EU Membership (UK Renegotiation)

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered renegotiation of UK membership of the EU.

May I say at the outset, Mr Percy, how delighted I am to see you in the Chair and what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? I can think of no one more suited to the role. What an excellent way to start the parliamentary year.

I thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission to have this debate and I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to delivering an in/out referendum as part of the Conservative party manifesto. Let us not forget that if the Conservatives had not won last year’s general election, the Labour party, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats would have denied us the referendum that the British people want to hold. There is a lot of speaking talent in the Chamber this morning, so I shall keep my remarks shorter than I would otherwise, because most hon. Members here know far more about this subject and are far more eloquent than I.

To keep things simple, the referendum question that we will face, either this year or next, is whether to remain in or leave the European Union. Repeated polls show basically the same pattern. About a third of people want to remain and about a third of us want to leave, whatever happens. In between, about a quarter to a third are uncomfortable with Britain’s present relationship with the European Union or are worried about the future, but they are also concerned that if we leave the EU, there might be bad consequences for their jobs or living standards. The lazy assumption of the establishment, the BBC and the CBI is that the UK will vote to remain.

I am privileged to represent the constituency of Kettering, which has the privilege of being the most average town in the whole country. I like to describe Kettering as middle England at its best. The people in Kettering will want clear explanations from both sides as to which way they will vote. It is true, I am sure we all agree, that people are wary of change, but a key point to get across is that whether we stay in the European Union or leave it, change will happen. My contention is that if we stay in, those changes will be bad for the United Kingdom, but if we leave, those changes can be made good. My central assumption this morning is that remaining in the European Union is the riskier option. Leaving and taking back control for ourselves is by far the safer choice, which is what we need to explain to the good people of Kettering and the great British public over the year—or years—ahead.

The first of the five main points I want to make is, I am afraid, that the Prime Minister’s renegotiation strategy has been unfortunately weak. It has been undermined from the start by the fact that he is in favour of staying in the European Union, whatever the outcome of those renegotiations. The reforms that we are likely to get, if any, will be too little and too late. For a start, it looks pretty certain that they will not involve any kind of change to the European treaties at all, so any proposed reforms will have the legal effect of simply being an unsigned contract. The Prime Minister promised us that we would have full-on treaty change, but that has effectively now been abandoned.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is more attuned to European matters than virtually anyone else in this House, so he will be well aware that any treaty change will require a series of domestic referendums. It will clearly not be possible to get that worked out by the end of December 2017, when we are committed to having a referendum. It has always been clear from the timetable that we have in place that having fully fledged treaty change in advance of our referendum was an impossibility. Does he accept that?

[Mr Hollobone]

If my right hon. Friend is correct, it strengthens the case for voting to leave. Why would we want to stay in the European Union knowing that treaty change is yet to happen, trusting in the judgment of European politicians to deliver what they say they will deliver? The safer choice is to vote to leave, and then we would have the upper hand in negotiating our successful exit from the European Union.

If there are changes to the treaty, it is likely to be another five to 10 years before they happen, and if they proceed along the lines of the infamous Five Presidents report, they bode ill for this nation. It would appear that we are not going to get an end to the supremacy of EU law over UK law. We will not get the United Kingdom out of the charter of fundamental rights, which gives EU judges huge powers over us. We will not get a restoration of the UK’s right to make free trade deals under the World Trade Organisation. We are not going to get any reforms to the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy—I hope the SNP spokesmen are aware of that. We might get some changes to the benefit entitlement rules, but most EU migration to this country is driven not by a search for benefits, but by the fact that the UK has the most successful economy in Europe and people are coming here to seek work.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: one reason why we have so dismally failed to meet our migration targets has been the relative success of our economy. However, does he not also accept that it would be wrong simply to blame our membership of the EU for the fact that migration is at the highest levels ever? We have a huge amount of non-EU migration that comes in and, in many ways, we are all party to that; we all have constituents, particularly from the former Commonwealth countries, whom we represent when they want relatives to come to this country. It is that level which is unacceptably high and which has helped to ensure that our pledge to reduce the amount to tens of thousands has been fatally missed right the way through the last Parliament, and will be, I think, for many years to come.

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes, I think the two main factors behind the massive wave of immigration are, first, our membership of the European Union and the principle of free movement within it, and secondly, the Human Rights Act 1998, both of which mean that we are effectively unable to control our borders. If we want to control our borders, however, leaving the EU is an absolute prerequisite. We now have the farcical situation in which an unskilled Romanian immigrant can come to this country without our being able to do anything about it at all, and they get a job perhaps as a cleaner, but a skilled migrant from India who has a degree in astrophysics will find it very difficult to come to this country. We are going to get a sensible immigration policy back only if we leave the EU and get rid of the Human Rights Act.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point, but there is another point to add. Take the example of Poland—there are something like 15 million Poles living outside Poland. It has one of the best education systems in Europe and yet it is exporting people to work in jobs well below their skill level in the UK and other countries like it. Is not the point that getting control of immigration is good for countries such as Poland, so that they can make sure that more of their people want to stay at home and contribute to their economies? This is about what is good not just for Britain, but for eastern Europe and other countries from which many people are coming to the UK.

[Mr Hollobone]

As always, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I think we want to allow into this country Polish people who have the skills that our economy needs, and we do not need in this country Polish people who do not have the skills that we need. At the moment, because of our EU membership, we are unable to control that and that will have implications, as he rightly said, for the Polish economy as well as for ours.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I am hearing a lot about immigration, but we are not talking in any sense about emigration and the almost equal number of people who have left the country to live and work across Europe, as opposed to those who have come in. I would argue that the situation is similar regarding the skill base of those going out, and that UK citizens are benefiting from the advantages of being part of Europe and being able to travel and work in such a way.

[Mr Hollobone]

If we left the European Union, having negotiated our exit, we could have arrangements under which we would allow into this country people from the EU whose skills we need and the EU would allow into the EU British people whose skills it needs. At the moment, without those controls, we have massive net immigration into this country. It may not be an issue in Scotland, but it is a big issue in middle England.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

(Shrewsbury) (Con): My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. The media are focusing on benefits to EU workers and they are not sharing with our electorate some of the more important constitutional changes that the Prime Minister is trying to get agreement on. How does he assess the importance of the benefits issue for migrants among his constituents in comparison with constitutional changes they would like?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

My constituents are concerned about any migrant coming to this country and getting benefits to which they have not contributed, and that includes EU and non-EU citizens. The rules should be tightened and changed. For example, if a Polish person comes to live in this country and receives child benefit for his children back in Poland, that is clearly wrong and must change. The vast majority of EU migrants do not come to Britain for benefits. Some do, but the vast majority come here for work. It is important to change the rules, but in the scheme of things changes to the benefits system are not a massive issue.

Constitutional change is a big issue and would alter fundamentally our relationship with the European Union, but I am afraid that the Prime Minister will not deliver any fundamental constitutional reform. For both those reasons, it is likely that his constituents and mine will increasingly come to the conclusion that our future is better outside the European Union.

It has been suggested that the Prime Minister may be successful in getting the EU to drop a reference to “ever closer union” in the treaties. That would be great, but the principle of integration is embedded within all EU institutions and is a core principle of the European Court in all its judgments. Just tweaking the language will not change the institution’s philosophy or the Court’s practice. The European Commission has made it clear with the release of the infamous Five Presidents report and its proposals for a new EU army that if we stay in the European Union the prospects are for even more integration.

I am a committed outer, but many people in this country have yet to make up their mind. Among them is the British Chambers of Commerce, which wrote to the Prime Minister on 23 June 2015 setting out a very reasonable set of parameters for the negotiations. It stated:

“First…Britain must have absolute guarantees to protect our economic and other interests within the EU. Second, it is necessary to sort out the ‘common market’ so that it works for British business. The UK is by and large a service sector economy and yet there is no meaningful internal market in services within the EU…Third, we need a cast iron opt-out to make sure we do not sleepwalk into an ‘ever closer union’. Fourth, we need to protect our businesses from the regulatory burdens imposed by the EU…we need a clear and balanced approach to immigration taking into account the need for stability and social cohesion and driven by the skills requirements of our economy, meaning businesses can access the talent they need.”

I contend that none of those five parameters will be met by the Prime Minister in his negotiations.

The second big point I want to make is that the UK is a big hitter in its own right. I am confident about the UK’s ability and future in the world. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. We are a member of the G7 and the G20, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a member of NATO. If we left the EU, we would get back our seat at the World Trade Organisation. We are a member of the OECD, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe, Interpol and the Commonwealth. The idea that if we left the EU we would wither and die and have no international significance is absolute nonsense.

If there were a successful leave vote, the UK could negotiate a UK-EU deal based on free trade and friendly co-operation. That need not be acrimonious at all. The UK is the EU’s biggest trading partner.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the Library has done some research that shows that if the UK left the EU, the UK would be the EU’s single biggest export market, bigger than any other country in the world. Is it not clear that if we left, and given that we have a £62 billion trade deficit with the EU, we would still be able to trade freely with other countries in the EU?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend demonstrates again that he is a very well read Member of this House and, as usual, ahead of the curve. He is right, because negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU should be fairly straightforward, given our status as the EU’s largest trading partner and the fact that we already meet all the EU’s requirements. One fifth of all the cars produced in Germany are exported to the United Kingdom. Is anyone seriously suggesting that if we left the European Union Germany would want to cease trading with us? With a successful leave vote we could negotiate a successful UK-EU deal.

Many countries around the world already have free trade deals with the EU but do not have to accept the supremacy of EU law like we do and do not have to pay the EU a massive £10 billion and rising each year as a membership fee. If Chile, Peru and Colombia can negotiate successful free trade arrangements with the EU, surely the UK, as the world’s fifth largest economy, would also be able to do so. Our membership of the European Union means that we are constitutionally unable to negotiate free trade deals of our own with other countries.

The EU has been in existence since 1957 and has yet to conclude a free trade arrangement with America or China because 28 countries are involved and getting them all to agree on every detail is proving impossible. I suggest that if we left the EU negotiating free trade agreements with the United States and China would be a top priority.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

My hon. Friend talks about an issue that is very close to my heart—British export strategy—and he referred to the United States of America. Does he believe that if we were outside the European Union we could use our special relationship with the Commonwealth—Canada has an agreement with the EU—to get preferential trading agreements with those countries that are more preferential than those that the European Union has?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is right. I think that many countries around the world that have been unable to negotiate a free trade arrangement with the EU would be all too keen to negotiate one with the world’s fifth largest economy. We would have an appetite for doing exactly that were we to leave.

[Mark Field]

It strikes me that the one group that would be pleased if we left on that basis would be the new breed of civil servants that would be required in vast numbers to negotiate all those free trade deals across the globe. My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that one of the bigger concerns is not the economic issues in the European Union but political ones. Would he not at least recognise the risk—if we left the EU, given how calamitous that would be for the European Union as well as, in my view, not being good news for the United Kingdom—of retaliation, particularly in areas such as the City of London, an area that we both know well because we both worked there before coming here? For example, euro-denominated business would be largely out of Frankfurt and Paris instead of London. Retaliation would be a significant risk and the smooth path he has presented would not come into place.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has been, as part of his constituency duties, spending too much time at too many big lunches in the City of London with the wrong crowd. I will give an example of what I am talking about. ICAP is the world’s largest dealer broker for financial institutions. The chairman of ICAP, Michael Spencer, has said that the UK can “thrive” outside the European Union. We were told by my right hon. Friend’s friends in the City of London that if we did not join the euro, all that euro-denominated business would go to Frankfurt, Paris and elsewhere. Actually, the City of London is today doing more euro-denominated deals than ever before in its history, so I do not take much notice of those scare stories, but I do suggest to my right hon. Friend that if his contacts want to continue to put out that sort of propaganda for our staying in the European Union, it demonstrates the weakness of their case. I do not want my constituents in Kettering, in middle England, to be unnecessarily scared by baseless scare stories from financial institutions that should know better.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am always shocked and surprised by the argument about retaliation, because we are asked to believe that the European Union project is about suppressing nationalism—the kind of economic and other political nationalisms that lead to war—yet we are also asked to believe that if we chose not to surrender our parliamentary democracy to that set of institutions, we would suffer exactly the kind of nationalisms and retaliation that the EU itself was set up to avoid. Can they make their minds up which way it is to be?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

[Mark Field]

I will not respond to that, but in the good-natured way in which we are having this discussion, I should perhaps point out that I have had many lunches in the City of London in the 14 or 15 years for which I have been the local MP, but my lunching activities go back a lot further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) will know, because 30 years ago we began our political lives together as junior common room presidents in respective colleges and then as officers of the Oxford University Conservative Association. I have had lunch with him relentlessly over the last 30 years in the City and I do regard my hon. Friend as very much the right crowd, who I should be hanging around with, among many others whom I lunch with.

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

The fact is that the EU is going in the wrong direction. As we know, it is planning a new treaty to save the eurozone from itself and to give the EU more control. In many respects, that is the right response for the eurozone countries to make, but it would be bad for the United Kingdom. In truth, the EU cannot cope. In some parts of the EU, unemployment is already 25% and youth unemployment more than 50%—the worst situation since the 1930s. Debts are large and growing. Unfunded pension systems require large tax increases, immigration increases or both. Voting to remain would mean signing up to the new EU treaty currently being negotiated, which has been spelt out in the Five Presidents report. That will give the EU even more power over our economy and take our seat on key bodies such as the IMF. No new treaty has ever given powers back or saved us money.

My constituents in Kettering and people across the country will be increasingly alarmed to read the contents of the Five Presidents report, set out in July last year. Who are these pompous five Presidents? The first is Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission President. The second is Donald Tusk, the President of the Euro Summit. The third is Jeroen Dijsselbloem, President of the Eurogroup, whatever that is. The others are Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, and Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament. They do like to call themselves Presidents whenever they get the chance. Among their plans are a euro area Treasury and increasing control over Europe’s fiscal systems.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I was not going to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if he consults the House of Commons Library, he will find out that there are seven European Presidents, but only five of them signed the document to which he is referring. That just shows what an absurdity this organisation is.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he is as well read as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and I am grateful for that—the situation is even worse than I had feared.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

My hon. Friend referred to Martin Schulz. Let me tell him that there is growing disquiet in certain smaller central and eastern European states about some of the language that Mr Schulz is starting to use in cajoling them on certain issues, particularly with regard to the crisis of immigrants from Syria. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging caution on this man in his interactions with sovereign nations along those lines?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend needs to realise that these people are impervious to criticism, and the smaller nations in the EU need to wake up quick, because what few powers they retain are about to be taken away should these seven Presidents get their way. They aim to complete that, at the latest, by 2025. Apparently, we are already in the first phase—“Deepening by Doing”—and in spring 2017 there will be a white paper outlining the extent of their plans. To hold a referendum in this country on our membership before the spring of 2017 would be a big mistake, because it would be misleading the British people by not telling them now what is just around the corner. If we stay in the European Union, the future as outlined by these Presidents is that it will be very much in charge of Whitehall.

Our membership of the European Union is bad for us. It costs us each week a net £230 million. That is something like a quarter to a half of England’s schools budget. That money would be far better spent either on reducing the national debt or on our NHS. Also, our influence in the EU is far less than it used to be. It is true that the Prime Minister has upped the UK’s game in opposing measures in the EU Council. For example, from 1996 to 2010, the UK voted against 32 measures in the EU Council; since 2010, the Prime Minister has tried to stop 40. However, we have lost all—each and every one—of those votes and we have only an 8% voting share.

Only 5% of UK businesses export to the EU, but 100% of UK businesses are subject to European rules. Four fifths of Britain’s economy has nothing to do with exports, but is in effect regulated by the European Union. We were told that being outside the eurozone meant that we would not be liable for propping up failing eurozone countries. That has proved not to be the case, with bail-out funds going from this country to Greece. Of course, if the global economy were a motorway, the European Union would be on the hard shoulder. The EU’s share of world trade was 40% in 1972, when we joined; it is set to be 20% by 2020. The accounts have not been signed off by European auditors since 1994. Of course, immigration is out of control, and that is set to get even worse. We can be sure that if Turkey, with a population of 85 million, were allowed into the European Union, the wave of immigration that we have seen from eastern Europe would be dwarfed by the wave of immigration from Turkey, and I predict that it would cause big social unrest in this country, but if we vote to stay in the European Union, there will in effect be nothing we can do to stop that.

Increasingly—we have already had a taste of this during the debate today—many bogus arguments will be made as to why it would be dangerous for Britain to leave the European Union. We have been told that we would lose 3 million jobs if we left the European Union. I would like my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm today that that age-old claim is completely false and that 3 million UK jobs are not dependent on our membership of the European Union. It demonstrates the weakness of the case of those who want us to stay in that those scare stories are being put around. Of course, so many people told us that we would be disadvantaged if we did not join the exchange rate mechanism and the euro. In fact, Britain has been far better served by coming out of the ERM and by not joining the euro. We currently have the biggest amount of foreign direct investment of any country in the European Union.

I will conclude shortly, because I want other hon. Members to contribute to the debate, but it comes down to this: I am confident about Britain’s future. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. We are a member of many prominent international organisations. Our influence in the world would increase if we were to take back our seat at the World Trade Organisation. It is time for the UK to come off the global hard shoulder and go back to doing what we always did best—being a trading nation around the world. If we remain in the European Union, we will have access to its single market, as we do now, but we will have to pay at least £10 billion a year net as our membership fee; EU judges will have supremacy over UK law; and we will have to submit to the free movement of people, with no control over immigration. If we vote to leave, we will still be able to negotiate access to the single market through a free-trade arrangement with the EU, but we will not have to pay the membership fee; we will get back control over own laws; and, at long last, we will be able to control immigration, which is what constituents in Kettering and, I suggest, across the country want to see.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We are working with a wide range of countries, including, crucially, Nigeria. This is, of course, a pincer movement from Nigeria in the south and the Sahel in the north. We are working with a full range of countries. I would say, however, that if we are to stop the spread of terrorism, we have to tackle it at its heart, and its heart is in Raqqa, Syria.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The security situation in Sinai is a threat to Egypt and other countries in north Africa, as well as to the coalition against ISIL, as we saw with the recent terrorist attack. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the security situation in the Sinai region and its impact on political stability?

[Mr Hammond]

The security situation in Sinai is very serious. The Egyptian army is engaged in combat with terrorist groups across Sinai. The Foreign Office travel advice recommends against all travel to Sinai, except the area around Sharm el-Sheik. Sharm el-Sheik is itself still considered safe for travel, although travel through the airport is advised against. We seek to work with the Egyptian authorities to deal with the terrorist challenge it is facing in Sinai.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Greek financial crisis has given the green light to the gangs of human traffickers who are exploiting the weaknesses of the Greco-Turkish border to push hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants towards western Europe. Will the Minister ensure that, in this crisis, we do not lose sight of the fact that we must do all that we can to help Greece to plug the gaps in the EU external frontier?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. We have already deployed people to Greece to support Frontex and the Greek police, and we will continue to work closely with other member states, particularly Greece, and with the EU institutions.

UN Independent Commission of Inquiry (Gaza)

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the report of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. There is clearly a lot of interest in this very important debate, and it will be nearly impossible to get a quart into a pint pot this afternoon. At least 17 Members would like to speak. I will try to make sure that they all get a chance, but it simply will not be possible for me to do that if Members decide to intervene on each other during the debate. I know that is unfortunate, but to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak, please do not intervene on other Members, then you will all get your say. Speeches are likely to be able to last no more than two or three minutes if everybody is to contribute to the debate.

[Holly Lynch]

May I say first, Mr Hollobone, how delighted I am that you are joining us to chair the debate? I am pleased that time has been found for it, and I thank everyone who has joined us in Westminster Hall to take part.

I also thank a number of campaign groups, non-governmental organisations and think-tanks that have met me this week to help shape some of the arguments I am about to make: Labour Friends of Palestine; Palestine Briefing; Yesh Din; Medical Aid for Palestinians; the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network; Forward Thinking; Pierre Krähenbühl, the commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; and Ray Dolphin from the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

I start by saying how pleased I was that last week Britain was one of the 41 countries at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to support the adoption of a resolution on the Gaza commission of inquiry report, which looked into the 2014 Gaza conflict and will now be referred to the UN General Assembly and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Like many other people, I feel that is an important step in both highlighting and addressing the ongoing conflict, which has blighted lives for more than half a century. It is shameful that the international community has failed to make any real progress towards achieving peace in the region in that time.

Today marks a year since Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, a conflict that lasted 51 days, claimed 2,251 lives, including the lives of 551 children, displaced more than half a million people, and destroyed 77 health facilities and 261 schools. Each day, an average of 680 tank and artillery shells pummelled the densely populated areas of Gaza, leaving barely anywhere safe. Although the report recognises that Israel issued warnings to people to evacuate, there was often nowhere for them to evacuate to and no means of escaping the conflict zone.

Gaza is a tiny strip of land, covering just 139 square miles. If we bear in mind that West Yorkshire alone covers 780 square miles, it gives us some perspective of just how small Gaza is, yet 1.8 million Palestinians live in what is increasingly becoming a densely populated open-air prison, and they have nowhere to go. In 2012 the World Bank published a report, “Gaza 2020”, which claimed that Gaza would become uninhabitable by 2020 as a result of the blockade, an increase in population size, and insufficient access to clean drinking water, electricity, and health and education services. After last year’s devastation, Gaza has reached 2020 five years ahead of schedule.

Currently, 860,000 Palestinians in Gaza survive on UNRWA food parcels. In addition to the destruction of health facilities, schools and homes, there has been massive disruption of water supplies, sewage disposal and electricity supplies, and they have not yet been repaired. One year on, not one of the 8,377 homes that were totally destroyed in the conflict has been rebuilt, and repairs have been carried out on only 5% of the 23,597 homes that were partially destroyed.

Much of the aid pledged at last year’s Cairo conference for reconstruction in Gaza has not yet materialised, and I hope that the Minister can update us about the UK’s contribution. The UN requested $720 million, but it has received only about $210 million. UNRWA faces a severe funding crisis, as it has a deficit of $100 million, which of course is having a serious impact on its ability to deliver essential humanitarian aid.

I hope the Minister can also say why, at a time of such turmoil in the middle east and when institutions such as UNRWA are delivering vital aid and support to vulnerable communities, the Government are proposing a 17% cut in the Department for International Development’s contribution. Given the fragility of the region, the mass displacement of people and, of course, the rising threat of terrorism, it is in our own interests to invest—both politically and financially—in bringing about a stable middle east, to ensure that Palestinians have a future within their own borders.

There is, of course, one glaringly obvious way in which we can ensure the effectiveness of UK taxpayers’ money when it is spent in Palestine, with a view to achieving long-term reductions. That is to stop Israel levelling projects funded by the EU, DFID and UNRWA, and institutions that are part-financed by Britain. Earlier today, the Chancellor announced, with renewed vigour, further cuts in and scrutiny of public spending. I would like to see the Government apply the same level of scrutiny and accountability to the destruction of those buildings and projects in Gaza. Perhaps the Minister will update us on that and say whether he will send Israel a bill for the damage.

We must consider what cuts might mean for Palestine at this time. UNRWA provides schooling to 500,000 students across the middle east in 700 schools, but it will be unable to do so if its current financial deficit continues. At a time of rising militancy in the region, we have to ensure that young people have access to a good education and have a future beyond schooling. Otherwise, they will inevitably look elsewhere for promises—false ones—of a better life.

UNRWA’s commissioner-general, Pierre Krähenbühl, said in an interview just last week:

“Palestinian refugees are facing their most severe situation since 1948. They have had 50 years of occupation, nine years of a blockade in Gaza and now five years of conflict in Syria. When you look at all of that, how much more can they absorb?”

That is a stark warning to all of us.

Of course, the UN inquiry will investigate actions undertaken by both sides, which is right and proper. Acts of violence committed by either side against innocent civilians are wholly unjustifiable, and those responsible must be held to account. Although the report finds that both the Israel defence forces and armed Palestinian groups failed to distinguish adequately between civilians and combatants during last year’s conflict, the scale of the arsenal available to the IDF makes their failure particularly devastating.

The commission’s report highlights the IDF’s method of issuing warnings, in an attempt to create “sterile combat zones”, as an example of the failure to differentiate adequately between civilians and combatants. Leaflet drops or “roof knocks”, which involved a drop of small missiles prior to a much larger strike, were used to warn civilians of an impending attack. The commission found that those attempts failed to have the desired effect, either because there was not enough time between warnings and the much larger strikes, or because, as was often the case, civilians felt that there was simply nowhere safer for them to evacuate to. The IDF then failed to recognise anyone who chose to stay in the area as a civilian, denying them the protections that would ordinarily accompany civilian status under international law.

The commission’s report also looked at the west bank during the same period in 2014. Between 12 June and 26 August 2014, 27 Palestinians, including five children, were killed and 3,100 Palestinians were injured by Israeli security forces. That was largely due to increased use of live rounds as a means of achieving crowd control.

The commission’s report calls on Israel to bring its systems for investigating alleged violations of the law of armed conflict in line with international standards, and I hope that the UK will also take this opportunity to demand that. The examples that I have given must be the basis upon which we find ways to bring about change. We would be naive to think that these injustices are not feeding into a rise in militancy and unrest right across the region, as well as much closer to home.

Gaza has been under blockade for eight years, and the Palestinian people have been living under Israeli occupation for almost 50 years. That is a damning indictment of the international community, and of our failure to secure peace and justice for the people of Palestine. It is now 21 years since the Oslo accord, and an entire generation of young Palestinians—the Oslo generation—have grown up to witness a worsening situation on the ground. There have been significant expansions of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank, heightened security threats to both sides, the construction of an illegal separation barrier, restrictions on Palestinian movement, the suffocation of productivity, punitive home demolitions and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and there is no end or hope in sight. It is depressing that, 21 years since Oslo, both sides seem to be further away from peace and security than ever before.

I welcome Britain’s support for the commission of inquiry on Gaza. However, although the report identifies in great detail the violations against international law and makes recommendations about addressing those, it also recognises that we have been here before, time and again. The empty rhetoric about opening dialogue and, increasingly, getting round negotiation tables has now been ongoing for more than 50 years. It is time to think carefully about why the international community has failed and time to consider all the options available to us, to ensure that we are not still sitting here in five, 10 or 20 years’ time, discussing yet more reports on further conflict.

That leads me on to what the UK could do, unilaterally if we must, to take concrete steps towards peace. We have condemned the illegal settlements in the west bank, as well the collective punishment inflicted on the civilian population of Gaza, in breach of the Geneva convention, which has been described as a war crime by the EU, the Red Cross and the UN. However, we simultaneously continue to trade freely with Israel. We support the commission’s report, which outlines the deaths of innocent civilians in both Gaza and Israel, yet we continue to export arms to Israel.

I am aware that the Government are reviewing the sale of arms to Israel case by case, but in the context of the conflict, surely even the most limited attempts at evaluating risk would conclude that the potential risk of a breach of international humanitarian law would be too high, and that arms should not be changing hands. According to the EU code of conduct on arms exports:

“Member States will not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim.”

Yet following the brutal conflict last year, Britain has approved new arms licences for Israel of up to £4 million. Furthermore, The Independent newspaper reports that the Government also approved arms exports to Israel worth nearly £7 million in the six months prior to Operation Protective Edge. Does the Minister agree that turning a blind eye to violations of international humanitarian law when an arms deal is on the table undermines our standing in the world and begins to compromise our integrity?

A new approach to diplomacy must be based on the protection of civilians, on equal respect for the human rights, security and sovereignty of both Israelis and Palestinians, and on the realisation and implementation of international law, beyond just the rhetoric. It is not enough to focus exclusively on negotiations while failing to hold Israel accountable for violating international humanitarian law. In 2010, on a visit to Turkey, the Prime Minister said:

“Everybody knows that we are not going to sort out the problem of the Middle East peace process while there is, effectively, a giant open prison in Gaza”,

and called for an end to the blockade, to allow a free flow of humanitarian goods and people. Five years later, under the stranglehold of an eight-year blockade, the situation in Gaza is still precarious and, indeed, worse. I welcome the remarks just days ago by the Minister responsible for the Middle East, who is in his place:

“The UK supports EU efforts to develop options for easing movement and access into and out of Gaza. This includes the possibility of EU assistance in establishing a sea-link from Gaza to another international port. The UK and EU have consistently called on the Government of Israel to ease movement and access restrictions, and will continue to do so.”

I hope that we all support him in making that a reality, beyond the rhetoric.

The crisis in Gaza must be understood in a wider context of a 48-year illegal occupation of Palestine. It is essential that the UK and the wider international community are honest brokers for peace and take practical steps towards addressing the root causes of the conflict, starting by ending the illegal occupation of Palestine and ensuring that Palestinians are able to enjoy their basic human rights and freedoms.

Some 64% of Gaza’s population is under the age of 25. The report recognises that, without any economic horizon or sustainable productivity, there is an inevitability about the cycle of conflict and unrest. That will serve neither Israel or Palestine, so it must be addressed. I am proud that the Labour party supported the motion last year to recognise a state of Palestine. Surely that would be an easy starting point.

In 2012, 135 countries voted in favour of Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly. Last year, a number of EU member states also voted in their Parliaments in support of recognising a Palestinian state. The argument that the recognition of a Palestinian state should come at a time that is deemed suitable is hollow. Israel should have no right of veto over the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Recognising Israel was not subject to negotiation, and recognition of Palestine should not be either.

We can and should do more with our European partners to hold to account those who commit violations of international law and to promote endeavours such as this report, which is a welcome first step. I hope that the Minster will consider and respond to some my proposals.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to be the most unpopular person in the Chamber, because I am only going to be able to allow Members to speak for two and a half minutes, so all their 30-minute speeches will have to be severely condensed. That way, everybody who stood will get to speak. We have three Front-Bench speakers, under the new arrangements—from the Scottish National party, Labour and the Government —and their speeches will start as near to 3.30 pm as possible. Leading us with the first two-and-half-minute speech is Bob Blackman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for securing this important debate.

The report makes clear the scale of the mass slaughter committed during last year’s war on Gaza, and the escalation of violence and disregard for life perpetrated by all involved. I am deeply concerned that those events, and the failure of Israel in particular to engage with the investigation into them, pose a great challenge to the chance of finding a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Let us be clear; the actions last year of the Israeli Government and their armed forces were criminal and murderous. They were committed with a complete disregard for the taking of civilian lives, including those of hundreds of women and children. The report is absolutely clear about that. Israel showed a callous disregard about who was being hit by its bombs, and that was emphasised by the fact that it did nothing to modify its behaviour when the results were evident to all.

The question that I want to ask, which I think is central to the debate, is why the Israeli Government are allowed constantly to flout international law and UN motions. Why are they allowed to act with impunity, not just in this case but in the illegal land grabbing on the west bank? The fact that they refused even to engage with the investigation speaks volumes about how they continually ignore international law. It is time for that to end. It is time that Israel was held accountable for its actions and those of its military.

The events of last year were, as the report makes clear, a worrying escalation with attacks by Israel on residential buildings resulting in the deaths of entire families, ground operations that levelled urban neighbourhoods, and a continued land grab. That escalation could happen precisely because Israel regards itself as somehow adjacent to international law.

The report makes some critical recommendations, in particular with respect to international human rights, but none of them will mean anything if they are not adhered to. Prosecutions, convictions and punishments must be applied, and must not stop with the individual soldiers involved; they must include those who are responsible for giving the orders, and the military and political establishment. Israel should address all the issues that fuel the conflict and impede respect for human rights. In particular, it should lift the blockade on Gaza and stop building illegal settlements.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. We have had contributions from 18 Back Benchers. We now move on to the Front-Bench speeches. Unfortunately, I am unable to time-limit the Front-Bench speeches, but the clock will be set for nine minutes. If you all speak for nine minutes, that will allow Holly Lynch three minutes to complete the impossible task of summing up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). I have taken part in many debates on this subject during my 10 years in the House, but hers is one of the most powerful speeches that I have heard, based as it is on her own experience of working in Gaza. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on securing this debate. She has chosen an incredibly important issue for her first Westminster Hall debate, as evidenced by the turnout today. I do not have time to refer to the many excellent speeches made in this debate, but I will touch on some of the issues that were raised.

Each and every death during this conflict on both sides was a tragedy. The appalling bloodshed underlined once more that there cannot be a military resolution. The only way forward is the diplomatic route and a negotiated two-state solution that recognises the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. As such, we welcomed the Egypt-brokered ceasefire last August. If we are finally to end the cycle of violence, we have yet again to ensure that the necessary lessons are learned from this most recent conflict. That includes holding accountable those responsible, and securing access to remedy for the victims.

As we have heard, the UK abstained on the resolution that initiated the commission of inquiry last year. The Foreign Secretary at the time said that the resolution was “fundamentally unbalanced” and would not help to achieve a lasting ceasefire. The UK Government subsequently encouraged all sides to co-operate, but I suspect that the Foreign Secretary’s initial rejection of the inquiry might have undermined the UK’s influence in that regard. It was certainly disappointing that Israel declined to co-operate and that that prevented the commission from investigating Israel’s claims. UK support for the resolution at the Human Rights Council last week, though, was welcome. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he now feels that the report has made a positive contribution.

The report makes disturbing reading in identifying serious breaches of international law, by both Israel and the Palestinian armed groups, that it warned could amount to war crimes. Last summer the Opposition condemned Hamas’s rocket fire, tunnels and extra-judicial killings, and I reiterate our condemnation. The commission report conveys the sense of fear that the tunnels in particular stoked up among innocent Israelis. Rocket fire, however, by the very nature of such weapons systems, was indiscriminate and in violation of international humanitarian law. We recognise, too, Israel’s right to defend itself, but we agree with the commission that the conduct of Palestinian armed groups does not

“modify Israel’s own obligations to abide by international law”.

In that respect, there were clear differences between the Government and the Opposition last summer. We felt that the Prime Minister had remained silent and should have spoken out when the victims were predominantly civilians, in particular given the number of children killed. We felt that he was too unequivocal in backing Israel’s right to defend itself, despite the disproportionate manner in which it exercised that right. The commission concluded that Israel might have failed to do everything it could to adhere to the three principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. The implication is that the terrible death toll could have been avoided.

The report documents some of the issues already touched on by other Members: how residential areas were targeted; how strikes came in the evening or at dawn, as families were gathering during Ramadan; how ineffective the roof knocks were as a warning system; and how artillery and mortars with a wide-area effect were used. The report attempts to convey the extent to which Palestinian civilians felt trapped. Even if they had received warnings, there was nowhere obvious for them to flee to where they would be safe, as we have heard. It is difficult to imagine the sense of terror that that would engender in such a densely populated area. There were also distressing allegations that civilians carrying white flags were attacked.

The cumulative impact of all that last year became evident all too soon. The Israel defence forces and/or the Israeli Government failed to re-examine their approach or to alter their tactics. In light of the report, I hope that the Minister will be able to reflect on whether the UK Government, and others, could have done more last year to press Israel to re-evaluate its response to the rocket fire. Does the Minister think that the Prime Minister could have questioned the proportionality, the legality and the morality of Israel’s use of force, and questioned at the time what it would ultimately achieve?

The commission noted that

“Israel’s interpretation of what constitutes a ‘military objective’ may be broader than the definition provided for by international law”.

I hope that that is one of the many findings that the Foreign Office will discuss with its Israeli counterparts, in addition to expressing concerns about such things as Israel’s choice of weaponry. Does the Minister believe that Israel could have done more to uphold those three principles of proportionality, distinction and precaution?

Several Members have touched on the issue of arms export licences. The Government, of course, chose not to suspend any such licences for export to Israel last year and sales have continued over the past few months. Members have no doubt received emails from their constituents concerned that £4 million in arms sales to Israel was approved in the four months following the conflict last year. In light of the commission’s findings, I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills intend to review the licences, or Israel’s use of arms sold by the UK. Baroness Anelay, the Minister of State, said in the debate in the other place on Monday that we are “most cautious” when we issue export licences. She ruled out a blanket arms embargo. I will be grateful if the Minister touches on whether a case-by-case arms embargo, or the revoking of certain licences, has been or will be considered.

We cannot neglect the lasting legacy of last summer’s incursion and the humanitarian catastrophe that it triggered. As well as the loss of life, more than 11,000 Palestinians were injured, more than 3,000 of them children. It has been reported that 10% of them suffered a serious disability, and 1,500 children were orphaned. Furthermore, as we have heard, 18,000 homes were destroyed. I will be grateful if the Minister responds to the questions asked about the international support available to the victims of the incursion, about Department for International Development support to UNRWA being cut and about what we are doing to help people in Gaza rebuild their infrastructure and homes.

Looking to the future, the commission acknowledged that its report is only the latest in a long line of inquiries and missions seeking to aid accountability and end violence for the people of Israel and Palestine. The report rightly highlighted that there has been a

“persistent lack of implementation of recommendations”.

With Israel and Hamas already rejecting the report and the US voting against the Human Rights Council resolution last week, how can the international community ensure that the report is not yet another footnote in the history of the suffering of the Palestinian and Israeli people, or that last summer’s incursion was not simply another chapter in the cycle of violence in Gaza, which is doomed to be repeated? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how the Government will work with Israel, Palestine, and the Human Rights Council and UN to end the culture of impunity that has prevailed, to support new dialogue and to promote co-operation with the International Criminal Court.

Finally, the commission of inquiry recognised that it could not investigate the events of last summer in isolation; it also needed to look at the west bank. It rightly expressed its concerns about administrative detention, torture and ill treatment. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the UK’s discussions with Israel in that regard, on talks to lift the blockade and end the illegal settlements, and on efforts to strengthen moderate voices within Palestine.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister could conclude his remarks no later than 3.57 pm, that would be appreciated.

Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the proposed deal seeks to legitimise Iran’s nuclear activities, such as enriching and stockpiling low-grade uranium, for which there is no civilian use whatever? We are talking about a country that is one of the world’s largest—if not the largest—state sponsors of terrorism.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. That intervention was perfectly legitimate and in order, but I say to all Members present that there are a lot of Members here and we have only 90 minutes, so it is not my intention to call anybody to make a speech who makes an intervention beforehand. I want to ensure that everybody has a chance to have their say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

That is an interesting point, but I suspect that the significant political changes in South Africa made a real difference to how it viewed its position in the world. I suspect that the changes that happened in South Africa are not going to happen any time soon in Iran, so my comments are still worth bearing in mind.

To what extent is the Foreign Office confident that the proposed deal, the outlines of which have been given, will be made in the long-term interest of not only Iran, but neighbouring states in the middle east? If assurances about that cannot be given, there are real questions to be asked about whether we can support any proposed deal.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I will call Guto Bebb at the end of the debate for two minutes to sum up what has been debated. Seven Members wish to contribute. I do not want to call the Front-Bench spokesmen any later than 10.40 am, with the debate closing at 11 am, so I am introducing a six-minute limit. If there are lots of interventions, I am afraid I will have to cut that to five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I think Mr Bacon was about to give way to Chloe Smith.

[Mr Bacon]

Yes, I was.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

That is fine, but in responding to Chloe Smith, I ask Mr Bacon quickly to conclude his speech.

[Chloe Smith]

My intervention is extremely short, Mr Hollobone, and it is to point out that I believe I referred to Iran as “a premier sponsor”. I hope that that casts some illumination on the notion that there are various sources of threat in this world and that my hon. Friend considers all of them in his following remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

That is a very simplistic reading of history. The idea that Islamist terrorism was dependent on the invasion of Iraq does not bear any scrutiny. It is interesting that, yet again, the hon. Gentleman referred to “what we call terrorism”. No, it is what the world calls terrorism—and that, indeed, is what it is.

We need to move on to the core questions: what is Iran’s capability, and what is its intention? Those are undoubtedly complex issues. We certainly did not create Iran; it is of very long standing. As the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) rightly said, it is a great historic and continuing nation, and was a great empire and civilisation. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said that we made it a regional power. History, resources and population made it a regional power.

Interestingly, unlike some other Islamist groups, the Iranian regime has not discouraged education, but very much encouraged it. There is a substantial educated—indeed, sophisticated—section of society. Unfortunately, a considerable number of its members now live in exile, and they would be a huge benefit to a liberal country. There is clearly strong internal opposition to the regime, as we saw with the green revolution after the previous elections, which, as the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, was ruthlessly and shockingly repressed, with too little reaction from the rest of the world—probably not just a moral, but a strategic mistake. There are also widespread executions, and there is imprisonment in absolutely appalling conditions.

It is also rightly said that Iran has drastically worsening relations with its neighbours, who rightly accuse it of not only external threats, but fostering internal subversion. Although there are clearly legitimate, well expressed concerns at some of those neighbouring states’ internal reactions, there is, equally, an understanding of the problems they face. Those problems are a concern to the outside world, just as they are to countries to which Iran—or the Iranian regime, to be more correct—poses an existential threat.

I hope that the Minister will address the broader contextual issues, but my concern is that we see little evidence of strategic vision as Britain retreats from the world stage—something that has been widely commented on in the United States and that is being increasingly understood here. That vision does not mean simplistically dividing the world into friends and foes.

A strong reaffirmation of article 5 of the NATO treaty would be especially welcome to our allies on NATO’s eastern front, who face increasing Russian assertiveness and pressure, but that does not mean that we do not have similar concerns to the Russians in some other parts of the world. Over the years, Ministers will have clearly heard about the Russians’ focus on Islamist fundamentalism and what they refer to as the arc of instability to their south. I agree that that is hard to reconcile with the support given by the Russian nuclear industry to the emerging Iranian nuclear programme. I have heard the justification from Russian Ministers that that support is good business. The argument has also been put to me that one driver of the Russian approach—this was rather echoed by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord)—is the Iranians’ lack of capability to run the system. That runs against the evidence that there is an educated workforce in Iran. It is perhaps a slightly dismissive, almost colonial, position, and a serious miscalculation on the part of the Russians. Will the Minister tell us what efforts have been made to engage with Russia on this issue? Is there a unified Russian view, or are there diverse views in the Russian hierarchy?

Similarly, there is inconsistency in the Russian support for the Assad regime, which is, most significantly, being propped up by the Iranian Hezbollah and the revolutionary guard. We do not need to have any illusions about President Putin’s actions in Ukraine—and, indeed, right the way along Russia’s western flank up into Scandinavia—to see that we may have common interests and concerns in the middle east and north Africa. Ministers will recall that during the last Parliament I regularly made similar arguments about the need to engage Afghanistan’s neighbours in the post-drawdown settlement to ensure stability, stressing that not only Russia and the “stans”, but Iran, should be involved. We therefore need a broader policy on this issue.

I recognise that the Minister needs to time to reply, so, in conclusion, I thank him for his courtesy and for the assistance he has provided during his time in the Foreign Office, which has been most welcome and most appreciated.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I know the Minister will want to conclude his remarks at 10.57 am to allow Guto Bebb the opportunity to reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Long before the House voted last October, the Government’s position has been clear: we will recognise Palestinian statehood at a time that we judge contributes most to the delivery of an enduring settlement in the middle east.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What is the Foreign Secretary’s present assessment of the extent to which the Palestinian side is unified between Hamas and Fatah?

[Mr Hammond]

In a word, it is not.