Paradise Golf Resort, Morocco

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for speaking in the debate and to all the other Members who are present. It is clear that a number of Members have a significant interest in the issue, including those who have intervened—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and others who cannot be present. I am aware that others have an interest as well, not least you, Madam Deputy Speaker, who have made representations on this matter on behalf of your constituents in Epping Forest. I thank colleagues for their contributions and will try to respond to the points raised.

First, let me say that, having been involved in this area for some years, I have known of not dissimilar issues where Governments have taken no interest whatever in what has happened and play no part once a problem has arisen. This is not one of those cases, and I will go on to say what the Moroccan Government have sought to do in relation to this, whatever might be the exact legal position on their responsibility, which is not a matter for the UK Government. However, this is not one of those cases where a Government have shown no interest at all in the problems related to a development and the absolute pain suffered by constituents that Members have described. On Government support for that concern, I say, absolutely, these are people who expected to make a good investment, in most cases at an important stage in their life, and they have been left in a very difficult position.

Diplomatic relations between the UK and Morocco date back 800 years and we enjoy a warm bilateral relationship, with engagement at all levels, from regular working-level contact to constructive ministerial discussions in both Rabat and London. That is not immaterial; it enables us to raise matters on behalf of constituents, as we do. We share similar views on many regional issues and we enjoy good security and trade relations. We are committed to strengthening this close relationship.

For the past few years, we have been working particularly closely with Morocco to strengthen governance and human rights and to support security and counter-terrorism work. This financial year alone, we have funded projects worth over £4 million.

Our relationship is not just confined to our Governments. More than 600,000 British tourists visit Morocco every year, making Morocco one of the UK’s favourite tourist destinations, and no doubt time spent as a tourist can lead to thinking of making an investment in a friendly country. We appreciate Morocco’s co-operation with us on all matters, including security and first response to ensure the safety of those who visit as tourists and want a relationship with that country.

Morocco is also increasingly attractive as an investment destination. Our bilateral trade in goods and services is worth around £1.8 billion and we are ambitious for the future. Next month, we are hosting an event to promote opportunities in the aeronautics sector, and in April we will be hosting another on financial services. This builds on the links established some years ago by the London Stock Exchange Group with its counterparts in Casablanca. There are other events in the pipeline.

Morocco faces some significant socio-economic challenges, in particular disparities between different regions. After the upheavals that began across the region in 2010 and 2011, Morocco took steps to reform, introducing a new constitutional settlement.

Clearly, UK companies investing overseas has benefits for the UK economy, which is why the Department for International Trade provides support for UK companies looking to make such investments. We expect other countries to treat British businesses operating abroad as we treat their investors in the UK and to provide a stable regulatory framework, so that investors can invest with confidence. As has been said, this is to the benefit of those countries with whom we invest, to make sure there is certainty in the outcome to attract further investment.

We recognise that there are times when things go wrong, and the Department for International Trade works closely with the National Crime Agency as part of this Government’s anti-corruption efforts. All suspected cases of corruption should be reported to the NCA.

The Paradise Golf and Beach Resort and Atlantic Golf View development project appears to be one such investment opportunity that went badly. It was launched in 2006 and marketed as a luxurious five-star tourist resort. Promotional material showed luxury villas set in beautiful gardens with views over the Atlantic. It was originally due to be completed by 2009, but this did not materialise. It was subsequently promoted in 2010 as part of Morocco’s Vision 2020 tourism development plan. We believe that there were some 800 investors from around the world, and that about 300 were British nationals. We understand that £35 million was deposited, of which only £12 million is accounted for.

Last January, the scheme’s developer, Larbi Tadlaoui, was jailed for fraud on the orders of the public prosecutor in Tangier. He was sentenced to 20 months in prison and ordered to reimburse investors, with interest. Further charges and hearings are pending. Unfortunately, many of the investors were British. Indeed, we understand that the scheme has attracted as many as 300 British investors since its launch in 2006. This is an extremely troubling situation for the individuals involved. They invested in good faith, attracted by promises of good returns, and now fear that they have lost money as a result of the failure of the scheme. I, and the United Kingdom Government, have every sympathy with their situation and appreciate their desire to resolve the matter as soon as possible. Unfortunately, however, we have to recognise that buying property is a risky business and that this kind of thing can happen anywhere—including here in the UK. I must make it clear that property fraud of this kind is not uncommon in Morocco and in the region generally, as our website makes clear.

The British Government do not offer advice to people seeking to buy property overseas. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website does provide guidance of a practical nature on what to consider when purchasing property overseas. Our general guide offers people top tips on what to consider before they buy: getting things in writing, checking that the seller owns the title deeds, seeking independent legal advice and that sort of thing. It also warns of the particular risks of buying property off-plan and what people might do if things go wrong. In addition to this general guide, we also provide guidance relating to buying property in specific countries, including Morocco. The Morocco guidance sets out quite clearly that there are considerable risks of fraud. It states that

“the list of pitfalls is large, and is almost impossible to number”,

before going on to describe the most common areas where fraud occurs. Our guidance goes on to say that neither the British Government nor our embassies and high commissions overseas have any jurisdiction or authority to become involved in private legal matters. This includes those connected to property and financial disputes. However, that does not mean we have washed our hands of this issue.

We are unable to intervene in individual cases, as colleagues will know, but we have regularly raised this dispute with the Moroccan authorities to try to achieve a satisfactory resolution for British investors. The Moroccan Ministry of Tourism has taken charge of the issue, and as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I discussed the dispute with the Minister of Tourism and Aviation Security, His Excellency Mr Mohamed Sajid, when he visited London last October. Mr Sajid noted that this was a private commercial and legal matter but indicated that he wanted a rapid resolution to the dispute, both to revive the scheme and to ensure that investors were treated fairly. We welcome this intention, for the reassurance it brings not only to investors affected in this case but to others investing in Morocco more broadly.

For completeness and to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and others who have attended the debate that we have taken the matter seriously, I can tell them that our deputy head of mission discussed it with the Secretary General of the Wali of Tangiers in March last year; that our former ambassador discussed it with the Moroccan Foreign Minister in April; that our chargé d’affaires discussed it with the Minister of Tourism and Aviation Security in July; and that our current ambassador discussed it with the Wali of Tangiers in August and September and with the Minister of Tourism and the Secretary of State for Tourism in October and November respectively. Most recently, our ambassador spoke to the Secretary of State in the Moroccan Ministry of Tourism on 15 January this year.

[Tom Brake]

The Minister mentioned that this was a private dispute. Can he clarify whether that is the view of our Government, or do they consider that this is more than a private development, in the light of the prominence given to the Moroccan Government’s support for the project?

[Alistair Burt]

The right hon. Gentleman is tempting me to give an opinion from the British Government on a property matter that is the subject of recourse to the law in the country that has appropriate jurisdiction. I do not think that I can do that. It is the view of the Moroccan Government that this is a private and commercial matter. As I said earlier, in some circumstances states just walk away and say, “This is a private matter. It has nothing to do with us.” However, the degree of relationship that there has been indicates that that has not been the case here.

I am unable to offer an opinion on what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and it would not be appropriate for me to do so, but that the Moroccan Government feel a sense of responsibility to investors in the broadest sense—I am not making a legal determination—is clear from the actions that have followed, so I will say a little more.

The Moroccan authorities have made it clear to us that they are working to achieve a resolution and that they want to ensure the investors are treated fairly. The Moroccan Secretary of State for Tourism told us that the authorities have found a bank to finance the completion of the scheme and that the Moroccan Prime Minister is taking a close interest in the case. The most recent information we have is that the Government are keen to revive and complete the scheme and ensure that investors are treated fairly. To that end, they are looking at how to move the land to another developer to complete the resort and to ensure the completion of the project. I suspect there is much more to do, but it indicates an intention of involvement that, in my experience, is unusual in such circumstances.

As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, a further court hearing is coming up on 30 January. The United Kingdom will be represented by the embassy, so we will maintain our interest and continue to pursue matters. I do not know what will come of this relationship, but the sense we get from the Moroccan authorities is that they recognise the public nature of this and that they recognise the reputational issues at stake. They have clearly indicated that, above and beyond a legal relationship that is obviously a matter of dispute, they intend to try to find something because they recognise the hurt that has been caused. We want to see this pursued, and we will continue to make our interests known.

In general, we continue to advise Britons involved in private property disputes overseas to seek independent legal advice on local laws and rights and on methods of redress. We provide a list of English-speaking lawyers in Morocco on our website, but in common with practice all over the world, we do not get involved in legal issues. However, I hope that what I have said today will reassure the right hon. Gentleman and others who have taken part in this debate and those who will read and listen to it that we are doing what is within our power to help, within the limits of a private legal dispute.

We would like to see British investment in Morocco continue to grow, and we want a strong relationship. We see Morocco as one of the anchors in northern Africa, and we want its economy to be in a good position to provide employment for all the youngsters coming through and to provide everything the area is looking for—all that a thriving economy can deliver. British investment can make a contribution, and therefore ensuring that investors have confidence in the business environment is vital and is something that we share with the Moroccan Government.

With that in mind, and in the interests of the British nationals who invested in the scheme in good faith, we will continue to urge the Moroccan Government to find a resolution to this dispute as quickly as possible. We will maintain our interest on behalf of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

17. What recent discussions he has had with the Israeli Government on the military detention of Palestinian children.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

We remain seriously concerned about the continuing demolition of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities, and our embassy in Tel Aviv raised our specific concerns about it with Israel in November last year. Israel’s treatment of vulnerable Palestinian minors held in military detention also remains a human rights priority for the UK. I raised our concerns with the Israeli authorities during my visit to Israel in August last year, and will continue to do so.

[Alan Brown]

The Israeli Prime Minister’s party has just voted for the annexation of the west bank. The Israeli Attorney General has said that new laws must take into account the possibility of application to the occupied territories, and 46 Bedouin communities are still threatened with eviction. When will the UK’s approach change? When will it join other EU countries in calling for aid to compensate for the demolition of EU-funded structures and an end to trade with illegal settlements?

[Alistair Burt]

The whole issue of settlements brings into question the whole point of pursuing a two-state solution, because none of these issues will be dealt with unless we make progress on that. We are pressing for that of course, but in the meantime we continue to support those who are concerned about demolitions and settlements. We continue to make the case to Israel that these are barriers to peace, among other barriers to peace, but unless there is a conclusive settlement soon, these issues will get worse.

[Julie Elliott]

Does the Minister share my outrage at the continued detention of 16-year-old Ahed Tamimi in Israel, in violation of article 76 of the fourth Geneva convention, and will he raise this issue, and our concerns about it, with the Israeli Government?

[Alistair Burt]

I know both the Tamimi family and Nabi Saleh, and it is a very unhappy incident all round. The truth is that the soldiers should not be there and the young woman should not have needed to do what she did. It is sad that two young people who ought to be friends are caught up in a situation in which, because of the failure to deal comprehensively with what is happening on the west bank and in Israel, we cannot come to a settlement. We have indeed made representations. It is important that Israel follows through the law, as it is entitled to do, but when we see the whole incident on video it tells us that this should not be happening and we should be working hard to get a settlement to this issue, so these young people do not have to continue to do what they are doing.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The biggest current obstacles to advancement of the middle east peace process include Hamas’s rearmament drive in Gaza and the long-standing issue of Palestinian incitement. What steps has the Minister taken, alongside his international counterparts, to assist the Palestinian leadership in becoming a viable partner for peace with Israel?

[Alistair Burt]

There are many obstacles on the way to peace, and certainly one of them remains incitement among some in the Palestinian community, but efforts being made for reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas have to conclude with a process that has led to acceptance of Quartet principles, and we hope that that will provide one further step forward.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to resolve the issue of land borders is through the resumption of direct peace talks without preconditions?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, and efforts are continually being made to move forward with the peace process. We await proposals being brought forward by the US envoys very soon, but sooner or later both the Palestinians and the Israelis have to sit down together, because only they can come to the answer they need.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

13. What the Government’s policy is on a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

Our long-standing policy in support of a two-state solution is clear. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am pleased my right hon. Friend agrees that a two-state solution is the best way forward for both parties, but the Israeli Justice Minister is recently on record as saying there is not, and never will be, a Palestine state. Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing concern at the impact these comments have on the prospects for peace and outline how the UK can lead on engagement with those who hold this view?

[Alistair Burt]

Many statements are made on both sides about whether or not there will be a resolution to the issues between the Palestinians and Israelis, and the United Kingdom is not responsible for them. All the polling done in Israel and Palestine suggests people want a two-state solution. As I indicated before, we will continue to work for that and we hope those in the Palestinian areas and in Israel will also continue to work for the just peace they all deserve.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

But surely the Minister must acknowledge that comments like those from the Israeli Government do not give the impression that they are serious about peace. Does he also agree that the calls by Hamas for acts of violence and rage against Israeli people in the wake of the relocation of the US embassy were wholly contemptible and should be thoroughly condemned by everyone in the House?

[Alistair Burt]

The danger and difficulty in making statements that are seen to be provocative can be seen in the responses of recent weeks. The United Kingdom is absolutely right to call on all sides not only to refrain from those provocations but to use the renewed interest now in the issues between Israel and the Palestinians as a pressure to push for peace, because that is the only thing that will deal with these issues.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s diplomatic relations with India.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

T2. UK humanitarian workers have told us that 10 hospitals in Syria have been directly targeted by Russian and Syrian forces over the past few weeks. These attacks go against the Geneva convention, but they have also left hundreds of children starving and in need of urgent humanitarian help. Will the Foreign Secretary indicate whether he intends to follow through on his previous pledge to donate British troops to UN peacekeeping forces? Will he ask President Putin to desist from doing such things? Will the Minister also ensure that the Geneva process is re-energised?

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

The attacks over the Christmas period were deeply distressing. I spoke to some of the medical agencies involved in getting those with medical issues out of eastern Ghouta to seek treatment, and the overwhelming need is for proper humanitarian access to the area. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the Geneva process, which is being driven forward by Staffan de Mistura and reaches its next part later this month, must keep going to try to see an end to this conflict, which is the only thing that will relieve the suffering. The United Kingdom is right behind that process.

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

T8. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on what role the Foreign Office played in ensuring the opening of the Yemeni seaport of Hodeidah?

[Alistair Burt]

Following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development’s visits to Djibouti and Riyadh in December, the Saudi authorities announced that the coalition would fully open the Hodeidah port for 30 days from 20 December. From then until now, more than nine ships have docked, delivering food, fuel and coal, and that process is continuing with more ships having been cleared. It is essential that the port remains open after that time, and we are working with others to try to ensure that that will be the case.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

T4. It has been nine months since my constituent Kirsty Maxwell tragically fell to her death from a balcony in Benidorm and still the family do not know what happened to the clothes on her body when she died or the circumstances of her death. The Minister has been very helpful in trying to assist, but we are no further forward. Will he put more pressure on the Spanish authorities, and will he do a full-scale review of the support that families who have lost loved ones get?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman—he is a most perspicacious Member of the House—but questions are simply too long at topical questions; topical questions are supposed to be briefer. If we can have brief questions and brief answers, far more colleagues will get in.

[Alistair Burt]

The council will indeed be used by the United Kingdom to offer a statement in relation to Israel, and the issues raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) are covered in a number of different ways in our representations to Israel.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

Violence in Iran has escalated. Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about the reports that 450 Iranians may have been arrested for taking to the streets against a regime that brutalises women and oppresses religious minorities?

Enslavement of Black Africans (Libya)

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank all colleagues who have taken part in this debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for opening it. Like everyone else, I also thank those who have worked so hard to raise the petition. I think we would all say that the fact that so few colleagues are here does not reflect the level of interest in the House; this debate has landed on a particularly busy day in the House. I venture to suggest that almost every single Member of the House of Commons would have wanted to listen to the speeches made today, and probably to make one themselves. Those who have done so much work to raise the petition should not doubt that they have done a great job. The way in which the House has conducted itself in this debate and the speeches that have been made reflect colleagues’ concern.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who spoke for the Opposition, did my job in running through the speeches. I thank him; I will not repeat the process because he summarised extremely well what colleagues said. I am coming to the substance of the debate, but I take issue with the statements about the intervention in Libya and the aftermath. I was there; I was the Minister responsible at the time. The hon. Gentleman praised Peter Millett; I know how hard diplomats worked in the immediate aftermath of the events that removed Gaddafi. There were elections. We worked to create a civil administration out of nothing, because Gaddafi had left nothing. There was an absolute commitment by those in Libya. They wanted no boots on the ground. There was a limit to what they wanted from the outside world. We tried. The circumstances are clear now: the efforts were not successful, despite all the work that was put in.

There was no abandonment of Libya, but the depth of the damage done by 40 years of Gaddafi and the failure to create any institutions left a bigger hole than probably anyone understood at the time. There were a series of consequences, for which it is impossible to pin blame purely and simply, beyond on those who created the misery in the first place and who were overthrown. That is of only partial consequence now. What is important is to deal with what is happening at present, and that has been the substance of the debate.

[Chris Law]

I want to touch on that important point. We learned some painful lessons around Iraq. In terms of our involvement in Libya, was there preparedness and thought about medium to long-term plans and strategies at the end of the conflict, whatever its outcome, or was it a posthumous question at the end of, “Oh God, here we are now—what do we do next?”

[Alistair Burt]

During the conflict, nobody quite knew how it would end, because the circumstances were happening on the ground, militias were forming and so on. NATO played a part after the Arab League made a presentation to the UN demanding intervention because Benghazi was going to be attacked and people were going to be slaughtered. Let us not forget the reasons why the intervention happened in the first place: the determination to save civilian lives in Benghazi, prompted by the Arab League and the UN, was highly significant.

All the way through the conflict, the sense was “What happens next?” That is why people went in afterwards to seek to build a civil administration and prepare the ground for elections. Those took place, and a Government were established, but the fallout since then has been a combination of pressure from Islamist forces that came into the process afterwards and the inability of those who formed the militias to agree among themselves about how to support the politicians in civil Government. It was thought through, but it could not be imposed.

People themselves must create their own institutions. I remember people at the time praising the fact that there were not boots on the ground determined to do it for the Libyan people—they were doing it for themselves. It was thought through, but for every particular conflict and difficulty, it seems that a new adverse reaction is created, and that is what we are living through now. I will come to that and what we are trying to do, because it is most important.

Anyone who has seen the horrific footage of slave markets in Libya cannot possibly have been unaffected by it; it is appalling. I also put on the record our admiration for the journalists who got the footage. When I saw the pictures of them going into that place, my first thought was, “They’re going to be killed.” How could anyone go into those circumstances unarmed, knowing that the people conducting the auction were who they were and what the outcome was likely to be. If they treated the lives of those whom they were buying and selling with such disdain, what would they think of reporters who were there to expose them? We thank the CNN crew who did such a remarkable job.

We will always remember some of the things that came out of the footage, such as the talk of merchandise, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) mentioned. The hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) spoke of wickedness, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. We discussed the fact that once someone has a mindset of treating someone else as not human, there is virtually nothing that they will feel unable to do. That has been the scourge of the region and other parts of the world for too long.

The Government share the deep concern and alarm expressed about modern slavery, the formation of the conditions that have produced the migration, and what migrants face in Libya today. As the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) reminded us, we must not forget that the men, women and children enslaved in Libya typically began their journeys hundreds or even thousands of miles away. They are likely to have fallen foul of traffickers and organised criminal gangs that pay no heed either to the desperate human suffering caused by their despicable trade or to international borders. That is why our work to help the victims of traffickers, prevent others from falling victim to them and shut down the trafficking networks that exploit migrants must be carried out on an international scale, as all hon. Members have said.

Let me first brief hon. Members on the UK Government’s work to tackle modern slavery globally and then focus on the situation in Libya. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has identified modern slavery as

“the great human rights issue of our time”.

She sponsored the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which more than one hon. Member has referred to this afternoon. Eradicating modern slavery is one of our top foreign policy priorities. As we know, modern slavery exists here, too, although not to the degree that we saw on those awful videos. It is everywhere, and tackling it is a cause that unites decent people everywhere.

It is not acceptable that slavery still exists in the 21st century. We reckon that this vile trade generates around £150 billion a year for traffickers and organised criminal groups. As a criminal enterprise, it is second only to the drugs trade. Trafficking of people is horrific and criminal, but it generates huge amounts of money and that is why it goes on.

We are pressing for concerted and co-ordinated global action. We are strengthening the international consensus to support migrants, tackle modern slavery and take a comprehensive approach to migration. The hon. Member for Dundee West asked what we were doing internationally. At the UN General Assembly in September, the Prime Minister convened world leaders to launch a call to action to end modern slavery. She also committed to using UN sanctions to target people traffickers and strengthening the ability of Libyan law enforcement agents to tackle these criminals. The hon. Member for West Ham is absolutely correct that if the people responsible can be identified individually, there are sanctions that can be applied. Most of us would like very serious sanctions to be used against them.

We are also doubling our aid spending on modern slavery to £150 million. That money will be used to address the root causes of slavery, strengthen law enforcement capacity in transit countries and provide support for the victims of these horrific crimes. Their ordeal does not end when they are released; it goes on in their memory.

The UK is committed to addressing illegal migration across the Mediterranean, including through work in Libya and further upstream. Hon. Members mentioned the need to bring different elements together; the UK supports a comprehensive approach that addresses the drivers of illegal migration and reduces the need for dangerous onward movements. That includes not only breaking the business model of smugglers and the trafficking rings that prey on the desperation of migrants, but providing vital protection to victims. The UK’s National Crime Agency is working with Libyan law enforcement, enhancing its capability to tackle the people-smuggling and trafficking networks.

Our new £75 million migration programme will specifically target migrants travelling from west Africa to Libya via the Sahel. It will provide critical humanitarian assistance and protection; assist those along the way who may wish to return home; give information about the dangers ahead; and offer vulnerable people meaningful alternatives to treacherous journeys through Libya and Europe. It will also include a scale-up of reintegration support in countries of origin, particularly for those returning from Libya.

The UK is conscious of the links between migration, people-smuggling and modern slavery. We are increasingly building modern slavery programming into our migration work. We have also assisted vulnerable migrants with voluntary returns. UK bilateral funding has helped more than 1,400 individuals to escape the challenging circumstances in Libya and return home. The hon. Member for Leeds North East spoke about the voices of those involved; as the recent programme demonstrated, it is those voices that are most powerful in dissuading others from leaving.

If I may make a wider point, a significant amount of our international development contribution of 0.7% of gross national income is designed to be used in countries where we want to support the provision of alternatives for people who feel that their smartphone shows them a different life. We must not neglect how easy it now is for people to find out what is happening elsewhere. There are safer alternatives to leaving, but that can happen only when international development work of the kind that we are engaged in bears fruit.

[Lyn Brown]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow, because what he is saying is really helpful, but two questions emerge from it. First, the UN has asked for additional funding; does he know of any additional money that we are contributing to deal with the slave trade? Secondly, advertisements are encouraging young people in sub-Saharan Africa to leave their homes in search of a better life via traffickers. Has any contact been made with social media companies to get hold of the people advertising those routes and deal with them?

[Alistair Burt]

The answer to the hon. Lady’s second question is that I do not know. I pick up on what she says as something new, and I am not aware of any specific action we have taken on it; I am confirmed in that view by a brief glance at my officials. However, it is a really interesting point. I am also not aware of what is being done internationally. As we have all discussed, this is not a problem that the UK can deal with on its own, and no one is asking us to. The point about the process of persuading people and contacting social media is very interesting; social media are capable of so much good, but can cause so much ill when used carelessly. I will look into that matter specifically and ensure that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members are aware of what action we might take.

As the Prime Minister made clear last year, we stand ready to support the UN further. I have no new figures, but a £150 million programme was recently announced and additional money is going through. Part of that goes to UN agencies that we work with on enforcement issues and humanitarian support.

Hon. Members also mentioned Libya’s stability. Ensuring Libya’s stability and helping the Libyan Government of national accord to restore unity, take control of their southern and coastal borders, and rebuild the economy is the best way to tackle the organised criminal groups that are making Libya a transit route for illegal migration. Let me update the House on the present state of affairs in Libya with respect to the Government and reconstruction.

I was pleased that the hon. Member for Leeds North East referred to Peter Millett, who will indeed retire quite soon and who has had the most difficult time in recent years, having been unable to work in Libya. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have visited him, both in the compound in Libya and in Tunisia.

The Government of national accord are supported by a UN resolution. We are working with them and with UN Special Representative Ghassan Salamé on the negotiations to move the governmental process forward, which have reached a critical stage. The Libyan political agreement is being adapted and extended. Ghassan Salamé is spending his time trying to bring the various parties together to put the right names into the presidential council and work through a political process that is exceptionally difficult because of huge vested interests and a degree of distrust between the parties. The UN special representative and our own ambassador have worked so hard to address those difficulties. The ambassador was recently in Benghazi; he was able to get into eastern Libya for the first time in some years and talk to people there.

Libya is still a divided country in many ways, and the political process is absorbing a huge amount of time. Of course, that means that law enforcement agencies on a national scale are very difficult to drive and control, because on the ground both money and guns talk louder than a national Government. We would be foolish to think anything else. We therefore have to continue to strengthen that national Government, so that they have both the authority and the physical ability to enforce what needs to be done about these gangs.

The Libyan Government have indeed been strengthened. I saw Libya’s Deputy Prime Minister recently to express our concern about what the television coverage has shown of the auctions. The Libyan Government had committed to establishing a commission to look further into the issue and see what they could do, and the United Kingdom and other countries need to be clear that we will support the enforcement efforts they need to take. Commissions are one thing, but everybody in this Chamber wants to see some action, which can only be carried out with international support for those who are driving it forward.

To achieve further and long-term sustainable progress, we also need to invest upstream in countries of origin and transit. Africa continues to account for the largest percentage share of UK bilateral official development assistance expenditure allocated to a specific country or region. It received approximately £2.9 billion in 2016, or 51% of our bilateral ODA spend, and much of that money is designed to take away the root drivers of migration. I have no doubt that the determination to do that is strongly shared by every Member of the House, including all those who are here today.

The African Union can indeed play its part. The recent summit agreed to establish a joint European Union-African Union-United Nations migration taskforce aiming to accelerate assisted voluntary returns, to bring sub-Saharan nationals back to their own countries from Libya and to provide resettlement for the most vulnerable, including those we saw in the cages and at the auctions. Again, that can be done only by combined work, and we are engaged in that work. The first meeting of the taskforce took place in Brussels just at the end of last week, and the UK strongly endorses ongoing efforts by the EU, the AU and the UN to address the trafficking and exploitation of vulnerable people upstream in Africa, including the declaration on assisted voluntary returns at the recent EU-Africa summit. We also look forward to receiving further information on the new joint migration taskforce, following the agreement reached at that summit.

Colleagues have mentioned support for Nigeria. So far, the UK has committed £2 million to establish a joint border taskforce in Lagos by partnering with the Nigerian Government. That taskforce is designed to identify and protect potential victims of trafficking, and to arrest and prosecute traffickers in line with international compliance standards. The taskforce’s centre will support and expand on the 335 prosecutions that have already been made by Nigeria’s national agency for the prohibition of trafficking in people, and it is linked to efforts to combat illicit financial crime, including through asset seizures.

We have also announced a further £12 million to tackle modern slavery in Nigeria. That funding will help to support victims, build criminal justice capacity and promote alternative livelihoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) was right to say that commercial practices can play a part. Just as companies have been concerned in the past to make sure that fair trade was part of their ethos as they worked to provide commodities, so they must be absolutely and completely vigilant about slavery and illegal trafficking, and there must be the harshest sanctions against those that breach those rules; there is no doubt about that.

I will just deal with a couple of further issues. First, I will make clear it again that we do engage the Government of Libya and the Libyan authorities on the issue of migration and modern slavery. In August, the Foreign Secretary urged Prime Minister Sarraj to respect the human rights of migrants, and as I have said, I raised the human rights situation with Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Maiteeq just a few days ago. Again, however, we do not underestimate the difficulties that the Libyan authorities face, which can be resolved only when the political situation in Libya is itself resolved.

Humanitarian support is also vital, because we must also deal with that strand of the issue. Since October 2015, we have allocated more than £175 million in response to the Mediterranean migration crisis, including substantial support for Libya. I mentioned earlier that migrants who find themselves in slavery in Libya come from many hundreds of miles away. That is why we have to take a comprehensive approach to migration, addressing the root causes as well as working to alleviate the conditions that migrants face.

We have a flagship programme to address some of the drivers of modern slavery in Nigeria’s Edo state, which is the country’s trafficking hub. As I said earlier, our work with the joint border force in Lagos and the work that I announced earlier also make a difference. We have a new £75 million programme, as I mentioned earlier, focusing on the route from west Africa through the Sahel to Libya. That includes a new £5 million allocation of support in Libya, which was announced today by the Secretary of State for International Development. That is designed to provide humanitarian aid and protection to migrants and refugees, some of whom are in detention, as part of the work we announced at the June European Council.

Also this year, our aid and development programmes have supported more than 20,000 emergency interventions for migrants and refugees in Libya, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned in his opening remarks, providing everything from food to healthcare, from hygiene kits to emotional support and safe shelter. We have also provided tailored services for women and girls, to protect them from the heightened risks that they face of trafficking and sexual and gender-based violence.

At the December European Council, the Prime Minister also announced a further €3 million for the EU trust fund for the north of Africa window, which includes countries such as Libya. The funding will be used to protect vulnerable migrants in north Africa, to tackle the root causes of irregular migration and to create opportunities for people to find jobs.

We are committed to ending modern slavery wherever we find it, in this country or abroad. In Libya, that is a complex task. It requires us to convince migrants to build a bright future for themselves at home, which we will do only by helping to strengthen economies right across the continent of Africa. It also requires a Libyan Government to emerge who control all of Libya in the interests of all Libyans, as well as a concerted international effort to put the traffickers behind bars. We are working to accomplish those goals, so that these shocking slave markets can finally be consigned to the past. It also requires the human heart to be changed, so that people are no longer treated as “the other” and no longer can the wickedness of slavery live.

I remember speaking just a few years ago in the Wilberforce debates, as we discussed the passage of our anti-slavery legislation, and I realised even then, as we spoke to different audiences, that slavery was still going on. Indeed, it was reckoned at the time that there were more slaves in the world then than there had been in Wilberforce’s time. To be dealing with this issue today is especially distressing. African lives matter; all lives matter; and this House says so.

UK Victims of IRA Attacks: Gaddafi-supplied Semtex and Weapons

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in a debate such as this, Mr Gapes, knowledgeable as you are of foreign affairs. You will know the issue extremely well, so it is good to see you in your place.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for securing the debate and, through him, all the Members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for their continuing commitment to supporting the victims’ cause in Parliament. I thank other colleagues for their pertinent contributions today, which give plenty of food for thought.

As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) was gracious enough to acknowledge, when we look back at the past and the opportunities that might have been missed, this is not a great chapter for any Government, but it is important to remember that these events were not brought about by the British Government; the report refers to a period of time when Gaddafi was supplying weaponry to the IRA. I gently say to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it was not the Libyan people taking action against the people of Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. It was Gaddafi following his own determination and his political beliefs at the time, and that makes it difficult when we are talking about retrospective balance between those who were victims of Gaddafi in Libya and those who were victims of Gaddafi here. I visited Abu Salim jail. I have seen the place where Gaddafi machine-gunned about 1,200 people in an act of revenge for some attack on his regime. Part of the instinct behind the communal fund, which we will come on to, is to recognise that the people in both places suffered under that man. That is why attempting to find a way to recognise that in a manner that benefits all victims has been so important.

[Jim Shannon]

All Members who made a contribution mentioned the conversation that the United States Government have had. They made a very clear distinction. Why can we not make the same distinction? I respect the Minister greatly, and he knows that, but I have to speak on behalf of my constituents in Northern Ireland. The US Government have done it. Why do we not do the same?

[Alistair Burt]

Perhaps I can come on to the United States situation a bit later. Distinctions between types of victims are difficult, and I will come on to that a little later on. First, let me put something on the record in relation to our current policy. I recognise the force of today’s debate, of the conversations that the Foreign Secretary has had in my presence, and of the discussions that I have had as well. This is a difficult area of policy, and it may not be finally settled.

I would like to take the opportunity once again to express on behalf of the Government sincere condolences to all those who have suffered as a result of the horrific attacks carried out by the IRA, and to all victims of the troubles. The Government want a just solution for all victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, and we will continue to do all we can to make progress on that important but difficult agenda. The Government have raised the plight of victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism with the Libyan authorities at the highest level. The Foreign Secretary raised their cases with Prime Minister Sarraj during both of his visits to Tripoli, most recently in August this year. I intend to follow up on those conversations when I next travel to Libya.

Between 2010 and 2013, when I travelled to Libya I always raised the issue of compensation because it was a live issue back then. I raised it with either the then Attorney General or the then Solicitor General in Scotland—I cannot remember which—whom I got to know in relation to this matter. It was always on the agenda in the period of time after the fall of Gaddafi. The Libyan Government were obviously in a state of flux at that time, which of course has continued, hampering all our efforts, but it was important to put the claims on the record right the way through, and I sought to do so.

The Foreign Secretary and I welcomed our constructive recent discussions with parliamentarians, and I have recently met with victims groups to discuss their thoughts and concerns face to face. I very much hope that we can continue to engage openly and frankly, and I am sure that we will. That will give us the best possible chance of securing justice for the victims of these terrible attacks.

Clearly, the Libyan Government have a responsibility to deal with the legacy at the heart of the Gaddafi regime, as part of a broader process of national and international reconciliation and justice. The UK Government continue to impress upon the Libyan authorities the impact of Gaddafi’s support for the IRA, and we emphasise the importance we attach to responding to victims’ campaigns. We continue to judge, however, that engaging constructively with the Libyan Government remains the best way to make progress. As our response to the Select Committee report demonstrated, we maintain the long-standing policy of previous UK Governments not to espouse victims’ claims.

Hon. Members who took part in the recent meeting with the Foreign Secretary will be aware that that issue was discussed in some depth. They will also be aware that the Foreign Secretary committed the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to being more visible in efforts to support the victims’ campaigns and to ensuring that the issue remains a priority in our discussions with the Libyan Government. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoke about how that more visible attitude might be demonstrated. I am going back to Libya, for the first time in some years, early in the new year. We are actively seeking to explore the possibility of a meeting between the Libyan Minister of Justice and victims groups; we have recently written to the Minister about that. The meeting might take place in Libya, but that could be difficult, so it could be held in Tunisia or some other place. We are actively pursuing that idea as a way of doing something new and adding something new to the situation.

Questions were raised about whether we have abandoned the idea of a fund to compensate individual victims. We have carefully considered that option, but continue to believe that individual claims are best negotiated directly between victims and the Libyan authorities. We will continue to support victims to help to facilitate that, and we will raise their cases with the Libyan authorities at every opportunity. Even if the Libyans were at some point in the future to put aside money for the purposes of compensating UK victims, we believe that administering such a fund would be extremely difficult. There is currently no clear definition of a victim of IRA terrorism sponsored by Gaddafi as opposed to a victim of terrorism more generally.

Hon. Members who were present at the recent meeting with the Foreign Secretary will be aware that that issue was discussed at length. My impression is that at the end of the meeting we believed that, given the difficulties of drawing distinctions between different types of victims, the best kind of support would be a communal fund, focusing on community support, rehabilitation and reconciliation, that was available to all victims. It would not be confined to Northern Ireland, to respond to the concerns of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. It has not been drawn up in any way yet, but it would attempt to recognise the difficulty of separating one victim of the troubles from another, and to bring people together. Giving specific help to specific people who have been damaged, as the hon. Member for Strangford clearly described, would be an important part of it, so he would be providing something for his constituents, but in a communal fund that would be accessible to more people, rather than just through individual compensation.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Just to clarify, the Minister referred to the possibility of victims meeting the Libyan Minister of Justice directly, perhaps in Tunisia because Libya could be difficult. Some of us have concerns about putting victims in front of a high-level politician and diplomat, given the imbalance in terms of strength. However, I understand that the emotiveness of it might create a breakthrough. I just raise the concern about exposing the victims in that way.

The second point—sorry, Mr Gapes; I will be very brief—is about identifying the entitlement for individual victims and having community assets. Other countries seem to have done it, and I do not understand why we cannot. I totally support colleagues from Northern Ireland who are asking for a centre or an institution for trauma, mental health, mental welfare and so on, because that would be useful for them. It would not serve a purpose for the people in Tower Hamlets who were direct victims, and that is where there is a distinction between the two.

[Alistair Burt]

Let me respond as best I can to those two comments. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the meeting, but my sense is that there would be sufficient victims and victims’ representatives who would be prepared to take part in such a meeting. It would not be an unmoderated meeting and, of course, I would expect us to be there in some form, whether through embassy officials locally or senior officers from here; in those circumstances, there would probably also be a Minister. I do not think it would be appropriate to ask a Minister from another state, unconnected with all this, to deal with the issue without one of our Ministers being prepared to support those who had come from the United Kingdom. I am sure that we could handle that, but I accept his point that for some people such a meeting would be too difficult and not possible.

In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, there is no suggestion that because the fund has not yet been created or put together, it would be confined to one place rather than another. If the point is to find something that will benefit victims wherever they have been, it must of course apply to mainland UK as well as Northern Ireland. I do not think that those in other countries have had to make an individual distinction between a victim of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism and a victim of a terrorist atrocity from another source. That is something that we find difficult and, as we have discussed, we all understand those difficulties.

[Jim Shannon]

To follow on from the point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), it is quite clear to me, and I suspect to everyone in the Chamber, that if someone was blown up by Semtex, or there were an explosion in which Semtex were used, it was Gaddafi-inspired and sponsored terrorism. If they were shot with a bullet from an AK47, that was Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism. If they were shot by a self-loading rifle, an SA80 or something different, that certainly was not Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism. If we want a factual, historical way of collating what has taken place, I suggest that the weapon or bomb used is an indication of where it came from and its intention. It is therefore easy to diagnose. Forgive me, but I see it very simply. If someone was blown up with Semtex in London or shot by an AK47 rifle in London or anywhere else, that is Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism.

[Alistair Burt]

I understand the hon. Gentleman completely. It is not difficult to make a distinction based on cause of death, but is he saying that there would be a different system of compensation, and that someone who lost their life in circumstances identifiably traced to Gaddafi would have access to one fund, but those who died in other circumstances would not? That is what successive Governments have found difficult, because the impact of the loss of life due to a terrorist incident is the same, whatever the cause was. It would be difficult to have a fund that distinguished victims and gave some victims and their families access to something that others are denied.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is patently unfair that some victims may not get compensation and others would. The distinction we are drawing, in the absence of a UK fund to compensate victims of terrorism per se, is that the Libyans have paid other Governments in other countries money to compensate their victims. Apparently, we have not been making the same efforts to get Libyan compensation for our victims. If we can get that for the victims who can be identified, let us get them compensation. The British Government ought to be looking after the other victims of terrorism, as I hope they do, from whichever source the terrorism outrage comes.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Alistair Burt]

I am happy to take the other intervention if it is on the same topic.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has clearly hit the nail on the head. The United States Government made the distinction. There is a way of making the distinction. They did it and have shown us how to do it, and I suggest that we do the same. They have done it, and so can we.

[Alistair Burt]

Of course, in the particular case of the Lockerbie victims, the UK Government intervened directly to secure compensation. However, as we have discussed, individual compensation is being pursued through private claims, and we have sought to facilitate that work through our contacts and everything we have done in relation to that. We still believe that that is the most appropriate thing to do, and that is why we deal directly with the Libyan authorities. We have approached individual compensation differently. The allocation of the compensation fund illustrates the difficulty of individual compensation, but of course if such claims are successful, that deals with that issue. However, as successive Governments have done, we have supported the individual pursuit of claims rather than doing on it on a Government basis. That is different from those who have chosen to do it another way—that is quite right. That is the process we have chosen, and that is the process we are continuing to support.

[Dr Murrison]

I am following what the Minister has to say closely. He is making a convincing argument, but the central fact remains that our closest allies—the US, France and Germany—have secured substantial reparations from the country responsible for those acts. The legal entity, notwithstanding the Minister’s remarks about Gaddafi, is Libya. We have failed to do that, and it is about time that our victims got a better deal. I am sure the Minister agrees with that. The only debate is about how we are going to achieve it. How we dish the money out is a second-order issue. It is important that we get the money in the first place.

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are continuing to pursue that process by working with the existing Libyan Government and the future Libyan Government to secure that support. That is why a meeting with the Libyan Minister for Justice has been suggested. That is why the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister raised this issue, and why I shall raise it.

Hon. Members and victims have understandably asked us to demonstrate even more effort to secure compensation than we have already put in. The ultimate aim is to ensure the Libyan Government is able to respond to the understandable request for compensation for the victims of Gaddafi. That is the position we want to reach. The UK Government, like all of us, are determined to make sure that happens. That is the process we are pursuing.

There are a couple of other things to say. I want to deal with the issue of frozen assets and sanctions. There is no lawful basis on which the UK could seize or change the ownership of any Libyan assets. The UN Security Council resolution under which those assets were frozen, which the UK supported, is clear that they should eventually be returned for the benefit of the Libyan people. To breach that resolution would be a violation of international law. We set that out in our response to the Committee, and that position has not changed.

A veto is an individual response that the United Kingdom could produce, but it would then be used to stop the return of assets. As the Government rightly said, we get no sense from other states that they would support that. Of course, they do not have to do anything—it is our veto—but they would not necessarily understand our vetoing a policy that is designed to return moneys to those who would then be in a position to compensate the United Kingdom and the victims the United Kingdom is pursuing that for. To apply a veto may not be the most appropriate thing. The point that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and others made is that it is a form of pressure on Libya, which must be correct. We must find other ways of putting pressure on the Libyans so that when they are in a position to respond, they understand that they need to make that response. Our contact with the Libyan Government makes it clear to us that they understand that need, but the money is not there at the moment because it is just not there. We must continue to pursue that.

On the sanctions, when the European sanctions rules are changed, we will have to see whether that provides an extra opportunity. I was interested by what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, and that will form part of a further discussion in the future. I noted what she said about pensions. As far as I am aware, that is something new, but we may come back to it in due course.

That is what we are doing in the immediate future, and as far as the future is concerned we will pursue a twin-track approach. We will continue to help victims engage directly with the Libyan Government, as appropriate, to help them pursue their campaign. That is the policy we have followed. As I said, I have previously informed victims that we are exploring the possibility of a meeting for them with the Libyan Minister of Justice. Our embassy in Tripoli has raised this with the Minister several times, and he has agreed in principle to the proposal. I recently wrote to him to welcome that, and to stress our desire to press ahead with arrangements. Such a meeting would demonstrate the Libyan Government’s genuine desire to address the legacy of the Gaddafi regime. In addition, we will explore with the Libyan authorities the possibility of establishing a communal fund for victims, although I should be honest with hon. Members that the current political and economic crisis in Libya means that progress on that is likely to be slow, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said.

There are complex questions at stake with regard to compensation, such as which groups of victims would be eligible, and what type of compensation and support would be right. We discussed that during the course of the debate. Discussions about what a fund would look like are still at an early stage, but we anticipate that it would focus on community support, rehabilitation and reconciliation, and as I said earlier would be accessible to all victims throughout the United Kingdom. I welcome the recent engagement of Democratic Unionist party colleagues on this issue, and I look forward to further constructive discussions in the future. We recognise victims’ frustration at the slow rate of progress. I fully appreciate that although that is an easy sentence for a Minister to say, it cannot in any way cover the pain and suffering that people have been through, but the political, economic and security realities in Libya are making progress on the issue extremely difficult.

The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have all made clear the Government’s support for change in Libya and for the UN process being led by Ghassan Salamé. We are actively engaged in that because the sooner the process can be successful and the sooner Libya has stabilisation and a new Government, the easier it will be to press such matters still further.

I repeat the Government’s sincere commitment to help the victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism make progress. I express my gratitude for the positive way in which colleagues from across the House have engaged with the Government on this issue and my sincere desire for that to continue. I recognise that the slow process is deeply frustrating to all those who represent the victims, as well as to those victims themselves, many of whom have campaigned tirelessly for many years to achieve justice. Today’s debate and the determination of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire and other hon. Members in the Chamber make an impression. Clearly, this is an issue on which the Government are committed, but the determination and the desire of the House is plainly that we have to do more, to be seen to do more and to explore further ways in which we can redress the balance.

I am grateful as always for the kindness with which colleagues treat me, and hope that I can play my part in resolving the issue. I take that to heart.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I have one last question for the Minister. As has been mentioned by the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, obviously there have been efforts in the other place to help move things along. Has the Minister had a chance to look at that, and will he comment? I am not asking him to compromise or undermine those efforts in any way, but they were mentioned by several colleagues and it would be useful if the Government had words on that aspect of the situation.

[Alistair Burt]

No. I am aware of the private Member’s Bill going through the Lords. I have no particular response. This is something at the moment—in relation to frozen assets—that we do not currently have being considered. But the Department is considering it very carefully, as will Ministers.

Let me conclude and again thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire for bringing the matter forward. I am fully aware that it is not one that will be dealt with in an afternoon and then go away. Victims and those who represent them have my commitment, and the Foreign Secretary made it clear at his recent meeting with colleagues how important this is to us. It is difficult to unblock but it is clear that we have an imperative from the House to do just that.

Israel: US Embassy

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of President Trump’s decision to move the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for an important and urgent question.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in her statement yesterday,

“We disagree with the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem and recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli capital before a final status agreement. We believe it is unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region. The British Embassy to Israel is based in Tel Aviv and we have no plans to move it.

Our position on the status of Jerusalem is clear and long-standing: it should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Jerusalem should ultimately be the shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states. In line with relevant Security Council Resolutions, we regard East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

We share President Trump’s desire to bring an end to this conflict. We welcome his commitment”

in his statement

“to a two-state solution negotiated between the parties, and note the importance of his clear acknowledgement that the final status of Jerusalem, including the sovereign boundaries within the city, must be subject to negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

We encourage the US Administration to now bring forward detailed proposals for an Israel-Palestinian settlement.

To have the best chances of success, the peace process must be conducted in an atmosphere free from violence. We call on all parties to work together to maintain calm”

at a crucial time.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I welcome the opening remarks from the Minister of State.

For all of us in this House and beyond who have worked tirelessly for decades in the hope of lasting peace in the middle east, yesterday’s decision was an absolute hammer blow to those hopes. There is a reason why, before yesterday, no other country would locate its embassy in Jerusalem and no other major country would recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital: because to do either thing, let alone both at the same time, confers legitimacy on Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem—an occupation with no basis in international law, and a permanent barrier to achieving the political settlement that we all wish for.

The sheer recklessness of that decision needs no debate. Donald Trump is not crying “Fire!” in a crowded theatre; he is deliberately setting fire to the theatre. And then he has the unbelievable cheek to claim that he is doing this to move forward the peace process, when in reality he is setting it back decades.

As usual—as with the Muslim ban, the Paris agreement and the Iran deal—the question for the UK Government is twofold. First, what are they going to do about this mess? With Donald Trump wilfully deserting America’s role as peace broker between Israel and Palestine, how will we work with our other allies to fill that void?

Secondly, when will the Government admit that they have got their strategy with Donald Trump totally wrong? They told us that holding his hand, hugging him close and indulging him with the offer of a state visit was the best way of wielding influence and shaping his policies. But on Jerusalem, as on so many issues before, they have been made to look like fools: weak, ignored and entirely without influence. When will they realise that bending over for a bully only encourages their behaviour? What our country needs, and what the world needs, is a British Government prepared to stand up to him.

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. I agree that a difficult consensus has been broken. She is right that the international consensus around the status of Jerusalem has been one of the things we have all held on to during a period when the ultimate settlement—the final settlement—has yet to be agreed. It has always been seen as part of the process that, at the end of that negotiated settlement, the status of Jerusalem would be confirmed. The United States has taken a decision about itself and about the location of its embassy. In answer to her final point about the United Kingdom’s position vis-à-vis President Trump and the United States, we make it clear that we disagree with the decision. The Prime Minister has said that it is unhelpful. It is not a decision we would take.

We have now to decide, as the right hon. Lady said, what we do now. The first thing we have done is to co-sponsor a meeting tomorrow at the UN Security Council when this will be discussed. We have co-sponsored that with our European partners because it provides the opportunity to take stock of where we are and how we can move forward. There are two options: one is that we just dwell on this particular decision of the United States, as people will for a while, and just leave it sitting there; and the other is to decide what we do now. It is imperative that we now see the work that the President’s envoys have been doing, which they have shared with a number of partners. That now needs to come forward—more quickly, perhaps, than people anticipated—and then we can see what there is to work on for friends both of Israel and of the Palestinians. The process has to move on. If the process were derailed by this, it would compound the unhelpfulness of the decision. That is what we want to talk about.

The right hon. Lady mentioned our longer-term relationship with the United States, which is very deep: defence, intelligence, security, trade—it covers a multitude of things. It has been in place for centuries and it will go on for centuries, regardless of leadership. We respect an elected President but we know that the relationship with the United States is much deeper, and the United Kingdom will continue to honour that relationship in its many forms.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

If the President has a cunning plan which he has not shared with any of his allies, may I invite my right hon. Friend to speculate on what it might be?

[Alistair Burt]

If there is, this is a decision that has clearly been welcomed by the Israeli Prime Minister and the state of Israel. There is no doubt that Israel sees the United States as a great friend. There is no surprise to any of us in relation to that, and nor does it change anything particularly markedly in terms of relationships in the region. Perhaps, when proposals come forward, if concessions are needed by the state of Israel in order to make the agreement that we all wish to see which will be supported by all sides, there just might now be an extra area of pressure that can be applied because a friend of Israel has done what the President has done.

I have no inkling of the thinking of the President of the United States. But, as everything in this whole business is used in one way or another, there are just possibly those within the state of Israel who will recognise the limb that the President has gone out on, and perhaps, when push comes to shove, that might be of some assistance. As for us, we are very clear on our position. We disagree with this and we will continue to work with all partners to seek the peace settlement that is so urgently needed.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv is not only reckless and wrong but throws the entire peace process into jeopardy. There is no denying that this decision seriously hinders a two-state solution to the conflict. The reaction from the international community has been overwhelming. Pope Francis said, “I cannot remain silent.” The UN Secretary-General spoke of his “great anxiety”. The European Union has expressed “serious concern”. I could go on.

Tomorrow, the UN will meet amid concerns that Mr Trump’s announcement is in breach of both international law and UN resolutions. Will the Minister therefore take a moment to condemn this reckless decision in the strongest possible terms and assure the House that all efforts will be made tomorrow at the UN meeting to have the decision reversed?

Regardless of political differences across this Chamber, we share the values of tolerance, inclusion and respect across these islands. Taking that into consideration, will the Minister today completely rule out a state visit from President Trump and send out a clear message that his divisive and reckless actions are not welcome here?

[Alistair Burt]

We will allow the peace process to be derailed by this only if we interpret the decision as doing just that, as opposed to providing a different opportunity to take the peace process forward. The envoys are still working; they are still in contact with Arab states and Arab partners, as well as the state of Israel. As I said, that work should continue with greater urgency. The risks in the region are even clearer this morning than they were yesterday before the President spoke—risks that many colleagues in this House know full well because of our frequent visits to the region. The only way that those risks can be quelled is by demonstrating to those who seek hope for the process that there is still a chance of hope. The United Kingdom must do nothing to cut off that possibility. That is why we have to keep urging the peace process forward. The deficit of trust with the United States because of its decision will be noted, but it will remain an important part of discussions for the future.

On the hon. Gentleman’s other two questions, we co-sponsored the meeting with the UN, so it is our intention to work with partners urgently on moving this forward. On the President’s visit, again, the Prime Minister has made clear her views on that: an invitation has been extended, but there is no date set for the visit.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I welcome what the Minister of State has said this morning. I thought I would share with the House a sentence from a letter from the Patriarchs and Heads of Local Churches in Jerusalem to President Trump:

“peace…cannot be reached without Jerusalem being for all.”

That was echoed yesterday by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said:

“The status quo of the City of Jerusalem is one of the few stable elements of hope for peace”.

He urged us all to

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem”.

[Alistair Burt]

I think that we would all concur with those words. The status of Jerusalem is of immense importance in the region to all faiths and all parties who live there. It is essential that the consensus that Jerusalem is for all be honoured. As I stated, it is very clear that our position on the final status of Jerusalem, as part of the final settlement to be agreed between the parties, is the most important thing, not anyone’s unilateral decision about what they think about Jerusalem.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The UK Government have previously said that they would recognise Palestine when the time was right. Is the time not right now?

[Alistair Burt]

Our view has been that recognition of Palestine should come at the time when that is in the best interests of the prospects for peace and the peace process. That remains our position for now.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel isolates the USA. It has been condemned by European and middle eastern leaders, and even by Pope Francis. All say that this hostile act is ignorant and undermines the delicate peace process. Will the Minister confirm that we robustly maintain, with the States, a position of seeking a two-state solution, although I suggest he begins by pointing out where Jerusalem is to President Trump?

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure her that there is no change in the United Kingdom’s position, either on the final status of Jerusalem, or on the need for a two-state solution.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Further to the Minister’s answer to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who asked, “If not now, when?”, the Minister will be aware that one of the most grievous consequences of this decision is the impact on Palestinian public opinion. More and more people are giving up on a two-state solution. With Britain’s particular historical responsibilities, is it not time to honour the overwhelming vote in this House back in 2014 and recognise Palestine as a state?

[Alistair Burt]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I make frequent visits to the region—I was there recently—and yesterday I expressed to the Palestinian representative in London my views on the President of the United States’ anticipated speech. Recognition of the state of Palestine is not necessarily a consequence of what we heard yesterday. It is not tit for tat; it is more important than that. Accordingly, it should be a decision made by the United Kingdom at a time when we believe it is in the best interests of the process of peace. That is the view for now.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that UK aid contributions to the Palestinian Authority are significant in maintaining the stability of the region, as they have historically been, which will ultimately help to drive forward the negotiations on a two-state solution and the peaceful settlement that we wish to see?

[Alistair Burt]

Indeed. I spoke just last week to the Palestinian Authority’s Education and Finance Ministers to talk about the latest tranche of support that the United Kingdom is giving to the Palestinian Authority. It is provided in the clear belief and understanding that the Palestinian territories are moving towards statehood. That is the purpose of our support for them, and I re-emphasised that and made it clear. That is where the hope comes from, because there has to be hope for the Palestinians and those living on the west bank and in Gaza. It is our job to make sure that nothing in yesterday’s decision by another power makes that more difficult, and that is what we will be working towards.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that this is a sea change, not just another setback, because it removes America as an honest broker and changes the facts on the ground so that an independent Palestinian state is not really possible any more? That is the view of senior Palestinians such as Husam Zomlot and Saeb Erekat. What plans do the Government have to move matters forward in their discussions with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and do they include at least a timetable for recognition?

[Alistair Burt]

I have said what I wanted to say on recognition. Let us talk about the peace process, which the hon. Gentleman started his question with. It appears clear that the position of the United States will have changed materially in the eyes of those working for peace in the region because of yesterday’s statement. I would draw attention—rightly, I hope—to the parts of the President’s speech dealing with the need for negotiations and a two-state solution, but the nature of the United States as a broker in the region will have been affected. I am sure that we will discuss tomorrow at the UN how the process can be taken forward. The United States will continue to play an important part, but there is no doubt that there is a trust deficit because of yesterday’s announcement. It is for other states to fill that gap, to ensure that the prospects for peace are not diminished.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Is the reality not that the peace process has been stalled for 24 years, since 1993, and that what we need following this announcement is direct peace talks between the state of Israel and the Palestinian representatives? If we can get from the United Nations a brokered position whereby those peace talks start, this decision could end up having been quite a good one.

[Alistair Burt]

I have no sense that yesterday’s decision made a contribution to advancing the peace process. I understand what the President said, and he had a particular logic in doing so, although I am not sure I share it. I do share the view my hon. Friend expressed in his last point—what happens in the region can be either a blow or an opportunity, but usually it is both. We must make sure that the opportunity provided by yesterday’s statement is not lost. There is a new role for others to play, but ultimately it must be about what we can do to assist direct negotiations rather than push them back.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Trump’s rash desperation to tick off every ill-judged, divisive campaign soundbite now threatens the peace process in one of the most volatile geopolitical regions in the world. The Government have welcomed his words about a two-state solution, but those pronouncements count for little when his actions, coupled with the expansion of Israeli illegal settlements, mean that the prospect of a two-state solution seems more distant than ever. The Government are clearly limited in their ability to influence the US position, but surely it is now time for them to listen to the clear will of this House and for the UK to confirm our commitment to a two-state solution by recognising the state of Palestine, as we do the state of Israel.

[Alistair Burt]

I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but the United Kingdom’s position has a degree of flexibility. The House is right that we have to make a collective judgment about when the time is right in the best interests of peace. The Government then have to make up their own mind about the circumstances and what is right, and they will do that, but colleagues’ views are known.

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

President Trump has said that the United States remains committed to a two-state solution, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government will be pointing out to this country’s strongest ally that moving the American embassy to Jerusalem will be interpreted by many as American acquiescence in Israel’s illegal programme of settlement on the west bank, which is itself the biggest impediment to a two-state solution?

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. Friend provides an analysis of the consequences that is accepted by many.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Is not the reality that President Trump’s announcement yesterday has fatally undermined the US’s credibility in brokering a peace between Israel and Palestine? In that light, is it not more vital than ever that the UK and the European Union demonstrate—in deed, as well as in word—that respect for international law must be the cornerstone of any lasting peace? Will the Minister tell the House what action he will take to implement in practice the UK’s obligations under the paragraph in UN Security Council resolution 2334, passed just under 12 months ago, that calls on all states

“to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”?

What, in practice, will Britain do to implement that?

[Alistair Burt]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have followed both UN and EU practice in clearly labelling produce from settlement areas—those areas that have been occupied—and we have also been clear about that in our advice to business. To that extent, we have recognised the importance of following through on resolution 2334, for which the United Kingdom of course voted.

I would say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to other Members, that many of these issues have, crucially, to be decided in the final settlement between the parties. There is a greater need for urgency about that this morning than there was yesterday, and it is towards that that the United Kingdom can and will bend its efforts, which is why we are meeting partners tomorrow. I will be in Paris tomorrow for a meeting of the international support group for Lebanon, and we will be talking about this on the margins. There is a need for greater urgency and for making use of this opportunity.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Although we absolutely disagree with the US moving its embassy, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that we will continue to seek, and work with the US to find, a long-term two-state solution?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, the work of the two envoys continues. The United States will obviously continue to play a part in such processes in the region, and I refer to my earlier answers on what we are trying to do to help this process.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I think the Minister understands the perception of yesterday’s announcement in the Palestinian community. What can he do to prevent the complete erosion of faith in this process by Palestinians seeking to find a two-state solution and an accommodation on their border with Israel, and would not recognition be such a move?

[Alistair Burt]

The first thing we can do is to make clear our disagreement with the policy of the United States. The second thing is to work with partners to provide an assurance that the peace process will go on and to give people hope. The third thing is to say that the process must be continued with renewed urgency to get the result that we all want. That is the UK’s position.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I know the Minister will recognise that our relationship with the United States is far deeper than the question of whoever happens to be the current occupant of the White House, and the same is true of our commitment to the peace process in the middle east. Will he reassure me that we will stick to the original vision in the Balfour declaration of two democratic, prosperous states living side by side, and that we will continue to seek such a solution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

Yes. We referred earlier this year to the Balfour declaration as “unfinished business”, and that is still our view. Again, yesterday’s announcement gives renewed urgency to dealing with the second part of that equation.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership on the 45th President of the United States? Several months ago, you indicated your disinclination for him to address Parliament, and you are being proved more and more right by the day.

When the Minister meets his US counterpart at the UN, will he convey to him the words of the young Palestinian human rights activist—you hosted him at the Amnesty International reception in your rooms yesterday, Mr Speaker—who said that by taking this unilateral decision, the President is flouting international law, international consensus, and the hopes and dreams of all those who harbour a wish for a two-state solution?

[Alistair Burt]

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

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

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

[Alistair Burt]

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

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Given Trump’s previous attitude to settlements, it is clear that this move might embolden further attempts at demolitions and settlement expansion. Is the Minister aware of the real risk that the west bank might be further subdivided? We talk about a two-state solution, but before it is too late, will he please recognise the state of Palestine?

[Alistair Burt]

I hear colleagues’ comments on that, and the Government’s position is clear: it is better for us to continue our efforts to support legal attempts to prevent demolitions, which we do through our financial support to the Norwegian Refugee Council, and to allow cases to be taken to the Israeli courts. Seventy-nine per cent. of all cases taken forward have resulted in demolitions being stopped, and that is where our effective action is on behalf of those people’s rights.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

Although the Minister acknowledges the right of any country to decide where to locate its embassy, I fear that the already fragile prospects for moving the peace process forward are further and significantly diminished by this move. In his welcome reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to a two-state solution, will the Minister continue to devote his not-inconsiderable efforts to driving that forward and delivering an Israel that is secure within its borders and whose citizens are free from the threat of terrorism, living alongside a viable and truly independent Palestine?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend knows the region well, and he puts it very clearly—that is the hope of all Members of the House, and it has been for too long. We must now work out how we can move forward from this position with renewed urgency to make it happen.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Unlike any of his predecessors, President Trump has dangerously inflamed every frozen world conflict that he has addressed. Has the time come to see this man as someone who believes in America first, and the rest of the world nowhere? Should we now say that the invitation to him for an informal, or formal, visit is rescinded? People can be invited, and they can be disinvited.

[Alistair Burt]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. An invitation has been given and no date has been set, and that remains the position of the United Kingdom Government.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

This is the second urgent question that you have granted in as many weeks, Mr Speaker, so that Ministers can come to the Dispatch Box and condemn the egregious behaviour of the President of the United States. What is the point of the special relationship if such condemnations have absolutely no effect on the President’s behaviour? Can we even say that a special relationship still exists?

[Alistair Burt]

When a decision that we disagree with has been made by our friends, the special relationship gives Ministers the opportunity to explain our position on that to the House and the public, and to maintain that despite some of those decisions, the special relationship that is broad and deep across the piece goes on, even if we disagree with certain political decisions.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

UN Security Council resolution 465 of 1980,

“Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem…have no legal validity”.

How is Israel complying with that?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Lady knows the region well—Israel is not complying with that. That is why we hold that land to be occupied, and why we voted for resolution 2334 that restated elements of what she has just said. What we need now is leadership. Forty years ago, President Sadat came to Israel to make peace—that is one anniversary we have not said much about this year, and it should be remembered. It takes bold leadership by those in the region to make a difference, and perhaps after yesterday, it is now time to see more of that.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Diolch, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that Jonathan Freedland, writing yesterday in The Guardian, summed up President Trump’s announcement best when he described it as an act of diplomatic arson?

[Alistair Burt]

It is not the responsibility of Ministers of the Crown to comment on articles by Guardian journalists, or any journalist, no matter what their opinions may be. The House will make a judgment, but the important thing for Ministers and Governments to talk about is how to de-escalate tensions and how to recognise positive elements in any situation in order to move forward. The place has enough rhetoric and enough people willing to take to the streets for all sorts of reasons. The United Kingdom will not play a part in that.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Let us be absolutely clear: this announcement is the latest incidence of the Trump Administration showing contempt for international law and the rest of the world. Let me ask the Minister again. Surely it is right, at the UN Security Council tomorrow, for the UK to commit, as most of the world has, to the long-overdue step of recognising the state of Palestine?

[Alistair Burt]

The United Kingdom will restate tomorrow our determination to see a final settlement with peace between the nations—two viable states—and our determination that the statehood we wish to see in Palestine is agreed. Our position is that we will recognise when it is the right time in relation to peace. We will make that decision.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is 12 years since I visited Ma’ale Adumim, a huge settlement just outside Jerusalem that is now home to 41,000 people. Emboldened by Trump’s decision, the Israeli Parliament is for the first time introducing a law to annex that settlement. Does the Minister agree that the legitimisation of a settlement built illegally on Palestinian land is a very dangerous move? Will he join me in condemning it?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Lady raises again the difficult issue of legality in relation to settlements. There is evidence that the Israeli Government have been influenced by the United States and others in some of their decisions, including legal decisions, in relation to Jerusalem. Our position remains clear: the settlements are illegal and must be dealt with as part of an overall settlement. We support challenges to the legality of the settlements, when it is legitimate and right to do so, by those who might be affected by them or by demolitions. That will remain the policy.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:

European Union (Approvals) Act 2017.

Palestinian Communities: Israeli Demolitions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this debate. Although I do not agree with everything he said, I appreciate the measured and thoughtful way, which is familiar to all of us, in which he addressed the topic. The interventions and contributions by other hon. Members have been ably summed up by the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), so I will not go into detail about them, but the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon reminded us once again of the difficulties in dealing with this issue. Each side has real challenges for the other based on physical clashes, conflict and loss of life, sometimes in unclear circumstances.

I doubt whether I can move any particular set of entrenched views, but I try to represent fairly the UK Government, who have long experience—as I do—of having friends across the divide. We understand both sides of this difficult issue, offer criticism and support for actions in considered response to them and, above all, seek with increased urgency to press the case for a negotiated peace as the only way to resolve many of the matters that hon. Members have raised today before it is too late.

Concern about the general should not obscure specifics. Glorification of and incitement to terror is wrong, despite the background of occupation. Illegal settlements are wrong, notwithstanding the origins of the war of ’67 and its consequences. The general can be dealt with only by the overall settlement, but specifics can be addressed now; I shall address the specifics, because there are many general matters and I shall not be able to cover everything. In the time available, let me deal with one or two particular issues that have been raised that relate to demolitions and settlements.

According to the UN, Israel has demolished more than 390 buildings in the west bank since the start of this year, displacing more than 600 people. Furthermore, the Israeli military has issued demarcation orders that signal the intention to evacuate a number of communities, both in the Jordan valley and in E1. The Israeli Government have made it clear that those include the Bedouin villages of Susiya and Khan al-Ahmar, which are familiar to many hon. Members present. On 22 November, as the hon. Member for Leeds North East said, they notified the courts of their intention to demolish buildings in Susiya within 15 days. That deadline expires tomorrow. While the community’s lawyer is challenging that ruling, we are further concerned by reports that on Monday the Israeli Government announced an additional 13 demolition orders for the village. All told, that leaves about 40% of the village’s structures, including its only school, at risk of immediate demolition.

The UK position on demolitions, and what we do about them, is clear: we consider them entirely unacceptable. In all but the most exceptional cases, they are contrary to international humanitarian law. Every single demolition or eviction of a Palestinian family from their home causes unnecessary suffering and calls into question Israel’s commitment to a viable two-state solution. I am particularly concerned by the proposals to demolish Susiya and Khan al-Ahmar. When I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories in August, I met members of the Susiya Bedouin community and we discussed the grave threat of forcible transfer and the understandable stress and anxiety that it was causing them. Some years ago, I also visited the Khan al-Ahmar community. Demolitions in Khan al-Ahmar are a particular concern because they appear to pave the way for a future settlement expansion in E1. Many hon. Members present know the geography pretty well, so they understand what that would mean: it would directly threaten a two-state solution with Jerusalem as the future capital for both states.

The UK has repeatedly called on the Israeli authorities not to go ahead with these plans. I urge them again to abide by international humanitarian law and reconsider the remaining demolitions planned for Susiya and Khan al-Ahmar.

[Matt Western]

(Warwick and Leamington) rose—

[Alistair Burt]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way on this occasion, because I have such a short time left and so much to deal with, and I have not got to President Trump yet. [Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind members of the public who may be tempted to take a photograph that photographs are not permitted anywhere in the House of Commons?

[Alistair Burt]

The British Government support Bedouin communities and Palestinians whose homes face demolition or who face eviction in Area C of the west bank. To answer a question asked by the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), we do so principally through the funding of £3 million over three years that we provide to the Norwegian Refugee Council’s legal aid programme. This practical support helps residents to challenge decisions in the Israeli legal system; as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) mentioned, there is a legal system, which on occasions has stood for the rights of those whom it feels have been unfairly and illegally treated. Some 79% of cases provided with legal representation through the Norwegian Refugee Council have resulted in the suspension of demolitions and evictions, allowing Palestinians to remain in their homes. I hope that that serves as a demonstration of our practical measures of support, beyond the representations we make to the Israeli Government and authorities, to help the rule of law in the area.

We are gravely concerned that Palestinians continue to face severe difficulty in securing building permissions— a matter that has also been raised by hon. Members. Between 2014 and summer 2016, just 1.3% of building permits requested by Palestinians in Area C were granted. Between 2010 and 2015, only 8% of all building permits given in Jerusalem were given in Palestinian neighbourhoods. Practically, that leaves Palestinians with little option but to build without permission, placing their homes at risk of demolition on the grounds that they do not have a permit. In answer to the hon. Member for Leeds North East, we continue to urge the Israeli Government to develop improved mechanisms for zoning, planning and granting permits in Area C for the benefit of the Palestinian population, including by facilitating local Palestinian participation in such mechanisms. We have allocated £900,000 to support essential infrastructure for vulnerable Palestinians in Area C.

The grave situation that Palestinian communities face, particularly in Area C, demonstrates the urgent need to make real and tangible progress towards peace. We are in close consultation with international partners, including the United States, about how to encourage the parties to reverse negative trends and engage in meaningful dialogue. The British Government are committed to making progress towards a two-state solution. We are clear that that can be achieved only through a negotiated agreement that leads to a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. It must be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.

Our policy on settlement remains the same: the viability of the principle of two states for two peoples is being undermined by the increased pace of settlement. The challenge was raised that we talk a lot and do not do enough, but UN resolution 2334, which the United Kingdom supported last December, was pretty clear in its degree of condemnation, saying:

“Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including…the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions”.

That resolution was criticised in some quarters, but it is clear evidence of the United Kingdom’s determination on that side.

On the other side, as hon. Members have said, we have been very clear that settlements and demolitions are far from being the only problem in the conflict. As the Quartet set out in its July 2016 report, terrorism and incitement undermine the prospects of a two-state solution. That point cannot be passed by in any debate we have on the subject. We deplore all forms of incitement, including comments that stir up hatred and prejudice. We therefore encourage both the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel to reject any hate speech or incitement and to prepare their populations for peaceful co-existence, including by promoting a more positive portrayal of each other. As the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and other hon. Members said, promoting peaceful co-existence projects really matters now, at a time when we need to make progress.

Before I conclude, it would be wrong not to mention the events of today. As the Foreign Secretary said in Brussels this morning, we are concerned by reports that the US is considering recognising Jerusalem as the Israeli capital before a final status agreement. Like our international partners, we believe such a move could inflame tension in the region. Our position is clear and long-standing: the status of Jerusalem should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Jerusalem should ultimately form a shared capital between the Israeli and Palestinian states. I hesitate to say more until we hear what the President actually says and listen to the context in which he sets it. Tomorrow we will have a better opportunity to set out where his statements and commitment stand in relation to other aspects. The United Kingdom has no intention of moving its embassy from Tel Aviv.

If the hon. Member for Aberavon would like the last minute of the debate to wind up, I am pleased to offer it to him.

World AIDS Day 2017

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this important debate to commemorate World AIDS Day. I thank all hon. Members who contributed; this subject unites everyone in the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), and the two Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). They asked a range of questions. In the time available to me, I will not be able to cover them all, but in the time-honoured way, my Parliamentary Private Secretary has very kindly got a note of everyone who is here, so I will cover the questions I do not answer by way of letter. I will make sure the answers get out there.

This is an opportunity for colleagues to reflect on where we have got to. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for mentioning the Lord Speaker, who did so much when he had the opportunity to do so, and the haunting quilt. It was particularly noticeable when there was the odd square of anonymity because somebody still did not want to reveal something. I think of the pain behind that expression, of what people have been through in the past, and of what some people still go through. The fact that they are unable to talk about it, when for many of us it has become much easier to deal with and talk about, is a measure of the pain behind some of those issues.

None of us has the experience of the hon. Member for Stockton South. We all noted his work in Uganda, where he used his commendable skills in the best possible way. I still remember visiting AIDS orphans in South Africa with my daughter at a time when it was very clear that the babies could not be kept at home because of the shame and stigma attached to the disease, so they were just dispatched. I remember thinking that the nurses looking after them were making an extraordinary contribution. The afternoon that we saw them, my daughter and I said we did not know what we could do in life that would possibly be as valuable as the love that those people demonstrated towards those children. That was 20-odd years ago. Time has moved on and we are doing so much more.

Let me reflect a little on the progress that has been made, which colleagues mentioned, and then answer some of the tougher questions that come the way of a Minister. It is all part of the day job, even for an issue on which we are all broadly moving in the same direction. I commend the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for his speech, and the work of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, which has achieved so much over the years. I thank him for advance sight of the questions in his speech. It was much appreciated.

We have come a long way since the first ever World AIDS Day in 1988. We now have 20 million people with access to potentially life-saving HIV treatment—a big improvement on the year 2000, when less than 1% of those in need had access. We can be very proud that the number of new infections in children has also dramatically declined. It is important to put on the record the UK’s contribution to those achievements. Colleagues have been generous about that, and of course it covers Governments of all persuasions. The UK continues to play its role. We are proud to be the second-largest international funder of HIV prevention treatment and care. That work is impossible without our partners, through which we invest. Our contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria helped to provide more than 11 million people with antiretroviral therapy by the end of 2016. Our significant pledge of £1.1 billion to the fifth replenishment of the global fund will now help provide enough life-saving antiretroviral therapy for 1.3 million people living with HIV.

Our investments in research and support to Unitaid help improve access to medicines, diagnostics and prevention for those affected by HIV in low-income countries by bringing promising new health technologies to scale faster and more cheaply. The hon. Member for East Lothian was right to raise the importance of carrying on with such research. We must also recognise UNAIDS for its continued leadership of the global HIV response, for pushing for ambitious global targets to stop new infections and to ensure everyone living with HIV has access to treatment, for protecting and promoting human rights, and for producing the data we need for decision making.

Civil society with its links to communities and people living with HIV also has a critical role to play in leading the social movement for prevention, championing the rights of the most at-risk populations and those living with HIV, providing care and support services to communities that others are simply unable to provide, and—vitally—holding Governments to account.

[Jim Shannon]

In our contributions, some of us have recognised the good work of Churches and missions across the seas and at home. For the record, does the Minister too recognise the importance of their input physically, financially and emotionally into making the changes?

[Alistair Burt]

I do. The hon. Gentleman’s connections with Churches and Church movements not only in this country but worldwide are well known. Absolutely, that is an important point to put on the record because to some extent it sets the record straight about the commitment of the Church and Christian communities to this particular sort of work, which is important. In some parts of the world, only the Church network is there to provide social care across the board. We would all be the poorer without being able to support that.

Mention was made of the Robert Carr civil society Networks Fund, of which we are proud to be a founding member. I cannot give a further commitment at this stage—we are yet to announce it—but I recognise the issue and we will come back to say what the future funding position will be in due course. I have noted what colleagues have said.

There is also greater shared responsibility from low and middle-income countries. Domestic resources constituted 57% of the total resources for HIV in low and middle-income countries, which is a step in the right direction, but more needs to happen to build a sustained response. As good as that is, as all colleagues have said, there is much more to do, so let me deal with some of the questions I was asked.

In terms of the broad strategy, the UK’s ongoing HIV commitment is that we want to see AIDS ended as a public health threat by 2030. That is an important priority for us. We are proud to be the second-largest international funder of HIV prevention, treatment and care, as I have said, and as a leading donor we will use our influence to ensure that we collectively deliver on the global commitment—to end the AIDS epidemic as a public health threat by 2030—and that no one is left behind.

In relation to the gag, we will continue to show global health leadership by promoting and supporting comprehensive, evidence-based sexual and reproductive health and rights. We are the second largest donor for family planning assistance and we are the largest donor to UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, so we will skirt around issues raised by the gag.

On a new HIV strategy, the note I have states that the 2013 review of the UK position paper on zero infections identified the integration of HIV as the key strategic priority. We intend to continue that approach, rather than to develop a stand-alone strategy or conduct a further review. However, I have heard what the House has said, so let me reflect a little on that, as I will on the Youth Agenda point—whether HIV is included. It is not currently. Clearly, the Youth Agenda is a very important part of our strategy and we recognise, as all in the Chamber do, the significance of adolescent girls in particular and the related issues. Again, let me have a look at that to see whether we can say anything further about it. I will come back to colleagues in due course.

For women and girls generally, it was right to recognise the heightened risk. Empowerment of women and girls lies at the heart of our development agenda. DFID is supporting the generation of new evidence to improve outcomes for women and girls, including the development of female-initiated HIV prevention technologies, research into how gender inequality drives epidemics, and a particular focus on improving what works for adolescent girls in southern Africa.

The UK is also working with the global fund to increase its focus on girls and women, which I think is in accordance with the House’s wishes. Giving greater attention to women and girls is a shared priority for us and the global fund. With UK support, the global fund has embraced gender equality as being central to accomplishing its mission of ending the three diseases as epidemics, including it as one of its four strategic objectives in the 2017 to 2022 strategy. Between 55% and 60% of global fund spending directly benefits women and girls. That includes programmes to prevent gender-based violence and to provide post-violence services. The number of HIV-positive women since 2002 who have received services to prevent transmission of HIV to unborn children has reached 3.6 million, and we will continue to press on that.

[Stephen Doughty]

I welcome what the Minister has said about looking again at the issue of a strategy and, in particular, the situation with young people and women and girls. We have obviously got the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting here next year. I suggest gently to the Minister that it would be very helpful to have a strong statement setting out the UK’s views on HIV and AIDS in those communities while we have the Commonwealth Heads in this country.

[Alistair Burt]

It is a competitive field to get things on the agenda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit. I know that health will play a leading part, but the details have not yet been sorted. As would be expected, concerns about HIV/AIDS are certainly well up there and an announcement will be made in due course.

The UK Government will, however, be represented at the international AIDS conference in Amsterdam in July. Precise attendance is still to be finalised, but that depends on my diary and whether we can fit it in. I would really like to go because I think that is what colleagues would wish.

Turning to finance—on which I will write further—there are two issues. On the STOPAIDS suggestion of a 22% cut, our response is that the report gives a snapshot of the figures in a given year and does not always reflect everything that is going on as programmes come to an end and others start. It also does not reflect our huge multi-year global fund contribution. The timing of disbursements partly accounts for the difference in spend between years, but committing £2.4 billion since 2010 to multilateral funds is substantial.

The other issue was integrating the funds and the tracking. DFID uses an HIV policy objective marker to track spending on HIV within broader programming. The system ensures that programmes address a range of developmental priorities, such as health-systems strengthening, governance, social protection and sexual, reproductive and health rights. I take the point that it is difficult to track, but it is important that we put the funds into integrated services, as well as spending them directly.

There are the technical challenges of tracking, so let me take that away as well—not necessarily to change it, but to see what might be done better to give more transparency. We will keep the process of integrating the funds going. It is right and proper to do so, along with the other commitments that we make. With that, let me sit down to allow the hon. Member for Cardiff South a couple of minutes to sum up.

International Development

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Ministerial Corrections

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

T5. The House will be aware that this Friday marks World AIDS Day. Will the Minister tell us what the Department is going to do to build on this country’s expertise and investment to date to ensure that critical AIDS vaccines are delivered to Africa?

[Alistair Burt]

I am pleased to join the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the whole House, in commemorating World AIDS Day. We have been a long-term supporter of the international AIDS vaccine initiative, and we are the largest international funder of HIV prevention, care and treatment. From the £1.1 billion going into the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, 1.3 million retroviral drugs will be provided through the UK this year. There will be no let-up in the fight, and we are united on that.

[Official Report, 29 November 2017, Vol. 632, c. 311.]

Letter of correction from Alistair Burt:

An error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield).

The correct answer should have been:

[Alistair Burt]

I am pleased to join the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the whole House, in commemorating World AIDS Day. We have been a long-term supporter of the international AIDS vaccine initiative, and we are the second largest international funder of HIV prevention, care and treatment. From the £1.1 billion going into the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, 1.3 million retroviral drugs will be provided through the UK this year. There will be no let-up in the fight, and we are united on that.

Yemen

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that blockading weapons—from any country, but certainly from Iran—is the right thing to do, but I am condemning without reservation a blockade that is likely to lead to the famine and death of very large numbers of people.

The price for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of continuing on its current path will be certain failure and utter humiliation, both in the region and more widely. The clock is ticking. Already in Yemen a child dies every 10 minutes. Yemen is a time bomb threatening international peace and security. Our failure to denounce these crimes and use our leverage to stop them condemns millions of Yemenis to death in the future. Shying away from demanding compliance, by all, with the international rules-based order that we in Britain helped to take root also weakens a strained system that keeps British citizens safe.

Britain’s policy is riddled with internal inconsistencies. While one limb of the British Government is desperately trying to secure entry into the port of Hodeidah for vital food, medicine and fuel, another limb is assisting with the blockade and, indeed, the targeting of attacks. One limb supports the erection of seven new cranes that are vital for unloading essential supplies, while another supports the destruction of those same cranes.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

My right hon. Friend is doing an excellent job in explaining some of the background to the conflict, but I will not have him stand in the House of Commons and say that the British Government are involved in the targeting of weaponry being used by the coalition. That is just not true, and I would like him to withdraw it.

[Mr Mitchell]

If my right hon. Friend will give me an undertaking that it is totally untrue that any serving British officer has been engaged with the targeting centre in Riyadh, or in any other part of Saudi Arabia, to try to assist in ensuring that the targeting is better, I will of course withdraw my remark.

[Alistair Burt]

British personnel are there to observe what is happening in relation to international humanitarian law, so that they can be part of the process of ensuring that it is adhered to. They are not part of the operational process. They are not under command to do that or anything else. They are not taking part in the targeting or anything like it, and have not been so.

[Mr Mitchell]

I want to be absolutely clear about what my right hon. Friend is telling the House of Commons today. There is no question of any serving British officer being engaged in instructing and assisting —certainly to ensure that international humanitarian law is observed—with the programme of targeting that is being carried out by the Saudi air force?

[Alistair Burt]

No.

[Mr Mitchell]

If my right hon. Friend gives me such an undertaking, I am happy to withdraw that very specific point.

I have never called for an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia, because the kingdom is surrounded by enemies and is wealthy. Saudi Arabia is absolutely entitled to defend itself, and we as its friend and ally are entitled to sell it weapons as long as we do so in accordance with one of the strictest licensing regimes in the world. We may also have some influence that we could exercise to ensure that weapons are used in accordance with the rules of war. I cannot help observing, however, that British munitions are causing destruction and misery in Yemen that the other limb of the British Government, to which I referred earlier, is seeking to staunch through aid and assistance paid for by the British taxpayer.

I have no doubt that, during her current visit to the middle east, the Prime Minister will use every political, economic and security argument available to her to persuade the Saudis of the moral and strategic failure that they are pursuing in Yemen. I profoundly hope that the lifting of the blockade on Yemen will be the No. 1 priority on her visit. We must use every inch of our leverage—diplomatic, political and economic—to demonstrate to our allies that they have more to gain from peace than from a fruitless military strategy that is exacerbating the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe and undermining the international rules-based order that keeps us all safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing this opportunity to discuss what we all understand to be a significant humanitarian crisis in Yemen. I appreciate the fact that he visited Yemen earlier this year, and he clearly has a deep and passionate knowledge of the situation there. A number of questions have come up, but I would like to start with the issue that tends to be the most neglected—namely, the origins of the conflict. We seem to start these debates partway through. I will get to the questions that have been raised, but it is important to set out the background because it explains the complexity with which a number of Members have approached the issue. It is not as clear cut as some might suggest.

The causes of the conflict are numerous and complex. Since unification in 1990, Yemen has suffered internal power struggles, unrest and terrorist attacks. After a year of protests in 2011, the 33-year rule of President Saleh transferred to President Hadi as part of a unity Government brokered with regional support. A national dialogue process began, which offered an opportunity for a democratic future. Tragically, that opportunity was lost when the Houthi insurgency movement, which claimed to have been excluded from the national dialogue process, sought to take power through violence.

In September 2014, Houthi rebels took the capital by force, prompting President Hadi to flee to the southern city of Aden. The Houthis then began advancing on the south of the country. President Hadi, as the internationally recognised leader of the legitimate Government of Yemen, requested military help from the Saudi-led coalition. The conflict between the Government of Yemen, backed by the coalition, and the Houthis and their allies, backed by former President Saleh, has so far lasted 1,000 days. Let us also remember the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda, Daesh and non-state groups against the Yemeni people, other countries in the region and international shipping lanes. Those groups use ungoverned space, which Yemen has been in the past and threatens to become again.

The impact of conflict and terrorism on the Yemeni people has been devastating. Let me read a letter that has been sent to the House today from the ambassador of the Republic of Yemen to the United Kingdom. He says:

“I represent the Government of Yemen, which came to power after the popular overthrow of former dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh. This government is elected, UN- mandated and constitutionally legitimate. It was driven from the capital Sana’a by force, by the Houthi militias in alliance with Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The Arab Coalition is in Yemen at our request, to restore constitutional government and reverse the Houthi coup. Actions that undermine that Coalition also undermine us.

In the last two weeks the Houthis added extra taxes and customs checkpoints that increased the prices in areas under their control by more than 100%. As an example the Yemeni government sells a gallon of petrol at the cost of 850 Yemeni Ryals in cities like Aden and Mareb which are under the government’s control while in Houthi controlled areas it costs 1700 Yemeni Ryals. The prices of wheat and flour face a similar increase.

The Houthis continue to place the city of Taiz, in central Yemen, under siege preventing any aid from going in. People living in Taiz are forced to smuggle in food, medicine and even water. Last week an entire family were executed in Taiz under the hands of Houthi armed men, we have an obligation as a government to protect our citizens.”

I start there because, all too often, that side of the discussion is just not raised at all. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield for making it clear that, contrary to a lot of media reports, there are two sides to this. It is important to understand what is going on there and what the coalition—which, as the ambassador says, is acting in support of a legitimate UN-mandated Government—is attempting to prevent and stop. That brings us to our role and to what is happening at present.

[Graham P. Jones]

The Minister is making a valid point. Is not the validity of it reinforced by the fact that this House should be upholding international law and a democratic Government, as well as trying to bring peace and alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Yemen?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. The role of the United Kingdom is to do what it can in the circumstances, first, to address the urgent humanitarian situation and also to address an international governance point that is often missed. The legitimate Government, fighting against an insurgency, have been joined by others, and that is the basis of the conflict.

The part of the debate that I have found most difficult up to now is what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) about the United Kingdom’s role and what we have been trying to do. I am well aware, from the time I have been back in the office in the summer and from what was done before, of the significant efforts made by the United Kingdom at the UN, and principally through the negotiation process with the parties most involved, to try to bring things to a conclusion and to do all we can in relation to the humanitarian situation.

Let me now address the UK’s role, which will lead me to talk about some of the allegations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and to make clear what it is we do and do not do. I shall then address the humanitarian situation, if I may. President Hadi asked the international community for support

“to protect Yemen, and deter Houthi aggression”.

The Saudi-led coalition responded to that call. The United Kingdom is not a party to that conflict, nor a member of the military coalition. The UK is not involved in carrying out strikes, or in directing or conducting operations in Yemen. Let me fill that out a bit more.

Royal Air Force and Royal Navy liaison officers monitor Saudi-led coalition operations in Yemen and provide information to the UK Ministry of Defence. The liaison officers are not embedded personnel taking part in Saudi-led operations, they are not involved in carrying out strikes and they do not direct or conduct operations in Yemen. They are not involved in the Saudi-led coalition targeting decision-making process. They remain under UK command and control. Sensitive information provided by the liaison officers is used by the Permanent Joint Headquarters and MOD officials when providing advice on Saudi-led coalition capability and when conducting analysis of incidents of potential concern which result from the Saudi-led coalition air operations in Yemen. The operations directorate maintains a database, referred to as the tracker, which records incidents and subsequent analysis. We have been tracking 318 incidents of potential concern since 2015, and this is used to inform the MOD’s advice to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[Bob Stewart]

I have visited the command and control centre in Riyadh. It is true that Royal Air Force personnel are present, but they are not involved in the targeting. When I spoke to them, part of their role seemed to be to help the Saudis and their allies to ensure that the rules of engagement resulted in minimum casualties. Their intention was to try to get the rules of engagement to be as good as our own, and they seemed to be doing that quite successfully while I was there.

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his personal observations.

The question of arms control has been raised. We have a rigorous legal and parliamentary process, and ensuring that international humanitarian law is not breached is clearly a vital part of that. The information supplied by those liaison officers is crucial to ensuring that our international obligations are observed. That is why they are there.

[Mr Mitchell]

This debate is, above all, about the humanitarian consequences, and the UN Secretary-General has said that Saudi Arabia is, through the blockade, in breach not only of resolution 2216 but of international humanitarian law. I say to my right hon. Friend, who is a long-standing personal friend of more than 30 years, that I think he may be in danger of having misled the House earlier in his response to me about the role of British servicemen. Would he like to correct the record and use this opportunity to make this very clear? Otherwise, what he said may be open to misinterpretation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I do not quite know what bit of what I have said my right hon. Friend is referring to. I have read out the details in relation to the work of our liaison officers on international humanitarian law, and I cannot say anything different. If I have said anything that he thinks is wrong, he can correct me either now or at the end of the debate when he has an opportunity to say something else. I have put on record what our situation is. If he thinks that that is misleading, I am here to be corrected, but I am reading out what I believe is the Government’s position very clearly.

[Emily Thornberry]

I wonder whether the Minister could clarify something that has always genuinely confused me about the role of the military in Saudi Arabia. Is there just one targeting centre, or is it correct that there is another in the south? Are military personnel involved in the south of the country? Indeed, are people from British companies, BAE Systems in particular, involved in the south of the country? If they are supposed to be there to ensure that international humanitarian law is not breached, what are they doing? Are they ensuring that targeting is better or that things are not targeted? If they are ensuring that targeting is better, how is it that so many civilian targets seem to get hit?

[Alistair Burt]

The answer to the last part of the right hon. Lady’s question comes from the investigations into incidents where there is legitimate concern that there may have been civilian casualties. That process was started by the coalition; it was not in place at the beginning. We have provided advice not only so that information can be given to us, but to assist in the process of ensuring that the coalition targets legitimate military targets. I understand that thousands of places have been deemed not to be targets. As in any conflict—this is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was safe—there are indications of where attacks should not happen, and I believe that we have been part of the process of ensuring that the coalition understands the international rules of engagement.

I cannot directly answer the question about BAE Systems personnel being elsewhere as I just do not know the answer, but I have noted what the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said, and I will come back to that.

[Hilary Benn]

rose—

[Alistair Burt]

I want to move on to discuss the humanitarian situation, but I am of course happy to give way to right hon. Gentleman.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Minister. Since the House understands the Government’s position to be that they do not feel there have been breaches of international humanitarian law, because they would otherwise have had to invoke the arms control criteria, and given that the UN panel of experts that I quoted earlier was of the view that breaches of international humanitarian law had taken place, will the Minister tell the House what other sources of information the Government have drawn upon in reaching their conclusion? Do they include the views of the military officers who are offering the advice that he has just described to the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

The observations of those whose role it is to see what is happening in order to report on potential breaches of international humanitarian law are clearly a vital part of that process. There is other, more sensitive information that I will not go into, but there is a clearly a process that has been designed to try to give reassurance to all of us. This is a difficult situation, and we have continued to support an ally that is under attack from external sources and engaged in an effort to restore a legitimate Government. In supporting that effort, we have done what is right to ensure that international humanitarian law is observed. We have used all the information made available to us, so that we are sure of the circumstances. Should that be challenged—it is possible to challenge it through both the House and the courts—the circumstances would change.

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

I will, but I do want to move on to the humanitarian situation.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for indulging me one more time. I understand that some of the information may be sensitive, but are the British Government in a position to share the information that makes them so confident that there have been no breaches of international humanitarian law? The UN panel of experts seems to have come to a different conclusion.

[Alistair Burt]

The initial responsibility to investigate any incidents lies with the state involved, and Saudi Arabia has been doing that with its investigations. I genuinely do not know the process of transferring that information to the UN should the UN request to see it, but I will have an answer for the right hon. Lady.

I know that there has been an instruction to be mindful of the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will be as tight on time as I can, but I want to talk about both the blockade and the humanitarian response before moving on to the negotiations. As for the restrictions brought in after the missile attack of 4 November, I will deal first with where the missile came from. The right hon. Lady asked me whether we disagree with the UN’s assessment, and yes we do. That draft assessment was written some time ago, and there is the possibility that a different assessment by the UN has not been made public. The United Kingdom is quite confident that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the missile came from an external source. If it did not, the right hon. Lady and others can answer the question of where such a missile came from in Yemen, but it is quite clear to us that it came from an external source. We therefore disagree with the UN’s initial draft report, and the evidence will come through in due course when a further report is published. That is all I can say.



The coalition’s response to a direct attack on Riyadh airport was sharp and severe. It wanted to be able to protect itself and, in doing so, placed restrictions on the ports in order to control what was coming in. Now, we do not disagree with what was said either by the right hon. Lady or my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, and the UK’s clear position is that it is imperative that those restrictions are relieved. I am not going to dance on the head of a pin here; if Members want to call it a blockade, it is a blockade. There is no point in dancing around that. However, humanitarian and commercial supplies must be allowed in in order to feed the people.

As my right hon. Friend said, and as the House knows well, the vast bulk of food, water and fuel that comes into Yemen to keep the people alive is not humanitarian aid; it is ordinary commercial stuff. We have been clear right from the beginning of the restrictions that the UK’s view is that they should be lifted, and we have maintained that, so to be told that we have not done enough is just wrong. As evidence of some degree of success, there was some easing of the restrictions last week, but not enough. I have an update that I am happy to share with the House. It states:

“Humanitarian and commercial vessels are beginning to enter Hodeidah and Saleef ports. Since Sunday, three vessels have arrived and are being unloaded. This includes 2 commercial vessels into Hodeidah carrying respectively 5,500 metric tonnes and 29,520 metric tonnes of wheat flour. One humanitarian vessel has arrived into Saleef with supplies to support 1.8 million people for a month (and 25,000 metric tonnes of food). In addition, approximately 23 vessels have been cleared by UN Verification Inspection Mechanism (UNVIM) although not yet permitted to unload.”

It is essential that they are permitted to unload, and we are making representations to that effect. However, the fact that there has been some movement in response to representations made by, among others, the highest levels of the British Government indicates that the urgency of relieving the humanitarian situation is being heard. At the same time, we recognise the security needs of those who are threatened by missiles targeted at their commercial airports and civilian areas.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the fact that the Minister has described the situation as a blockade. If the blockade is not lifted completely, what is his estimate of how close Yemen is to famine—days or weeks?

[Alistair Burt]

Reports differ depending on the area. Five cities have already run out of fuel, meaning that power supplies, sanitation and other things cannot be maintained. On average, food supplies appear to be better and may be measured in months, but that will not apply to every individual area because some will be worse than others. A Minister will not stand here and say that because things can be measured by a few more days, the situation is less urgent; it is not. It is absolutely top of our priorities. In a variety of different ways, the UK has sought to make clear the importance of responding not only to the security needs of the coalition, but to the humanitarian situation.

I want to put the following on the record. On 5 November, there was a Foreign and Commonwealth Office statement condemning the attempted missile attack. On 13 November, my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for International Development spoke to Mark Lowcock of the UN about the humanitarian situation. On 15 November, an FCO statement stressed the need for immediate humanitarian and commercial access. On 16 November, I spoke to the UAE’s Minister of State. On 18 November, the Foreign Secretary made a call to the UN Secretary-General. On 20 November, I spoke to the House. On 21 November, I spoke to the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister. On 23 November, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. On 29 November, as we speak, the Prime Minister is visiting Riyadh, where she said:

“I am also clear that the flow of commercial supplies, on which the country depends, must be resumed if we are to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. During my discussions with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh last night, we agreed that steps needed to be taken as a matter of urgency to address this, and that we would take forward more detailed discussions on how this could be achieved.”

The Foreign Secretary hosted talks in London this week, after which we will intensify efforts with all parties to reach a settlement that will sustain security for Saudi Arabia, the coalition and Yemen.

For the House to feel in any way that there is not a serious response to the catastrophic situation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield set out with passion and determination is not correct. We are doing everything we can, at the highest level, to deal with the humanitarian crisis and the security situation.

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s powerful words in Riyadh last night, which my right hon. Friend has just read out. Those words will be welcomed on both sides of the House. This is the nub of the argument he is trying to address: I am sure the House feels that the extent of the crisis and the Government’s response are not equal. I have no prescription for the political answer to the humanitarian crisis we have described today, but the breaches of international humanitarian law are so egregious that they call for a tougher and firmer response from Her Majesty’s Government.

[Alistair Burt]

We are getting to the nub of it now. We are all agreed on this, and we know how serious it is. I have set out what we have been trying to do. If there was another lever to pull that would deal with the situation—my right hon. Friend has just said that he does not know the political answer—we would pull it, but that is not the case. The best lever to pull is in the negotiations process that we have discussed. We do not think this can be done through the UN. It is much better to deal with the parties, on both sides, who have the opportunity and the responsibility to get something done around the table.

The other day, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) rightly mentioned the Quint talks, in which a number of states are involved. It is unfair, on reflection, to call it a war council. The Omanis, for example, would be deeply upset with that reference. The talks involve those who have the capacity not only to make decisions on one side—the coalition side—but to make sure that the other side, the side of the Houthis and their Yemeni allies who have been estranged from the UN process by their own decisions for many months, re-engages in the negotiations. We need to have parties there who can do it, including the UN. That is the purpose of the talks, which the United Kingdom has led.

As colleagues have recognised, the only way to end both the humanitarian suffering in the longer term and the conflict is for the parties to agree on it. It is not a military solution; it is a political solution. That is what the United Kingdom has been doing for some months and will continue to do until we get the answer.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister for updating the House so regularly and for engaging with the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen and its officers, the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and me, on these issues.

The meeting of the Quint was yesterday. What is the timetable to mandate the Omanis to bring the Houthis to the negotiating table so that we can conclude this matter? That is the issue, is it not?

[Alistair Burt]

Again, if we could have a timetable we would have one, but we cannot because we are dealing with people who are not yet parties to this process. They have been and need to be brought back into the process. The only words that can adequately describe it, as the House would wish, are, “As soon as possible.” The Houthis should be re-engaged with the UN in a process to start the descaling that will lead to the end of the conflict. That is what we have been seeking, and that is what we are continuing to do.

I will conclude, because the House has been generous in giving me a great deal of time. I have not, although I could have, said a lot about the direct humanitarian aid that is being delivered by the United Kingdom—that aid is significant and important. We have been working consistently, and £155 million has gone in to support the people of Yemen, and it has been used through indirect agencies, the UN and various non-governmental organisations. I entirely concur with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said about the bravery of those who are engaged, and it would help if the Yemeni Government would pay public health workers in particular. Some of the work that is needed to prevent the return of cholera could then be done, and it would assist food distribution. The aid agencies have worked extremely hard in the circumstances, but the only thing that would allow their work to be effective is an end to the conflict, which we are working so hard to achieve through the negotiations.

Although it has taken some time, and although it is clear how strongly Members present and people outside the House feel about the issue, to believe that there is more the United Kingdom could do is, to a degree, unfair, but it does not matter. We are the Government, and we must do all we can on delivering humanitarian aid, on engaging with the parties who can do something about it and on ensuring that we are on the right side of the law.

Should there be anything in the record that needs correcting, I assure my right hon. Friend that I will correct it. I am confident about what I read out earlier but, if there is anything I need to correct, I will do so. We seek to do what we can in this dreadful situation. The most important thing is that there is a continued release of the restrictions on the ports, which is what we are working towards at the highest level, as Members can tell from the Prime Minister’s speech. If we do not achieve our aims, I know the House will bring us back again.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing the debate. I agree with much of what he said —his expertise on the matter is valuable. I also agree with much that the shadow Foreign Secretary said. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is steadfast in his work with the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen, and to the aid agencies that are working in circumstances that are incredibly difficult both for their staff and for the people they are working with in Yemen.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned the difficulties in reporting from Yemen, and I rely heavily on some of the first-hand testimony coming through from Twitter, which seems a reasonable way of getting information out of the country. I mentioned the case of Hisham al-Omeisy in a letter to the Government. He was taken by the Houthis on 12 August 2017 and has yet to be seen again. I ask the Government to do all they can to try to secure the safety of journalists in Yemen.

Today I am missing the opening of the new Silverdale nursery in Dalmarnock. The nursery has 140 places for children under five and, while thinking about Yemen, it struck me that if 140 children in Dalmarnock were to die today, we would do something about it. If they were to die tomorrow, we would do something about it. Some 130 under-fives are dying every day in Yemen. If that were happening in this country, we would do something about it urgently and seriously. We would not have our own children dying from the very preventable cause of extreme malnutrition and disease, which take hold so easily when children do not have the food and resilience they need.

One child is dying every 10 minutes in Yemen. It is shocking even to think of the number who have died since the start of this debate. We cannot accept that any longer; it has been going on for far, far too long, and we have a global responsibility to children, wherever they are, to make sure that they are safe, that they are fed and that they will live a happy and healthy life. Anything we can do to that end we must do urgently.

For the children who survive, the impact will be lasting. Millions of children are, and have been, out of school. They do not have a nursery to go to. They are living with stunting, a lifelong condition that will affect their growth and development, including their cognitive development, throughout the rest of their lives. In 2012, UNICEF was already warning of stunting, saying that 58% of children under five were stunted, and that was before this latest conflict. That is a generation being left with a life-limiting condition that we could do more to prevent.

The International Committee of the Red Cross reported yesterday that it had purchased 750,000 litres of fuel to ensure that the water pumps in Hodeidah and Taiz can operate. Those pumps will last only a month on that fuel. The ICRC also reports that nine other cities do not have sufficient fuel to run their water supplies, which is a critical situation given that Yemen has already experienced one of the largest cholera epidemics in history, which has already left about 2,000 people dead. Although the outbreak seems to be on the wane, without water and access to appropriate sanitation it will almost certainly come back. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, diphtheria, a very preventable disease that we do not even see here, is also taking hold. So I ask the Minister—I know he will do his best on this—to tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that fuel gets into the country, because without it the petrol pumps will run dry, which will have a knock-on effect on food prices.

Aid very much needs to get in, and aid agencies say so, but all agencies are also stressing the absolute necessity of getting commercial goods in. The scarcity and fuel prices mean that prices are high, and even where there is food people cannot afford to feed themselves. They do not know where their next meal is coming from. It must be incredibly heartbreaking for people to be able to see food on a shelf but not be able to afford to buy it to feed their family. We must bear in mind that many employees in Yemen have not been paid for some time—over a year in some cases at least. Médecins sans Frontières reported in October that 1.2 million Yemeni civil servants have received little to no salary for more than a year. MSF pays the salaries of 1,200 public health staff that it is using in its clinics, but clearly that is not enough by any manner of means. If the doctors trying to treat the people who are starving have no money to feed themselves either, the situation is a disaster. I urge Ministers to consider what else they can do to get more money in to allow staff to be paid, to get the economy restarted and to make sure people have something to live on.

I also urge, as I have urged following previous statements, that we need to see aid getting into the country in the first place, so the blockade must be removed as soon as possible. But that aid also needs to be able to travel around Yemen, and the border posts, the visas and the difficulties the aid agencies are facing in getting around the country are preventing that flow of aid. It is also clear that the different factions in the conflict are using the system as a means of diverting aid to their own people, so that aid that might be intended to go to one place of desperate need is being diverted. That is not to say that people there might not need it, because I am sure they do, but it is being diverted from the people who need to get it. We need to make sure that it can get through to those who need it and that it is appropriately used when it gets there. I urge Ministers to do anything they can to make sure that aid convoys going through the country can actually get to where they need to be.

Finally, I wish to touch on the issue of arms sales, because they are a crucial part of the influence and leverage our country has in this conflict. Sadly, the communiqué that came out of the Quint meeting concentrated far, far more on weapons and the security situation, which I know and appreciate is difficult, than on the humanitarian situation and the need to get goods in through the ports. I am sure the 25 aid agencies that contacted the Foreign Secretary in their open letter will feel very let down by that, and I echo the shadow Foreign Secretary’s comments about how the attendance list of that meeting could have been broader. Efforts need to be made to get more people from Yemen—from civil society and from organisations working there on the ground—involved in such things. In addition, if we look at the picture from the meeting, we note that there may be one woman at the back of the photograph, but women are not being included in this process. We need women as part of the process to help make the peace and make it sustainable.

[Alistair Burt]

When the national dialogue process was going on—I was out in Yemen for that—we spoke to women and young people who had not been part of the governance process. The national dialogue was giving them an opportunity, but the Houthi involvement and the conflict killed that opportunity. Otherwise, there would have been more women involved—that, I think, is what some of the people are fighting for.

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely appreciate that, and the testimony I heard from some of the aid agencies and women’s organisations that came to visit, meeting the right hon. Member for Leicester East and I some time ago, reflected that. They want to be part of the process. Those organisations do exist, and the Government must keep reaching out to them and keep involving them in that process. If we are to get a lasting peace, it must be a lasting peace for all the people of Yemen; it must be as wide as possible, and the attendance must include those organisations.

We lose a huge amount of credibility in this whole discussion, and we cannot be a broker for peace, while we are involved in arming a side in the conflict. We are complicit in what happens. The Minister mentioned 318 incidents of concern, and he may wish to clarify that. How many more incidents are acceptable to the Government, given that 318 incidents of concern have been picked up by the people involved and the armed forces on the ground in Yemen? That is a huge amount of “concern” to have. The amount of aid that has gone in is welcome, and it is good. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we have put in £202 million in aid since 2015, which is dwarfed by the £4.6 billion in arms sales. A huge amount of money is going into producing absolute brutality and desperation on the ground. If we want the country to be a success, we should be putting all the money and all the effort into rebuilding it, not into destroying what little is still there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

“A catastrophe of biblical proportions” was the phrase used by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), a former International Development Secretary—and that was quite a statement to make. It has been adumbrated further by many right hon. and hon. Members, who have described eloquently and chillingly the miasma of despair and death that hangs over the people of Yemen.

What has alarmed me throughout this debate—I commend the right hon. Gentleman for having secured it—is that we could extract the word “Yemen” and replace it with “Syria” in so many circumstances. The two conflicts are very different, but the suffering, pain, misery and death are all too familiar in debates such as this. It is important for us not to become desensitised and that, as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) said, we do not put Yemen into the “too difficult” box.

The other thing that alarms me—this also has parallels with Syria—is the weaponisation of food, leading to some of the most horrifying tales of hunger and deprivation, and medieval-style outbreaks of disease that are killing people in their hundreds of thousands.

I do not want to take up too much time, so I shall wind up my remarks with this point. The Prime Minister is in the region right now, as the House debates this issue. It has been said that she has raised and will raise the issue of Yemen. Of course, I would prefer she did that than otherwise—it is at least a start. But it is only a start. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I am tired of hearing about Government Ministers raising things; I do not quite know what that means sometimes.

My first debate in the House two years ago was about the case of Raif Badawi, an imprisoned Saudi writer, and the broader issue of human rights in Saudi Arabia. I remember consulting some of the researchers from the House of Commons Library, who told me at the time that it was sometimes known for Ministers to raise issues not by verbalising their views, but by writing things on sheets of paper and holding them up so that they could be read by other people in the room.

[Alistair Burt]

indicated dissent.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The Minister shakes his head; I would not dream of accusing him of doing anything like that; I respect him as a thoughtful, good Minister. But it is about time we started to see some action. The Prime Minister should not return from her trip until she has secured something in respect of the blockade of Yemen.

Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and my party leader has also raised the issue with the Prime Minister. We get billions in arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which fill up the coffers of the Exchequer with tax receipts, yet we spend only millions on aid. I accept that we are one of the biggest donors—that, of course, is to be commended—but the aid is bastardised by the fact that we are facilitating the shelling of the very people whom we are trying to help with the aid. We find ourselves in the most perverse situation. Although I do not blame this Minister in particular for that, the situation seems to characterise British foreign policy in not only this conflict but many political situations in which we have been involved for a great many years.

I commend the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for securing the debate, and for all the work that he does, along with the chair of the all-party group—the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber—and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). How much better might it be if the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield occupied the chair of the Foreign Secretary at the Cabinet table, rather than the person who occupies it now?

[Alistair Burt]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond. I will take no more than the two minutes allotted to me, so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) can make some closing remarks. I thank him again for raising the issue. I also thank other colleagues for the way in which they have dealt with the debate and the constructive way in which nearly all of them spoke.

We are agreed that we want immediate access for humanitarian and commercial aid to the ports in Yemen. I do not want to dance on the head of a pin when it comes to the word “blockade”: that is what colleagues have called it in the House, and that is what it is. There are international rules governing whether something is a blockade. International humanitarian law prevents the starvation of civilians “as a method of warfare”, and that includes blockading with the intent of causing starvation. The publicly made statement by the Saudis was that their intent is not to cause starvation but to ensure that missiles do not enter Yemen. I would be failing in my duty if I did not put that on the record, and, as we have seen, there has been an easing in recent days.

What we are all agreed on, however, is first that we want that greater access, and secondly that we want an end to the conflict. I have sought to assure colleagues that we are straining every sinew in our efforts to assist in a process of which we are not fully in control, and in which not all parties are yet engaged in the same way as the coalition parties are engaged with the UN.

Finally, let me commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who has made securing access to humanitarian aid one of her top priorities in Yemen. We have been feeding millions of people, and we are determined to continue to do so. We are providing food for 1.8 million people for at least a month, nutritional support for 1.7 million people, and water and sanitation for 1.2 million. The country is doing what it can on the aid side. As we all know, however, commercial access has to be granted. We need more food; we need an end to the urgency of the situation. We also need to support those who are trying to ensure that a legitimate Government are protected against those from outside and from internal insurgency. We need to bend all our efforts to resolving the conflict, and the United Kingdom will do so to the very best of its ability.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

5. What steps he is taking to support a long-term political solution in Yemen.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

Only a political solution will bring the long-term stability that Yemen needs. Yemeni parties themselves must engage constructively with peace opportunities when they come along. The United Kingdom is playing a leading part diplomatically, at the UN and elsewhere, to try to bring other parties together so that we can see the political solution that is needed.

[Dr Whitford]

Yemen is in the grip of a humanitarian disaster, with another 50,000 children expected to die before the end of the year because of famine and cholera, yet the UK’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia have been worth 18 times the aid given to Yemen over the past two years. What will the UK Government do to ensure that the blockade is lifted now and to contribute to Yemen’s reconstruction, rather than to its destruction?

[Alistair Burt]

The efforts being made with the coalition are not only to give its members assurances about the security they need to ensure that there are no further missile attacks like the one on Riyadh on 4 November, but to seek to relieve the restrictions that are preventing humanitarian access from getting through. No one doubts the scale of the humanitarian crisis that already exists in Yemen and that faces its people if those restrictions are not lifted. The United Kingdom is working with others on both the security for the coalition in the area and the need to relieve the restrictions to make sure that humanitarian access can be given.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

18. The conflict in Yemen is clearly a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran for achieving regional hegemony. Does the Minister agree that the UK should use all its diplomatic leverage with its allies and players in the region to de-escalate the conflict and get a genuine peace process under way in Yemen?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is right. A process is under way, led by the UN special representative, and we are supporting that. It requires both sides to recognise that there is no military answer to what is happening in Yemen. There has to be a political solution. We are working steadfastly through our ambassador in Yemen and through the UN to try to ensure that the parties get together to make sure that there is a political solution. We are doing everything we can because we recognise the urgency of the situation.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The scale of the humanitarian crisis is truly frightening and the Saudi blockade could result in thousands of further deaths. A political solution is vital. Will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister has spoken to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia? If she has not, can she do so as a matter of urgency to get the blockade lifted?

[Alistair Burt]

Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have spoken to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Repeated representations have been made by other Ministers since 4 November and continue to be made. We recognise the need for security for the coalition, but we also recognise the urgent need to lift the restrictions and make sure that humanitarian access is given.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation in Yemen very much points to the fact that we have a failed Iran policy? We have a capital in Tehran that is taking British hostages, that is developing missiles, that is threatening its neighbours and that is destabilising the region, and our policy is what? There is none.

[Alistair Burt]

There is a significant policy in relation to Iran, which a number of different debates and conversations in this House have detailed. Work is going on to explore what opportunities there are for Iran to play a more constructive part in the region, but in relation to human rights sanctions, to criticism about its activities with terrorist groups in the area and to its ability to destabilise the region, the United Kingdom’s position is very clear. However, there is engagement with Iran, which is important both for the UK and for others. The policy of that constructive engagement is very clear.

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

Yesterday, the Minister of State said that the Saudi blockade of Yemen did not breach international humanitarian law because it is intended to stop the smuggling of missiles to the Houthis. How does he respond then to the leaked briefing by the United Nations Panel of Experts on Yemen, which says that there is no evidence of such smuggling and that this is just another attempt by the Saudi coalition to justify obstructing the delivery of commodities that are essentially civilian in nature?

[Alistair Burt]

I do not agree with the conclusion—[Interruption.] No, I do not agree with that UN assessment. It is perfectly clear that weapons and weapons parts have been smuggled into Yemen, and have been used to fire against parties to the coalition. We are quite sure that that is the case. However, the point is not only to give some security to those who do not want to see such missiles pointed at their airports, but at the same time to ensure that the coalition partners realise that the restrictions being put on entry to ports may not assist them in dealing with all the smuggling they are concerned about, but will certainly damage the humanitarian situation and make it worse. That is what we are trying to persuade the coalition partners to relieve.

[Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to promote human rights in discussions with his counterparts in other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Israel on the status of Palestinian communities in area C of the west bank threatened with demolition.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

We are seriously concerned by the continued demolition of Palestinian property by the Israeli authorities, which causes unnecessary suffering and is harmful to peace. We regularly raise this issue, and our embassy in Tel Aviv most recently raised our concerns with Israel in a joint démarche with European partners on 2 November.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Minister for his answer. As we know, we have recently seen a very clear indication from Israel’s Defence Minister about the intention to demolish the communities of Khan al-Ahmar and Susiya, and the military has issued a demarcation order signalling the intention to evacuate communities in the Jordan valley and E1 areas. Does the Minister agree that Israel must be held to account if those things actually take place?

[Alistair Burt]

This is the subject of a continued conversation with the Israeli authorities in which we make it clear, as do others, that the threat to settlements is unacceptable. I have visited both places—Khan al-Ahmar some years ago, and Susiya quite recently—as have representatives from the embassy. We wait to see further developments. There is a lot of talk about further demolitions, but then the legal process holds them back. However, Israel can be in no doubt of our concerns about the demolition of Palestinian properties and the damage that that does for the prospects of a peaceful settlement.

[Alan Brown]

The reality is that 100,000 hectares of Palestinian land have been taken for settlements and 50,000 homes have been demolished. Will the Minister at least call on the Israeli Government to lift the demolition order on the Bedouin village of Susiya, to which he referred? Will he put in place measures, such as guidance to UK businesses that they stop trading with illegal settlements, in a bid to break this cycle?

[Alistair Burt]

We will keep our existing trade relationships, which allow customers to make their own decisions about where the goods they buy come from. We are making our position on settlements extremely clear, and we will continue to do so.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. When Prime Minister Netanyahu was in London recently, what discussions did my right hon. Friend have with him about face-to-face peace talks between the state of Israel and the Palestinians so that we can create a state of Palestine alongside a secure state of Israel?

[Alistair Burt]

When the Prime Minister met Prime Minister Netanyahu on 2 November, she reiterated our continued opposition to settlement activity, and also encouraged him to make the most of the likely opportunities that will come up when the Americans bring forward the proposals they have been discussing privately for some months about the prospects of peace. This chance should not be missed by either side.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

This year marks 40 years since Egyptian President Sadat’s historic visit to Israel, which led to a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt. Peace has only lasted when Israel’s neighbours have reciprocated its goodwill gestures, with land swaps a key aspect of that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be peace between Israel and Palestinians only following the resumption of direct peace talks in which issues including land borders can be resolved?

[Alistair Burt]

The short answer is yes, but I do not think we should miss the 40th anniversary of the extraordinary activity that took place between Israel and Egypt. What we would give now for a similar gesture of peace on all sides to bring this long-standing conflict to an end.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does the Minister believe, with particular reference to Israel and the west bank, that holding children in detention constitutes a breach of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child?

[Alistair Burt]

We express repeated concerns to Israel about the treatment of children and ask it to adhere to UN principles on that. We continue to raise this matter of long-standing concern.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What steps he is taking to tackle foreign online interference in UK political activity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

T5. In April last year, I had the pleasure of visiting Palestine, but also the sadness of witnessing a young Palestinian boy being tried in an Israeli military court for throwing stones, with no choice of representation and the whole process conducted in Hebrew. We stand up for fairness, so will the Minister tell me whether his Department plans to review the “Children in Military Custody” report that was funded by his Department and published in 2012?

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

We continue to urge Israel to implement the recommendations in the “Children in Military Custody” report. I raised the issue with the Israeli authorities during my visit to Israel in August 2017, and Ministers and the British ambassador to Tel Aviv have spoken and written to the Israeli Justice Minister and the Israeli Attorney General. The UK continues to have strong concerns about reports of the ill treatment of Palestinian minors in Israeli military detention.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T2. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that despite last week’s climate change talks, the world is still not on track to limit global warming to less than 3° C. What steps is he taking to ensure that we get back on track?

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T9. We have a lot to thank the Kurdish administration for, such as protecting minorities and its fight against Daesh in recent years. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary speak to his counterparts in Baghdad to stop the intransigence of the federal Iraqi Government towards the aspirations of the Kurdish people for independence?

[Alistair Burt]

This has been a difficult recent chapter between the Kurdish region and Iraq. So far, because of good sense on both sides and a desire to reconcile, there has been no physical conflict at the border area. It is essential that both the Government in Baghdad and those in Erbil find a way through the present constitutional difficulties to make sure that the long-standing concerns of the Kurdish people are recognised within a united and strengthened Iraq. The United Kingdom will do all in its power to make sure we put our words to that effect.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The military orders issued against the Bedouin villages of Jabal al-Baba, Ain al-Hilweh and Umm el-Jimal will involve the forcible transfer of over 400 people, which the director of the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has described as a war crime. If Israel believes such actions can continue without consequence, what reason will it have to think it should do anything other than carry on with such actions with impunity?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman’s words and concerns are echoed by the United Kingdom. As has repeatedly been made clear, we believe that concerns about demolitions, threatened demolitions and movements make a peace settlement more difficult, and we are repeatedly in contact with Israel about that. We still hope that current events in the region give Israel an opportunity to recognise that it can have a secure viable future with a two-state solution. We will do everything in our power to press it to take that opportunity, as the Palestinians should as well.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

What representations has my right hon. Friend made to the Government of Pakistan about human rights abuses and the desire for freedom in Balochistan? [Interruption.]