Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Ansell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My understanding is that that challenge has been made, but was refuted strongly by Churchill back in the day.

This landmark letter, comprising just three paragraphs and the subject of our debate today, sets out that aspiration for a Jewish homeland. I am proud that our country supported the establishment of that national home, and I am also proud of the strength of the UK-Israeli relationship. Our partnership in trade, technology, medicine and academia, and our shared values, have flourished in the 68 years of Israel’s young life.

In his letter, Foreign Secretary Balfour pledged to Lord Rothschild, a leading member of British Jewry, that he would “view with favour”, and that His Majesty’s Government endorsed,

“the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am glad that the hon. Lady read the letter through. Does she agree that the first part of that equation has been dealt with, which is the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine—not, obviously, the whole of Palestine—and that perhaps concentration for the next immediate period should be on the second part, the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities, which clearly has not been achieved? That should be our priority.

[Caroline Ansell]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. Where we might disagree is on reasons why that second aspiration has not come to pass. What is really important about the letter, which has been contested, is that this non-binding Balfour declaration was swiftly endorsed and enshrined in binding agreements ratified by the international community in the San Remo resolution and the Sèvres peace treaty, and was then ratified by all 51 countries of the League of Nations when the British mandate for Palestine was approved in 1922.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Ansell]

Indeed it does; I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Although the UK’s relationship and ties with Israel are strong and we see Israel’s contribution to our economy, its contribution to the world should also be recognised at this landmark moment. Israel has defied the challenges posed by an arid climate, a small population and security threats to make significant contributions to the advancement of the world. Israeli inventions have transformed the way we live our lives. The algorithm for sending emails, mobile phone technology, technology for anti-virus software, instant messaging and the USB flash drive were all developed in Israel. It is little surprise that so many multinational tech giants have established R and D facilities in Israel. Apple, Windows, Intel, HP, Google and many more all have a presence in a country that is the size of Wales.

From helping refugees in Lesbos to fighting Ebola in west Africa, Israeli aid teams are a common and welcome sight for countries in their time of need. On my visit to Israel last year, I had the great pleasure of visiting Save a Child’s Heart, which is an extraordinary project that provides life-saving surgery for children with cognitive heart defects. The lives of children throughout the developing world have been saved by Israeli doctors. There is much to recognise, value and celebrate.

[Andy Slaughter]

Did the hon. Lady speak to Palestinians and see what is happening in the west bank? Next year is also the 50th anniversary of a brutal military occupation of someone else’s territory. Until that key point is resolved, we will not have two peoples living together in peace.

[Caroline Ansell]

I had the opportunity during that visit to meet Palestinians, business leaders and property developers. I saw a development at Rawabi, the likes of which I have never seen before in its scale, scope, vision and ambition. A whole city is rising out of the ground. I have never seen anything so truly astonishing. That place, being built by Palestinians for Palestinians, with 40,000 homes looking to be delivered, is a really positive vision for what the future could look like.

Events to mark the declaration’s centenary began earlier this month and will continue until the 100th anniversary in November 2017. Jewish communal and Israel advocacy organisations have launched an official Balfour 100 campaign, providing helpful educational resources, and will be hosting a series of events. The Prime Minister has expressed her desire to mark the occasion, as has the Minister, and I thank him for his remarks.

However, Israel does not live in peace and security and the Palestinians have not acceded to their own recognised state. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said earlier, how different things might have been if the Arab leadership, back in 1947, had adopted that UN partition plan. The region could look very different today, with two prosperous states—one Arab, one Jewish—working together and more faithfully reflecting the Balfour aspiration that the civil and religious rights of all be safeguarded.

Over the years, proposals have been rejected for a two-state solution, including, in recent decades, at Camp David at the turn of the century, and more recently, in 2008. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in an effort to bring more momentum to the peace process. Gifted with a highly educated population and a very beautiful Mediterranean coastline, it has been said that Gaza had the potential to be the Singapore of the east, but rather than being able to seize that opportunity, the Islamist terror group, Hamas, has committed Gazan civilians to ongoing rounds of violence.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend makes some excellent points, which I will cover. She is right that we need to highlight the negative health issues connected with eating dog meat. Of course, we should also encourage those who are working hard in many of these jurisdictions to change attitudes and culture. I will talk about what is happening in a positive way in some of these countries, particularly in South Korea.

Given our discussion, I would like to raise three particular aspects. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and many others raised the cultural aspect of the consumption of dog meat. Secondly, there is the issue of welfare and the conditions in which the dogs are reared before they are subsequently killed for their meat. Specifically, I will address what we, the British Government, are doing to influence change. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) just pointed out, I will cover the potential health risks of eating dog meat. I will also discuss the enormous amount of work that the UK Government are leading on antimicrobial resistance.

As hon. Members have noted, eating dog meat has been part of the culture of certain countries—sometimes going back hundreds of years and sometimes, as has been pointed out, slightly more recent. However distressing we may find the consumption of dog meat, we need to recognise that there are cultural differences across the globe. We need to respect that in some countries the sale and consumption of dog meat is legal.

Dogs are not an internationally protected species, and there are no international norms, laws or agreements covering the trade and consumption of dog meat. As a Government we aim to influence changes in attitudes and behaviour. No one would be happier than me if the consumption of dog meat ended tomorrow, but dictating to people in South Korea or anywhere else that they should not eat dog meat would be akin to another country telling us that we should not eat beef or pork. We need to win hearts and minds as a way of effecting change in attitudes to dog meat consumption. I will outline the specific support that the British Government are providing in that respect.

It is encouraging that in countries where dog meat is consumed—a number of hon. Members alluded to this—there are already signs that the culture and tradition are beginning to fade among the younger generation and the emerging middle classes, who view dogs as pets and companions rather than as a food source. In a recent survey 60% of under 30-year-olds in South Korea said that they regarded dogs as pets, and we would all expect that trend to continue.

In May 2016, 300,000 Koreans signed a petition calling on their Government to improve the country’s animal welfare Act. The petition was started by the Korean Animal Welfare Association, and it garnered those 300,000 signatures in five days on the back of Korean TV broadcasting a programme called “Animal Farm”, which highlighted abuses at puppy farms in the country. We should take heart from those trends and celebrate that many people in countries with a history of dog meat consumption share British attitudes towards dogs.

Although we need to be culturally sensitive, it is right that we speak up loudly on animal welfare matters. The UK Government take seriously all reports of animal cruelty wherever it takes place, whether in Britain or elsewhere. We are committed to raising standards of animal welfare and to phasing out cruel and inhumane practices both in the UK and overseas. Members have noted some of the cruel practices to which dogs reared for meat are subjected, and they have pointed out that in recent days a number of national newspapers have graphically highlighted some of the awful suffering and pain to which dogs are subjected in captivity and as they are killed. I was absolutely shocked by those images. There can be no excuse for barbarity against animals, wherever it takes place.

[Phil Wilson in the Chair]

The British Government are at the forefront of efforts to protect the welfare of animals. In Britain, all owners and keepers must provide for the welfare needs of their animals. Failure to do so is an offence. I acknowledge the important work done by organisations such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and, of course, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to improve standards of animal welfare both in the UK and in other countries. More widely, the United Kingdom hosted the first high-level conference on the illegal wildlife trade in 2014, in which more than 40 countries participated.

The dog meat trade was last debated in this House in November 2015. In that debate, the former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), gave an account of the work that we are doing in the Asia-Pacific region. As this petition relates primarily to South Korea, I will outline our work on this issue in that country specifically, although of course we are working with a range of countries, as the Government outlined last year.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I apologise for not having been here earlier. The Minister mentioned the debate a year ago; I was there. Little progress seems to have been made since that time, but there has been a change in view among some politicians in South Korea and elsewhere. What specifically are the Government doing to work with those progressive forces, if I can put it that way, on this serious issue?

[Alok Sharma]

I will come to what we are doing, and what I personally have done, in terms of dialogue with representatives of the South Korean Government. We must acknowledge that there has been some change. I mentioned the changes in South Korea itself, and the fact that people in that country are recognising the need for change. We must give credit where it is due. With respect, I would say that progress is being made. It might not be fast enough for all of us in this room, but it is being made. As I said, I will come to what the Government and I are doing specifically in terms of dialogue with the South Korean Government.

Before I explain what action we are taking specifically on the dog meat trade, I will outline our broader bilateral relationship with South Korea, which a number of Members mentioned. The state visit by President Park in 2013 and our annual Foreign Secretary-level strategic dialogue are testament to the strength of our growing strategic partnership. Our bilateral discussions range widely, from the situation in North Korea to security in the wider region, climate change and terrorism.

Numerous Members, including the shadow Minister, alluded to the situation in North Korea. I can confirm that this afternoon I summoned the North Korean ambassador to the Foreign Office and explained to him in strong terms that the British Government do not believe that what the North Koreans are doing in terms of nuclear testing is acceptable.

However, we share similar views with South Korea on many international issues; our voting records in the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council are closely aligned. We supported and welcomed South Korea’s decision to deploy personnel to the UK-led effort to tackle Ebola in Sierra Leone. It was the only non-western country to do so, and the fact that South Korea chose to partner with the UK is further evidence of our strong relationship. We welcome increasing bilateral trade and investment ties between our two nations. It is the strength of our bilateral relationship and growing friendship that allows us the space to speak frankly on so many matters, including the dog meat trade.

Indeed, this morning, before this debate, I spoke to the South Korean ambassador, Ambassador Hwang, on the subject and explained the strength of feeling here in the UK. His view, as he expressed it, was that the South Korean Government are trying to address this issue by raising awareness around pet ownership and educating the Korean public about animal welfare issues. As he pointed out to me, the number of restaurants in South Korea serving dog meat is decreasing, while the number of pet owners is increasing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend will know that trade policy is with UK Trade & Investment, but I will repeat what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier. We are aware that we need to recruit and retain more trade negotiators. We are still a member of the EU until the last of the negotiations have taken place, but there is absolutely no reason not to start having exploratory talks, and we are beginning to do that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

8. What steps the Government are taking to support the French initiative to start peace talks between Israel and Palestine. [R]

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

12. What steps the Government are taking to support the French initiative to start peace talks between Israel and Palestine.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

As I mentioned earlier, I attended the French ministerial conference on the middle east peace process in Paris on 3 June. We are in close contact with the French Government and will consider how the UK might contribute as their plans develop.

[Andy Slaughter]

It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary could not attend that conference. Will he be attending or advising his successor to attend the main conference later this year, and will he join France and other European countries in recognising Palestine if Israel refuses to co-operate with the French initiative and continues building settlements?

[Mr Ellwood]

To make it clear, the summit was moved at short notice to accommodate the US Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Africa at the time, which was why I was able to attend. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not feel short-changed by the fact that I was there instead of the Foreign Secretary. It was an important meeting, as it registered the need for the international community to play its part and we look forward to moving ahead with the process. Discussions will take place in the next few months to bring the parties together.

Human Rights and Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mrs Gillan, for calling me. Given the time constraint, I shall limit myself to one matter and try to bring us back to the topic of the debate: human rights and Saudi Arabia. The front page of The Times today has the headline, “British police accused of helping Saudi torturers”. I should say that the story is based on research by the BBC’s Chris Vallance and a report broadcast on “The World at One” yesterday, and, admirable though the article is, I wish he had been credited. Mr Vallance is admirable because he has done far better than I have in getting information released under freedom of information rules on the College of Policing’s relationship with the Saudi justice system.

As Members will remember—I am pleased to see almost 30 of them present, because it shows the level of interest in the subject—this matter began with the Justice Secretary’s withdrawal from the Saudi prison contract last October. Will the Minister encourage some consistency among Government Departments in their relations to Saudi Arabia? I know consistency is difficult when there is an in or out Minister in almost every Department, but on this issue we should have some. In response to an urgent question I asked last October, the Justice Secretary said to me, quite rightly, that

“the whole focus of the Ministry of Justice will be on maintaining the rule of law, upholding human rights and making sure that our citizens are protected effectively with a justice system in which all can take pride and have confidence.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 182.]

However, within a couple of weeks of his saying that, the Foreign Secretary was in the Gulf saying that it was business as usual with Saudi Arabia.

Following the withdrawal from that contract, I attempted, unsuccessfully, through parliamentary questions and FOI requests, to find out what the College of Policing’s relationship with Saudi Arabia was. Mr Vallance was successful in his FOI request and obtained a referral by the College of Policing to the International Police Assistance Board. It is a very candid application to supply sophisticated forensic aid to the Saudis. It warns that

“the skills being trained are used to identify individuals who later go on to be tortured or subjected to other human rights abuses”.

It also says that the application is motivated by

“achieving ‘value-added’ for the College through providing an income generating business opportunity”.

The sophisticated de-encryption techniques referred to would easily allow the Saudi security forces to trace down exactly the sort of young people we have heard about who are now on death row in Saudi Arabia.

Will the Minister explain what is going on with the assistance that the Government are giving to the Saudi regime? Do the Government intend to continue it, and will they publish the memorandum of understanding with the College of Policing so that we can see exactly what is happening?

The Gulf

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Leslie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that good point. We often forget that the messenger is frequently more important than the message itself, because the message is fundamentally defined by who gives it. He makes a point that I will touch on later.

A third insight, which I found striking and relevant to our relations with the Gulf, was offered by His Excellency Dr Anwar Gargash, the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. He talks of the dangers of a digital world, where

“my opinion has become my religion”.

That observation speaks not only to the role of the internet in spreading Daesh’s message—the mass communication that Tim Rice’s Judas so lamented the lack of—but to fundamental changes in digital technology that appear to have an effect on people’s thoughts. I have called that a change from cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, to sentio ergo sum, I feel therefore I am—or even to sentio ergo est, I feel therefore it is. In that, a person’s feeling dictates absolute truth.

As MPs, we have all seen—on social media in particular—that dangerous trend and false premise that says, “I am human. I think this. You do not think what I think. Therefore you are not human.” That is a seed of genocide and the beginning of a takfiri mentality that extends its blind intolerance way beyond the scope of Islam. We are beginning to see that in the hate diatribes of UK far-left groups who are sympathetic to Hamas, Hezbollah and other extremist terrorist groups. That is a slippery slope.

All those insights are from the hard end of battling extremism in the Gulf. It is easy for the west to forget that the majority of Daesh’s casualties are Muslim and that Daesh wants to punish nations such as the UAE for “poisoning” the sacred Arab peninsular with pluralism. It is also easy to forget that Sunni Gulf states are concerned about the rise of an emboldened Shi’a militia as Iran re-enters the global economy.

The response of the Gulf to extremism may provide a learning opportunity for Britain. What assessment has the Minister made of the UAE’s clampdown on extremist teaching in schools and of its policy towards registering imams in Mosques? Are there lessons to be learnt from that? More specifically, will he keep an open mind on Britain’s classification of the Muslim Brotherhood? That would be an extremely good way of working out whether they are moderate friends who can be engaged with on political terms and whether they will renounce the writings, teachings and celebrated martyrdom of Sayyid Qutb. If they refuse to do so, we may need to reassess urgently what we think of them in our political context. We cannot afford to be squeamish.

I have talked only about what Britain might learn from its relationship with the Gulf.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I have listened intently to the hon. Lady. Will she join me in asking the Minister to look at the human rights abuses in the UAE, where 27 Britons are currently detained? Some of them have complained of torture and, indeed, I think that in the past five years 37 British nationals have made allegations of torture or mistreatment there.

[Charlotte Leslie]

I absolutely would ask the Minister that. I was going to say that—rather unusually—I have talked about what Britain can learn from the Gulf, because I know that Members such as the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak powerfully on other areas that we must look at.

It is easy to carp morally from the sidelines on issues such as human rights, which are a huge concern to us all, but that is not always the best way—it is seldom good at all—to achieve the practical change we want. I argue strongly that, if we want Gulf nations to improve their human rights and their freedom of speech, which essentially will improve their security far more effectively, the way to do that is to engage.

His Excellency Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak al-Nahyan commented on how the UAE has achieved such pluralism while maintaining the Emiratis’ confident identity as rather conservative Muslims. This applies well to international relations and to the hon. Gentleman’s comments:

“Pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity…Pluralism is not simply tolerance, but the active quest for understanding along lines of difference...Pluralism demands dialogue...Dialogue does not mean everyone at the table will agree with one another”.

There is much on which we can engage with the UAE—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on human rights—and much to work with from our history with Bahrain. I know that we will hear some fascinating first-hand observations from colleagues who have visited Saudi and other Gulf states.

I will finish by repeating a point that was made to me by the exceptional Minister of State for International Co-operation, her excellency Reem al-Hashimy, one of the incredibly impressive women Ministers in the highly conservative Muslim society of the UAE. She emphasised that the UAE could not “export” its pluralism to neighbours simply by preaching. It could demonstrate the possibility of such a pluralism within a conservative Muslim state only by doing. I hope the debate will be in some way instrumental in Britain’s continuing to meet the challenge that it shares with the Gulf states across our differences, by listening, talking, understanding and doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Nuttall, to morally carp on the sidelines about human rights, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) put it. None the less, I congratulate her on securing the debate, because the topic is important and is perhaps not debated often enough.

I will not use my position as the only Labour Member in the debate to speak at length, but I want to make one or two points that I hope the Minister will have time to respond to. Last night I read again the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report “Human Rights and Democracy”, which was published last month. Although it is a slimmed down volume and in many respects weakens the Government’s commitments on human rights—at least in relation to the death penalty—it does include three Gulf countries among the countries of concern: Saudi, Bahrain and Yemen. It does not include the United Arab Emirates, which I think is a significant omission. The Minister may want to mention human rights in the UAE when he responds.

I am glad that the countries in question are what are now, I believe, called priority countries—another slightly euphemistic term. However, I am afraid the language that is used, particularly in relation to the Gulf states, does not match the seriousness of the human rights issue or the task that needs to be done. The Bahrain section of the report says

“there was progress on human rights”,

and mentions that the UK is providing “technical assistance”—which in some cases it is being paid for. We have just established a naval base in the country for the first time in decades. The report mentions that

“allegations of ill-treatment in detention continue”

and that there are concerns regarding

“freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly”.

However, little more is said than that.

As I mentioned, the report is entirely silent about the UAE, and that is regrettable. It is slightly more candid in relation to Saudi, particularly on the serious issue of executions, reminding us that 158 people were executed in 2015, which is a more than 15% increase on the previous year. On 2 January this year, 47 people were executed on one day, including three minors. There remain three minors on death row. They are Ali al-Nimr, Dawood al-Marhoon and Abdullah al-Zaher. Again, I ask the Minister, as I often do in written and oral questions, whether their cases have been raised again. I know that the Foreign Secretary has said he believes they will not now be executed, but in the light of what happened on 2 January and their continued detention, I cannot feel quite as assured as he does. Perhaps the Minister will respond on whether further representations have been made or whether there is further news.

Reports from Human Rights Watch, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International show a rather more serious situation in Bahrain than the impression given by the Foreign Office. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has spoken of a clear realisation that

“little has been done in the fields of accountability and ending impunity, particularly in relation to violations committed against protesters and detainees, including alleged acts of torture”.

That has been going on since the Arab spring, five years ago, and there is continued oppression of the mainly Shi’a majority in Bahrain. There have been a number of deaths at the hands of the security forces. There was of course the notorious incident when medics who had treated those injured in protests were themselves tortured and prosecuted. Generally speaking, what the Bahrain Government have been best at is whitewashing what has happened by setting up commissions whose recommendations are not implemented, and mounting an effective PR offensive.

I pay particular tribute to The Independent and The Guardian, which have sought to expose what happens in Bahrain. Headlines from the last couple of months include “Britain lobbied UN to whitewash Bahrain police abuses” and “British arms sales to Bahrain total £45m since Arab Spring—while claims of torture and oppression continue”. There is a lot more I could say about that, but I think the Minister gets the impression. I do not say, and have never said, that Gulf countries are, in either scale or degree, the worst offenders, but I do say that the Government operate a soft touch in dealing with such countries. We have just heard from the hon. Member for Bristol North West that it is often better to comment on such things in private, which I think is what the Foreign Office says about Saudi. I think it is right to raise them in private, but it is also right to speak out, and the Government have a moral obligation as an upholder of international human rights to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is concentrating on human rights, but does he not attach any importance to the key role that the nations in question play in the battle against tyranny, and the long-standing support that they have given us and we have given them, historically? They are important allies of the United Kingdom and the hon. Gentleman is sending out the message that stability counts for nothing and that the only thing he is interested in is abuses by the authorities. I remind him that we have our own history. We took out 14 people on the streets of Northern Ireland. Does he regard that as a human rights abuse as well?

[Andy Slaughter]

I think you will forgive me, Mr Nuttall, if I do not stray into talking about Bloody Sunday this morning. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his points in his own way. I am simply setting out these matters, perhaps as a correction to others that will be raised this morning, and I think that is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. Of course we must have a relationship with countries overseas whose human rights records do not match our own, and of which we perhaps do not expect exactly the same standards. However, if the hon. Gentleman is saying we should not raise the issues, I cannot entirely agree with him.

To deal briefly with the UAE, the recent case of David Haigh, the former Leeds United managing director—[Interruption.] I am being heckled because I am taking some time. I will take a little more time. I said I would not speak for a long time, Mr Nuttall, but if I continue to be interrupted, perhaps I shall speak for rather longer. We will see where that goes. I think, particularly given that the Foreign Office did not address the matter in its human rights report, that it is worth putting it on record. Again, I will simply read some headlines. The first is from The Law Society Gazette: “Solicitor claims he was tortured in Dubai jail”. Another headline reads: “Businessmen held in UAE were tortured into confessions, says UN report”. I have mentioned the number of British nationals—37 in the last five years—who have made allegations of torture or mistreatment in detention in the UAE and the fact that there are 27 such detainees there at the moment.

I recently asked the Minister the following questions. Will the Prime Minister review the UK’s special relationship with the UAE in the light of the report by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention calling on the UAE to release several foreign nationals, including from Canada and the US, who it says have been detained arbitrarily, tortured and forced to sign confessions? Will the Government confirm that no further Arab Partnership Participation Fund moneys will be allocated to the UAE by the Foreign Office until a review has been conducted in the light of the recent statement by UN special rapporteur on torture, Professor Juan E. Méndez? His office has received credible information that detainees were tortured and forced to sign confessions, and his request for a country visit to the UAE is outstanding.

I mentioned David Haigh, a former managing director of Leeds United who I think is a member of the Conservative party. He was recently released from a UAE prison and, on returning to the UK, said that he had suffered ill treatment and abuse:

“I was punched around, I was hit, I was tasered. People attempted to sexually abuse me. I now have a problem with my eyes. You are constantly kept in the dark…it damages your eyes.”

He was imprisoned, incidentally, under the cybercrimes law—a particularly Orwellian statute that criminalises electronic abuse. There are well-documented incidents of human rights violations in the UAE.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

indicated dissent.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister is shaking his head. Will he respond to those incidents?

[Mr Ellwood]

The reason I am shaking my head is that many other Members want to speak. They want to hear what the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition Front-Bench Members have to say on these matters. Your guidance was very clear, Mr Nuttall, on speeches being four minutes. I was shaking my head not about the substance of anything the hon. Gentleman is saying, but because he has now been speaking for 10 minutes.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

I hear what the Minister has to say about the time limit. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) is about to draw his remarks to a swift conclusion. I am loth to impose a formal time limit but, reluctantly, that is what I will have to do. I look forward to hearing the final sentences of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution very shortly.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will speak for half a minute on Yemen and then sit down, Mr Nuttall. I will just say, however, that I have been in Westminster Hall when Conservative Members have filibustered for an hour in order to prevent debates from taking place on issues of great importance to me. I do not intend to do that here. I do not think that a 10-minute speech for an Opposition Member is unreasonable, given the number of Government Members present.

Let me end by saying this. The Minister will be aware of the Select Committee on International Development report published today in relation to the need for an independent inquiry into what is happening in Yemen. UAE and Saudi forces are engaged, with British advice and support, in the civil war in Yemen. It is clear to anybody who reads what is written by those reporting from inside that troubled country that war crimes are being committed and that there are breaches of international humanitarian law. Will the Minister agree to the Committee’s recommendation of an independent investigation into what is happening in Yemen?

It is my view that we should have a suspension of arms sales to the countries engaged in that civil war, until it is demonstrated that breaches of international law are not happening. This country should not be complicit in matters of that kind and should certainly be asking for transparency in relation to what is happening in Yemen and, in particular, the involvement of other Gulf states in that country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Yemen

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton]

If I had had a little more time, I would have responded to the main point that was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who wondered how we could even consider sending vulnerable people who have been here—in the case of her constituent for more than six years—back to a conflict zone that we will not allow our own citizens to go anywhere near. That seems to me to be totally inhumane. I know that it is not strictly the Minister’s responsibility, but I hope that he will at least shed some light on whether the Government will reconsider the position of those vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers from Yemen, as well as that of the Syrians whom we are already taking in. I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important point.

Many Members have referred to the humanitarian crisis, and that is the issue that really upsets and depresses so many of us when we hear statistic after statistic about the effect of conflict and war on our fellow human beings. As would be expected, the Opposition are deeply concerned about it. A number of Members cited statistics showing that 14 million people currently rely on food aid, and that more than 2.3 million—four times the number of people who were displaced at the beginning of 2015—have fled their homes in Yemen in search of safety. Peter Maurer, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross—whom I was privileged to meet, along with Members who are present today, when I was a member of the International Development Committee, as I was until last month—has said that the situation in Yemen is

“nothing short of catastrophic.”

That sentiment was echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East when he spoke about the humanitarian effects of the conflict.

The hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) praised DFID’s efforts in Yemen but said that we needed a coalition of aid givers to ensure that sufficient aid was received. However, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) pointed out, aid cannot resolve the problem. The economy has to be rebuilt and that can happen only if there is peace. That peace agreement has to be negotiated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said in his passionate contribution that Yemen was a catastrophe, with 21 million people in need of aid. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is no longer in his place, emphasised the effect that the conflict is having on children, as did many other hon. Members. The children in Yemen are in a worse position than the children in Syria at the moment. To echo something that my right hon. Friend said, Yemen is bleeding to death.

The Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), pointed out that terrible atrocities were being committed by both sides. He said that evidence had been given to the Committee that DFID’s humanitarian effort was being undermined. He also told the House that hugely respected non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International had provided overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses.

Let me turn now to the role of Saudi Arabia. I want to mention cluster munitions, because widespread reports from NGOs state that such munitions have been used in this terrible conflict. The response to a written parliamentary question from the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), suggests that the Government might be conceding that that is true. The reply from the Foreign Secretary stated:

“We are aware of reports of the alleged abuse of cluster munitions by the coalition in Yemen and we have raised this with the Saudi Arabian authorities. The UK does not supply cluster munitions to any members of the coalition in Yemen. In line with our obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions we will continue to encourage Saudi Arabia, as a non-party to the Convention, to accede to it.”

I hope that the Minister will give us further information on that terrible situation.

The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North quoted Philippe Sands, and I should like to quote something equally relevant from his important opinion given on 11 December 2015. Philippe Sands is not only a professor of law but a Queen’s Counsel. In his concluding paragraph he said this of the UK’s trade in weapons with Saudi Arabia:

“In the current circumstances we can be clear in concluding what the UK is required to do to bring itself into full compliance with its legal obligations: it should halt with immediate effect all authorisations and transfers of relevant weapons and items to Saudi Arabia”—

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I have been struck by the recent words of the international president of Médecins sans Frontières, Joanne Liu, who said:

“Is this the new normal: an MSF hospital bombed every month?”

We do not know that these are British munitions, but we do not know that they are not. Until we know the answer, should we not be stopping these arms sales completely?

Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The full coalition is doing a wide variety of things, in addition to the military campaign, which we read so much about in the papers. It is not just Saudi Arabia; it is Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and so forth. As areas are liberated, so the coalition follows on with stabilisation capability to provide security and support and to allow a transition from war to peace. All the Arab countries are very much involved in that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Is this not a bit “Yes Minister”? The Minister has the report, but he has not received it, so he cannot do anything about it. Is that not a recipe for inaction? During the last invasion of Gaza, he said he would consider suspending arms sales to Israel, but by the time he had considered it, the damage had been done and several thousand civilians had been killed. Is that not what will happen here? Will he suspend arms sales? There is evidence of a breach of international humanitarian law. Will he do that now, look at the evidence and then make a decision?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am being asked to comment on a leaked report. It is important that I have time to digest the full report, but I have said, even at this stage, before having had an opportunity to do that, that from what I understand of the report it is serious enough to deserve detailed scrutiny, not just here by us, but with the Saudi Arabians. I have already made that commitment to the House.

Child Prisoners and Detainees: Occupied Palestinian Territories

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

There are two points and I will come to some conclusions. There is a role for the British Government to work with both sides, and I accept that there are failings on both sides. However, the reason for riots when children have been arrested during the day is largely the inhumane treatment of those children. I understand why a parent would be extremely upset if their child was detained. The very fact that the Israel Defence Forces go in at night shows how hostile their behaviour is.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the context is the illegal occupation since 1967? Does she also agree that one of the most egregious elements is the difference between the treatment of Israeli children in illegal settlements and Palestinian children? Israeli children are subject to the rule of law; Palestinian children are not.

[Sarah Champion]

That is the nub of this debate and I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend brought it forward. If there are no more interventions, I will make some headway.

UNICEF’s findings are corroborated by evidence collected by Military Court Watch, an organisation made up predominantly of lawyers working in the region, indicating that ill-treatment within the system still seems to be “widespread, systematic and institutionalized” as of last month. In spite of UK and UN intervention, the most recent evidence indicates that the majority of children continue to be arrested in terrifying night-time military raids. In the few cases when summonses are used, most are delivered by the military after midnight and much of the information is written in Hebrew.

Some 93% of children continue to be restrained with plastic ties, many painfully so, and the standard operating procedures are frequently ignored. Around 80% of children continue to be blindfolded or hooded, a practice that the UK and UNICEF reports said should be absolutely prohibited. Audiovisual recording of interrogations has been mandated only in non-security-related offences, which means that nearly 90% of cases involving children, including those accused of attending a demonstration, continue to take place without this practical safeguard.

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the reports of physical abuse—consisting mainly of punching, kicking, position abuse and slapping, but in some cases also including more serious allegations, such as of being mauled by dogs and receiving electric shocks—are now higher in number than they were in 2013.

As for the scale of the problem, Military Court Watch estimates that since June 1967 about 95,000 Palestinian children have been detained by the Israeli military. Of those, 59,000 are likely to have been physically abused in one way or another. That abuse is truly disturbing and is on an industrial scale. Why is it that after so much effort, so little progress has been made? Is there something inherent in the situation in Palestine that prevents genuine change? When I visited Israel and Palestine in September 2015 as part of a cross-party Council for Arab-British Understanding and Medical Aid for Palestinians delegation, it became apparent why little has changed during the three intervening years.

To understand the situation, one must think like an Israeli defence force soldier. Essentially, the Israeli military have but one mission in Palestine—to guarantee the protection of nearly 600,000 Israeli civilians living in illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the west bank—an unenviable task for any military to be given. To achieve their mission, the military must engage in a strategy of mass intimidation and collective punishment of the Palestinian population, or risk the eviction of the settlers. That inevitably leads to fear, resentment and friction. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will speak briefly, although I must first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on an excellent speech and on securing the debate. The number of Members in attendance—I think there are almost 50—shows the importance that is given to this issue. I am sure that we will not do justice to the number of briefings we have received. I will only refer to one, which is from Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights. It goes beyond the many compelling individual cases that we have read about in those briefings and talks about the basic legal issues.

To return to the point I made in my intervention, paragraph 4 of that briefing says:

“There is an inextricable link between the systemic human rights violations of Palestinian children held in military detention and the overarching context of prolonged military occupation. The realisation of the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people is the optimum solution for the complete removal of ‘widespread, systematic and institutionalised’ violations against Palestinian children held in military detention.”

Now, some of my hon. Friends may think that that is rather stating the obvious, but given some of the comments today, I think it is worth putting on the record because some Members seem to be living in an Alice in Wonderland world. The speech that we have just heard is very illustrative of that point because, according to that, the blame for all that goes wrong in the occupied territories apparently lies with the Palestinian people. There is a very easy solution to that, which is to let the Palestinians govern themselves. Last year, this House voted to allow them to police themselves in that way and not to lead to this situation.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I will speak for one or two minutes at most, hopefully setting a better example than the previous speaker in relation to the time limit.

I will simply make two points. The first is that the differential treatment between Israeli children in settlements—settlements that are illegal under international law, as this Government recognise—and Palestinian children is symptomatic of the apartheid regime that exists on the west bank and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Israeli Government Ministers are quite open now that they want annexation—they refer to the area of the west bank as Judaea and Samaria. There is no longer any pretence, and Government Members—and, indeed, Opposition Members—who seek to defend the occupation are increasingly clutching at straws in doing so.

Finally I make a plea to the Minister. His Government have a poor record on human rights. His senior Foreign Office officials have said it is no longer a priority. We have seen what they are now saying about torture and the death penalty in relation to membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council. We have seen what has happened to the ministerial code. I urge the Minister—because he is a civilised man—to look at these issues and not just to come back with platitudes today, but to address them seriously and to address this issue, which clearly concerns a large number of hon. and right hon. Members. I urge him not just to go through the motions of protesting to the Israeli authorities, but to take some action and to be very clear that Britain, internationally, will not stand for this treatment of children.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you chairing this important debate, Mr Chope. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing what is a well-attended debate. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady: it is an important debate. I am sorry it is taking place here—no disrespect, Mr Chope—but such matters should be debated in the main Chamber and given more time. I am very sorry that colleagues were not able to get in; I will do my best to write to them. I apologise for not being able to answer everybody’s questions in the short time that I have. I want to allow time for the hon. Member for Rotherham to reply at the end. Forgive me again: I do not intend to take any interventions.

I want to pick up on a couple of points made by hon. Members before I respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) made the important point that we should not forget that Israel is a democracy in a very difficult neck of the woods. We encourage and support Israel to continue to support the democratic process. We are a friend of Israel and we work with the United States to ensure it maintains high standards and the rule of law. That is very important indeed. It is very easy when a country is under pressure, as we have found ourselves—Guantanamo Bay is an example—to allow standards to slip. So it is important that we are constructively critical but supportive of Israel in the challenges that it faces.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—regrettably, she is not in her place—mentioned that the EU-Israel association agreement should be suspended if Israel does not live up to its human rights obligations. The agreement could be suspended, but it provides the framework for human rights and other issues to be debated. It provides an important forum for such things to be discussed, so we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we suspended it.

I have a huge respect for the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and how he keeps pressure on the Government in a variety of areas, including human rights. However, he is being a little disingenuous in saying that human rights is not a priority for the Government. Whatever has been said, I can assure him and all those here today that in all the countries in my portfolio—other Ministers would say the same—human rights, the rule of law, democracy, governance and freedom of speech are important matters. Where appropriate and in whichever country I visit, including Israel, where I will be going shortly, I will raise those issues.

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way, but I would be delighted to have a cup of tea with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issues in more detail.

The hon. Member for Rotherham made an important speech that was accurate in many respects. I welcome the initiatives and the thinking about how we can resolve matters. If she will allow me, I will give consideration to the five points that she raised and I will write to her. Again, I will be more than happy to sit down with her and discuss the issues as we take stock. A lot of the issues have legal parameters, as she will know.

The Government share Members’ concerns about the treatment of children, including Palestinian children, who are detained in Israel. Israel has a legal and moral responsibility to ensure that international standards are upheld. It is especially abhorrent to see child detainees suffering inhumane treatment, whether it is in Israel, the occupied territories, or anywhere else in the world. We are pleased that the Israeli Government have made progress on improvements, but we are pushing for further implementation of the required reforms.

Members from across the House have said that we need to put what we see in context. Co-operation is needed between the Palestinian authorities and Israel to deal with child prisoners. There is also the fundamental absence of a two-state solution, which is the cause of this problem. Members have mentioned the appalling use of children to commit acts of violence. The level of incitement is worrying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) pointed out, but that should not prevent us from encouraging Israel, working with it and being critical of it on those points, as allies and friends are able to do.

As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, it has been a long time since Oslo, Madrid, Camp David, the Wye crossing opening and so forth. It is very frustrating indeed. I agree that we seem further from a solution at the moment. We need leadership. It is very sad that individual Palestinians, who are not prompted by an intifada but have no faith in their own leadership, are going out, killing Israelis and causing mayhem on the streets of Israel in the knowledge that they will be killed. They are not scared to die. We are in a very dangerous place, which is why we call on all sides to come together and look forward to resolve these matters.

This debate is not about the middle east peace process, much as we can wander into it, nor about the occupied territories, although I agree that those issues are related to what we are discussing, so I will focus my remarks on the specific points that have been made. As has been said, in 2012 the UK funded an independent report entitled “Children in Military Custody” by leading British lawyers. Since then, Ministers and the British ambassador in Tel Aviv have spoken and written to the Israeli Justice Minister, Attorney General and military advocate general to urge Israel to take action based on the report’s findings. In February 2013, UNICEF published a report entitled “Children in Israeli Military Detention” and a progress report later that year. Those reports and lobbying by the international community have had an impact. We will continue to make this issue a focus of our engagement with Israel, and we plan to fund a follow-up visit by the delegation in February 2016 to report on further progress.

The UNICEF progress report of October 2013 noted that Israel has taken important positive steps towards addressing the recommendations in the 2012 report by updating its existing standard operating procedures and policies on the arrest of minors. Those updates include changing the policy on methods of restraint and limiting the use of blindfolds to only when there is a security need. Israel has also increased the age of majority for Palestinian children. The Israeli military committed to conducting a pilot of using written summons, instead of night-time arrests, which has now been concluded.

We welcome the steps that have been taken to date, but we continue to call for further measures, including the mandatory use of audio-visual recording of interrogations, an investigation into continued reports of the use of single-hand ties and an end to solitary confinement for children. We also challenge Israel’s classification of diverse incidents—for example, stone throwing and participating in illegal demonstrations—as national, as opposed to criminal, offences. We also said that minors should consistently have access to lawyers before interrogation, and that they should have the right to have their parents present during their detention or interrogation.

We remain concerned about Israel’s extensive use of administrative detention, which, according to international law, should be used only when security makes it absolutely necessary, rather than as a routine practice. Administrative detention should also be used only as a preventive measure and not as a punitive one. We continue to call on Israeli authorities to comply with their obligations under international law and either charge or release detainees. We regularly raise that matter and other broader concerns about the treatment of Palestinian detainees of all ages with the Israeli authorities. We have done so at Foreign Minister, Attorney General and National Security Adviser levels.

Members also mentioned the recent violence in the west bank. We very much condemn what is going on there at the moment, and we remain extremely concerned about the terrorist incidents that have resulted in a number of deaths and multiple innocent civilians wounded. We are also concerned about the use of force by Israeli security personnel in response to protests and security incidents. The Foreign Secretary and I have publicly called on both sides to restore calm and improve the situation on the ground.

I am conscious of time, so let me conclude. This is obviously an emotive issue. That much is clear from Members’ valuable contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for enabling this debate to take place. I welcome the positive steps Israel has made in implementing some of the recommendations of the “Children in Military Custody” report, but the Government remain concerned about the treatment of Palestinian children detained in Israeli prisons. The UK has made repeated representations to Israel about the treatment of child detainees, and I assure Members that this issue will remain a focus for us. We are committed to this matter, and I will raise it when I visit Israel next month. We will remain engaged on it.

Daesh: Syria/Iraq

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, and one of the great achievements of the Vienna process is that Iran, along with Saudi Arabia, is engaged, so two countries that have not been conspicuous by their ability to talk each other are now talking to each other across a table in Vienna or this week in New York. That is a positive achievement.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I hear what the Foreign Secretary says about civilian casualties, but the effect of bombing—any bombing—is to maintain the flow of refugees, including into Europe. What are the Government doing to get the UNHCR into camps from Lesbos to Calais? Will they offer refugee status to refugees in those camps whose primary family connection is with Britain?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman has asked a specific and detailed question. I would be chancing my arm to give him a precise answer. If I may, I will write to him and place a copy of my letter in the Library. I will want to talk to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the International Development Secretary before answering.

International Human Rights Day

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This has been a thoughtful and measured debated—something that this Chamber does very well. I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for sponsoring the debate and the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in it: the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the hon. Members for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and, last but not least, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). I am sure that they will forgive me, given the time constraints, if I do not draw more on their excellent contributions.

We are here because this is international human rights day. As has been said, we commemorate the day in 1948 when the UN General Assembly adopted the universal declaration of human rights. The UN wishes us to mark the 50th anniversary of two other international covenants on human rights: the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and the covenant on civil and political rights. That is important, because together, the two covenants and the declaration form the international bill of human rights, which sets out the civil, political, cultural, economic and social rights that are the birthright of all human beings. I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes): I do not think that those international treaties and statements of rights are in any sense a waste of breath or paper. They are the bedrock on which we build, and if we fail to achieve those ambitions, it simply means that we should strive harder to do so.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) mentioned the full-page letter in The Times today, sponsored by the British Institute of Human Rights. It is a very short letter, so I shall read it out, because I think that it makes my central point. It states:

“Today is Human Rights Day. Across the globe, people are celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This international Magna Carta for all humanity has inspired so much, including our own Human Rights Act.

Today we celebrate the often overlooked everyday differences our Human Rights Act makes for people across the UK. Our examples are many, whether this is supporting children to access education, stopping inhuman treatment of older people, providing refugees with safety, preventing discrimination, or offering justice for victims and families failed by the system, and many more.

Today we celebrate how our Human Rights Act strengthens our democracy, giving everyone a voice, and ensuring the powerful do not go unchecked.

Today we celebrate how our Human Rights Act does more than defend our traditional liberties. It makes the universal human rights we share with people across the world part of our law here at home.

Today the future of human rights in the UK is uncertain. Today we stand with the Human Rights Act recognising it is the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights made law here at home. We urge our political leaders to stand with us.”

We should not talk only about international obligations. We should celebrate the effect of those measures domestically, and understand why the Government’s decision to attempt to repeal the Human Rights Act is, at best, misguided. However, as international human rights have featured in the debate, I shall say a little about them.

Yesterday I had the privilege of attending a reception given by Amnesty International and hosted by Mr Speaker, who has a long-standing interest in human rights and has campaigned on them in Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe and elsewhere. The reception was also attended by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—it was a very ecumenical occasion—and we heard a speech from the Leader of the Opposition, who has a history of upholding human rights around the world for more than 30 years. He mentioned in particular the recent release of Shaker Aamer, who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay for 14 years without charge or trial. It is shocking that one of our allies, and one of the great democracies of this world, should have treated a British resident in that way.

Many countries around the world have been mentioned, and, sadly, many of them have very poor human rights records. A third of countries still maintain the death penalty, and 141 still practise torture in one way or another. Many eyes are now on the middle east, because human rights abuses are occurring in a number of middle eastern countries. We think, obviously, of Syria, where 250,000 people have been killed, a million injured, 4 million made refugees, and 7 million displaced. Today we may think particularly of the family—a mother and seven young children—who drowned while trying to travel the short distance between Turkey and Greece. I ask the Minister to consider whether we are doing all that we can to ensure that there is an effective search and rescue programme in that area, because the human rights of those people are as important as the human rights of anyone in this country or anywhere else in the world.

Syria is not alone, however. In Egypt, 40,000 political prisoners are detained, 2,500 political opponents have been killed, and 18 journalists are in jail. Palestine, which has been mentioned today, has undergone nearly 50 years of occupation, and there are more than 500,000 settlers, although that is illegal under international law. In Gaza, 1.8 million people have been blockaded, victims of collective punishment. We think, also, of the Gulf. Last night I had the privilege of chairing a meeting in the House on human rights in the United Arab Emirates. There was a live video link—because he is forbidden to leave the country—with Ahmed Mansoor, a very brave man who speaks out despite the risk of imprisonment, which he has already suffered, and indeed torture. I think also of Bahrain, which continues to practise torture, despite it being, the Government tell us, a firm ally, and a place where we are building a naval base.

I should also mention Saudi Arabia; it has been referred to several times, but I mention it particularly because on 27 November, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister about the cases of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, Dawoud Hussain al-Marhoon, and other young men who have been sentenced to some of the cruellest forms of punishment—death by crucifixion or beheading. I am afraid to say that the Leader of the Opposition has not yet received a response to that letter, but we know from the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East that over 50 Saudis are awaiting execution in Saudi, including people who were juveniles at the time of their detention, people detained for taking part in peaceful protests, people who have signed blank sheets of paper which were then rendered as confessions, and people who have been tortured and kept in solitary confinement. I ask the Minister and Government urgently to turn their attention towards that country.

I read the article by the Foreign Secretary in The Independent today, and I have to say that it filled me with dismay. The Foreign Secretary talks about

“Quiet and continued engagement behind the scenes”,

and says:

“Just because the British Government isn’t shouting about an issue from the rooftops, doesn’t mean we aren’t assiduously pursuing a case in private.”

Of course one uses all means to attempt to engage with human rights in countries abroad. He rightly mentioned that Karl Andree, a British citizen, has been released from the threat of being lashed many times in Saudi Arabia, but what about the cases the Leader of the Opposition raises? What about Raif Badawi and the others? We cannot rest on our laurels, we cannot be complacent about these matters, and we do have to speak up. I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary going to Saudi Arabia to apologise, as it were, for the Government not going ahead with the disgraceful prison contract, and saying that it was business as usual, does not set the right tone on human rights.

Let me return to domestic matters. It is right to say that this country, since Magna Carta, has a proud tradition of human rights under English common law, but the incorporation of the European convention through the Human Rights Act since 2000 has indeed been a sea change and a step forward, and it is shameful that repeal is being suggested. Who benefits from the Human Rights Act? Our armed forces, victims of crime, journalists, those engaged in peaceful protest, victims of homophobia and racism, those with mental health problems, those with disabilities, and those subject to unlawful or intrusive surveillance by the state. Those are the people who have been able to bring rights home, as the Government would put it—who are able to uphold their rights in UK law.

I wonder whether the Government even know what they are doing on this. In Justice questions earlier this week, several Members raised questions that the Government are frankly unable to answer at the moment. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) asked about the Sewel convention, and pointed out that the answers given by the Secretary of State for Justice to the House of Lords Constitution Committee show that he does not know whether this is a matter for the devolved Administrations or not. That is a key point that has to be answered.

Another key point is what rights will be excluded. I took part in a small act of civil disobedience earlier today, when, with Liberty, we unveiled a banner in Westminster Hall pointing out what rights were protected by the Human Rights Act, which the Government wished to repeal. I am glad to say that the House authorities treated us with their usual tolerance and politeness. This is a serious matter, however. Earlier this week, I raised with the Secretary of State the case of Andrew Waters, a person with Down’s syndrome who had a “Do not resuscitate” notice placed on his bed without the consent of his family, or indeed himself. That is the third of three cases, the others being those of Carl Winspear and Janet Tracey, involving unlawful acts under the Human Rights Act, as has now been determined by the courts.

Those article 8 rights are exactly the rights that the Government have complained about. The Secretary of State was perfectly right in saying that he would not expect such behaviour to be countenanced in law, whatever is in the Government’s proposals, but how do they square the circle? How can they say that article 8 rights—the ones particularly attacked by Conservative Back Benchers and Front Benchers—will be preserved if the rights of people such as Andrew Waters are not respected?

What is the answer? The Government have no answer on how to deal with the issue of supremacy—they do not seem to understand it. They have no answer to questions on devolution, and they do not have an answer on whether they will pick and choose which rights to implement. This week, the Duma—the Russian Parliament —decided to introduce a law allowing Russia to pick and choose which of the convention rights it implemented. I would not want to be part of a Parliament that endorsed that approach; I do not want to follow Mr Putin in deciding which rights set down in international law we decide to implement at home. I hope that the Minister and the Government will think again about their entire approach to the Human Rights Act.