Israel: West Bank

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but

“no country, however large, can dismember its neighbour and break international law without consequences.”

These are the words of Boris Johnson when Foreign Secretary, in an article published on 22 February 2018 criticising Russia for its annexation of Crimea. The Minister accepts, as I understand it, that the possible annexation by the Israeli Government of land on the West Bank would likewise be illegal, but otherwise the Government’s response is an exercise in hand-wringing, as evidenced by the response today and by the answer given yesterday to the Written Question put down by my noble friend Lady Northover.

The possibility of a just, two-state solution is being dismantled before our eyes in favour of a one-state imposition, all endorsed by President Trump. What is the Government’s position? Do they accept the inevitability of annexation or will they condemn and seek to prevent it? We are entitled to know; the Palestinians are entitled to know as well.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

Can we please have short questions? These are not speeches in a debate, it is Question Time.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the UK position is absolutely clear. Any unilateral moves towards annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel, as I have said, would be damaging to the restart of any peace negotiations and, as I say again, contrary to international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as my noble friend will know, our long-standing position remains that the United Kingdom believes in a peace negotiation, a settlement between both sides based primarily on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, as would allow understanding of the position on the ground. Our position in that regard has not changed.

[The Lord Speaker]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon. He is not there. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale.

[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that everyone who wishes the best of futures for both Israel and the Palestinian people should be giving all the support they can to the people trying to bring about a two-state solution, and that therefore no support for any unilateral action should be given? It does not matter who is taking the unilateral action, whether it is Israel, the Palestinian people or any other actor in this conflict. Real friends of Israel should surely be against any unilateral action, which is bound to be only an obstacle on the road to peace, and that should apply to land annexation by Israel or calls from the Palestinians for boycotts and sanctions against Israel. Can the Minister confirm that the policy of Her Majesty’s Government is still to do everything to help bring about an agreed two-state solution for both parties?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I agree that what we want to see and what is required—it has been a long-standing position, and we remain steadfast—is a negotiated two-state solution that works for Israel in terms of its security concerns, and provides for a sovereign Palestinian nation.

[The Lord Speaker]

My Lords, I fear that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We might have got one or two more supplementary questions in had not some of the others been so long. I thank everyone who has taken part today. That concludes the Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions. Virtual Proceedings will resume at a convenient point after noon for a Private Notice Question on the impact of Covid-19 on higher education.

Syria

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord is aware, our Government—and I from the Dispatch Box —have repeatedly condemned the actions of these terrorist groups. In that part of the region, in both Syria and Iraq, Daesh is an appalling and disgusting organisation and we stand firm with our coalition partners to defeat it. However, the noble Lord is right: it continues to operate in the region, so we will work with international partners to do what we can to eradicate it from that part of the world.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is not here. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

What realistic assessment has been made of the incidence of the coronavirus in Idlib and in Syria as a whole, and how can testing be increased? Does the Minister agree that an urgent, comprehensive and co-ordinated emergency response plan is now required?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness is right to raise this issue. We have condemned the offensive by Syria in Idlib, supported in part by Russia. At the beginning of the year there were flagrant violations of international law by Syria that lacked basic human decency. We hold the Syrian regime to account. It has been responsible for using chemical weapons on its own population, and that is why we do not believe that President Assad should be part of any future solution, although ultimately that will be a decision for the Syrian people.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. We cannot hear her, so will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury,

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Perhaps I may press the Minister more strongly on Resolution 2504. All NGOs are really concerned about the routes providing access to Idlib, so what will he be doing before the July deadline to ensure that we get other allies and P5 members to support greater humanitarian access?

LGBTI: Human Rights Conference

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, funding from the Government with regard to promoting equality of action comes not only from DfID but from other sources: for example, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I explained earlier that DfID has ensured that equality for LGBTI people will underpin the work it does generally and will always be considered when funds are to be disbursed. There is no specific hived-off part of the funds, as far as I am aware—if I am wrong I will, of course, write to the noble Lord—but I point out that this year the Foreign Office has doubled its Magna Carta fund for human rights and democracy to £10.6 million, which is the most we have ever had. I understand that bids are already coming in for LGBTI projects.

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, would it not be a good idea if a government Minister from either DfID or the Foreign Office attended this conference as well as officials? I say this because no Minister from either department turned up at the last two world AIDS conferences. That was a great pity.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I will certainly take back my noble friend’s view to the FCO for consideration. I am, of course, aware that because this event is being co-hosted by the Governments of the Netherlands and Uruguay, their Ministers will be there. As far as I am aware, other attendees are intended to be officials but I will take further advice on that.

LGBTI Citizens Worldwide

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord on his speech, and in particular on his choice of subject. It is very rarely debated in this House, certainly in the time that he has given to us. I agree with a great deal of what he said.

I have followed the issue, obviously, for some time, but I confess that until two or three years ago I did not fully understand the extent of the utterly unfair treatment meted out to so many LGBT people around the world. It was when I started to research a book on AIDS around the world that it became clear that below the surface of what should have been a medical problem and a question of public health there lurked a vast iceberg of prejudice, persecution and disdain.

Fighting this prejudice is one of the most crucial human rights issues of our time. Around the world hundreds of thousands of people live in the shade. They are shunned and ostracised by their communities, abused and attacked, prosecuted as criminals and imprisoned or worse—and all for no reason other than their sexual orientation. The comparison is made, fairly, with the treatment of the Jews in so many countries before the war. I will give just three examples from my travels.

First, I went to Uganda. One noble Lord mentioned that. I was told by one practising Christian, expressing a view widely held there, that homosexuality was an illness, and that if gay people were locked up, it would prevent it spreading. Just before I came there had been a paper called Rolling Stone, which specialised in publishing photographs of homosexuals plus their addresses. Eventually the paper was closed down, only to be replaced by another paper which carried the front-page headline, “Exposed: Uganda’s 200 Top Homos”. In Uganda, gay men are persecuted, imprisoned and, in the case of David Kato, murdered.

Nor should it be thought—this is an important point—that such outrages are condemned by the public generally. In 2012 the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament went to Ottawa for a conference, where she was roundly attacked for her country’s polities. She robustly defended the discrimination, and when she returned home she was met by crowds on the streets who gave her a hero’s welcome. The public overwhelmingly support the repression, and the politicians compete to see who can be more extreme.

This morning the interviewer on the “Today” programme was corrected by one of the people being interviewed for saying that gay men could face the death penalty. The truth is that at one stage a proposed Bill did in fact threaten the death penalty for what was termed “aggravated homosexuality”, but then the author of the Bill relented, and very generously reduced the penalty to life imprisonment.

One law that did pass last year among other things put a duty on the citizen to report anyone they suspected of being homosexual. Failure to do so: a term of imprisonment of up to three years. In the event, that law was overturned by the Constitutional Court. However, no one can seriously doubt that a gay man in Uganda lives a precarious life, undefended by the vast majority of the public and the vast majority of politicians.

What of the churches? Tragically, there is all too little support from them as well. Here I do not just mean the American evangelicals, who have played a dismal part, but also the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church. I am very glad to know that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is calling a conference next year—but to date, with the exception of a few brave individuals, the churches have done very little to challenge the repression. In some instances, disgracefully, they have supported it.

My second trip was to Russia. My first interview in Moscow, with a gay rights campaigner, summarised so much of that country’s intolerance. The interpreter wanted to start with an apology. He was standing in at the last moment because the planned interpreter had been taken into hospital. She had been taking part in a small, 20-strong demonstration the day before outside the state Duma against the new laws making it a criminal offence to “promote homosexuality”. They had been set upon by a crowd of several hundred supporters of the new laws: Orthodox Christians and pro-Kremlin youth groups. Riot police had moved in and made arrests, mostly of the gay rights protesters.

Again, the official attitude is clear to see. The cover story is that repression is to protect children, which is both utterly unfair and utterly untrue. At the heart of Russia’s legislation is prejudice. It is illegal to suggest that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual ones or to distribute information on gay rights.

Again, the new laws of Mr Putin are not a series of measures forced down the throats of an unwilling public. The new laws were passed by a majority of 436 to nil. Opinion surveys showed that three-quarters of the Russian public believed that homosexuality should not be accepted. The measures and intolerance more generally were supported by the churches—in particular, the Russian Orthodox Church. Two weeks after I left St Petersburg there was a gay pride march, which was attacked by opponents. Seven marchers were taken to hospital with injuries and another 60 were arrested.

My third port of call was India, the biggest democracy in the world but one where the criminal law against homosexuality remains in force. Defenders say that it is not much enforced; but the point is that whether it is enforced or not, it sets the standard. It gives a cover of respectability to people who discriminate. The law has a persuasive effect but, in this case, in entirely the wrong way.

I should mention another minority who also face discrimination and persecution but are rarely mentioned—transgender people, who are one of the most marginalised groups in India. They are effectively barred from most jobs, not because they fail the interview but because they are turned away at the gates. Often they are rejected by their own families and are subject to violence. Yet, when one talks to them, one cannot fail to be moved by their accounts of realising that they have been born in the wrong body, of their long struggles to come to terms with it, and of little acceptance by the public generally. It is often a story of loneliness and rejection, which takes them on to doing the only job available to them: sex work. They remain an often tragic minority from whom, all too often, the public and officials cross to the other side of the road.

I have mentioned just three countries, which gives some idea of the size of the issue we face. They are not remotely the only countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, 75 countries around the world have criminal laws against homosexuality. Forty out of the 53 members of the Commonwealth criminalise same-sex relationships; 90% of Commonwealth citizens live under such a law. Nor do I wish to assert that our country is in some way free of prejudice. We know that that is not the case, as the noble Lord stated. We also know that it was only in 1967 that the law was reformed here—which was not before it claimed some notable victims such as Alan Turing and our old colleague who has just died, Edward Montagu, who was so unjustly imprisoned in the 1950s.

However, what we can say is that the position here has been improved, not least by the equal marriage legislation. It gives us an opportunity to try to change the climate of opinion, here and overseas. It gives us that opportunity because we are often blamed for introducing the anti-gay laws in the first place, apparently without anyone understanding that the position here has radically changed. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned, I note that Elton John has suggested a meeting with Mr Putin. I pay tribute to the work of both Elton John and David Furnish but am not sure how far a meeting of that kind is going to take us in follow-up action. I would much prefer and advocate a meeting with David Cameron, not because the Prime Minister shares Mr Putin’s views but because he simply does not share those views, and it could start a process whereby the discrimination can be fought and defeated. Perhaps there could be a London conference, with the serious aim of beginning that process. The agenda for such a conference is set out extremely well by the Amnesty report that noble Lords will have received.

The basic point is this. We can all condemn the outrages; that is the easy part. The difficult part is doing something practical about it. Necessarily, much depends on the bravery and commitment of people living in those countries where discrimination reigns. However, we should not just ask what they can do; we should also ask what we can do to help and fight what, I repeat, is one of the greatest human rights issues of our time.

Ukraine: Demonstrations

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Ukraine following the demonstrations in that country.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, at the OSCE ministerial council in Kiev on 5 December, chaired by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kozhara, the Minister for Europe, Mr Lidington, reiterated his concerns about violence being used against peaceful protestors and journalists. He stressed the importance of Ukraine, particularly as an OSCE chair in office, upholding OSCE values, including freedom of assembly and expression. While welcoming the Ukrainian authorities’ commitment to a thorough investigation, he emphasised that the investigation must be rigorous and fair.

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, I was in Independence Square in Kiev on the night that the demonstrators were attacked. I confirm to my noble friend that the demonstrators, who had been democratically calling for closer trade links with the European Union, had been both peaceful and good humoured and that the violence came entirely from the Government’s security police. I am not sure what will be served by an investigation to further establish that. Is it not a political fact that the Ukrainian Government have caved in to the financial blackmail of Russia while the demonstrators have rejected the bribes, are acting out of principle and very much deserve our support?

[Baroness Warsi]

I agree, of course, with my noble friend’s comments. The demonstrators are acting within their right to freedom of expression and are expressing their views about the direction that the country is going in. I was at the Vilnius summit at the end of the November, where it was anticipated that Ukraine would sign the association agreement, which it had initialled in 2012. We were disappointed that that progress was not made. However, I stress that the door remains open and it is for the Ukrainians to walk through it.

BBC World Service

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the BBC on the development of the World Service.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we have regular discussions with the BBC World Service. We are aware that the BBC World Service has already reprioritised resources to minimise the effect of the cuts to the BBC Arabic service. We are also looking at ways that we can work with the BBC Arabic service and the BBC World Service Trust on specific projects under the Arab Partnership Initiative. We have also been in discussion with the BBC Trust, the BBC World Service and the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport over an amendment to the BBC agreement that will include setting out the role of the Foreign Secretary once the funding of the World Service transfers to the licence fee in 2014-15.

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but perhaps I may raise specifically the cuts being planned in news reporting on the Arabic service, which, incidentally, will be unaffected by any resources from DfID through the World Service Trust. Does he not agree that this is a crucial time in the Arab world and the Middle East—so important that other television stations are expanding their reporting and Sky is soon to introduce an entirely new service there? Given that the World Service is already well established, respected and cost-effective, should not our aim be to develop the Arabic service, not to cut it back?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Of course that is absolutely right and my noble friend is extremely well informed on these matters. In fact, I really wanted to say to him that when he spoke about these matters the other day, I said that he was “misinformed”. On reflection, I think that that is too strong a word, and I apologise to him for it. He was correctly drawing on the BBC World Service circular, but that did not quite present the whole picture about the fact that the 24-hour service is being maintained in one form or another—although it is perfectly true that live broadcasts have been curtailed.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned in my Answer, we are working on specific projects under the Arab Partnership Initiative, and we hope that that initiative will be expanded and, therefore, that opportunities for more support for the service will expand. I should add that if one looks at the totality of the projection of our soft power communication with the Arab world, since between November last year and February there has been a 263 per cent increase in online BBC Arabic usage, a 949 per cent increase in requests for Arabic TV online streaming from the BBC, and a 559 per cent increase in online video requests. No one can say that we are backward in promoting the British message, persuading, using influence and communicating in a highly effective way with the turbulent Arab world.

Government Departments: Soft Power

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, I have been in a debate like this before, back in 1981 in the other place when I was Transport Secretary. After many attempts, the Commons rightly used my transport Bill to introduce compulsory seatbelts for the first time in this country. You might have thought that the next day it would have been front page news, but not quite, because the morning’s papers were dominated by another event that would happen that day—the marriage of Charles and Diana. We may well find that this debate is also overshadowed, but that in no way reduces its importance.

I congratulate the noble Baroness on the excellent way in which she introduced the debate. I shall pick up one part of what she said, about the BBC World Service and journalism generally. The best of British journalism can have a big influence for the good. Honest and independent reporting of what is taking place can influence a debate inside a country; it can inform a bigger audience around the world, and when done well it brings credit to this country. I am talking here about journalism, not newspapers indulging in practices such as phone hacking that want nothing more than the information on the private lives of real and imagined celebrities. To my mind, that is not journalism but a form of unjustifiable prying, which has rightly been declared illegal, and I look forward to the day when the Government announce that they will set up an inquiry into how this can be prevented.

The kind of journalism that I am talking about is truthful, independent reporting that deals with important national and international issues and is not influenced by the prejudices and views of proprietors. I am also talking about fearless reporting, which we have been reminded of recently by the deaths of two journalists in Libya—the latest casualties in a long line of those whose jobs as reporters have put them at risk. There are outstanding examples in this country of the kind of journalism that I am talking about, and the kind of journalist, not least in the BBC—not the game show hosts, but reporters such as John Simpson, Jeremy Bowen and people of that kind.

We should not ignore the influence that this kind of journalism can have. I am chairman of the Thomson Media Foundation, which was formed half a century ago by Roy Thomson. I took over from my noble and learned friend Lord Howe some years ago. In the Middle East, we run inquirer rewards for investigative journalism, with entries from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank and investigations into prison conditions and healthcare. This has been funded partly by the Foreign Office, and I pay tribute to it for that. In the gentlest way possible, I would love to know what future plans there are, following my letter of about six or seven weeks ago.

I will concentrate on the BBC World Service. I remember in 1967 being sent off by my newspaper to the Middle East war. After a rather hairy journey by fishing boat, my colleagues and I arrived in Beirut. Our aim was to get to Damascus and Amman, but for some time the borders were closed and news was censored. My abiding memory of that period was of an American journalist with his ear to the transistor radio, desperately trying to get the latest, accurate news of what was happening in the war. The World Service in those days was the gold standard.

Things have obviously changed since those days. We have channels providing 24-hour television news; in the Middle East, which I seek to concentrate on, we have powerful new channels such as Al-Jazeera; and we have the internet playing an increasingly important role. Nevertheless, taking a worldwide perspective, the BBC World Service has a formidable audience of 180 million people and retains a formidable reputation, which is paid tribute to by a wide range of people including Kofi Annan, who said that it is,

“perhaps Britain's greatest gift to the world”.

That is some praise.

The service has sought to develop as conditions have changed. It has started an Arabic television service, which has become a 24-hour service—partly, perhaps, because of the urging of the Communications Committee of this House. In the Arab world its online audience has gone up, as the noble Baroness was saying, by something like 300 per cent in the past few months, while it should never be forgotten that radio remains a powerful medium internationally, just as it does in this country. I do not claim that the development has been perfect, but that has often been because of lack of funds and sometimes perhaps because of a lack of vision in its funding department. One story, told some years ago, was that the Foreign Office was highly sceptical of one bid on the grounds that it did not really think that the internet would ever catch on.

What I know for certain is that the World Service has always had to fight hard for the resources that it needs. That certainly applied in the Thatcher years, and I remember the then Foreign Secretary, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, battling away for money at that time. I was always rather divided between the prospect of the former Chancellor being made to appear before the public spending hanging jury, where he had sent so many of us, and supporting his cause. In the end, I supported his cause.

There have been problems in the past, and there should be no doubt about that, but nothing, I suggest, on the scale of what is now being envisaged: cash savings of 20 per cent over the next three years; the closure of five full language services; and the end of radio programmes in seven languages. Overall, the service will lose an audience of something like 30 million people. To take the impact on just the Arabic service, as the noble Baroness indicated, in a month’s time the television service will reduce from 15 live hours of news a day to seven hours by cutting out overnight and morning coverage. Yet it is competing with Al-Jazeera. Radio will be cut from 12 hours a day to seven, and 44 of the Arabic staff will be made redundant. Yet two days ago, my noble friend, who is now sitting on the Front Bench, repeated a Statement by the Foreign Secretary on the Middle East: war in Libya, crisis in Syria, unrest in Yemen and Bahrain and crucial decisions in Palestine, not to mention Egypt and Tunisia. The question that has to be asked is whether this is conceivably the right time to be cutting back on the World Service. No one blames the Government for not foreseeing what has happened in the past months in the Middle East—I do not think that many, if any, actually did—but the point is that it has happened and we now need to respond to this new situation.

Personally, I agree with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the other place, under the excellent chairmanship of my friend Richard Ottaway, that the decision on cuts should be reversed. Let me put the point another way. All the evidence suggests that the decisions on funding and transfer to the BBC were taken very quickly without exploring the options. I am not opposed in any way to responsibility going to the BBC, but if that is going to be the case, guarantees need to be written in. We might look at options for change there that would provide resources without affecting the BBC overall. Frankly, it would be to everyone’s benefit, and it would make a financial saving, if the BBC Trust were abolished and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, could become the proper chairman of the BBC with a board rather than, as at the moment, “chairman” being an honorary title. I certainly believe that it would be to the benefit of the commercial arm of the BBC, BBC Worldwide, and would mean financial gain to the corporation, if it were allowed to raise private capital to develop. That would mean changing the ownership structure, a course that was actually first set out by the previous Labour Government.

To explore these options—and there are others, such as funding from the DfID budget—will obviously take a little time, rather more than the six or seven days that it took to produce the present policy. No one would criticise the Government for a moment if these cuts were put on hold while the new situation, particularly the situation in the Middle East, was considered further along with other options.

We should remember above all that the BBC World Service is truly a world leader, that it brings credit on this country and that it is remarkably cost-effective for the good that it does. I urge the Government to think again on policy here and start fresh talks with the BBC. We should recognise that a new situation has arisen, and we should be thinking of developing the World Service, not cutting it back.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Baroness from the opposition Front Bench on what they said. They opened the debate in a quite outstanding way. Since then, we have heard a series of very strong speeches, not least that from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.

I shall be brief and make one basic point. There are those who say that the events in Cairo mean that any efforts to bring about a peace settlement in Palestine should be put on ice, that we do not know that kind of Government will evolve in Egypt or what part the Muslim Brotherhood will play, and that the security risks are too great. I take exactly the opposite view. Unless action is taken towards a two-state solution, the danger in the Middle East will increase, to the harm of the whole world.

This time last week, I was on the West Bank, in Ramallah, Hebron and Jerusalem. A few weeks previously, I had been in Gaza, entering via the crossing on the Egyptian side which is now closed. Both trips were organised by the Conservative Middle East Council. It was not remotely my first visit to the Middle East. My introduction was not quite as early as that of the noble Lord, Lord Luce—I cannot claim that it was 1947—but it came in 1967, when I was sent to report the Six-Day War. I was at the time the home affairs correspondent for the Times, so it was slightly surprising to find myself on the road from Beirut to Damascus and Oman—I was probably the only home affairs correspondent covering that war. I certainly saw the Middle East at exactly the time that has shaped events up to now.

When I go back, as I have done periodically over the years, I am tempted to say that nothing has changed and that things have only got worse. However, in at least one vital respect, that is not remotely the case. As I went over to Beirut in 1967 in a small fishing boat that we had chartered in Famagusta, we listened to fairly terrifying military music from the Arab radio stations. There was no doubt about the intent, for example, of the Egyptian forces. There was no question of recognition of Israel; the intent was annihilation. The greatest change in the past 45 years is the peace which has developed between Egypt and Israel and between Israel and Jordan. That has been a massive step forward, but the tragedy is that we have not been able to build on that foundation.

The position of Palestine is absolutely crucial for the stability of the Middle East, yet it remains as intractable as ever. We are still dithering about whether a two-state solution can be achieved and whether a degree of normality can be restored to life on the West Bank and in Gaza.

I will set out in a moment the justified concern of Israel concerning its national security, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but I will first set out why the position in the Occupied Territories or Gaza cannot continue indefinitely and why action needs to be taken if serious danger, perhaps catastrophic danger, is to be avoided.

Let us consider for a moment how life appears to those people living in the Occupied Territories or Gaza. In the Occupied Territories there are checkpoints and Palestinians are diverted on to side roads. There is settlement building, which still continues in East Jerusalem. There are restrictions that prevent full commercial development. It is nice for everyone to say how important trade and commerce are, but that is quite difficult if you find it impossible at times to export your goods and import the goods necessary to make the things that you make.

In Gaza, the position is much worse. There are litter-lined refugee camps that are a grim mixture of corrugated iron and concrete. There are children being taught, as I saw, in a school formed out of old containers which are cold in winter and hot in summer. There are more than 500 children, with each container taking 30 children, who are taught in double shifts, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. There are destroyed houses, but because of the restrictions on imports of cement and aggregates, they cannot be rebuilt. There are Dickensian scenes where young people pick their way through the rubble to find stone. That is the reality.

That is something of the flavour of life for many Palestinians and the longer that continues, the greater the danger that is building up for the whole region and conceivably for the whole world. But then of course you come up against the argument that is quite reasonably put by many Israelis—and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton- Davis, touched on it. They say, “Consider the history of Gaza”. They say, “Our forces left and our settlers left and how were we rewarded? We were rewarded with a hail of rockets directed at Israel”. I do not deny for a moment that that is a powerful argument and one in which Israel has a perfect right to seek reassurance—a reassurance that I hope it feels is being increasingly provided on the West Bank by the police of the Palestinian Authority.

We see the argument that says that perhaps one day we can think of political advance but not now. But in spite of the security difficulties, we should still try to find a political solution which in the end will be the best guarantee and perhaps the only guarantee of security in the long term. I do not believe that we have the luxury of time. Both on the West Bank and in Gaza there is a predominantly young population; a point made by both Front Benches. In the West Bank, 70 per cent of the population is below the age of 30. Gaza is similar. There are many young people growing up who want careers and jobs. They want opportunity and hope. If that opportunity and hope are not provided for them, I fear that there is a real risk that they in turn will resort to violence.

I remember visiting a school in Gaza. There were girls in smart, neat uniforms and they went through their rehearsed paces for the benefit of visitors. But when you spoke to them individually, some of the make-up peeled away. They were concerned about their futures and what their opportunities would be. Did they have any realistic opportunities? The blame that they attached to their situation was not directed at Hamas: they blamed Israel. That is the kind of position that needs to be reversed.

No one claims for a moment that it is anything but the most difficult task, but if there is a way forward, it is through the resumption of talks and serious negotiation. Perhaps the outside world can help in this although, like a number of other noble Lords, I sometimes think that the intervention of the USA and the West in the affairs of the Middle East, from Suez to Iraq, has not been outstandingly successful. Nevertheless, I believe that we have a part to play and I do not mean simply by trailing behind the United States: that does not necessarily serve the interests of the region.

Like the noble Baroness on the opposition Front Bench, I much regret that in the current critical circumstances, where perhaps we could have some influence, we are cutting back on the BBC World Service. That seems a very foolish thing to do at this point. I would have thought that this was the time to develop that service and try to develop our influence rather than to reduce it.

I also very much support the recent and rather more independent statements of both the Prime Minister on Gaza and the Foreign Secretary when he warned the Prime Minister of Israel that “belligerent language” was the last thing that we conceivably needed in this position. I particularly support the words of the Foreign Secretary quoted by my noble friend. We need decisive leadership in this area because, unless we have that, we face the prospect of decades of conflict. That is a powerful warning and everyone should take note.

BBC World Service

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler]

I shall ask my noble friend a few short questions. Is there any comparable international broadcasting service which has a higher reputation than the BBC World Service? Is that influence not of immense benefit to this country? Will he therefore understand that there will be serious concern about this announcement on all sides of the House? May I ask him something else which may not have such general support? If we are intent on saving money, why are we cutting only journalists and services yet preserving the costly bureaucracy of the BBC Trust? Even now it is in the process of recruiting a new chairman when even the previous Labour Government wanted to see it go. In that way we could save millions of pounds for broadcasting.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I shall start on my noble friend’s second point. We have to leave the design and pattern of the cuts to the administration of the BBC World Service within the confines, of course, of the requirement that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has to approve any cuts in language services. He has approved three. I think he was asked to cut 13 in the first place. I have no quibble with my noble friend regarding the value of the service in the promotion of our cultural diplomacy and soft power in the world. It is immensely valuable and its budget remains substantial. None of us welcomes this application of austerity but it is necessary because that is the position we inherited and we have to work within. Within those parameters the BBC World Service remains, in our minds, an immensely valuable instrument. It is a central part of the promotion of our values and I do not for one moment dispute a single word of what my noble friend said.

Gaza

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Israel on import restrictions affecting Gaza.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we are clear that the status quo in Gaza is both a tragedy and unsustainable. We continue to call on Israel to ease restrictions on access to Gaza. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visited Israel in November. My ministerial colleague, Alistair Burt, is currently in the region and discussed Gaza at length with the Israeli Co-ordinator for Government Activity in the Territories, General Dangot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is not the real problem the restrictions on the import of building materials, which are necessary to build and rebuild houses, schools and medical facilities in Gaza? We all utterly deplore the acts of terrorism directed at Israel but do not restrictions of that kind, affecting thousands of ordinary people in Gaza, gather in support for extremism rather than cutting it off?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, my noble friend is completely right. The problem is obviously the lifting and easing of the blockade. We have had some small success: the Israeli authorities have agreed to shift from a total block on progress to a list of very limited permitted goods and are moving to a blacklist of goods that cannot go in. They have announced that they now are happy to allow in things such as steel-ready concrete, asphalt and cement for Palestinian Authority-approved civilian projects that are under the supervision of the UN.

There is, of course, a long list of ifs and buts. Frankly, we have not found that any of this so-called easement has yet made much difference on the ground but it is a slight move forward. Of course, consumer goods are allowed in. We will continue to press extremely hard to get a much more expansive and open regime to allow in the reconstruction items and materials to which my noble friend refers.