UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will be fully aware of my views on that. No British money should be spent on any textbook or support for any institution or organisation that suggests or inflicts that kind of extremist ideology on any community or any child anywhere in the world. I assure him that, in our support for UNRWA, we are vigilant on these issues. I am cognisant of reports that have been produced in this regard, and we have completed a full audit to ensure that the facilities we support are fully consistent with not just our values but those of the UN.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has been in his post a good deal of time now and is a very effective Minister. How much longer must the people of the Occupied Territories suffer and be humiliated, in the way that they have for so many years, before the international community and the British Government in particular start taking some positive steps? How is it credible to continue to argue for a two-state solution when we recognise just one of the two states? Is it not high time that we at least recognised the state of Palestine?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I share the point that he raises: as I said in an earlier answer, this has gone on for far too long; from both an Israeli and a Palestinian perspective, this needs resolution. I have been to Israel and the Palestinian territories. I have seen for myself the impact the conflict has on both communities. It requires peace negotiations to start again. We are encouraged by recent steps that the US has taken. The position has not changed on recognition of a Palestinian state: we will do so at a time when it serves the peace process in the best way. At the same time, we continue to support and work with the Palestinian Authority. For example, it was invited to, and attended, COP 26 recently.

Afghanistan: Food Shortages

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord speaks from great insight and experience of the region. He is quite right about the situation with ISKP, but he will also be aware that there is fragmentation within the Taliban; there are different parties within the Taliban who are also wrestling for control and, depending on who has the greatest influence, they will have the greatest influence over respective regions. We are working through the nuances of that. There is one thing I will say about the Taliban—it is realising that it may have wanted administration, but being in government is not an easy job.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister knows well enough that even prior to the national takeover by the Taliban, large swathes of Afghanistan were in effect controlled by the Taliban, and in those areas, although it is patchy, there was co-operation between the Taliban administration and NGOs, food agencies and the like. Can he tell us whether that is still the case now that there has been a national takeover? If not, what circumstances have changed?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. Indeed, in the initial stages of the takeover by the Taliban of Afghanistan, it was very clear that in those areas that had been under its control—not in all, but in some—there had been operational co-operation with aid agencies: UNICEF, for example. My first meeting very early on, in August, verified that fact and, indeed, UNICEF has increased its footprint, not decreased it, since the Taliban takeover. The other area we are still working through, of course, is that until we have the security in place to ensure that aid can be delivered, we need to work province by province and ensure that, whichever agency has the greatest influence on the ground, we can leverage its operational capacity and support it accordingly.

Cost of Living

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My noble friend makes a valid point and I will take it back to not just my department but the relevant department to see whether I can get an answer to his question.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box the simple proposition that all these changes will impact disproportionately on the least well off? That inevitably means that the gap between rich and poor will increase. Can she explain to us how that fits into the Government’s levelling-up agenda?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I quite understand, but for those people to whom the noble Lord refers with a health condition or a disability who cannot work, there is also a chance to get the £350 a month top-up of the universal credit standard allowance to help with their everyday costs. I say again: while this is a difficult position and we, not least my ministerial team, understand the potential challenges for people in this field, we are listening and assessing. I am unable to make any other policy commitments on that.

On the levelling-up agenda, the Government are quite committed to levelling up. Andy Haldane has been appointed to head up the task force. This is an economist from the Bank of England who knows what this is about, and we must work with him to make sure that levelling up works.

The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is 18 months since our committee published its report. That is before the coronavirus pandemic was even thought of and before our country’s departure from the European Union. So much has changed, but the rationale for the report has not. That is best expressed in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, who, when he was Foreign Secretary, said that the UK had

“a track record of underestimating Latin America and neglecting its opportunities”.

Our report focuses on this important challenge, and does so primarily through the prism of the Pacific Alliance. I have time to touch on just two issues: the changes relating to our leaving the European Union and the role of our trade envoys.

First, on our departure from the EU and our capacity to make independent trading arrangements, Ian Perrin, policy forum manager at Canning House, told our committee that leaving the EU

“could act as a spur for the UK to increase engagement with the Pacific Alliance.”

He also said that our trading relations with the region would depend on continuity regarding existing trading arrangements when we exit the EU. Professor Gardini, professor of international relations at Friedrich-Alexander University, told us that if the UK was looking into a

“new trade strategy in a post-Brexit scenario”,

Latin America provided an opportunity

“not only in itself but in terms of UK insertion into regional and global value chains aiming at the Asian market.”

Those are pretty forward-thinking observations in the light of the weekend’s news about the CPTPP.

We now know that Britain has signed continuity trade agreements with all the countries of the Pacific Alliance, which is to be welcomed. Can the Minister update us on any similar arrangements with other countries in the region and tell us what further steps are being taken to maximise the advantages of us being able to make our own independent trading arrangements outside the EU?

I turn to the issue of the Government’s trade envoy programme and the lack of definition about the role of envoys in relation to other parts of the government machinery, which we identified in our report. The International Relations Committee has had a number of unsatisfactory exchanges with the Government about the envoys, including their method of recruitment and appointment, their accountability to the Prime Minister and Parliament, their terms of reference and how their impact is measured and assessed. Those questions were all triggered by the Government’s refusal to allow any of the envoys to appear as witnesses to our committee—an odd refusal since we were inquiring into international trade. The Government clearly attach importance to the trade envoy programme because, on 5 October last year, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of 15 new envoys, doubling the size of the programme, which now covers 69 countries.

Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Trade wrote to our committee, telling us that this is a “cross-party” programme. There are now 30 envoys, only one of whom is allocated to South America, covering three countries: Chile, Colombia and Peru. As for the cross-party aspect, I make it that, of the 30 envoys, 24 are Conservatives. Can the Minister tell us why some countries in Latin America have envoys but most do not? What is the rationale for selecting Chile, Colombia and Peru ahead of all the others? Does he think that 24 out of 30 envoys being Conservatives can fairly be described as “cross-party”? In addition to the questions that I have asked, will he provide us with an up-to-date list of all the envoys, the countries to which they are attached and their party affiliation?

I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this debate. He was an excellent chairman of the committee in the first three years of its operation. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Official Development Assistance

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as I said earlier, we are proud of our commitment to 0.7%; it was a Conservative-led Government who brought that into legislation. I can assure him that we made this decision after very careful consideration. We needed a temporary reduction in order to meet the unprecedented challenges that we face in terms of both health and the economy. I reassure him, however, that our intention is to return to 0.7%.

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that there are few parts of the world where our continued development assistance is needed more desperately than in Afghanistan? Does he further agree that any reduction in our support for that country—given the decades of conflict, the huge numbers of displaced people and our deep involvement there, both militarily and economically—could have devastating effects? Can he assure us that, whatever changes are envisioned in our aid budget, the funding for Afghanistan will remain a top priority?

Middle East Peace Plan

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the noble Baroness suggested that I added certain lines. Just for clarity I should say that, as she knows from her own experience, that is not how government works. I have stated the Government’s position, which again restated that, as far as we are concerned,

“the best way to achieve peace is through substantive peace talks”.

She is right to raise concerns about annexation. We have always retained and sustained, and I reiterate again, that any annexation of any lands would be against and contrary to international law.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm absolutely clearly that this proposal involves further annexation of Palestinian land? Is there any other part of the world where the Government sanction annexation of neighbouring territories or even countenance it? Further, although he repeats the commitment to a two-state solution, as all Ministers of all parties have, can he confirm that this latest proposal manifestly makes any possibility of a two-state solution almost impossible?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly says, I have stated what the United Kingdom’s position is, as is entirely appropriate. This proposal has been put forward by the United States. Like any peace proposal or peace plan, it is worth consideration. It has been described as a first step. I agree with the noble Lord that, as I have said before and continue to say, any settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians has to be credible, has to be accepted and must involve consideration by both sides. We hope the current proposal on the table means that the Palestinians will also seek to engage on this, but as I have reiterated, from our perspective this is a first step.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, one thing which we can all agree upon, I think, is that not for decades has there been such an acute period of political and constitutional uncertainty as that which we are experiencing at present. We do not know whether there will be a general election, whether there will be a vote of no confidence or whether we will leave the EU. Our constitutional conventions are threatened, our courts are increasingly involved, our political parties are divided, Parliament is paralysed, and public confidence in and respect for Parliament is diminishing by the day.

Inevitably, as a result of all this, political debate is course and bitter. I would even go so far as to say that our political culture, the accepted norms of our national debate and decision-making processes are seriously threatened.

The symptoms are complex, but the cause of all our present difficulties is not complex at all. It is incredibly simple. In 2016, both Houses of Parliament voted, virtually without dissent, that the issue of whether we should remain in the European Union was something that should be decided not by the House of Commons but by the British people in a referendum. We, the parliamentarians, also decided the precise rules under which the referendum would be conducted and the precise question that would be on the ballot paper.

We all know what happened next. Leave won, and ever since, a significant number of parliamentarians, though by no means all remainers—I certainly do not put everyone in the same category—have used every possible procedure to obstruct, delay or even try to reverse the result of a referendum which, I repeat, almost all of us voted for.

There is no point whatsoever in holding referendums if those responsible for implementing them—the parliamentarians—will only do so if they agree with the result. That also applies to any suggested second referendum. Why on earth would I, who voted leave, agree to a second referendum, when I know from bitter experience that even if I win, it may not make any difference?

We have all heard the excuses for not implementing the referendum result. We are told it was not clear what leave meant. Well, it is crystal clear to everyone outside “Confused of Westminster”. If you leave any organisation, at the very minimum you do not have to obey the rules of the organisation and you certainly do not have to pay the subscription.

In any case, two can play at the “What does it mean?” game. What does remain mean? Does remain mean continuing to pay our current subscription? Does remain mean joining a European army? Does it mean ever closer union, with more laws to obey over which we have no control? Does it mean losing our rebate? Does it mean ever greater dominance and control from those members of the EU who are members of the eurozone? The truth is that the future is uncertain, whether we remain or leave. It is always uncertain. Life is uncertain.

The tactics of the unreconcilable remainers have at least evolved over time. First, we were told that the referendum did not really mean anything, that it was purely advisory and that it would be fine for the Government to ignore it. Then it was said that the real choice was not between remain and leave, but between a hard Brexit—or even the hardest of hard Brexits—and a soft Brexit. However, when Mrs May offered the softest of soft Brexits, they said: “No, thank you very much”, by a large majority. Their next tactic was saying: “What we want is a People’s Vote”. In the finest Orwellian tradition, the purpose of the people’s vote would be to reverse the 2016 vote of the people, but there was no agreement as to what question should be put to the vote, or even how many questions there should be, except, of course, that remain must be on the ballot paper.

The latest tactic is the so-called Benn Act, in which a majority of the Commons were united in the view that our departure from the EU should be delayed for a further three months. The problem is, of course, that that was all they were united on. Ask them what the three months’ delay is actually for and they are all over the place.

The most bizarre suggestion, from some, is that they want what they call a Government of national unity. It would of course be a Government of national unity with a passionate remainer as Prime Minister and a Cabinet full of remainers, so the losers in the 2016 referendum would achieve national unity for us all by excluding the leavers and reversing the referendum result. The mind boggles at the logistics of it all. Who would be the Prime Minister? Who would be the leader of the Opposition? Would Her Majesty be required to make another Queen’s Speech? What about the Chamber in which we sit? Presumably, for a Government of national unity we would all have to sit on the same side.

There are yet more severe remainers who want to go even further. They want to revoke Article 50 by a simple vote in Parliament, so that the votes of 17.4 million people in a referendum could be overturned by 326 votes in the House of Commons. It may be democracy, Jim, but not as we know it. These people who want to revoke Article 50 seem to believe that we can all pretend that the last three years, including the referendum, never really happened.

I can just imagine the letter that a revoking Prime Minister would have to send to the EU. “Dear Monsieur Barnier”, it would say, “First, let me apologise unreservedly for all the inconvenience to which we have put you during the past three years. It was all the result of a dreadful mistake that we made when we asked the British public whether we should remain in or leave the European Union. I can assure you that, in the future, there will be no more nonsense about consulting the people”.

This Parliament is enveloped in a political and constitutional quagmire. The cause, as I have said, is very simple: the failure of Parliament to honour the referendum. All the parliamentary and constitutional shenanigans are a direct result of this. Unpalatable as it may be to many in this House there is only one solution to this problem, and that is to leave the European Union. I voted leave but, in a spirit of national unity, I would like to end my remarks with the words of a remainer. This is Sir Anthony Meyer, writing in this week’s Sunday Times. He said:

“I voted to remain but believe that it is a moral and political imperative to honour the referendum result”.


Well, so do I, and I know that millions of our fellow citizens, leavers and remainers, think exactly the same.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

If I may correct my noble friend on one thing, Sir Anthony Meyer was my former boss in the Foreign Office and a former Conservative MP for Eton and Slough. My noble friend means Sir Christopher Meyer.

[Lord Grocott]

Yes, I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

It would not be wise, on either side, or feasible to depart on the basis of an understanding that was being turned into a legal agreement but without that legal agreement existing. Legally, we would move into a very strange status. It is perfectly possible to envisage a deal that can be turned into a legal agreement during an extension period but it is impossible to do that by 31 October and it is unwise—I do not think that either side would want to do so—to go on the basis of a political understanding with no validity in law. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the idea that a 2016 vote, three Prime Ministers ago, can be permanently determinate does not seem to be the will of the people today. You can ask, “Do you want to be consulted or do you want to leave it to Parliament?” If you assume that there is a deal and you ask, “Do you want to be consulted?”, they say by a margin of almost two to one, “Yes, we want to be consulted”. If you assume that there is no deal and ask, “Do you want to be consulted or should it be left to Parliament?”, they say, “Yes, we want to be consulted”, by a margin of more than two to one. Moreover, it is a fact that since September 2017, the opinion polls have consistently shown that the country is now of the view that it would prefer to remain. This year more than 70 polls have been taken of which one gave a victory for leaving. I do not think that a second referendum is just the least worst way out of this fix; it is now the will of the people.

[Lord Grocott]

If the noble Lord is justifying a second referendum on the basis that public opinion has changed, of course while it can change, I think his bona fides would be absolutely crystal clear to everyone if he said that three years after the second referendum, public opinion could change again and we should then have a further referendum. You cannot hold referendums every five minutes. Even general elections are now legislated for every five years. We had 41 years between what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, rightly referred to as the first referendum and the second referendum. People were asking for a second referendum after the 2016 vote in 2016.

UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I must admit that, when we started our report, I had doubts about the huge scope of UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order. The fact that we kept within bounds, to a degree, was down to the skill of our chairman—to whom I pay tribute, as others have—and also our secretariat, especially Eva George and Joe Dobbs, who had the monumental task of putting all the material together.

I would like to discuss a couple of the assumptions about the nature of the changing world order and the extent to which we are, or are not, in a period of fundamental change or watershed. While it is always tempting for all generations to think that we live in uniquely interesting times, and while acknowledging that many of the tools of international relations were changing dramatically—new technologies, social media, mass communications—much of our evidence suggested that many fundamental challenges remain the same. One of our witnesses, Dr Ulrike Franke of the European Council on Foreign Relations put this graphically in a section on increased automation on the battlefield. She said:

“it is important to understand that we may be adding more layers to the battle space but, in the end, to put it bluntly, it will probably come down to 18 year old soldiers dying somewhere in the mud”.

So how much is new and how much is more of the same? What about the assumption, for example, that a special challenge of our times is the threat to the so-called rules-based international order? Implicit in that assumption is that there must have been a time—a golden age, maybe—when this international order was understood and enforced to our universal benefit. That begs at least two questions. First, what precisely is the rules-based international order? Secondly, when precisely was it operating as intended?

We made an attempt in our report to address the definition question. On page 7, we say that the rules-based international order involves,

“a shared commitment by all countries to conduct their activities in accordance with agreed rules that evolve over time. … It also involves … the acceptance of restraints by states”.

That sounds wonderful, but I ask myself: when exactly was this golden age, when the rules-based international order was functioning?

One of our witnesses, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, former National Security Adviser, gave an answer, saying that it was a 20-year period between 1989 and 2009 when,

“we suddenly saw the UN Security Council unblocked … a whole series of new institutions and new normative developments, particularly at the United Nations”.

Surely what is most noticeable about this argument is, first, how short this period was—just 20 years—and, secondly, that it coincided with the single most dramatic development in international relations since the end of the Second World War, namely the collapse of the Soviet Union. If it was indeed the period when the rules-based international order was working well, and if we agree that the system developed 74 years ago, after the Second World War, then perhaps the period we are living in today is not quite so exceptional. One might even say that the relatively successful operation of the rules-based international order was the exception rather than the rule, and that what is happening today is that normal service has been resumed. By normal service, we surely mean that what we most need are the traditional skills of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy.

In this context, I very much support our report’s recommendation in paragraph 331, that we must invest more in our global diplomatic presence and that to fulfil the UK’s responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK should have a presence in every country.

This brings me to what is surely a hugely important observation about international relations today, which is all too easily overlooked, and that is the resilience of the nation state. It has become fashionable to make assumptions about globalisation, not just as a description of the modern era, but almost as a policy objective. As a consequence, the nation state is seen to be an increasingly outdated organisation. So many pressures seem to challenge it—the growth of modern technologies, citizens communicating with each other across national boundaries, the growth of non-state actors and the power of multinationals. As Sir Mark Lyall put it so clearly,

“The only question in my mind is whether these pressures will exert such asymmetrical pressure on the nation state that the system will collapse”.


Yet surely the evidence about the enduring importance of the state, both as the basis for people’s loyalties and identities and as the basic building block of international relations, is overwhelming. Tom Tugendhat, the chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, put it well when he said in a speech last May:

“At the end of the Cold War, there were some who said that the nation state would soon be consigned to the dustbin of history … the state is back. It is the primary vehicle of global influence and power. It comes before multilateralism. And it’s time we acknowledged it”.


Since the Second World War ended, there has been an inexorable growth in the number of states, much of it the result of decolonisation. Since then, we have had many more new states and old ones re-established following the collapse of the Soviet Union. We have seen multinational states such as Yugoslavia break into their constituent parts and Czechoslovakia dividing. We have seen many nationalist movements calling for the creation of new states—and surely it is only a matter of time before Palestine is recognised as a new state. Statehood, as measured by membership of the United Nations, has increased from 51 when the UN was established in 1945 to 193 today—an increase of almost 400%. To me, the evidence is clear: while globalisation and multilateralism may be the fashionable words of our time, do not underestimate the enduring appeal of the nation state; reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.

This argument about the abiding appeal of the nation state is directly relevant to the future direction of the European Union. There are those who think that national loyalties are dying and that they will gradually transfer to a wider loyalty embracing the whole of Europe. Others—I am one of them—see the EU essentially as an organisation built by treaty from the top down and not by consent from the bottom up. No wonder its leaders are so fearful of referendums.

So my conclusion is that, yes, there is indeed a shifting world order, as we say in the title of our report, but despite all this change, what is needed most is a nurturing and strengthening of the traditional requirements of our foreign policy—namely, worldwide representation, the skills of diplomacy with whatever new tools are available and the bilateral relationships between sovereign nation states.

Wilton Park

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, let me assure the noble Baroness and indeed all noble Lords that anyone who takes part in this process is expected to adhere to a code of conduct. The chair continues to do that and she has the confidence of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office behind her. Any person holding public office is also required to adhere to the Nolan principles for public servants and to remain mindful of the potential for such statements—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I think we have exhausted time.

[Lord Grocott]

I hope that I am not the only one who is troubled by the nature of the series of personal attacks on a former excellent Member of Parliament and excellent Minister. I also hope that we can be given an absolute assurance from the Minister that whichever side anyone took in the referendum campaign, leave or remain, in neither case should it ever be a disqualification from appointment to a government office.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord has summed up the sentiments of many across your Lordships’ House very well.

Palestinian Territories

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in introducing the debate was quite outstanding. It is not the first time that I have heard him speak here and in the other House on both this issue and apartheid. If only people had listened to some of the things that he has said on these issues over the years.

One thing struck me in particular, which I think is worth repeating. My memory in Parliament does not go back as far as the noble Lord’s—although I speak from 40 years of experience—but he mentioned how the mood has changed and how it was dramatically different when such debates took place. Overwhelmingly, debates 40 years ago did not recognise the rights of the Palestinian people. Most of them were described as terrorists for wanting a Palestinian state. This time, the position has been dramatically reversed. I have noted that as the speeches have gone along. By my reckoning, 17 of the 25 speeches so far have been massively understanding of the unremitting plight of the Palestinians. I hope that that, if nothing else, might occasionally make people on the other side of the argument think. I have to put it in those terms to acknowledge that opinion is moving—and not, either here or internationally, to the side of the position that has been adopted by the Israelis.

For all that, the debate, although important, has been profoundly depressing. I do not think that anyone seriously expects anything to change. In the four minutes I have, my message is this: something has to change. With great respect, I am afraid that I know what the Minister will say: that he supports the two-state solution, condemns violence on both sides and wants to support the Middle East peace process. I have read those words from where he is sitting from time to time over the years, but something must change. What can the British Government do? Things are not static; they are getting inexorably worse. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the International Relations Committee in the Lords—which I am very pleased to be a member of—said this a year ago about the two-state solution:

“On its current trajectory, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is on the verge of moving into a phase where the two-state solution becomes an impossibility and is considered no longer viable by either side”.


Will anyone in this Chamber say that its assessment was not accurate? No.

Nor can anyone say that things are not now substantially worse than they were 12 months ago when that statement was made, apart from the almost predictable number of Palestinians killed in the 12 months following that statement, the US declaration on Jerusalem and the continuing growth of settlements. Occupation and settlements are somehow treated differently when Israel is doing it. Israelis ask why the world picks on them, but when states occupy neighbouring states, the international community takes action, by and large—it certainly did when Russia was occupying neighbouring states—but 50 years down the track I can see no such action here, other than people saying, “Please don’t build these settlements”. Well, the Israelis have long since not bothered to take much notice of that.

We can do one thing, which the International Relations Committee recommended. We could be just one country, among the 136 states of the United Nations, or 70% of its membership—although we are not among them at the moment—that recognises a state of Palestine. We will take as read the Minister’s commitment to the two-state solution and the condemnation of the settlements, but I ask him—I know that he cannot do this on his own authority, but perhaps he can with the rest of the Front Bench—to listen to the many voices in this House asking him to give the Palestinians, amidst all the suffering and bloodshed, the dignity of hearing that we recognise their right to a state and will join forces with the vast majority, and increasing number, of UN states that know that this is the right and proper thing to do.