrants face is being exploited. IOM has had credible reports of criminals posing as aid groups that help migrants to lure in people who have escaped or bought their freedom and want to return home.”

How horrific is that, Mr Walker?

“The organisation is working to spread awareness across west Africa of the horrors of the journey through the personal stories of those who return. Though most migrants know the boat trips to Europe are extremely risky, fewer realise they may face even worse dangers in Libya before even reaching the coast.

‘Tragically, the most credible messengers are migrants returning home with IOM help,’ said spokesman Leonard Doyle. ‘Too often they are broken, brutalised and have been abused. Their voices carry more weight than anyone else’s.’”

In the short term, it is clear that action is needed from Her Majesty’s Government, including protests and maybe even sanctions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham made some suggestions, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. We must ensure that the Libyan Government stamp out such practices and that humanitarian assistance is provided for individuals from other countries left displaced and destitute in Libya after the civil war, including, where possible, help to return home.

In the medium term, it is obvious that Libya needs stability and order. It needs to move away from its current lawlessness in which life is cheap and human labour is bought and sold—not in the interests of British corporate investors, as the Foreign Secretary has argued, but in the interests of the Libyan people themselves, to whom we owe an enormous debt.

I would like to mention somebody who is about to leave the Foreign Office: our current ambassador to Libya, Peter Millett, whom I am fortunate enough to know extremely well. Just two and a half months ago, I had the opportunity to meet him in Tunis, where he is based because it is too dangerous for him to be in Tripoli. He briefed me on the current state of lawlessness, disorganisation and effective lack of any governance in the country to which he is supposed to be ambassador. Tragically, and sadly for me, he is leaving the service at the end of December, but I know that he will carry on being an important factor. He will continue to lobby and talk about the horrors that he has seen with his own eyes and about what he thinks can be done. He will be a great asset to our country long after he leaves the service.

That brings me to the long term. It behoves all of us in this House to reflect on the shocking failure to prepare for the aftermath of our intervention in Libya in 2011. I believe that it was a lesson unlearned from Iraq and repeated even while the Chilcot inquiry was conducting its work. It was as a direct consequence of that failure to plan for the aftermath, and the abandonment of Libya to civil war, anarchy and the scourge of Daesh, that so many Africans from neighbouring countries—whether there as mercenary soldiers, migrant workers or refugees from other related conflicts—were left penniless, helpless and defenceless against exploitation by slavery gangs. We must all take our share of the responsibility for their plight. We must do whatever we can now to alleviate it. That is the very least that we can do.

Israel: US Embassy

John Howell Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am sure that the words cited by the hon. Lady will be drawn to the attention of those in the United States. It is our duty to ensure that hopes and promises are not lost in these circumstances.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I completely share the Government’s view on this statement by the President of the United States, but I do not believe that it brings the process for a two-state solution to an end. Indeed, I believe it gives greater emphasis to the work that we can carry on to achieve that. Does the Minister agree?

[Alistair Burt]

As I said earlier, the peace process towards a two-state solution will come to an end only when the parties themselves feel that it cannot go any further. It is vital that we and all our partners—including the United States—reaffirm that commitment to the two-state solution, and do our level best to ensure that it is not lost.

Palestinian Communities: Israeli Demolitions

John Howell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who opened this debate, for his clear statement that the Labour party is not anti-Semitic. That is a very useful thing to have put on the record.

This region is one of the most contested in the world, with extremely complex land ownership issues. It is important to contextualise those before discussing the issue, rather than simply inferring from the debate’s title that all Israel wishes to do is to destroy Palestinian homes. We need to go back to the Oslo accords of 1993 and how they split Areas A, B and C. I have seen in press reports from the Palestinian side that the Palestinians have admitted that the structures they have put out in Area C are in fact illegal. There is no getting away from that—that is exactly what they have admitted. I have spent years trying to reform the planning system in the UK; I am not going to try to reform the planning system in Israel.

The Oslo generation needs to move away from what we have seen so far. It is that generation that has participated in the stabbings, shootings and car-ramming attacks during the recent waves of terrorism. The institutionalised radicalisation behind those attacks is perhaps the most significant obstacle to a lasting peace in the generations to come.

It is time that we put more effort into a reconciliation deal, but that deal must include the demilitarisation of the Hamas terror group, and the Palestinian Authority must deliver on their commitment to end incitement and hate education, as they agreed to in the Oslo accords. If those obstacles can be overcome, the issues of borders, settlements—which have been discussed today —and security can finally be negotiated in direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Yemen

John Howell Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Part of the problem, as I alluded a moment ago, is that some parties have become comfortable with the conflict, and some parties in Yemen have been able to make a living with the conflict going on. There have to be incentives to people to make sure that a peace can be reached. To most of us, it is horrendous that anyone should be in that position, but the realities after a couple of years of conflict in the region have to be understood, and we only have to talk to Yemenis themselves to understand their despair and frustration. Accordingly, that is where the will of states must come in, in order to make sure that they can enforce a negotiated peace, but above all to make sure that those responsible for others realise that the only future for the people of Yemen is not in a continual state of conflict, but is in having government with the consent of the people, which can take a wonderful country, which is full of culture, music, architecture and all the good things we rarely talk about, and give its people the chance of the future they richly deserve.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

UNICEF has praised the UK for the aid it has already contributed to the country. Will the Minister say a little more about what pressure he feels can be brought on Iran to end its supply to the Houthis, who are still indulging in things like forced marriage and the use of children as soldiers?

[Alistair Burt]

Our relationship with Iran is changing: since going to the inauguration of President Rouhani we have made it clear that, although there are many differences between us—not least Iran’s support for what we consider to be insurgencies and terrorist action—it sees the world differently from others in the region, but the logical consequence of that not being addressed is dire. Accordingly, if there are pathways to encourage people to see their region differently and to try to create relationships that at present seem difficult, the UK’s role these days is to encourage that. There are already relationships between certain states in the region that 50 years ago we would not have expected, so who knows what can happen in the future, but we will continue to work with those in the region, including Iran, to encourage them towards a regional situation that no longer relies on confrontation, but relies instead on consensual support for their peoples.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

John Howell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[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.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Balfour Declaration comes in three parts, not two? The first part is about a national home for the Jewish people. The second part is about protecting the civil and religious rights of Palestinians. The third part is about protecting the political status of Jews in any other country. That is not what the Arabs have done.

[Dr Offord]

I agree with that understanding of the declaration, but I will move on.

Arabic is Israel’s official second language—I thought it was English. Many of the road signs are in Hebrew and Arabic. Just like all Israelis, the Israeli Arab community have freedom to practise their faith. The Palestinians today refer to Israel’s war of independence as “al-Nakba”, meaning the catastrophe, when an estimated 750,000 Arabs fled from the fighting. While there is much debate about their reasons for leaving, the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, David Ben-Gurion, had called on all Arabs within Israel to stay and live as equal citizens in a Jewish state. While Israel protected those Arabs who remained, the neighbouring Arab nations refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees; instead, they confined them to refugee camps and have denied them citizenship to this day.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to speak in this important and timely debate. Since the declaration and the foundation of the state, Israel has become one of the UK’s most important trading partners on the international stage, with record levels of trade, intelligence sharing and ever closer academic, cultural and scientific collaboration. The bilateral relationship runs deep, and it all started as a result of Balfour. I am not oblivious to the fate of the Palestinians—having visited the west bank, I am all too aware of it—but the solution lies in producing a two-state outcome to the current impasse.

Allied to the Balfour Declaration is the issue of Zionism. The Balfour letter expresses

“sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations”.

What we mean by Zionism is the belief that there should be a Jewish state in the land of Israel. The Zionist movement received cross-party support in the UK at the time, as well as Government backing in France, the US and other countries. Sadly, it appears that “Zionist” has become one of the most misunderstood and misused words in the English political dictionary. Legitimate criticism of the Israeli Government’s policies and actions should, of course, be permitted, just as we rightly criticise the Governments of other liberal democracies, but we must clearly set ourselves apart from those who hate Israel and call into question its right to exist as a Jewish state.

The excellent design for the new holocaust memorial and learning centre near Parliament was revealed only yesterday, and I look forward to seeing it built. In this centenary year, we need to recommit to the values of freedom and tolerance that we share with our friend Israel and proudly celebrate the incredible contribution that Israel has made to this world, which was started by that letter.

Iran

John Howell Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Most of our friends and partners in the middle east recognise that the non-proliferation treaty has prevented the acquisition of nuclear weapons, which would have been easy. Many states possess the wealth to equip themselves with nuclear weapons, but they have not done so because they accepted the terms of the treaty and other international agreements. The importance of continuing with the JCPOA is about ensuring that the signatories remain convinced that parties and powers that sign such agreements will abide by them. I have heard no suggestion that the President’s decision marks a change in that attitude among neighbouring powers, who realise how destabilising a change in Iran’s position on the non-proliferation treaty would be. I have also received no suggestion that Iran’s seeking nuclear weapons is likely to be an outcome of what we heard last week.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

If the agreement will not in itself control Iran’s financing of terrorist groups, will the Minister say a word about how it is acting as a springboard? That would give people more confidence in the deal.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend goes into other aspects of Iran’s activity in the region over which a veil cannot and should not be drawn. I will again make the point that the JCPOA was not meant in any way to draw a line under or cover up Iran’s activities. It is not the case that if Iran stuck to this element of the deal, everything else would no longer need to be considered. Other measures are in place to deal with such things. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is covered by EU sanctions, for example, and sanctions are available against those who finance terrorist activity, which would include some in Iran. EU sanctions are already in place in relation to Iranian individuals who have been suspected of human rights abuses, for example. Other leverage is available to deal with our concerns about Iran, and sanctions remain available to us, but we want to use the agreement as an opportunity to deal with the things on which Iran could and should do more. We will continue to do that by developing a bilateral relationship with Iran.

Anglo-Polish Relations

John Howell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) missed out from his list of trade envoys our brilliant trade envoy to Nigeria—I cannot imagine who has that job. I just refresh his memory on that.

I, too, will start with a history lesson, although not one that goes back as far as the second world war. Let me go back to the time of Mrs Thatcher and the setting up of what became known as the Know How Fund, Britain’s technical assistance programme to central and eastern Europe. The fund, of which I was a board member, started in Poland, because the British Government saw the attractions of Poland and the innate spirit of entrepreneurial activity there, and decided that they would work with individual Polish organisations—not governmental organisations—to take reforms forward. I spent many years afterwards doing non-exciting things such as trying to import British accounting, law and stock exchange and banking practices to Poland, with some great success. That is why so many British companies feel comfortable doing business in Poland now.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Of course I recognise the role that my hon. Friend undertakes as the excellent trade envoy for Nigeria. I agree wholeheartedly about the initial support that Britain gave to Poland after the communist era in the form of technology transfer and support in setting up institutions. He will, of course, agree that Britain was at the forefront of ensuring that the Paris Club nations rescinded many of Poland’s communist era debts.

[John Howell]

I agree. The point that I would make is that it is a fundamentally good way of transferring British technical assistance, for the benefit of both countries, as it transpires. It makes the other countries much more receptive and makes it easier for British companies to operate there, and it certainly improves the activities in those countries.

The involvement with Poland goes back more years than I care to remember, but it has not stopped there. I still have a great deal of involvement with Poland and Polish MPs. It is worth remembering that Poland supplies many Members of Parliament to the European Conservatives Group at the Council of Europe. In a post-Brexit world, the Council of Europe goes far beyond the 27 EU members, with a full membership of 47. That says a lot about the Council’s interest in human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I have heard Polish members of the Council of Europe participate in many debates on refugees, and I know full well that they understand the needs of Syrian and Ukrainian refugees in Europe, because they have said so in public debate. The point that they make balances good practice across Europe and seeing the refugee pattern as a whole with keeping an eye on what Poland can take for itself.

My hon. Friend mentioned that Prince William had been to Poland recently; Donald Trump was there as well, which led to many protests. There have also been protests about the court reforms that the current Polish Government are undertaking. Will the Minister comment on those? The difficulty with the court reforms, according to the opposition, is that the Government there are seeking more power over the courts, trying to end the separation of powers within Poland and introducing more rules to allow members of courts to be chosen by parliamentarians. Is that compatible with the country’s continued membership of the Council of Europe and its commitment to democracy?

My experience with Poland goes back many years, and I hope that it will continue for many more years to come. It is a place full of great entrepreneurs who contribute to our lives every day.

British Prisoners in Iran

John Howell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

I will call on the British Government to do a lot more.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

rose—

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

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend anticipates the conclusion of my speech, when I will ask the Government and the Minister to do more to release not just Nazanin but Mr Foroughi, Roya and all other prisoners of conscience who have been held in Iran for so long. I have tried my best to raise this matter in the House as much as possible with the two Foreign Secretaries who have been in office in the time that Nazanin has been in prison. This is the second Minister with responsibility for the middle east I have addressed about this issue. I also raised it at Prime Minister’s questions, and the Prime Minister said that she had raised the case with the Iranian President, but she did not go into whether she would call for Nazanin’s release.

[John Howell]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She is being very generous with her time. She is describing a scandalous systematic abuse of human rights in Iran. Does she accept that, when the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 was put together, we missed an opportunity to put a human rights clause in there? In the two years since it was signed, there has been no improvement at all in Iran’s activities.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I agree that it was a missed opportunity, but there have been other big missed opportunities, including a visit by diplomats to Evin prison, which I shall talk about later.

To mark Nazanin’s 100 days of detention, Richard Ratcliffe and I went to No. 10 when David Cameron was Prime Minister and handed in a petition. With the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), we went to the Foreign Secretary’s office to deliver a petition signed by 261 MPs and peers calling for Nazanin’s release. I have tried to raise this issue as much as possible in the House, especially during the International Women’s Day debate, in which the rights of women were examined over and over by Members of the Opposition but Nazanin’s case was largely ignored. It has been raised in the House several times, and people are worried about it, but the Government, to their shame, have not echoed the calls for Nazanin’s release.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on her excellent speech and on securing this brilliant debate. She did not comment on another British value—a belief in human rights. I have a fundamental belief in human rights, but Iran is not a place where human rights are prevalent.

Human rights were not discussed at all during the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran, in spite of Iran having one of the worst human rights records on this planet. In per capita terms, Iran leads the world in executions, and overall is second only to China. In Iran, moreover, it is mandatory for all women to veil their hair, homosexuality is illegal—I could go on and on.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this crucial debate. My hon. Friend is making some important points, and I want to add one. An important human right is that of legal representation to ensure access to justice. One of the most horrifying aspects of both Nazanin and Kamal’s cases is the absence of that legal advice. Will he comment on that?

[John Howell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that point.

At least three British citizens are detained in Iran. I have heard that a fourth person, whose name I do not know, has also been detained. We will have to see who that person is. Those four people stand in great contrast to the four Americans who were released from Iranian prisons in 2016 as part of a prisoner swap that came about following the Iran nuclear agreement. Nothing similar has occurred with regard to those Britons who have been detained in Iran over the same period.

In the few seconds I have left, I make the point that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn fully identified the reasons why we need those people released. It is fine to hear warm words from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, but we need to see action on those words. We need a real release of prisoners from Iran as quickly as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Israel and Palestinian Talks

John Howell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Yesterday, there was a debate on the middle east in the other place. My noble Friend Lord Polak made a typically interesting contribution. He pointed out that in 1948 there were 726,000 Palestinians refugees, and 856,000 Jewish refugees living in Arab lands, yet since then the UN’s focus has been solely on the Palestinians. He pointed to the more than 170 resolutions, the 13 UN agencies created or mandated to look after the Palestinian issue and the billions of dollars that have been provided to the Palestinians. Nevertheless, he still hoped that the UK would do all it could to bring Israelis and Palestinians around the table to hammer out a solution. I agree with him.

Israel remains committed to an independent Palestinian state through, among other things, direct negotiation to end the conflict. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly underlined his commitment to restarting peace negotiations without pre-conditions. Israel has accepted the principle of a future Palestinian state based along 1967 lines and for land swaps to take place.

Polling in 2016 has shown that there is still an appetite for a two-state solution among both Palestinians and Israelis. The figures were almost 60% for Israelis and just over 50% for Palestinians. The biggest obstacle to peace involved the infighting between Hamas and Fatah, the Palestinian approach unilaterally to wanting statehood, and the rearmament in Gaza by Hamas. Personally, I would add to that the seemingly blinkered approach of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. When I was last in Ramallah, I visited the PLO and had talks with its members. I found that there was little basis on which to have those talks. There was an attempt to blame us for all the ills of the region and a dislike for the involvement of anything that smacked of the private sector. I also wish to stress the levels of co-operation that already exist between the Israelis and the Palestinians and to point to one organisation in particular, Save a Child’s Heart, which I have visited on a number of occasions and does fantastic work.

I would be the first to admit that settlement expansion is counterproductive, and I have made that point to the Israeli Government, but the settlement issue is not a permanent obstacle to peace, and it is one of the five final status issues. It is not the reason for the continuation of the conflict, as violence predates the settlements, and the majority of settlers live within established settlement blocks along the green line, which are widely anticipated to become part of Israel in the peace settlement.

The past two years have shown a rising level of terror and Palestinian incitement in Israel. Since 2015 alone, there have been around 180 stabbings, 150 shootings, 58 car ramming attacks and one bus bombing. The result has been more than 389 terror attacks and over 759 injuries and some 50 Israeli or foreign deaths. The violence escalated to the point that, in October 2015, an Israeli mother and father were gunned down in front of their four young children. The sort of attitude that we have seen from President Abbas is not very helpful. He vowed to Palestinians that he would not stop prisoner salaries even if he had to resign, despite telling the US that he would do so.

[Bob Blackman]

rose—

[John Howell]

I will not give way, as I am fairly close to the end.

No peace agreement will be able to guarantee peace in the medium to long term if a generation of Palestinians are growing up indoctrinated to hate Israel and the Jews. The Palestinian Authority’s failure to deliver on its commitment to end incitement and hate education explicitly undermines the principles and conditions on which the peace process is built. Although I welcome France’s recent efforts to promote peace, I do not think that the best way to make progress is to hold an international conference without the attendance of the two main parties. We must get the two main parties around the table at the same time.