Nigeria: Security Situation

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Due to Divisions in the House, this debate can now continue until 6.6 pm.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the security situation in Nigeria.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, and to see so many valued colleagues here today. In October 2022, Nigeria will celebrate its 62nd year of independence. In those six decades, the country has experienced civil war, alternating periods of military and civilian rule and—in 2015—its first peaceful transfer of power. That progression should have laid a foundation for continuing success, but Nigeria is at a crossroads. As Ayo Adedoyin, the chief executive officer of the International Organisation for Peace-building and Social Justice, who is in the Public Gallery today, has said,

“Nigerians are a very resilient people. However, it is that very same virtue which explains why the nation’s insecurity crisis is not yet such a national and international issue.”

Those are words I certainly agree with.

It is known that almost half the population would like to leave the country. The reasons for that will be wide and diverse, but there are underlying conditions that apply to every single person who lives in the country and is a member of the nation. Nigeria is home to one of the world’s largest populations living in extreme poverty. It has become synonymous with political inertia and corruption, widespread insecurity and a loss of public confidence in its politicians. Worst of all is the increasing death toll. Last year alone, 1,000 people were killed in violent terrorist incidents and the death of Boko Haram’s leader at the hands of Islamist rivals has brought further insecurity.

It is no exaggeration to say that Nigeria’s security situation has now reached crisis levels, and in the next few minutes I will outline six issues that have not only caused the situation but are perpetuating it. They are Islamic extremism, kidnappings for ransom, intercommunal and religiously motivated violence, human trafficking, electoral violence and extreme poverty. There can be little doubt that the Nigerian security crisis is having a calamitous economic impact, deterring foreign investment and undermining prospects for economic growth, which will result in a regional crisis in the future.

On the first of the six issues, violence perpetuated by Islamic extremists has increased, with the Islamic State West Africa Province surpassing Boko Haram as the deadliest terrorist organisation in the province. ISWAP is believed to have recruited a militia of as many as 5,000 into its ranks, compared with Boko Haram’s one-time strength of around 2,000 men. This new organisation emerged after a division of loyalty from the leadership of Boko Haram, with ISWAP founder Abu Musab al-Barnawi, the eldest son of former Boko Haram spokesman Mohammed Yusuf, declaring allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, rather than to the former leader of Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau, who was killed last year by ISWAP.

The group has focused its activities against state targets, which has resulted in a reduction of the military police and security service’s capability. Its attacks have demonstrated a level of tactical and strategic attitude, with ISWAP combatants better armed and trained than their predecessors. There are unconfirmed reports that many are heard to speak Arabic instead of Hausa, which indicates the growing participation and influence of extremists from the Sahel and beyond. The decision to reduce attacks on civilian targets has resulted in a rise in public support for the group, which resulted in a Government intervention that began in 2013 in three states having to widen its remit across several territories in northern Nigeria.

In the last 12 months, Nigeria has also seen a large rise in kidnappings for ransom. In the first nine months of 2021, some 2,200 people were kidnapped for ransom—more than double the number abducted the year before. Many that occur are in the north-eastern states and are perpetrated by Islamic extremists, but others have been conducted by groups that are widely characterised as bandits—sometimes in conjunction with the extremists. The motivation remains financial gain. Violence conducted by Islamic extremists was highest in the state of Borno, but last year, more Nigerians were killed by criminal gangs in the north-west than by jihadists in the north-east.

For many years, there has been conflict in the middle belt region that illustrates social divisions in Nigeria. In two decades, more than 17,000 people are believed to have been killed in the region, and more than 10,000 people have fled their homes. That violence receives scarce media attention, particularly in the west, but when it does, it is attributed to disputes between farmers and herders about resources. It is undoubtedly true that in the last 10 years, 60% of Nigerian territory has been characterised as experiencing some form of desertification, which has reduced the amount of land available for agricultural production through a decline in the water supply.

Fulani herdsmen traditionally migrated through pasture lands in the middle belt region. The geographical conditions now require a greater migration further south, which brings them into conflict with settled farms. The Fulani herders come from a nomadic, predominantly Muslim tribe, but greater numbers of people in the south are practising Christians. That ensures that public opinion in Nigeria increasingly characterises the conflict as a geographical one between the country’s two dominant religions—Christians in the south and Muslims in the north. That is reinforced by the fact that Fulani militia target non-Muslim communities, particularly Christians.

In the last decade, more than 500 churches in Benue state have been destroyed by Fulani militia. In just one year, 2014, more than 100 churches were destroyed in Taraba state, with another 200 abandoned through fear of attack. In October 2021, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom raised concerns about a spate of lethal attacks against Christian communities in Kado and Kaduna states. Central Nigeria is known as the breadbasket of the nation, but because farmers are being killed in their fields, they are afraid to go out to work. With nobody to tend their crops, they fail, which contributes to the greater food shortage in the country.

Human trafficking ranks as the third most common crime in Nigeria after drug trafficking and economic fraud. It is estimated that up to 1 million people are trafficked annually, with 98% moving internally. The International Organisation for Migration estimates that at least 1.4 million continuing victims of human trafficking are living within Nigerian borders. Most victims are vulnerable to sexual exploitation and forced labour.

In the past three decades, an estimated 30,000 Nigerian women have been forced into prostitution here in Europe, with more than 85% originating from just one state—Edo. Migrants are typically unable to afford to pay the price of their transit and are forced to enter into servitude, which ensures an indefinite period of effective slavery or sexual exploitation, which is often reinforced by the use of revered juju rituals that compel those subjected to trafficking to comply with their traffickers. Those rites are used to intimidate people to stop them reporting their trafficking and to ensure their compliance.

On elections, Nigeria has a long history of electoral violence. In the 20 years since returning to civilian rule, it has held 16 elections, all of which have been marred by violence and bloodshed. In 2003, 100 people were killed; in 2007, 300 were killed. But the worst election-related violence occurred in the three days after the 2011 election, when there were more than 800 fatalities. Some 700 were killed in Kaduna alone.

Next February will see the country’s next general election. It is estimated that 87 million Nigerians—around 40% of the country—live on less than $1.19 a day. The country desperately needs to provide economic opportunity for a rapidly growing population. The United Nations projects that Nigeria’s population will almost double by 2050, reaching an estimated 400 million people. Job creation has failed to keep pace with the country’s high birth rate. That ensures that many people, especially the young, become highly vulnerable to manipulation by extremists and criminal networks.

It is not the role of the United Kingdom Government to enter Nigeria and provide military aid, but as a Commonwealth country we have a duty to assist our friends. The Minister, who is in her place, recently responded to my written question and advised that the official development assistance bilateral spend in Nigeria last year was more than £100 million. We have a lot invested in the country. To stand back and watch it become a province of Daesh is unacceptable.

The UK Government are supporting Nigeria to respond to the increasing conflict by supporting regional stabilisation and increasing inter-agency co-operation, delivering training to tackle terrorist financing and in defection, demobilisation, disengagement and deradicalisation processes, which will provide a genuine pathway for members of violent extremist organisations to defect and to reintegrate into their communities and families.

As recently as February, the bilateral Security and Defence Partnership dialogue witnessed the UK’s commitment to support Nigeria as it responds to these security challenges. However, it would now be appropriate to review what political, diplomatic and military support the UK can offer the people of Nigeria. I ask the Minister to consider reviewing the ODA to allow spending to be focused on non-lethal security co-operation measures. It is useless to provide money to ensure that girls can access education if terrorists are kidnapping those very same children.

After the elections next year, the Nigerian Government should convene an international summit to outline specific actions they intend to take, and to make requests of the international community for material development and technical support. If a proactive action plan is not made and implemented, the tentacles of Daesh will extend into and find a base on the African mainland that will allow terror attacks to occur across Africa and into mainland Europe. We need to draw a line to stop Nigeria becoming a failed state, to stop a regional conflict becoming an international one, and to protect the peoples of the Commonwealth. That line is Nigeria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

I thank the Minister for her comments, and congratulate hon. Members on the wealth of experience and knowledge that I have heard in the debate. I thank in particular Ayo Adedoyin and his team for allowing me to understand such a complex issue—although I must apologise to some of them for mangling their names.

To respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the asymmetry of the weaponry and the frequency of the attacks appear to constitute an ethno-religious cleansing. As someone who represents many constituents who have direct experience of the holocaust, I am guarded about using such language and I do not do so lightly.

I am pleased that the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religious belief, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), was able to come along to the debate, and that her deputy, David Burrowes, who was not here himself, was giving me updates throughout. He has visited Nigeria, and has concluded that it is on the brink of crisis.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton would agree that the arming of certain groups makes it clear that organisations and individuals are receiving weaponry from outside the country. In July, a Nigerian air force Alpha jet was downed by what was termed a “non-state actor”, but those weapons clearly came from outside the country.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) shared his experience of visiting Nigeria, which showed that the amalgamation of those groups into a terrorist group is a real threat to the country. If he was not able to travel outside the cities that he was visiting, something is very wrong. He mentioned support for the country, which is necessary for everyone.

The hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) spoke about official development assistance, which is important. It has always been my view that we should use ODA, not because international development is a charity, but because our spending should allow countries to prosper—it is in our own security and economic interests.

The Minister covered a large range of issues, for which I am grateful. I do not have time to go any further, so I will reflect on what she said.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the security situation in Nigeria.

Sri Lanka

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. As I say, we have been monitoring this very fast-moving and fluid political, economic and security situation. As she did, we urge a peaceful and democratic transition in line with the constitution and the rule of law. The Minister with responsibility for south Asia has been thoroughly engaged with the team on the ground in the high commission. I stress that he visited Sri Lanka earlier this year and met a range of civil society groups specifically to discuss the human rights situation. At that time, he met Ministers, including the President and the Foreign Minister, and urged them to take steps to improve human rights, and to deliver justice and accountability following the conflict. I reassure the House that we are closely monitoring the situation on the ground, which is very fast moving and fluid.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I find it a pity that some people are seeking to use this urgent question to criticise the current Government in Sri Lanka. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) can chunter from a sedentary position, but the elephant in the room is not the governance of Sri Lanka; it is the decision in 2019 to become an organic country within 10 years. That has led to food shortages and overseas remittances not being returned. The problem in Sri Lanka is that there is no food for people to eat. The UK Government need to assist Sri Lanka and agencies to ensure that food, fuel and other supplies are provided. We need to come to a Commonwealth country in its time of great crisis, not make silly political statements.

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As I say, we are monitoring the situation very closely. In answer to one of the points both he and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made, economic support from the UK is forthcoming through multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. The UK is the joint fifth-largest shareholder in the IMF and is a major contributor to the UN and the World Bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you, and indeed the Minister, would agree that dismissing any woman’s urgent question in this House as “silly” is disrespectful to the subject matter in hand, because we all recognise how serious the situation is.

[Dr Offord]

How dare you?

Iran’s Nuclear Programme

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

No, and I do not think anyone would believe that that is Iran’s ultimate intent. The latest intelligence, for example, showing that bunkers have been constructed underground in which to hold some of that material, makes clear what the ultimate intent of Iran is on this issue.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give way one last time, and then I shall make some progress.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Many people have focused on transgressions against the JCPOA, but because of the infamous sunset provisions in the 2015 deal, Iran will be able to legitimately undertake a full nuclear programme. That means that we could be facing a nuclear Iran as early as 2025. Without doing anything, we are already in a very difficult and dangerous scenario.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is correct. I will make this point in a moment, but there is no harm in restating it now: the original deal contained a number of sunset provisions, and the proposed deal, as reported, merely keeps those sunset provisions in exactly the same form. Even if we were to sign the deal tomorrow, it would begin to fade away in 2023. One really has to question the point of signing up to the proposed deal.

Iran stands on the verge of possessing a nuclear bomb. In fact, intelligence suggests it has sufficient enriched uranium today for at least two nuclear weapons. It has progressed far beyond the parameters of the JCPOA, so restoring Iran to the old deal has none of the benefits we once thought it would. The JCPOA’s time has been and gone; the Rubicon has been crossed.

After earlier talk of a longer and stronger deal, more recent rounds of the nuclear talks have seen US negotiators make concession after painful concession in an attempt to bring Iran back to the deal. We now see before us the contours of a shorter and weaker agreement—one that many have taken to dismissing as JCPOA-minus. In that agreement the Iranian regime will be reintegrated into the international community and afforded huge economic benefits that, crucially, will be channelled not into education, healthcare or infrastructure projects but into supporting and promoting terrorist activities, for instance through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s web of proxies across the region, and the restrictions on its nuclear programme will last for a fraction of the time. It is unclear whether this stands to strengthen efforts for non-proliferation.

I believe that a new framework is required. Proponents of the JCPOA spoke of its ability to restrict Iran’s break-out time to one year. In view of the reduction of this to as little as a few weeks, we need the Government to recognise that this is simply not going to work, and that any agreement that could obtain the consent of this House—certainly of Members who take my view—will need to have very significantly longer sunset clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating it. It is, for all the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend, a timely debate. It is also timely because it comes after the report of the board of governors of the IAEA on 30 May and the subsequent resolution of 8 June, which censures Iran for non-co-operation with the agency’s inquiry into nuclear traces found at three non-declared sites. That action on the part of the agency is certainly a step forward, but it goes nowhere near far enough.

Iran’s nuclear programme has been known about since 2002, when the existence of the facilities at Natanz and Arak were revealed by the Iranian democratic Opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The Iranian regime has always asserted that its programme is for civilian purposes only and has always denied that it is attempting to produce nuclear weapons. That simply defies belief. As we have heard, despite the terms of the JCPOA, Iran started enriching uranium to 20% in 2010, and later the same year it moved to 60% enrichment. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that is considerably beyond anything that is needed for civilian purposes.

In its report of 1 June, the Institute for Science and International Security concluded:

“Iran’s breakout timeline is now at zero. It has enough 60 percent enriched uranium or highly enriched uranium (HEU) to be assured it could fashion a nuclear explosive. If Iran wanted to further enrich its 60 percent HEU up to weapon-grade HEU, or 90 percent, it could do so within a few weeks with only a few of its advanced centrifuge cascades.”

Clearly the time pressure is enormous. The report went on to note:

“Whether or not Iran enriches its HEU up to 90 percent, it can have enough HEU for two nuclear weapons within one month after starting breakout.”

That is, by any standards, a very worrying state of affairs.

It is made all the more worrying by Iran’s increasingly erratic and aggressive stance in the region and, indeed, the wider world. As my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out, Iran is an active state sponsor of terrorism—probably the world’s leading state sponsor. Its proxies are engaged in fomenting conflict in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Istanbul incident; I would like to mention the incident in June 2018, when a bomb plot targeting a gathering of Iranian pro-democracy supporters in Paris was disrupted by the French and Belgian authorities. An Iranian diplomat accredited to the embassy in Vienna was subsequently convicted for leading the conspiracy and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. Three accomplices were convicted, and their sentences were upheld, with two years added, by the court of appeal in Antwerp in May. Iran is certainly exporting terrorism not just throughout the region, but across the world.

[Dr Offord]

I feel the need to correct my right hon. Friend on that point. It was not just Iranian politicians and Opposition members who were targeted; five of us from the British Parliament were at risk of being blown up in that terrorist incident.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right: it was a gathering of supporters of the NCRI, which takes place every year in Paris and attracts supporters from all round the world. As he points out, had that conspiracy been successful, its consequences would have been catastrophic.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned Iran’s revolutionary guard corps. That is, in effect, a state within a state. It directs, leads and executes the terrorist activities of Iran. As he pointed out, it is a proscribed organisation in the United States, and many will wonder why it is not proscribed in this country. I believe that it should be. Iran is already a global danger, but a nuclear-armed Iran is an appalling and unacceptable prospect.

The IAEA report makes it clear that the Iranian regime has, effectively, been playing games with the agency for many years. At three locations that the agency requested to visit, the regime razed buildings to the ground and removed structural material and soil, clearly in an effort to disguise what was happening there. Nevertheless, the agency discovered traces of anthropogenic nuclear material. The report states that the regime has

“not provided explanations that are technically credible”

for the presence of nuclear material in those locations. The Tehran regime has clearly shown by its actions that it has no intent whatever to co-operate in good faith with the IAEA. Not only is the regime taking steps to advance its enrichment programme by installing more advanced centrifuges; it is doing all it can to restrict the ability of IAEA inspectors to monitor its nuclear sites. It has turned off two devices that the agency relied on to monitor the enrichment of uranium gas at Natanz and initiated plans to remove 27 surveillance cameras from other nuclear facilities.

On 20 June, Reuters cited a confidential IAEA report, which revealed that:

“Iran is escalating its uranium enrichment further by preparing to use advanced IR-6 centrifuges at its underground Fordow site that can more easily switch between enrichment levels”.

In a joint statement to the board of governors of the IAEA on 27 June, the UK, France and Germany expressed their concern about the continued nuclear activities in breach of the JCPOA. They pointed out that the alarming accumulation of enriched material is cause for great concern and is further reducing the time that it would take Iran to break out towards its first nuclear weapon.

The position, therefore, is that it is clearly known that Iran is taking active steps to produce highly enriched uranium, the only credible purpose of which can be to produce nuclear weapons. The question must be whether there is any purpose in continuing to urge Iran to fulfil its obligations under the JCPOA when it is perfectly clear that it has no intention whatever to do so. The continued efforts to engage with Iran and go the extra mile may be laudable, but, frankly, seem increasingly futile. Iran clearly regards the west as weak and is almost openly laughing at us.

A new course is called for. Consideration should be given to whether seeking to adhere to the JCPOA as the basis for our future dealings with Iran is realistic or sensible. Rather than clinging to vain hopes that Iran is capable of mending its ways and responding to the IAEA’s censure, the UK should work with the United States and other international partners to refer Iran to the UN Security Council with a view to reinstating the six sanctions-imposing resolutions that were suspended with the JCPOA’s initial implementation.

Iran must learn that flouting the JCPOA has real consequences, and the west should unite to apply the most intense pressure possible on Iran to wind up its nuclear programme, since it is now abundantly clear that it is not for any peaceful purpose, but is aggressive. Quite simply, Iran is a rogue state, and a rogue state in possession of nuclear weapons is not a prospect that the west can happily contemplate or, indeed, tolerate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for this debate—it has certainly been a long time coming—on an issue of concern to many of us in this House. I pay tribute to him for his efforts in securing it. The contributions of all Members have been not only well reasoned but very constructive. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised issues that perhaps we do not all agree with, but it is important for us to consider them as part of today’s discussion.

The spectre of a nuclear-armed Iran has been looming for several years, and it presents a profound threat to our collective way of life. Only last night I gave a speech to the National Jewish Assembly, where I was asked at what point the United Kingdom would step in to stop the emergence of a nuclear Iran. I have to say that, if we fail to take action now, our later options will be a lot more extreme. The moment to take the appropriate action, under the JCPOA, is now.

It is almost unthinkable that the world’s greatest sponsor of state terrorism could be on the nuclear threshold, but that is the reality. Two of today’s speakers have mentioned Ahmadinejad saying that he would like to wipe Israel off the map, which could be taken in two ways. I think he was being provocative while at the same time speaking politically. The issue of the JCPOA and a nuclear Iran is not about Israel and Iran. It is not even about Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. It is about the Twelver Muslims, who have a different ideology and view of the world, which they would like to see adopted by other Muslim countries, and they would certainly like to see it in the western hemisphere as well.

This fundamentalist regime is responsible for the most heinous human rights abuses, both at home in Iran and, indeed, abroad. It is a regime that is committed to exporting violent ideology across the world, that has reneged on repeated commitments to the international community, and that has been found guilty in European courts of orchestrating terrorist events. I have mentioned previously that those terrorist events included the possibility of five parliamentarians—two of us are sitting here today—being subject to the violence and destruction orchestrated and founded by Tehran.

The entire integrity of the JCPOA and its ability to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been called into question by several of us for many years. Originally, we were concerned that there were no clauses in the JCPOA requiring Iran to stop transferring funds to terrorist proxies. It certainly did not seek an end to domestic human rights abuses in the country, or to end the testing of the ballistic missile programme. Those were all structural weaknesses of the JCPOA and we were very concerned about that.

It is not just centre-right politicians in the United Kingdom and the United States who are concerned about this issue. Senator Robert Menendez, the Democrat chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, recently questioned why his own Administration were trying to return to the JCPOA when it was

“not sufficient in the first place—and still doesn’t address some of the most serious national security concerns we have.”

He is by no means alone in reaching such a conclusion.

It is an inescapable reality that Iran’s systematic non-compliance with the JCPOA nuclear deal has rendered it dead, despite the efforts of the US and the E3 to resuscitate it. Yet all the available evidence suggests that the E3 and the US remain committed, albeit perhaps forlornly, to desperately resuscitating the 2015 framework. There seems to be no plan B under consideration.

The reported terms of the renewed nuclear agreement make for alarming reading. Not only will it leave much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact; it will also receive enormous sanctions relief. It is clear that this will again fail to provide a long-term, sustainable answer to Iran’s belligerent nuclear actions.

The great risk is that, in the absence of an ambitious, broad and punitive nuclear framework, Iran will become a nuclear-armed state in a matter of years—perhaps just three. Buying time is not a viable strategy for the UK Government. At some point, the international community is likely to be faced with an Iranian regime arming itself with a nuclear weapon. We will have far fewer options in tackling that scenario than we do today.

The lesson that we learned from Iraq is that we do not invade sovereign states without a plan, so our plan must be formed now. If we are to avoid military action of any kind, we must seek an assurance from the Iranians that they will abide with an agreement.

One of the other great weaknesses of the JCPOA was its failure to address Iran’s blatant arming and funding of its terrorist proxies. That led directly to the conflicts in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and other parts of the world. That was hard to stomach at the time and we need to address it again today.

We cannot allow funds, resources, men, manpower and money to go into furthering conflicts around the world. That would not only provoke greater incivility but provide more impetus for migration and create evermore refugees in the international community. We would be assisting in that objective, and we must stop it. These terror groups are primed to unleash, at any second, horrific violence against civilian targets across the world, all at the behest of their Iranian paymasters.

In her summing up, will the Minister provide justification for why we appear to be compounding the great mistakes of the previous agreement in 2015? Will she assure us that she is making it a priority to tackle this issue? I join colleagues in asking her to consider proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. At the very least, we owe that to the British victims of that organisation.

I have previously welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to

“work night and day to prevent the Iranian regime from ever becoming a nuclear power.”

I hope that she will keep up that commitment, but does the Minister believe that the deal under consideration is truly capable of preventing Iran from getting its hands on the most devastating weapons known to man? In the event of a new JCPOA, can the Minister outline what further steps will be taken to build on what has clearly become a limited and ineffective mechanism?

Time is upon us, and history will judge us for the decisions we make today and on any future agreement. For the safety and security of not only the middle east but the wider world, we must do the right thing. That may be a hard decision, and it may be a difficult process, but failure to do so could ultimately lead to greater conflict.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: International Conference

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Work is indeed in hand, and I concur with his view that work on that manifesto commitment and on the recommendations of the Truro review must continue. It is far from complete.

At the ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, we will welcome hundreds of delegates from over 60 countries, around half of which will be represented by Government Ministers. We will also welcome faith and belief leaders and representatives, civil society activists, academics and—importantly—FORB abuse survivors with their powerful accounts to tell. On 5 and 6 July, after a keynote speech from the Foreign Secretary, we will hold sessions on promoting FORB in the face of global challenges; early warning, and atrocity prevention; FORB and education; promoting FORB in the digital world; engaging the next generation; the multiple vulnerabilities of women and girls; FORB and the media; inspiring parliamentarians; and much more.

Those of us who have planned this conference could not have worked harder to ensure there is a diversity of participants from all faiths and none and from across the world. As the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I was involved in setting up a civil society advisory group representing many faith and belief backgrounds to help with the planning of the conference. We cannot afford for that conference to be merely a talking shop; it has to lead to increased global action and help drive forward international efforts to protect and promote FORB for everyone, everywhere.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this important debate. Two years ago, I had the great privilege of meeting the Bishop of Truro at his official residence down in Feock in Cornwall. Does my hon. Friend agree that this would be an appropriate time for those countries that attend the conference to establish their own Truro review to ensure that they maintain the objectives that are so clearly outlined in the bishop’s report?

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One aim of the conference is to share best practice on how countries can prevent FORB violations and how they can work together to do so. I am firmly convinced that the recommendations of the Truro review set a standard that it is worth other countries looking at and indeed following. However, no one country has all the answers; we need to work together to build the capacity of FORB defenders and persuade violators of the positive case for change.

Freedom of religion or belief needs to be mainstreamed by Governments globally. It is not a side issue for individuals, communities or countries; Governments need to recognise the importance of including FORB in foreign and other policymaking, or we will face increasing challenges to peace across the world. Legal systems need to be strengthened to ensure that when a country has signed up internationally to FORB principles, such as through article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, that translates into practice on the ground, so that when a young woman who has been so-called forcibly married—that is, raped—goes into a police station, she can expect justice, not to be turned away.

We will be asking questions such as, what best practice can countries share to promote FORB and prevent its violation? How can we better protect the many women and girls from minority groups who suffer double jeopardy on account of their gender and their beliefs? How can we ensure that victims receive better treatment and effective trauma care? How can we address the lack of religious literacy about FORB among policymakers, which was one of the excellent recommendations in the Truro review? And how can FORB, and the reasons why it matters to everyone and to whole societies, not just those with religious beliefs, be introduced into education syllabi to inform young people and, hopefully, to inspire a whole new generation of FORB champions to spread the word about its importance, just as they have about climate change?

Achieving real change will require international collaboration on FORB, involving not only Governments but civil society organisations, which are so often at the forefront of reporting FORB abusers. That is why civil society engagement with our conference is so critical.

Addressing FORB will require political will and enduring commitment from the highest level of Governments if it is to be effective, and that will need to be backed up by real resources. We need to find ways to prevent violations of FORB from occurring, working with religious communities to do so and to discover flashpoints. We must seek to identify and disarm sources of tension. We need to build resilience and to encourage and foster dialogue.

The international community needs to develop mechanisms to help co-ordinate the increasing number of groups concerned about and working on FORB internationally. How can we better monitor FORB violations? Governments need to develop effective early-warning mechanisms to prevent mass atrocities. Countries need to work together to hold perpetrators of FORB violations to account through targeted sanctions, to ensure more follow the lead of the UK and other countries on human rights-based sanctions. Last month, I held a debate about FORB and digital persecution. We need to look at ways to prevent the misuse of technology and at how to use digital mapping to identify and track FORB violations in order to deliver more targeted interventions.

As we have planned the conference, we have deliberately invited a good number of young people. We need to help, support and inspire the next generation of FORB champions and to provide support for FORB defenders, particularly those persecuted for speaking up for this human right. The next generation need education curricula promoting an understanding of FORB, as do the wider public.

In the months running up to the conference, I and my deputy special envoy, David Burrowes, have toured the UK with a roadshow, speaking to community groups in about 25 towns and cities and raising awareness of FORB. This is a typical reaction:

“I had no idea that this amount of persecution is happening in the world today.”

More information about our tour is on the website endthepersecution.uk, including free toolkits for places of worship, schools and communities to help spread the word about FORB and its importance.

We are looking for more countries to sign up in support of FORB, to develop coalitions of the willing. This year, I chair the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance—or IRFBA. I have been pleased to see more countries become members—there are now 36. We work to ensure that FORB is championed across the world and that FORB violations are called out.

The work of IRFBA is strengthening. In the past year we have issued statements on Afghanistan, Myanmar, Ukraine and Nigeria, and in support of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Ahmadiyya and the Baha’i. Most pleasing has been the action that has followed these statements, such as in Afghanistan. IRFBA helped trigger one of our countries to provide visas for targeted religious minorities, and another country to provide a plane so that 190 people from Afghanistan, threatened on account of their beliefs, were flown out to safety. Many of them would almost certainly be dead now had IRFBA not intervened.

Our IRFBA education working group has informed the ministerial conference session, as has our deep dive into protecting religious heritage. The sight of the hugely significant UNESCO religious sites in Ukraine being destroyed by Russian forces has been appalling and is an affront to the people of Ukraine and the world. We at IRFBA now look forward to being a key vehicle to help deliver on the outcomes of the ministerial conference and to further galvanise multilateral efforts.

Working internationally on FORB, I have come to realise how our Parliament’s cross-party work on FORB is pre-eminent across the globe. The UK has a unique, good story to tell about our cross-party work, and the impact of our all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I have no doubt that the ministerial conference would not be happening next week but for the work of our APPG over the past 10 years. It is now the largest APPG in Parliament, with almost 160 parliamentarians as members. I pay tribute to our current chairs—in the Commons, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and in the Lords, Baroness Cox.

Next week, in addition to the UK Government hosting the ministerial conference, we will have a superb range of more than 100 FORB fringe events, co-ordinated by the APPG and the growing UK Freedom of Religion or Belief Forum of civil society groups. Some of those fringe events will be in the QEII centre, where the ministerial meeting is being hosted, but others will be in Parliament, elsewhere around Westminster and across the country, with most needing no pass to attend—see the website www.londonforbfringe.com for details. For anyone who cannot travel, the ministerial event will be livestreamed—see the FORB ministerial section on the gov.uk website. Together, let us ensure that the right to FORB is shared across the globe and reaches those parts where freedoms are dimmed or darkened today—places such as China, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and many others.

I will finish where I started, in Ukraine, and with the wording of the statement on Ukraine, which I issued as chair of IRFBA:

“As members of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, we commend the courage, dignity and determination of the people of Ukraine and their leadership. We stand in solidarity with them, including religious communities throughout the country. We condemn Russia’s premeditated, unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine, our fellow IRFBA member.

Ukraine is a strong democracy whose diverse population includes Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, non-believers, and members of other religious groups. With its multiplicity of faith perspectives, Ukraine has been a strong and active defender of the human right to freedom of religion or belief, and was one of the earliest countries to commit to membership of the IRFBA and its principles. Its legislation guarantees the equal rights of people of all religions or beliefs.

We denounce President Putin’s cynical attempt to misuse, for his own ends, the history and suffering of people during the Holocaust and World War II, including Ukrainian Jews. His baseless claim that Ukraine is a hotbed for neo-Nazism is just one of the many pretexts fabricated for his war of choice. This is not the first time the Kremlin has falsely accused its neighbours of neo-Nazism and fascism as a cover for its own provocations and human rights abuses.

We urge the Kremlin and Russia’s military to cease its illegal invasion and respect the safety of the civilian population of Ukraine, including all religious communities, and to respect the individually held human right to freedom of religion or belief at all times.

We call on all Russians, whatever their religion or belief, to stand up for peace.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the praise he gives to our civil servants both here in the UK and across the world. He is absolutely right: they are doing a fantastic job. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my ministerial colleagues across Government Departments liaise with them regularly. They are highly focused, highly motivated and absolutely determined to help deliver the UK’s Government priority, which is to support the Ukrainian people and support the people across the world who are being impacted by the food shortages Vladimir Putin is creating. They are doing so in a way that makes me and the whole House proud. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

3. If she will make representations to her Iranian counterpart on the case of Iranian diplomat, Asadollah Assadi.

[The Minister for Europe and North America (James Cleverly)]

The UK condemns in the strongest terms the targeting of civilians and regularly raises this issue with the Government of Iran. We welcome the fact that those responsible for the plot against the conference in Paris in 2018 have been held to account. The Belgian courts have convicted four individuals, including Asadollah Assadi, who received a 20-year sentence. We continue to work with the international community to ensure that all countries, including Iran, abide by international rules and norms.

[Dr Offord]

I am trying to hide my disappointment in the answer. Asadollah Assadi orchestrated a planned terrorist attack in mainland Europe that would have resulted in mass casualties, including five Members of the British Parliament, including me. At the Munich security conference earlier this year, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, met his Belgian and Swedish counterparts for private talks, which included seeking a petition for the release of Assadi and others through prisoner swaps. It would have been ironic if those of us who oppose the joint comprehensive plan of action had been victims, as the terrorists were using resources that came from the sanctions. May I ask the Secretary of State again to meet with her Iranian counterpart to make it clear that any future JCPOA must ensure human rights in Iran and must ensure that terrorism activities are relinquished across the region, including those aimed at mainland Europe?

Recognition of the State of Palestine

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I had wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) to congratulate her on obtaining this debate. I was listening to what she had to say and I wanted to ask her a question, but unfortunately, as time ran out, I was unable to do that. However, I congratulate her on her words this afternoon. Although I may not agree with a lot of what she says, I am very pleased that she has secured this debate.

It is unfortunate that instead of promoting the resumption of direct peace talks without preconditions, the motion we are debating seeks to undermine the agreed framework for talks by premeditating the outcome of negotiations. The only route to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is through such talks, and I share the UK Government’s stated view that recognition of a Palestinian state should only come about at a time that best serves the objective of peace. Today’s motion neglects the reality that a two-state solution will be achieved only when both sides make the difficult compromises necessary to achieve it.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that such negotiations have a greater chance of success if both of those communities enter as equals, with a common aim for peace, rather than entering when one can outshine and outvote the other?

[Dr Offord]

I absolutely do, and the hon. Lady is correct. The problem is that it is impossible to bring Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table. They refuse to negotiate without any preconditions. Until they do so, we will not have any peace in the state of Israel.

Some hon. Members have in these debates evoked the apartheid in South Africa, which is a distortion that we must call out and condemn. Senior Israeli Arabs themselves have rejected the apartheid smear, with the leader of the Islamist Ra’am party, Mansour Abbas, stating that he

“would not call it apartheid”

and pointing out that he leads an Israeli-Arab party that is a member of the Israeli coalition Government. Another Israeli Government official, Esawi Frej, responded to the Amnesty report by stating:

“Israel has many problems that must be solved, both within the Green Line and especially in the Occupied Territories, but Israel is not an apartheid state”.

It should go without saying that Israel is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracy, where Arab, Druze and other minorities are guaranteed equal rights. The Israeli occupation of the west bank has continued for more than 50 years, not because Israel wants to rule over the territory but because peace talks have thus far failed, despite countless efforts by Israelis and others to achieve peace by negotiations.

Instead of demonising Israel and downplaying the history of terrorism and extreme violence that Israel has faced and continues to face, let us not forget that the Palestinian leadership has rejected all peace proposals and failed to fulfil its commitments of promoting peace and renouncing violent incitement. The cycle of violence will be broken only when peace is built between Israelis and the Palestinians. I do not believe it would be constructive or beneficial to prematurely recognise a Palestinian state before the successful conclusion of peace talks.

Greater investment in peaceful co-existence projects is desperately needed. Peace between leaders will last only if the Israeli and Palestinian peoples trust and empathise with each other. As the US increases its support for peacebuilding, so too should the UK. We should join the US in the establishment of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, to invest in shared-society projects. That would demonstrate our commitment to peace. Will the Minister commit to that?

It is crucial to ensure that our aid promotes peace, so I urge the Minister to reconsider our strategy on aid to the UN Relief and Works Agency, which continues to use the official Palestinian Authority curriculum in its schools despite clear evidence of incitement and antisemitism.

I continue to hope that the Israeli coalition Government’s founding principles of compromise and reconciliation will be reflected in the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing this debate. She spoke very powerfully. There was a lot with which I did not agree. I fundamentally disagreed with the occupation narrative that she sought to outline, but there were parts of her speech that I did agree with, including when she talked about the challenges and poverty that Palestinians live with and the imposition created by the security measures. I can recognise that.

I chair the Conservative Friends of Israel here in the House of Commons. I have been to Israel numerous times and most of those times I have taken the opportunity to spend time on the west bank. I have met many Palestinians over the years, most regularly with the late Dr Saeb Erekat, who, until his death in November 2020, still held the position of chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organisation. On each of those visits to the west bank, I came away having learnt and understood more about the Palestinian perspective and the situation that they face.

There is a real challenge there. I hope there is a cross-party desire in this House—I hope there is unity—on the aspiration of seeing a Palestinian state. That two-state solution is the official UK Government policy and the official policy of the Opposition. It is the mainstream peace agenda that the international community wants to support. But it is 22 years now since Bill Clinton tried to bring the different parties together at Camp David and it is almost 30 years since the Oslo accords were outlined that set the framework for peace.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central framed her argument around the question of, “If not now, when?” She was speaking to that long-term yearning and the length of time that it is taking to see a Palestinian state. I recognise that, but I believe that it is premature to put recognition of statehood ahead of a peace process. There is still a peace process that the parties have to sit down and grind their way through. We know what the issues are. In fact, we have a very good idea of what the final outcome will look like. It has been known for decades now. It may involve some land swaps. It involves some compromises on some difficult issues. All that is contained in the Oslo accords, but it requires a commitment from both parties to sit down and work it out.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) outlined, it is complicated on the Palestinian side because who would the Israeli Government be talking to? Is it the Palestinian Authority, the old men in Ramallah, or is it the young extremists of Hamas in Gaza, who will claim to be the legitimate voice of the Palestinians? We are not talking about a simple situation.

[Dr Offord]

That sums up the crux of the problem. I pay tribute to those Opposition Members who are seeking a solution to the problem, but the big issue is the conflict between Fatah and Hamas, who do not agree with Israel’s right to exist. Until we can get past that and until they stop inciting hatred and violence, we cannot get to the peace table.

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. I will be very brief and wrap up my comments in a few moments, but I want to focus on what the nature of peace is. Peace is not just the absence of violence and hostility; it implies engagement, warmth and co-operation.

I believe I have had a glimpse of the future. One Opposition Member said earlier that peace in the region seems a long way off, but peace is happening in the region. I recently visited the United Arab Emirates with the cross-party UK Abraham Accords Group—I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There I met Arabs who spoke about the need for peace: not only a high-level agreement between Government leaders, but the peace that comes through people-to-people contact, the peace and prosperity that come through trading together and building those close links.

If the United Arab Emirates can do it, if Bahrain can do it and if Morocco and other nations in the region are on a journey, surely that is the future. As one Arab leader said to me recently, “We have spent 40 years saying exactly the same things about the region, repeating the same things over and over and doing the same things over and over, and it achieved nothing—nothing for our own peoples, nothing for the Palestinians and nothing for the people of Israel.”

There has to be a different approach, and I believe the Abraham accords set out that different approach. My appeal to the Palestinians would be to look at the opportunities for their own people that would come about through peace, co-operation, trade and people-to-people contact, and to pursue those. That surely has to be the future. To my colleagues on the Front Bench, I say there is a role for the UK Government in supporting that, and I hope they will lend every effort to peace in the wider region and to seeing how in the Israel-Palestine context we can learn the lessons of the Abraham accords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Let us try to agree on some themes. Have illegal settlements been built on Palestinian land, evicting Palestinians in the process? Yes. Are the people of Gaza penned in by Israeli occupation? Yes. Have unarmed Palestinian civilians been killed by Israeli forces? Yes. Have unarmed Israeli civilians been killed by Hamas rockets? Yes. Are all those things and many others wrong? Yes, they are, but they are the consequence of a failure to resolve the basic question: how can a safe and secure Israel live alongside an independent Palestinian state?

The painful truth is that there is no peace process to speak of. Those who yearn for Palestinian statehood are increasingly in despair, as we have heard in the debate. The prospect of the two-state solution for which many of us have campaigned for so long is receding into the distance. The truth is that despair breeds hopelessness. There will be no progress until the violence ends and Israelis and all the Palestinians sit down together to negotiate. Plenty of people will say, “It won’t happen.” I would just observe that that is what we used to say about a solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. We learned that that which today seems impossible can become possible tomorrow, but for it to take place we need new political leadership on the part of the Israelis and the Palestinians. Why do I say that? I do so because nobody can want peace more than the parties to the conflict themselves. Without that, it will not happen.

Finally, I think recognition of a Palestinian state, given the justified desperation of the Palestinian people, is the very least we can do. The more I have heard the arguments over the years as to why it should not happen, the less convincing they seem. To say that Palestinians should be granted their statehood only as a kind of favour at the end of the negotiations is the least convincing argument of all.

[Dr Offord]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

There is so little time.

It is the least convincing argument because it holds that Palestinians somehow do not have the right to statehood. That is wrong; they do.

Recognising a Palestinian state will not, on its own, solve the problem. It will not end the stalemate, which requires courageous political leadership, but it would offer a glimmer of hope and respect. That is why I voted eight years ago in this House in favour of the recognition of a Palestinian state, and why I shall do so again tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing this important debate; we have had an excellent debate.

I begin by stating unambiguously that I am a friend and supporter of the state of Israel and also a friend and supporter of Palestinians. As such, I strongly wish to see progress towards the establishment of a viable, sovereign and flourishing Palestinian state. I strongly wish to see a safe, secure and thriving Israeli state alongside it. The Labour party and I firmly believe in a two-state solution as the best answer for an enduring peace. There is no inherent contradiction in that position. Underlying the Labour party’s commitment to a two-state solution is our unshakeable commitment to human rights and the rule of international law. We want a United Kingdom that puts human rights, social justice and ending global inequality at the heart of its work. Recognising the state of Palestine is a commitment that goes to the very heart of these matters and of Labour party values.

This House has already voted, in 2014, to recognise Palestine's statehood and now is the time for the British Government to confirm that recognition. There are several reasons why I believe that to be the case. First, the Palestinian people, along with all populations, deserve dignity and the right to self-determination, which is defined as a cardinal principle in modern international law. It is therefore legally and morally incumbent upon the UK Government to take the step of giving recognition, along with the 71.5% of UN member states that have already done so.

The second reason that the Government should enact the recognition relates to the issue of ensuring Israel’s long-term security. Speaking as a supporter of Israel who wishes it to be a safe and thriving country, I am deeply worried by the continued political stalemate. I believe that Israel’s long-term peace and security depend on the existence of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel. A recognition of Palestine is an inherent recognition of Israel too, within its sovereign borders. The UK Government’s endorsement of Palestinians’ aspirations would contribute to a peace process that is vital to safeguarding Israel and her citizens.

That brings me to the third reason the UK Government should recognise Palestine: it would be a pragmatic step towards helping to broker wider peace talks. The last time there were meaningful peace talks directly relating to Israel and Palestine was eight years ago. As a country with some global influence, the UK’s recognition of Palestine could help to restart the peace process. At the moment, that peace process is moribund, notwithstanding the welcome advent of the Abraham accords, which I will return to later.

[Dr Offord]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I will not give way as we are short of time. The peace process needs both impetus and international support, and the UK Government should be showing leadership on this, rather than remaining silent.

The fourth reason that the UK Government should recognise Palestinian statehood is because of the way in which it could help to shape political realities on the ground. To be recognised as a state would require the Palestinian leadership to take on the obligations of behaving like a state. That is also clearly in Israel’s immediate and long-term interests.

We know that many Palestinians and Israelis want peace more than anything else, and we know that extremists on both sides do not speak for them. International recognition of a Palestinian state, including recognition by the UK, would be a step towards undermining the stranglehold of extremists. For all those reasons, the UK Government should see the immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood as both morally and practically important. The position of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has consistently been that British recognition of Palestine’s statehood will come when it best serves the objective of peace. For all the reasons I have stated, I would argue that that time is now.

On the wider political context, it is true, of course, that some progress has been made towards peace in the region with the Abraham accords. But we have to be realistic: this progress on its own is not enough to help the current political stalemate between Israel and Palestine. It is very welcome that Israel has been receiving its own greater recognition across the Arab world, but that positive step surely strengthens the argument that the same international recognition of Palestine is also important to establishing peace.

If the UK Government do not take active steps to encourage peace, the two-state solution will remain as elusive as ever. If we as a nation are serious about upholding the international rules-based order, we must be proactive about it. To remain silent on these issues is not an option. It is time for the Government to demonstrate that they are committed to active peacemaking rather than merely to conflict management—for example, by demonstrating support for the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The UK has historical and moral obligations to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. We have a duty to do all we can to unlock the stalemate. We have a duty to do all we can to foster peace, the rule of international law and the sanctity of human rights. Recognising Palestinian statehood would be a step towards achieving all those objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We also believe the best way to make progress towards such a solution is through negotiations between both sides that take account of their legitimate concerns. To that end, a two-state solution is the only way to protect Israel’s Jewish and democratic character and realise Palestinian national aspirations. The resumption of two-way negotiations, with international support, is the best way to get to an agreement.

The UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the objective of peace. Bilateral recognition in itself cannot deliver peace or end the occupation. Without a negotiated settlement, the conflict and the problems that come with it will continue.

The UK works closely with international partners to strongly advocate for a two-state solution and encourage a return to meaningful negotiation between both parties. We welcome recent engagement between the Government in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That engagement includes discussions between the Ministries of Finance aimed at improving the economic conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Such direct engagement is vital, given the scale of the challenges. We consistently call for an immediate end to all actions that undermine the viability of the two-state solution.

The UK remains resolute in its commitment to Israel’s security. We have been clear that Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence in responding to attacks—

[Dr Offord]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amanda Milling]

I will not, because I do not have enough time. I would love to otherwise.

In exercising that right, it is vital that all Israel’s actions are in line with international humanitarian law and every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties. The UK unequivocally condemns Hamas’s inflammatory action and indiscriminate attacks against Israel. We continue to call on Hamas and other terrorist groups to end their abhorrent rocket attacks, such as those seen in May 2021. The Government assess Hamas in its entirety to be concerned with terrorism. As of November, we have proscribed the organisation in full.

We remain committed to the objective of a sovereign, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side with a safe and secure Israel. That is why we are supporting vulnerable people through our development programmes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and why we work to strengthen Palestinian institutions and to promote sustainable economic growth in the west bank. The UK has strong relations with the Palestinian Authority, who have made important progress on state building. That progress is why it is so important that the Palestinian Authority return to Gaza to ensure that improved governance is extended throughout the territory that will become a Palestinian state.

Economic progress can never be a substitute for a political settlement, but it is vital that, in the interim, Palestinians see tangible improvements in their daily lives. Economic growth in the Occupied Palestinian Territories remains vital in order to give hope to Palestinian people. We call on the Palestinian Authority and Israel to resume dialogue on economic issues, to reconvene the Joint Economic Committee and to address the financial crisis together.

Our development programmes work to preserve the prospect of a negotiated two-state solution and to improve the lives of Palestinians throughout Gaza and the west bank, including east Jerusalem. The UK is providing life-saving aid to Palestinian refugees in Gaza and across the region. In 2021, the UK provided more than £27 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the UN agency working with Palestinian refugees, including £4.9 million to its flash appeal after the Gaza conflict in May. UK aid to UNRWA is already helping the agency to provide education to more than 533,000 children a year and access to health services for 3.5 million Palestinian refugees.

On 17 December, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and North America announced an additional £2 million to UNICEF to assist the most vulnerable people in Gaza, helping children to continue their education, to meet their basic needs and, hopefully, to fulfil their potential.

I am aware that I have to give a couple of minutes to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central to conclude the debate. To conclude. we have urged Israel and the Palestinian Authority to work together to meet their obligations under the Oslo accords.

[Dr Offord]

I am very grateful that the Minister was strong enough to give way, unlike the Opposition Front Bencher. Is she aware of the comment by the EU’s middle east peace envoy that the application by President Abbas for recognition at the UN was a confrontational act? Was he wrong?

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am incredibly conscious of time because I do have to give the hon. Member for Sunderland Central a couple of minutes. As I have said, our position is clear. We have urged Israel and the Palestinian Authority to work together to meet their obligations under the Oslo accords. We also call on all parties to abide by international humanitarian law to promote peace, stability and security. Peace will not be achieved by symbolic measures. It will be achieved only by real movement towards renewed dialogue between parties that leads to a viable Palestinian state, living in peace and security side by side with Israel. The UK stands ready to support this in every way we can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The successful conclusion of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians is key to bringing peace to the region, yet Hamas publicly condemn peace negotiations and has committed itself to Israel’s destruction. Does my right hon. Friend agree that until Hamas disarms, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a terror group which calls for its very destruction?

[James Cleverly]

Hamas has not proven itself to be good for the Palestinian people. The simple truth is that its aggressive posture and threats to eradicate the state of Israel have harmed relations between Israelis and Palestinians. We wish to see a viable two-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace, prosperity and freedom. Hamas has long been a roadblock to that. We call upon it to set aside its violent ways and pursue a path to peace.

Throwline Stations

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and the Petitions Committee on this afternoon’s debate. I have come along as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety and drowning prevention. We are ably served by the Royal Life Saving Society UK. It is a great pleasure to be able to speak to some of the issues of concern that I have. However, I would first like to start, as many others have, by giving my condolences to Mark’s family, and indeed to those of all the people who have died as a result of drowning.

As has already been said, drowning occurs in this country on about 400 occasions each year. To put that into context, that is about one drowning every 20 hours. Within the time we have been awake, one person will have drowned. That is something that we simply must stop. It has also been mentioned, by the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), that that figure is in excess of the number of people who die from fires in the home or in cycle accidents. Those 400 people’s deaths are preventable.

We also know that many people who do not die as a result of drowning still end up in a persistent vegetative state. We do not have the numbers for those people who then go on to need care for the rest of their lives. Drowning is about not only the number of people who die, but the accident as a whole and the impact on both the NHS and the emotional—and, on occasions, economic —welfare of our constituents’ families.

The second reason why I came along today is that I have been interested in water safety for many years. I am—I suppose—still a qualified lifeguard. I was a lifeguard for many years, in two pools that I can remember and on five beaches in Cornwall, where I grew up. I not only have my bronze medallion, but can go into the water with a reel and line, or with a paddle board and my torpedo tube. Some of us remember our former colleague Charlotte Leslie, who I worked with on the beach at Bude.

The whole issue of water is very important but, in addition to that, I am an active sailor in this country. I also like to scuba dive and surf. I sea-kayak and canoe, and have a paddle board. I think you get the point, Ms Ghani: I am either, on, in, or under the water on many occasions.

However, it is not at those times that we see people drowning—or even having problems in the water. As has been said, most people who actually drown end up in the water without expecting to. They could be running along a canal path, for example, could simply trip after a night out, or could be pushed in as a simple prank. That has happened on many occasions. Also, the popularity of activities such as wild swimming—something else that I do—and paddle boarding is leading to more and more people having problems in the water.

With paddle boarding, the problem has been people being pushed out to sea and we see problems around that in parts of the United Kingdom. A throwline initiative would not help with that, but it certainly would with wild swimming and we must identify places where people regularly swim. The issue of wild swimming, and indeed water quality, is very much on the mind of the Government following the Environmental Audit Select Committee—I will give it a small plug—report on the quality of our rivers, which is very important.

I mentioned people actually going into the water. Two weeks ago, I went to Waterstones in Covent Garden—other bookshops are available, of course. I was saddened to see a poster about a missing person called Harvey Parker. Two days later, I was watching the London news and it said that Harvey’s body had been found in the Thames. Harvey, who was not a constituent of mine, had been to the Heaven nightclub. I presume that he had been drinking and he found that he was simply in the water, not realising that he would end up there.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Order. That may be an open case. We must not reflect too much on that situation.

[Dr Offord]

I certainly will not; I take your advice, Ms Ghani.

There is also the case of James Clark, to whom the same thing happened. He was at a nightclub in Kingston upon Thames, but he was not among his friends when they all left. When they got home, they realised that he was not there—in fact, it was the next day when they realised that James had gone missing. A few days later, his body, too, was found in the Thames. On both occasions, these guys did nothing wrong. They had been drinking, but that is not a crime. In the end, they found themselves in the water and, sadly, expired.

That is why I welcome the RNLI’s initiative. The RNLI station here at Westminster, on the embankment, is the busiest station in the United Kingdom. We may find it hard to believe that an inland water body is actually the busiest. The RNLI has worked with organisations including Nicholson’s, the pub partnership, and throwlines are now being supplied to other pubs, including the Horniman at Hays, just down by HMS Belfast. Some of the bouncers on the door there say that they feel more empowered. When people leave, they have often been drinking and they will be quite likely to hang around or stay near the railings; sometimes they even decide to stand over the railings if it is a warm evening. On those occasions, people have been known to fall in, so the bouncers feel that it is a great initiative to have a piece of equipment that they are able to use to help and save some of these people.

There has been mention of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It is true that that legislation is necessary for companies and employers that are responsible for waterways, but most of the waterways in the United Kingdom are actually used by recreational users, so they are not covered by the Act. Therefore I would particularly like throwlines to be installed in a greater number of places in the United Kingdom—across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as England.

The National Water Safety Forum, in its drowning prevention strategy, has come up with a target to halve—reduce by 50%—the number of drownings by 2026. I would certainly like that target to be more ambitious, but most of all, I think it could make a valuable contribution to preventing untimely deaths. When anyone goes into the water, it comes as quite a shock, but that shock is nothing compared with that of the friends and relatives of the person who no longer comes home at night.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Dr Offord, for that very serious contribution, although you did also give us a kaleidoscope of all your water activities and all the time you have for that as well.

Israel and Gaza: Ceasefire

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The United Kingdom will continue working with the whole of the international community, including our European partners, partners in the region and the United States, towards what is our explicitly shared goal, which is an end to the violence and ultimately peace for both the Palestinian people and the Israeli people. That remains our focus and that is what we will work towards.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]]

Everyone in this House hopes that hostilities will end soon, with a permanent ceasefire. However, the reality is that there will be further rounds of fighting unless the international community ends Iran’s bankrolling and arming of Gaza-based terrorist groups such as Hamas. Some Members today appear to be defending the actions of that terrorist group. I am not one of them, so may I ask: as nuclear talks continue in Vienna, can my right hon. Friend outline how the P5+1 intend finally to end Iran’s ability to fuel conflict in the region?

[James Cleverly]

I can assure my hon. Friend that, in addition to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a priority is for it to cease its destabilising actions in the region. That will remain a priority in our bilateral relationship with Iran and in our multilateral work with regard to Iran. We will continue to pursue an end to the specific violence that we see in Gaza and Israel, and we will redouble our efforts to bring about a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution.

World Water Day

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]]

World Water Day is about what water means to people, its true value and how we can better protect this vital resource. The issue of water means different things to different people. I acknowledge that, for many in the world, this means access to a safe drinking supply, but today I want to focus on another area. As a former lifeguard and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety and drowning prevention, the issue that I want to discuss is that of access to water in order to swim.

Our connection to water is as old as humankind. It has even led some, such as Elaine Morgan, to propose in her book “The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis” that humans evolved from creatures in the water. I would claim that we have never left it. Nowadays, it seems that everyone is engaged in wild swimming, but this has not always been the case. In the 19th century, swimming was an exclusive activity restricted to men and access to swimming pools was a luxury limited by class. If women chose to swim in the sea, they had to ensure that no men were around. Even in the 20th century, they could be arrested and convicted if they sought to take a dip in a lake. Amazingly, it was not until the 1930s that women were finally allowed to publicly bathe, so I am sure that we are all very pleased to see that the advancement of women’s rights has progressed, even if it has only been in outdoor swimming.

Outdoor swimming has gained huge popularity in recent years. The debate continues as to whether it is better to swim with or without a wetsuit, but the health benefits and potential for wellness and mindfulness have shown us that this activity improves not only physical health but mental health. But we have a problem here in England. In Scotland, swimmers have a clear right to swim, which goes alongside their right to roam. Scotland allows swimming in any outdoor water. In England and Wales, the law is not so clear. It is legal to swim in any navigable waters, but this means water that is also being used by boats and other watercraft, posing a hazard to those swimming. Access to water becomes fraught with problems around civil trespass, and actually getting in and out of the water. Indeed, the private owners of reservoirs ignore the desire for people to swim, even though they allow activities on their water source.

Today I am calling on the Government to support the Outdoor Swimming Society’s campaign for clearer legal access to water bodies in England and Wales. We did it for access to the countryside; now let us do it for access to waterways.