Israel and Palestinian Talks

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I begin, as so many Members have, by welcoming the new Minister for the Middle East to his role. He fulfilled a similar but more junior role with great distinction for several years, and I am sure he will do so again. I am also sure that he will continue to bring the same passion for the cause of finding peace between Israel and Palestine that he always has brought to the issue, and that he always brings to issues in the House.

My pleasure at welcoming the Minister to his new role is tempered by the fact that I truly believe that if the Government call a debate on such a serious foreign policy issue as the future of talks between Israel and Palestine—this is the first time a Government have done so for 10 years, I believe—and that debate is held in Government time, it would not be unreasonable to expect the Foreign Secretary himself to make the effort to lead the discussion. I do not mean to undermine how much I welcome the Minister and what he has said but, although some Members might disagree, when 100 years ago Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, decided that the British Government should publicly declare their support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, he wrote the letter in his own name. He did not delegate the task to his junior Ministers, because he realised that not only do words matter but that who says them matters very much.

I regret that the Foreign Secretary has chosen not to speak today, but I am afraid it is all part of a pattern. Since the Yom Kippur war in 1973, we have fought 12 elections in this country and the Conservative party has published 12 manifestos. During that whole period, the most recent election is only the second time the Tory party has failed to mention the middle east even once in its whole manifesto. Even the 2005 manifesto—a document so parochial, insular and isolationist that it did not even mention Russia or the United States—said that a Conservative Government would

“work to achieve peace in the Middle East based on the principle of Israel secure within its borders and a viable Palestinian state.”

Ten years later, in its 2015 manifesto, the Conservative party said it would

“support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, robustly defending the right of Israel to protect its security, while continuing to condemn illegal settlement building, which undermines the prospects for peace”.

So, we have to ask ourselves what has changed. We have to ask why the Conservative party has been prepared to spell out its middle east policy in 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005 and 2010, and just two years ago in 2015, but its latest manifesto says absolutely nothing—or as some might say klum, or as others might say, la shayy. I do not know what the Foreign Secretary’s explanation is, and we are not going to find out today. He might blame Nick Timothy, or his good friend Sir Lynton Crosby, but I must say that I drafted my section of Labour’s manifesto; why did the Foreign Secretary trust someone else to do his?

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

It may be that the Conservatives did not cover this issue in our manifesto, but at least we did not elect a leader who views Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends.

[Emily Thornberry]

When debating this issue, it is important to do so seriously and to raise serious matters. I am surprised at the tone that the right hon. Lady adopts. If she wants to continue to use the Lynton Crosby style of politics in this place, I have to tell her that it is discredited, outdated and does not work. Surely it is better to engage on the substance of the debate. The point that I am making today is that at the last general election, the Conservative party did not mention the middle east and it did not mention Palestine and Israel. I am coming on in my speech to wonder why that is and to put forward a few explanations.

[Oliver Dowden]

The shadow Foreign Secretary is very dismissive of her leader’s description of Hamas and Hezbollah as friends. I have to say to her that a great many of my constituents, many of whom are Jewish, are deeply worried and troubled by the prospect of someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom describing those two Jew-hating terrorist organisations as his friends. I would welcome it if the shadow Foreign Secretary were to take the opportunity to withdraw, on behalf of the Labour party, those comments that have caused so much upset and offence in the community.

[Emily Thornberry]

One way we can approach this is by looking at the truth of the situation, which is that, in order to engage people in peace, the leader of my party wishes to bring them together to encourage them to discuss matters. It is only through discussion and agreement that we can make progress.

[Dr Offord]

rose—

[Emily Thornberry]

Before the hon. Gentleman jumps up and down, let me just finish my point. [Interruption.] Please, I urge Members to calm down a little. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) has some good ideas about what a future peace process between Israel and Palestine might look like, he may get a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, asking him up to the second floor of Norman Shaw South to discuss it with him—he is quite happy to discuss peace and people’s ideas. However, if Government Members continue to use one of the main guns of the Lynton Crosby campaign, which is discredited and has not worked, I will not take any further interventions from them.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend has rightly talked about the seriousness of the issue. Our focus must urgently be on those who are living in Israel and Palestine and those who are suffering tremendously. It is important to acknowledge the worsening of the humanitarian situation. Two million people are trapped in the Gaza strip, half of them children. In 2012, the UN said that Gaza would be unliveable by 2020. Many experts say that 2020 is already here. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we focus on those real issues and that we move the debate forward in a productive way today?

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend is quite right: when 80% of people who live in Gaza are dependent on aid to survive, it is a very important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who will be summing up the debate at the end of the day, will be dealing particularly with humanitarian issues.

I shall make a little more progress on the point I was making, while messages are perhaps sent to Lynton Crosby for a different script. I drafted my section of the Labour manifesto, so why did the Foreign Secretary trust someone else to draft his? The reason, I suggest, is this: if we have always known in this country, ever since the Balfour declaration 100 years ago, that when statesmen and stateswomen in this country are prepared to set down in black and white their policies on the middle east, those words have an impact. When they are set out by the most senior figures as official Government policy, they matter even more. I know that the Minister has said some very important things today, but the point is that if they are not put in the manifesto or not said by the Secretary of State, they do not have the same impact. That is important.

When the Conservative party fails to set out its policies in respect of the middle east in its official manifesto, people on all sides of the debate, particularly those in Palestine and Israel, are left to interpret silence in the way they wish. Many of them, sadly, will come to the conclusion that I did, which is that the Government could not repeat their 2015 language supporting a two-state solution and condemning illegal settlement building because, on both those points, they do not as yet know where Donald Trump stands. Until they do, they want nothing written in black and white, because, one day, it might put them at odds with the American President. That simply is not good enough. We cannot overturn decades of established British foreign policy, upheld by successive Governments from both parties, just because this pathetic Government are happy to play patsy to Donald Trump.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for finally giving way. I can assure her that if her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has anything to say about Israel or Hamas, he can say it tomorrow when he visits my constituency, which has the second largest Jewish community in the country, and I am sure that they will have plenty of questions to ask him. What I want to know from the shadow Foreign Secretary—this has been made very clear today—is whether her party, in accordance with its manifesto, which she wrote, will immediately recognise the state of Palestine: yes or no?

[Emily Thornberry]

If the hon. Gentleman will take his seat, relax and listen to the rest of my speech, I will get to that at a later stage.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Only about two or three years ago, when we had the coalition Government—this might explain the reason why it was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto—the then Foreign Secretary said that the window of opportunity for a settlement was slowly vanishing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this possibly is the reason why the Government party has possibly never really given up? When I asked the Minister concerned about discussions with the Israeli Government, sanctions and settlements, he responded in a way that did not completely answer the question. More importantly, as my right hon. Friend has said, 2 million people are suffering in Palestine, so what are the Government going to do to alleviate the suffering resulting from sanctions?

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I see that the Minister is making a note of it, so hopefully he will deal with it at the end of the debate, because these questions are important.

We seek some clarity from the Minister today on where the Government stand and what they will do to promote peace in any of the specific areas that the Opposition set out in our manifesto. First, on the issue of security, it states:

“There can be no military solution to this conflict and all sides must avoid taking action that would make peace harder to achieve.”

That was what we wrote in May, and surely no party in this House would disagree. We all know that there can be no progress towards peace between Israel and Palestine unless both sides are sure of their security. Sadly, at present the opposite is true. Peace and security are becoming ever harder to achieve because of the climate of increasing aggression and extremism, which the Minister referred to.

Whether it is the horrific phenomenon of Palestinians randomly attacking Israeli civilians and security staff with knives, or ramming them with vehicles, leaving dozens dead or injured, and creating a dread that we in this country well understand, particularly after the attack on London Bridge; or whether it is the acts of indiscriminate terror, or the record number of Palestinians who last year, without process or explanation, were forcibly evicted from their homes in the occupied territories, in many cases to make way for new and illegal Israeli settlements—whatever the actions taken, no matter which is objectively worse, no matter who started it and no matter what ludicrous justifications anyone can offer—the truth is that all these actions are simply contributing to and worsening the same vicious cycle of violence and extremism, a vicious cycle that can never lead us towards peace.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that one thing that can unite us across party in this House, in addition to our opposition to terrorism, which we must always condemn, is that we must be united in our opposition to flagrant breaches of international law and flagrant human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories?

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. and learned Lady is of course quite right.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

It is of course right that we condemn settlements, but if international law is powerless to impose any form of sanction, are we not simply cementing the status quo, which has not delivered peace over many decades?

[Emily Thornberry]

I believe that all of us have been saying for some time that we know what a peace settlement ought to look like and what elements need to be stopped. We know that we have to stop the downward spiral of illegality, violence and blame, and that the further down we go, the more difficult it is to climb out again. That is why what I want to do in my speech is to address what the British can do.

As a friend of Israel and of Palestine, I am appalled at the cycle of violence that has become so familiar that it is no longer covered by our country’s news broadcasts, let alone in some parties’ manifestos. I am equally appalled when the reaction of some, on both sides of the debate, is not to prioritise stopping the cycle of violence, but to believe that we somehow have to pick a side to support, denying the reality that in a terrible conflict such as this, no side can win, and both sides can certainly continue to lose.

What are the Government doing to bring the cycle of violence to an end? What steps is the Minister taking with Palestinian leaders with regard to: ending and condemning all the acts of terrorist violence against Israel, whether using knives, vehicles or rockets; ending and condemning all incitement to violence, including their own; and, at long last, recognising the state of Israel’s right to exist? What pressure is he also putting on the Israeli Government to end the forced displacement of Palestinians from their homes, to end the building of new settlements and to commit to the dismantling of existing ones? Ultimately, what are they doing to end the blockade of the occupied territories and allow the Palestinian people to find permanent homes and proper jobs?

While we are discussing the issue of security, it would be remiss of me not to ask the Minister when we can expect the publication of the report into the foreign funding of extremist groups in the UK. We all know that this is a central issue when it comes to Israel and Palestine. The funding network is vital for Hamas and other extremist groups. We need to look into the issue and understand it. Yet, when the Foreign Secretary was asked about the report on 6 June, he said that he would

“dig it out and have a look at it if that’s what you would like me to do”.

Well, we do not want him to “dig it out”. It should never have been buried in the first place. We want the Government to publish it and act on it. We want to know—indeed, we have a right to know—how their policy towards Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries that may be funding extremism is being informed by that report. We want to know and we can see no reason why we should not be told. Will the Minister start by telling us today which countries the report implicates? Are sovereign Governments to blame, or simply wealthy private financiers? What are the Government’s ties with those Governments and individuals? Ultimately, why has that report not been published?

Let me turn to the importance of clarity and consistency, among other things, in relation to the middle east. In Labour’s manifesto, we once more called for a two-state solution, an end to illegal settlements and a return to meaningful negotiations to achieve a diplomatic resolution. None of those things should be difficult or controversial. Indeed, they have been staples of UK Government policy and successive party manifestos on both sides going back to the aftermath of the second world war. But, as I have already said, we are now at a crossroads. The Government do not know whether Britain’s long-standing policies on the middle east are still consistent with our equally strong desire to work closely with the United States to try to co-ordinate policy, because we do not know what the policy of the United States is. The Minister welcomed President Trump’s engagement on the issue, but I note that he did not give us any indication of what Donald Trump’s policy on the middle east is, and that confusion is not restricted to Britain.

Two weeks ago, the Israeli Defence Minister said that there is an agreed level of new settlement construction that the Trump Administration have said they will support. He said that

“they respect our approach and our vision regarding…settlements”,

but last week the Israeli Education Minister said the opposite, suggesting that Trump’s approach to settlement building was a disappointment and that

“he’s…going down the same unsuccessful path that his predecessors did”.

So what is the truth? The Israelis do not know. The Palestinians do not know. And I bet a fair amount that, although the Minister of State welcomes the engagement, he really does not know what Donald Trump’s policy is. Depressingly, I am pretty sure that Donald Trump does not have the foggiest idea either.

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

I was on a cross-party delegation to the Holy Land in January. Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of some of the Palestinians we saw—Christians as well as Muslims—at the involvement and financial interests of some of Donald Trump’s acolytes in settlement construction? In the popular imagination, settlements are maybe just a few shacks on a hill, but Ma'ale Adumim, which we saw, has 37,500 people in it—it looks like a pleasant American commuter town, with five swimming pools and all sorts of other things—and that makes the geographically viable Palestinian state that might one day come even more difficult.

[Emily Thornberry]

The difficulty is that, certainly during the campaign, and in the early days of his—I think the word is—Administration, the statements Donald Trump has made in relation to Israel have been very alarming for those who support a two-state solution.

The point I am trying to make is that Britain has always wanted to be able to co-ordinate its foreign policy with the Americans, and this Government are so weak and wobbly that they feel they have to be in lockstep with Donald Trump. That is where we have the difficulty in relation to middle east policy, and that may be one of the reasons why the Foreign Secretary will not come to the Dispatch Box and why Israel and Palestine were not mentioned in the Tory manifesto.

Let me develop my argument further. One thing we know for sure is that waiting for Donald Trump to make up his mind is no way for the British Government to decide their foreign policy. So let me ask the Minister of State today not just to do what every Foreign Minister has done for the last seven decades and to make it clear that we want to see a peaceful process of negotiation towards a two-state solution, including an end to all acts of terrorism towards Israel and an end to all illegal settlements, but to make it clear that that will be our position regardless of what America finally decides is its policy stance. If Donald Trump departs from those long-standing policies, will the British Government condemn him? That is what they should be prepared to do.

If the Minister of State will not say those things today, we can only come to two equally unpalatable and pitiful conclusions: either the Government have abdicated Britain’s leadership role and are simply waiting to take their cues from Trump Tower, or they see no point in putting pressure on the Trump Administration, because they know they will simply be ignored—just like they were over climate change.

Let me turn to the final point on this issue. The Labour manifesto said simply and clearly:

“A Labour government will immediately recognise the state of Palestine.”

Six years ago, the then Foreign Secretary said:

“We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state...at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 290.]

Let me, then, urge the Minister and the Government to seize the moment we are now offered by the Balfour centenary to throw our support behind Palestinian statehood, just as we threw our support 100 years ago behind Israeli statehood.

If the question is whether this is the moment when recognising statehood will help bring about peace, I would simply ask, in Primo Levi’ s words, “If not now, when?” When violence and extremism are rising on all sides, when hard-liners are assuming increasing control, when the humanitarian crisis is getting even worse, and when all eyes are on an American President whose grand plan for peace exists only in his mind, we need the British Government, more than ever, to show some leadership and to show the way towards peace—and recognition of Palestinian statehood would be one significant step in that direction. So will the Minister of State tell the House whether such a move is under consideration? If it is not, what will it take for the Government to act? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in 2014, MPs on both sides of the House voted in favour of recognition of Palestine by a majority of 262.

I have mentioned the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I am interested in and listening with great care to what the right hon. Lady is saying about recognition of Palestine, and particularly about what the Government’s position was some years ago. Does she share my concern that, given the Minister’s comments today, it seems that that position has moved and that recognition is being ruled out until the end of talks on a peace process rather than being something that the Government would be able to do at any time?

[Emily Thornberry]

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position today, and that is why I am asking these questions. If Britain were to recognise the Palestinian state, it would be an opportunity for us to play honest broker and to challenge the Palestinians to ensure that their leaders behave in a statespersonlike way, as their people need them to behave if they are to be a state and in order to look to the future. If we were to recognise that, we could make a positive contribution.

I mentioned the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration, but this is also the year when we mark the 50th anniversaries of two equally significant moments in middle east history: the six-day war, and the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the west bank. Just as the consequences of Balfour’s letter are still with us 100 years on, the consequences of events in 1967 are equally alive today. They are alive in the justifiable fears that every Israeli citizen shares whenever they hear denials of Israel’s right to exist, whenever they hear air-raid sirens warning of rocket attacks, and whenever they hear the latest reports of cowardly terror attacks on ordinary Israeli citizens. The consequences are also with us in the anger and unfairness that has been felt by many Palestinian people since 1967, with their children growing up in poverty and deprivation, their homes bulldozed to make way for ever more illegal settlements, and their futures offering just more of the same. It is a vicious cycle of fear and despair—as I said earlier, a downward spiral from which it becomes ever harder to climb back.

But it does not have to be this way. We will hear in today’s debate—indeed, we have all heard in our discussions with Israelis and Palestinians in recent years—that there are on all sides people of good will with moderate views, mutual understanding, and shared hope for progress, who can together take us down the long and difficult but necessary path towards brokering a lasting peace. I hope that this debate will set the right tone in that regard, and that it will be constructive and forward-looking. Most of all, as I said at the outset, I hope that we all remember that our words on this issue are listened to—they matter and they make a difference—and that neither silence nor choosing sides is acceptable if what we ultimately want is peace.

In that spirit, I ask the Minister to address all the questions I have raised, but, most importantly, to tell us very simply what the Government will actively be doing, on their own terms, in the coming months to make their contribution towards that peace.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Offord]

I will extend the same courtesy to the right hon. Lady that she gave to me and say no, thank you.

Unilateralism is a rejection of the peace process, not a means to revive it. I am therefore grateful that the Minister has made very clear today the commitment from the Government and the Conservative party—our actions speak louder than words—to reject Palestinian recognition before the peace talks. We have confirmed that we will continue to support the Oslo agreement; any other action would reject it. The Government and the Conservative party will continue our endeavours to assist in the creation of a two-state solution so that both countries—Palestine and Israel—can live in peace side by side.

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made Labour’s position perfectly clear—it is in the manifesto. We think that the state of Palestine should be recognised. I answered that in my speech. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s problem, and it is such a shame he did not take my intervention.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, well I think that might be called a point of frustration, or alternatively a point of explanation, but I am afraid that we will have to leave it there. No further chuntering from a sedentary position from either side of the Chamber is required, or indeed beneficial.

Persecution and Detention of LGBT Citizens: Chechnya

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Indeed. One of the other strong messages as we approach a general election is that candidates in any party will be able to stand and be openly gay without being in any way ostracised by their own party, or indeed, we hope, any part of the electorate. That in itself sends a strong message to the world. It is a great tribute to the House and our democracy that over the past 15 years or so we have seen all parties have gays sitting on these green leather Benches. Whatever the outcome of the election, long may that continue. I also hope that that will be reflected in the Commonwealth in the years to come, as my hon. Friend suggests. We must campaign within Commonwealth countries to make sure that they do not fail to reflect the standards that we in the House reflect with regard to the LGBT community.

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

May I add my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question today? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for bringing such an important matter to the House and speaking so eloquently. I also thank the Minister for his response and pay tribute to his long and proud record of standing up for LGBT rights: he is a brave and much-needed pioneer in that regard within his party. I well recall an article by Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail in 2002—I am sure that the Minister does as well—entitled, “I’m sorry, Mr Duncan, if you’re gay, you’re not a Tory”. Thank goodness that in this country that kind of reprehensible prejudice has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

However, there is no room for complacency. This appalling and disgusting prejudice still represents official policy in some parts of Europe, and we must do something about it. In recent days and weeks, we have heard reports from Russian LGBT organisations and human rights NGOs documenting the most terrible abuse, and we have all read them with great distress. This is nothing short of officially sanctioned policy from the Chechen authorities, but the Russian Government, who bear ultimate responsibility for their citizens’ safety, appear to be looking the other way, and that is scarcely any better.

A week ago, LGBT Labour wrote a letter to the Prime Minister in which it asked particularly that she

“meet with the Russian Ambassador as a matter of urgency to demand answers; and to ensure that the Foreign Office is doing all it can with the Russian Government, and our European and international partners, to free those who have been detained and to shut the camps down.”

We are speaking today with a strong and unified voice. However, while I applaud, of course, the right hon. Gentleman’s raising the matter as deputy Foreign Secretary, it needs to be escalated. I hope that as a result of this urgent question we get an undertaking from the Government that it will be raised at a much higher political level. This is a matter that Prime Minister should take an initiative on—she should call in the Russian ambassador and demand some answers.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her tone. I had actually forgotten about the Hitchens article—I am not sure that I want to be reminded of it—but at least I can take pleasure in the fact that now I am but one of many on the Tory Benches. I hope that my statement can be seen as reflecting the Prime Minister and the entire Government’s personal condemnation of the situation. I note the right hon. Lady’s wish to see the issue raised to a higher level of political comment.

In another of the most contemptible elements of this whole issue, a representative of Chechnya’s Council on the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, Kheda Saratova, who is supposedly charged with the task of upholding human rights in the republic, has said that she would not accept an application for help from a gay person, because the persecution of gay people should not be condemned in Chechen society, even if a person is killed by their own family. The LGBT community in Chechnya is at risk not just of persecution by the Chechen authorities, but of falling victim to so-called honour killings by their own family members. They are not safe inside Chechnya and, as I said earlier, what is happening in that republic is beyond contemptible.

Syria and North Korea

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and join him in sending my condolences to the families of Chris Bevington and Hannah Bladon.

Obviously, the Foreign Secretary’s statement is somewhat overshadowed by another announcement today, but the issues at hand here are far more important for the future of our world than the Prime Minister’s cynical short-term manoeuvres. She talked about the need for leadership and stability, yet is happy to plunge the country into six weeks of uncertainty exactly at the time Britain needs to provide stable global leadership on issues such as Syria and North Korea. However, we should not be surprised, because on those and other global crises the Conservative party is abdicating any effective leadership role for Britain.

I turn to Syria. We were all appalled by the dreadful attacks on civilians witnessed during the Easter recess. Two weeks ago, there was the horrifying chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun, killing dozens of ordinary villagers and injuring many hundreds more. Just two days ago—I was rather surprised that the Foreign Secretary did not see fit to mention this—there was the suicide bombing of so-called pro-regime evacuees in Rashidin, with dozens of children among those who were killed. They were lured to their deaths by the promise of free crisps—a tragic reminder that in this conflict Bashar al-Assad does not hold a monopoly when it comes to horrific atrocities against innocent civilians, including children.

We need a peaceful settlement in Syria now more than ever. Indeed, last week the Foreign Secretary said that his priority was to

“build co-ordinated international support for a ceasefire…and an intensified political process”,

and I agree with him. So why, rather than working for co-ordinated international action properly to investigate, punish and prevent the use of chemical weapons, is the Foreign Secretary instead threatening more unilateral airstrikes by the US against the Assad regime? Why, rather than engaging in that peace process, did he instead cancel his proposed talks in Moscow, and in the process so comprehensively alienate the Putin Government that they have refused to talk to Britain in future? And why, rather than ensuring that the G7 spoke with one strong voice on Syria last week, did he instead present it with a half-baked, quickly rebuffed proposal for sanctions, without doing any preparatory work to win the support that was needed?

The Foreign Secretary ended last week disowned by Downing Street, ignored by Russia, and humiliated by the G7. The only straw he can cling on to, we presume, is this: that the United States State Department is still telling him what to say and do, and which countries he is allowed to visit. To that end, may I ask a final question on Syria? Based on his close relationship with the Trump Administration, can he clarify exactly what their strategy now is?

Turning briefly to North Korea, the Foreign Secretary rightly condemns the ongoing nuclear missile programmes being pursued by Kim Jong-un’s regime. I hope he will agree that, like Syria, this a crisis that can be resolved only through co-ordinated international action, through the de-escalation of tensions and, ultimately, through negotiations. So can he assure us that Britain will argue against any unilateral military action taken by the United States, and instead urgently back China’s call for a resumption of the six-party talks? When it comes to North Korea, the world needs statesmanship, not brinkmanship. We cannot afford blind loyalty to the Trump Administration if they are leading us down the path to war.

Peace in Syria and North Korea and our relationship with the Trump Administration are vital issues for the future of Britain and the world, and, as much as the Prime Minister would like the coming election simply to be about Brexit, we must ensure that these and other international concerns are not forgotten.

To that end, my final question for the Foreign Secretary is this: will he commit to join me in a televised debate between all the parties on foreign policy—no ifs, no buts? I am ready to say yes now, so will he commit today to do likewise: announce the first election debate and put his party’s promise of stable leadership on the line?

[Boris Johnson]

I am obviously disappointed that the shadow Foreign Secretary should choose to intrude into this very important consideration relatively separate issues of domestic political policy: we are trying to explain the position of the UK, and indeed the west, towards the Assad regime. And, by the way, we are having a televised debate now in case she had not noticed, and we should continue in that way.

To answer the right hon. Lady’s serious point, we are engaged in trying to use the opportunity provided by American action to drive forward the political process. It is not easy, and I think in all honesty that she should reflect on her approach, because what we are trying to do requires a great degree of cross-party support. We want the Russians to face up to the real option before them. If they continue to back Assad, they will be backing a regime that—I hope Members heard what I said about the use of chemical weapons—has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt to have used chemical weapons that are banned under international law. I would like the Russians to accept that there is a deal. That could be that they have an improvement in their relations with the Americans, and work together with the rest of us to tackle the scourge of Daesh. In return, the Russians need to understand that they need to make a serious commitment to a political process. At the moment, they are not doing that. They need to make a proper commitment to a ceasefire, and at the moment they are not making that commitment. They need to stop their client using chemical weapons. They said that they would do that in 2013. Rather than simply parroting the lines of the Kremlin, the right hon. Lady should support the collective action of the west, not just the G7 but the like-minded countries—

[Emily Thornberry]

What?

[Boris Johnson]

The right hon. Lady has said, for instance, that the west is divided in its attitude towards sanctions. Let us be absolutely clear that all we are trying to do is to follow where the evidential trail leads—[Interruption.] If the OPCW finds that members of the Syrian armed forces have been responsible for that attack, I hope she will agree that they should face sanctions. If she were to oppose that, I would find it absolutely extraordinary. The United States has moved to impose sanctions on a further 300 people, and there has been a large measure of support from all western countries for doing exactly that.

Furthermore, it seems unclear from the right hon. Lady’s account whether she supports the American action at all. I wonder whether she could enlighten the House as to whether she is in favour of what the Americans did. For the first time in five years, the Trump White House has shown that the west is not prepared to sit by and watch while people are gassed with weapons that should have been banned—

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We appreciate the Foreign Secretary’s inimitable rhetorical style, but I fear that the right hon. Lady, by moving as though to intervene, supposes that she is taking part in a debate. Let us await the televised debate, if it is to happen. At this point, the Foreign Secretary can content himself with responding to questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman raises two important points. On the work that is happening in northern Iraq, we have put forward an extra £40 million to provide assistance to the displaced people. We should make it clear that despite their urge to return to their original houses—their original dwellings in their original communities—that must be done in line with the Iraqi authorities, because we are concerned about IEDs that have been placed there causing all the more stress, harm and, indeed, death.

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

May I pay tribute to the Minister for his extraordinary courage last Wednesday? As PC Palmer’s family said this weekend to the Minister and to others who rushed to help:

“There was nothing more you could have done. You did your best and we are just grateful he was not alone.”

Yazidi women, including girls as young as nine, have been raped, kidnapped and sold into slavery by Daesh terrorists. If proper mechanisms are not established to investigate these crimes, crucial evidence and witnesses will be lost and the victims will never have their day in court. What are the Government doing to prevent that, and will the Minister tell us how he is ensuring that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes will be brought to justice as quickly as possible?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for her kind remarks. I make it clear that I was one of many who stepped forward on that dark day. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families and friends of the victims, including our own PC Keith Palmer.

The right hon. Lady raises an important point. We have not announced or trailed the exact details of the work we are doing to collect the evidence because there is a fear that there are those who would try to interrupt that process. Organisations are working quietly behind the scenes to collect the forensic evidence that they need, to preserve the evidence, as she said, and to collect testimonies. It will take time, but that is not broadcast in the way other things are for fear that people could try to disrupt it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson]

I must respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the episode. I believe that it has done no lasting damage to our relationship, and certainly not to the special relationship or to intelligence sharing, which will of course carry on between our countries. As I say, that relationship is of huge value to the security of the west. As for the allegations themselves, let me repeat that they are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.

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

Let me welcome the Secretary of State back from his trip to Washington. More than ever, it is vital that Britain uses, in his words, our “extraordinary relationship” to ensure that America makes the right decisions on the world stage. The Secretary of State has consistently told us that we should be optimistic about the outcome. Indeed, two days ago, he told us: “They have an agenda very close to ours. The U.S. is back.” With that in mind, will he tell us specifically what impact he believes today’s presidential energy independence Executive order will have on the Paris climate change agreement? During his trip to Washington, what representations did he make about that Executive order?

[Boris Johnson]

The right hon. Lady will know that the UK Government have played a leading role in securing the Paris agreement on climate change. The United States remains a supporter of that. In the course of my conversations with the US Secretary of State on that issue, I received some encouragement—I do not want to exaggerate the outcome of the conversations—that, as in so many other dossiers, the US is moving from the position we saw during the campaign, when some remarks came across as being perhaps out of line with UK Government thinking, into a position that is much more closely aligned with our thinking, even on climate change.

[Emily Thornberry]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I am not sure that he really understands that by lifting curbs on power plant emissions, today’s Executive order will make it practically impossible for the US to hit the targets that were agreed in Paris. The right hon. Gentleman says that he received some encouragement, but to be honest one wonders whether he raised the issue in Washington and was just ignored, or did not raise the issue at all. One thing is certainly clear—

[Boris Johnson]

I did raise it.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am very glad to hear that the Secretary of State raised the issue, but it is such a shame that we have so little influence on the United States that today an Executive order is being signed—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a gnat against a rhino!

[Emily Thornberry]

It is unfair to call the Secretary of State a gnat against a rhino, and I would obviously never suggest such a thing. If the Secretary of State claims to have influence, he needs to start showing us some evidence of it. He needs to learn that the only way he will get listened to by Trump is if he is prepared to stand up and challenge him. I ask him to begin today by condemning the Executive order and telling the Trump Administration that we will not stand by in silence while they wreck the Paris climate change agreement.

[Boris Johnson]

With great respect, I must say that I think the right hon. Lady is again being far too pessimistic. We were told by the US presidential candidate that NATO was obsolete; we now hear that he is 100% behind NATO. We were told that the JCPOA, the joint comprehensive plan of action on Iran, was going to be junked; it is now pretty clear that America supports it. We were told that there was going to be a great love-in between the new US Administration and Russia; they are now very much more in line. As for climate change, I think the right hon. Lady is once again being too pessimistic. Let us wait and see. We have heard the mutterings of the right hon. Lady; let us see what the American Administration actually do. I think she will be pleasantly surprised, as she has been, if she were remotely intellectually honest, in all other respects.

Yemen

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the sponsors of this debate, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), both of whom were born in Yemen and bring a depth of knowledge and passion to such debates, for which we are grateful.

In previous debates, we have tended to see Yemen through the prism of British involvement in the conflict in the form of arms sales and other military support to the Saudi-led coalition. I do not intend to dwell on those issues today, although I am sure that they will be raised again, not least because we await the High Court’s judgment in the next few weeks on the legality of the Government’s sale of arms to Saudi.

When we look at Yemen today what we see, first and foremost, is a humanitarian catastrophe—the world’s worst, according to the United Nations. We should not forget that, even before the start of this war, Yemen was the poorest country in the Arab world, a destitute nation surrounded by wealthy neighbours and with a desolate landscape that meant it relied on imports for 90% of its food.

Now Yemen is engulfed by famine in all but name, and no wonder. It is not just that 90% of the country’s food is imported but that most of those imports need to go through the port of Hudaydah, the Red sea port that has been razed by airstrikes—the airstrikes have completely destroyed the port’s cranes, making it impossible to unload cargo. Even if supplies could get as far as the port and then through the roadblocks, the paperwork and the searches—some, indeed, call it a blockade—mean it is unlikely that the supplies would be able to get any further because the Saudi airstrikes have also systematically destroyed the roads and bridges that make it possible to get supplies from one place to another.

The other 10%—the small amount of food that the Yemeni people produce themselves—has for the most part gone, too, as bombs have struck factories, food markets, poultry farms and even fishing boats. Jamie McGoldrick, the UN’s humanitarian co-ordinator, has said:

“The economic dimension of this war has become a tactic…It is an all-encompassing, applied economic suppression and strangulation that is causing everyone here to feel it”.

However, the UN special envoy for Yemen told the Security Council in January that a viable proposal for peace was on the table and within reach. What happened to that proposal? Where has it gone? Was it connected to the ceasefire resolution that we were told the UK would introduce six months ago? Can the Minister tell us what has happened to the resolution?

The last time we debated this matter, the Minister told us that the British Government were in the process of redrafting the resolution to make it up to date. How is that going? Do we have an up-to-date resolution? When the Security Council meets tomorrow, under British chairmanship, to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Yemen—I understand the Russians pressed for the discussion—we will be the pen holder, we will be chairing the meeting and we should be putting forward a peace resolution. Are we going to? I fear not.

I have been told that the UK is, in fact, increasingly stepping back on the diplomatic front for fear of upsetting the Saudis on the one hand, and the Americans on the other. I am told by my sources on the 38th floor that the new Administration in America are now considering stepping up their support for the coalition military campaign. If that is right, will the Minister confirm that the Saudis have been given the rest of the year to stabilise Yemen—that is the wording—and to reassert the Yemeni Government’s authority over the entire country? Surely that cannot be the case, because we all know that a military approach alone will not work.

May I also ask about the role of Stephen O’Brien? He is a former Member of this House whom many Members will know. He is now the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and is obviously important in this regard. He has said that we are facing the worst humanitarian crisis since 1945 and that the crisis is in Yemen. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm that Mr O’Brien is not leaving his post and that rumours he is leaving, not out of choice but because of Saudi objections, are wrong.

Is this forgotten war becoming the new Syria? It is a multi-layered civil war being fought by major powerful nations, either directly or through proxies, in which the victims are civilians who suffer unbearable and insufferable torment. People are also being starved. I urge the Minister to ensure that Britain, once again, takes up a proactive role on Yemen because we are a permanent member of the Security Council, because we are currently the president of the Security Council, because we are the pen holder and because we have a close relationship with Saudi Arabia, one of the major parties. What the people of Yemen need more than anything else at the moment is peace. We have some power in the conflict, and we can do something about it tomorrow.

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

Let me briefly make the point that I wish there were more time to respond to this very good debate, as I have only eight minutes in which to do my best to do justice to it. It has served as a reminder that the House takes these matters very seriously. I join Members in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the others who tabled the motion. I will do my best to rattle through the points and, as usual, I will write to right hon. and hon. Members with more details. Again, I make the point that I find it bizarre that we are stopping in order to have an Adjournment debate of an hour and a half, when such debates normally last only 30 minutes.

I will focus on the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, who made a comprehensive speech in summarising the challenges that Yemen faces. The scale of the tragedy is well known to us all, with 70% of the population now needing humanitarian assistance. In answer to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), let me say that Britain continues to play a leading role, unswayed by the prejudice or interest of any other country. As she says, we are the pen holder, and we are determined to do that job without prejudice and without influence from other nations, doing what we see is best. We show leadership at the United Nations and in the new Quint, which involves nations from around the middle east that are looking at this and which met in February, along with UN special envoy Ismail Ahmed. I met him two weeks ago, when we discussed what parameters we need to get in place in order for a ceasefire to work and then for a UN Security Council resolution to be supported.

Many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the importance of the port of Hudaydah, and that must not be underestimated. Yemen has two critical access points, one being the port of Aden, in the south, and the other, halfway up the Red sea, being Hudaydah, with a population of 3 million. If the civil war moves into that area, it will devastate that city, probably displacing about half the people who live there—1.5 million people—and causing mayhem. Not only will it further the prospect of famine and lead to a refugee crisis, but it will flatten the port itself. We may be frustrated with the amount of aid getting through the port at the moment, but the situation will be even worse if the battle commences in that populated urban area. We therefore call on the coalition and the Houthis to recognise that the world is watching and that they need to come back to the table. This will be sorted not by a military solution, but by a political one, and it is very important that that is recognised.

A lot has been said about the cranes, but let me make it clear that the old cranes were bombed a number of years ago and the new cranes are sitting in Dubai. They have been moved there to keep them out of harm’s way; no one knows exactly what is going to happen to the port of Hudaydah as it is unclear where the battle is going.

I reiterate how unhelpful and wrong it would be for us not to work towards a peaceful solution. The right hon. Member for Leicester East rightly said that this problem is not intractable—there is a path to peace. An awful lot of plates are spinning in the middle east, but I genuinely believe that Yemen is one problem that can be solved—to do that, however, we also need the will of the Yemeni people.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), for whom I have a huge amount of respect, made a helpful visit to Yemen, although such travel is not endorsed. In his own inimitable way, he went there and he has shared his findings. He paid tribute to the UN agencies—I join him in doing so—and spoke about there being perhaps a difference in strategy between different Departments. I make it clear that we have one clear strategy, but I can see the dilemma in that on the one hand the Department for International Development is determined to get aid into the country, whereas on the other we are dealing with this protracted war, which this coalition is pushing, and it is not doing a particularly good job of it. I have been critical about its actions before; it is not used to sustained warfare and it has made mistakes, which we have debated here. We have made it clear to the coalition that, as I have just said, the war will not be ended in this way.

We certainly support Saudi-led efforts to restore stability and check the advance of the Houthis, because that started all this in the first place. Let us not forget that the Houthis pushed through Sana’a and would have taken over the port of Aden had a coalition not answered the call by President Hadi to stand up for his legitimacy.

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I am afraid I do not have time to give way; I do apologise.

Members talked about weapons systems getting into Yemen. I am afraid they are getting in by land and by sea, not so much through the port of Hudaydah. Smaller boats are getting in and providing arms up and down the Red sea, and arms are also getting in through land corridors. The UN verification and inspection mechanism is not working as well as it could because it is not able to capture all the boats that are moving in.

I have to contend with a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. We can discuss this after the debate, but I do not agree that because al-Qaeda is fighting the Houthis we should somehow be in some form of alignment with it. Al-Qaeda’s track record shows that we cannot entertain any alliance whatsoever. It has brought insecurity and harm to the middle east and, indeed, to Europe.

Budget Resolutions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Let me start by saying that, like many other Members, it was my privilege this afternoon to attend the service of celebration for the Commonwealth at Westminster Abbey, in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen. In the context of tonight’s debate, it was a reminder of the powerful and historical ties that Britain enjoys all over the world; we are a country that will always face outwards and never turn in on ourselves, and, like the Secretary of State, I hope that at next year’s service we will have another member of the Commonwealth present, as a democratic Gambia completes the process of re-admission.

I thank the Secretary of State for opening this evening’s debate on the Budget and Britain’s place in the world. It is an issue of vital importance, and yet one that, it is fair to say, has not been centre stage in the five days of the debate on the Budget. If someone had told us last summer that going into article 50 week the Prime Minister and the Chancellor would be at each other’s throats, at war through the media, and engaged in a desperate blame game, while the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would be sent into the television studios to act for the Government as the voice of calm and unity, no one would have believed them. However, if this is indeed to be the Foreign Secretary’s new role—if he is going to be the new Willie Whitelaw figure, or, dare I say it, the new John Prescott—I congratulate him and wish him the very best of luck in the future.

Of course, there will be some unkind souls who look at the row between No. 10 and No. 11 and think it is exactly what the Secretary of State needed this weekend. In their cynical minds, had it not been for that row, much more attention would have focused on Sunday’s real heavyweight contest, the one the public really wanted to see explode, the one between the two Tory blond heavyweights: Hezza versus Bozza; Tarzan versus the Zip-Glider; the Dog-Killer versus the Dave-Slayer. We were denied a true fight, but we were left with these immortal words from Lord Heseltine:

“When I listen to Boris…he has turned the art of political communication into a science”

of using

“waffle, charm, delay, anything to stop actually answering questions.”

In the rest of my speech, I intend to ask some very straightforward questions on the Budget and Britain’s place in the world, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to answer them without waffle or delay, and with no more charm than he feels is absolutely necessary.

It is striking that we are here to debate a Budget that has almost nothing to say about Britain’s place in the world, and with even less to offer for it. I am sure that we could all have predicted some of the rhetoric that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman tonight about re-entry into world markets, a truly global Britain and an active global Britain. I predict that we will hear more about “brand Britannia” and terms such as “dynamic”, “agile”, “cutting edge”, “global powers”, “global reach” and “global influence”, and about the yacht and exporting boomerangs and so forth—but the question is this: what is the strategy for achieving all that ambition, and how does the Budget provide the resources to back it up? So far, we have seen no evidence of either.

It is not enough simply to want a relationship with Europe that has all of the benefits and none of the costs, and to be a leading global power at the same time, or to say, like Tinkerbell, that all we have to do to make it happen is believe that it is possible. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman almost seems to be implying that if we do not believe, or if we ask awkward questions, somehow these things will not happen, and that fairies will start falling from the skies.

It has been said in this debate—no doubt it will be said again—that the Government are meeting their commitments to spend both 2% of GDP on defence and 0.7% on development, but while these seem like clear commitments, when we scratch the surface there are many unanswered questions, about how funding is split between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, and about how, where, why and on what this money is actually spent.

It seems likely that a large part of the Foreign Office budget over the next few years will come from funding streams that are nominally shared across Departments, most of them with blandly unobjectionable names such as the conflict, stability and security fund and the prosperity fund. The idea of shared funding is perfectly valid in principle, but we need to know how these funds will be used by the Foreign Office. How much will be classed as “aid” spending, and how much as “defence”, and, for that matter, how much will be classed as both? We need to know why there is so little transparency on this issue, and what kind of oversight there is to make sure that these funds are used responsibly. One might, if one was of a suspicious frame of mind, even conclude that the Government are being wilfully opaque in this matter, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will bristle at the very suggestion, and will want to do all he can to dispel such a thought from the debate.

Of course, the reliance of the Foreign Office—perhaps the over-reliance—on funding from outside its budget settlement is really just symptomatic of a much larger and much more damaging trend under this Government. Unlike defence or overseas aid, our diplomatic service lacks the financial security of a politically or legally binding spending target, and I am sorry to say that it shows. Of the three Departments that share most of the responsibility for “Britain’s place in the world”—the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development—the FCO’s budget accounts for just 3% of the combined total, despite the fact that it is every bit as essential as the other two.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman saw the Financial Times on Friday, which highlighted the real change in Departments’ resource budgets between 2016-17 and 2019-20. It is no surprise—there was a great deal of fuss about this—that there has been a cut of 37.2% to Department for Communities and Local Government budgets, but which Department has the largest cut of all? It is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has a minus 38.1% change to its budget. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) may shake his head, and if I am wrong, he should please tell me. I would be interested to see him go into battle with the Financial Times on this matter.

The Department’s budget is already very small, and it comes as no surprise that these cuts have had serious consequences for our standing in the world and for our global reach and influence. To start with, there has been a loss of expertise. We have seen the Government repeatedly being caught by surprise on events of great global significance such as the Arab spring, the crisis in Ukraine and the attempted coup in Turkey. There has been a hollowing out of expertise in these critical areas, not to mention a loss of skilled linguists. If the Secretary of State can tell us what progress has been made on recovering Russian and Arabic language capabilities, for example, I should be very grateful.

[Mike Gapes]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the hollowing out of the FCO’s budget. On the question of linguists, has she seen the report on Russia from the Foreign Affairs Committee that we published last week? It describes the lack of expertise in the FCO for looking at Russia. Does she agree with me and the Committee that the FCO needs more resources if we are to confront and understand the problems being caused by Russia’s behaviour towards its neighbours?

[Emily Thornberry]

It is because I have read that report that I mention Russian language capabilities. In my view, the reports produced by the Foreign Affairs Committee are thoughtful and informative, and I recommend them to the Secretary of State. The Committee has raised a number of flags that need to be carefully considered, because changes are happening to our precious Foreign Office and we are losing capabilities that it will be very difficult to redevelop.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady is making a reasonably cogent case—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] She is most welcome—

[Mr Jackson]

That is a rare phenomenon in respect of the right hon. Lady, sometimes, Madam Deputy Speaker. On a serious point, is it not only fair to record that those of us who occasionally travelled to central and south America witnessed a shrinking of our footprint and our soft power as the previous Labour Government closed many of the embassies there? We also downgraded the Chevening scholarships. This is something that we now need to review urgently as we go forward post-Brexit.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am surprised to find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I do. It is important that we should stop and have a review. We need to look carefully at the 38% cuts that are being implemented by his Government at this crucial time for Britain. That is the point that I am making in this Budget debate. I believe that these issues need to be seriously addressed, and questions and answers about haggis are not sufficient when it comes to dealing with cuts of 38% to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

It is not just language skills that have suffered. Let us consider BBC Monitoring, a vital service that monitors and translates foreign news reports and serves as an indispensable source of intelligence for Government Departments, including the Foreign Office. By transferring the responsibility for its funding from the taxpayer to the BBC itself, the Government have left BBC Monitoring open to cuts, and last year saw the announcement of 96 job losses and the closure of 20% of its posts overseas. Is that responsible behaviour, at a time like this? Cuts such as those will continue to have effects as incalculable as they are far-reaching.

It turns out that what a Government choose to fund, or not to fund, can tell us a great deal more than just the short-term spending priorities of the Government as a whole. For the Foreign Office, those decisions can identify the most basic principles underlying the Government’s foreign policy approach. For perhaps the best example of that, we need look no further than the downgrading of human rights as a priority for the Department. They are now considered far less important than the so-called prosperity agenda— [Interruption.] I hear people saying that that is entirely untrue. Let me pray in aid the permanent secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has said precisely that. That decision has been confirmed as a more or less direct consequence of the cuts imposed by the Government.

It was not so long ago that a Tory Foreign Secretary, William—now Lord—Hague, was able to say with a straight face that there would be

“no downgrading of human rights”

under his Government. He argued that it was neither in our interests nor in our nature to have what he called a

“foreign policy without a conscience”.

I could not agree more, and he must surely be sharing our disappointment to see a Tory Foreign Secretary and a Tory Prime Minister practically tripping over each other to cosy up to the likes of Donald Trump. We used to think that there were some world leaders who would always unite the opinion of this House, and that Members on both sides would always have the courage to speak out against those who did not share our values. These days, the Government’s values are obscure, to put it politely, beyond being in favour of trade, so the question is not just one of how much the Government are prepared to spend on the world-class diplomatic service that they want, important though that is; it is also a question of what they are prepared to do with the resources that they have.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady is making her points from the Opposition Front Bench, but does she not agree that the Government have made important strides on freedom of religion or belief? They held a conference a few months ago to help to promote those issues, not just in the Commonwealth but globally. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I really appreciate that sort of action. It is very important, and it should not be downgraded by such talk from the Opposition Benches.

[Emily Thornberry]

That is to be acknowledged, but we must also look at what is happening within the various missions and at the posts that are being stripped out. Those whose job it was to make contact with human rights activists and with civil society within those countries—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, wishes to intervene on me, I will have no problem with that. However, if he is not going to intervene, could he just be quiet and let me finish my speech? I would appreciate that.

I want to talk about what our foreign policy is, in essence. Ministers are fond of speaking of the opportunities that leaving the EU could provide. On foreign policy, a fundamental rethink of the Government’s approach could be one of those opportunities, but in fact it is more than that: doing so is an absolute imperative. As the Government start to think—however belatedly—about the kind of relationship they might want with Europe, they should also consider what kind of relationship they want us to have with the rest of the world. In doing so, we need more than just warm words from the Government—we need a plan. Our Foreign Office has been at its very best when it has been allowed in its foreign policy to give proper weight to British values as well as to British interests. I hope that the Secretary of State will look to that legacy and embrace and build on it, rather than undermining it any further. In the more immediate term, we need the Government to start thinking sensibly about Europe as a matter of urgency. We know little more about Ministers’ intentions than that they are prepared to break the British economic model if they feel that that is needed if we do not get a deal.

I heard the Secretary of State say at the weekend that we would be “perfectly okay” if we left the EU without a deal. So why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer briefing that he is going to hoard £60 billion because of Brexit? Perhaps it is to fund the extra £350 million a week that the Secretary of State promised for the national health service. If so, I hope that the Secretary of State has asked the Chancellor about it, because £60 billion would provide three years, three months and one week’s-worth of extra money for the NHS. At the moment, he seems to be doing no more than crossing his fingers and hoping for the best. This is a serious situation. We need clear thinking about our future in Europe and in the wider world, and simply talking about Toblerone display cabinets in Saudi Arabia is not sufficient. We need clear thinking and a clear plan, and we need them without any further delay.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

Rex Tillerson was absolutely clear that he regards the relationship with the United Kingdom as one of pivotal importance for his country. Indeed, NATO is of pivotal importance for the safety not just of European countries, but of the United States. He was also clear, of course, that the UK will be at the front of the queue for a new trade deal.

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

President Trump boasts of running a finely tuned machine, but the truth is that American policy is under review when it comes to all the world’s major crises—from Ukraine to Syria, and Afghanistan to North Korea. I hear from the Secretary of State that there is new thinking, but we have yet to see anything coherent coming out of America. The finely tuned machine has not so much stalled as not yet got going. The resulting vacuum is being filled by the Russians, with peace talks on Syria and Afghanistan taking place without US or UK involvement. Is the Secretary of State happy to keep waiting for President Trump’s cue or is he capable of thinking for himself? Will we see a British initiative in any of these countries; and, if so, where is he going to start and what is the plan?

[Boris Johnson]

The finely tuned machine that is the Labour party is a fine one to offer any kind of political advice to the American Administration. As the right hon. Lady knows very well, the UK has, in fact, been in the lead in trying to find a solution in Yemen, and in trying to maintain the commitment to AMISOM, the African Union Mission in Somalia. She should recognise, in all fairness, that the current area of diplomacy being considered by the United States in respect of Syria is a course that the UK has principally advocated—one in which the Russians and the Iranians are separated in their interests, and we move towards a political solution and a transition away from the barbarism of the Assad regime.

[Emily Thornberry]

I have to say that if that’s a plan, I’m a monkey’s uncle. The fact is that the Government have been frozen out of negotiations on some of the most pressing issues we face. Take Afghanistan, where there have been 450 British fatalities over 15 years. The American army general on the ground, John Nicholson, describes the fighting as having reached a stalemate that may take several thousand more troops to break. In the meantime, Russian-led peace negotiations are going on in the absence of America, the United Kingdom and, in fact, every other NATO member, so I ask the Secretary of State again: when will we start seeing some leadership from this Government?

[Boris Johnson]

If the right hon. Lady is referring to Russian-led peace talks in Afghanistan, I think she is in error. Perhaps she is talking about the Astana talks on Syria. It is strongly our view and the view of all Syria-supporting countries that those negotiations should resume as soon as possible in Geneva.

The right hon. Lady talks about the UK’s contribution to Afghanistan, and I think that she and the whole House can be very proud of the sacrifice made by those 456 British troops who lost their lives over the past 15 years. Hundreds of thousands of women in Afghanistan are now being educated as a result of the sacrifice made by British troops and the investment in that country by the British people. There are people who are now getting food, water and sanitation, which they would not otherwise have received.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

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

May I thank Members on both sides of the House for securing this debate? People watching us from the Public Gallery will see the House at its best when it comes to such debates. Many Members were very well informed indeed. I was expecting excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), but if I could pick one favourite speech it would be that of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) who spoke passionately, articulately and without notes, and I commend her for that. It may be that other people watching the debate will have other favourites, but her speech was excellent. In the time that I have available, I will not try to summarise all the contributions.

The carefully drafted motion represents a consensus shared across the House. I know that there are many differences, and we have heard them today, but, actually, what unites us is so much more than that which divides us on this. It is important that we speak clearly and loudly about settlements.

Clearly, this is an important anniversary year, and the debate is very timely. When we look at the great sweep of history, from the six-day war and its aftermath to the UN partition plan and all the way back to Balfour, it is quite clear that, in many ways and in context, we seem to have come to a halt. The past few years have been very dark and very depressing with very little movement. I fear that we have been slipping backwards, and that a two-state solution is moving further and further away from us.

Clearly, settlements are a major part of the problem, but we must recognise them for what they are: they are a roadblock to peace and a violation of international law. At the same time, we cannot pretend that this conflict can be reduced to that one issue alone, as that is simply not the case. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) put it so well, there must be an unequivocal end to violence and incitement on both sides. In these dark and difficult times, the question is what do we do? Do we give up hope? Do we walk away?

We must be honest that the road ahead is very hard. My question is this: have the Government decided that, what with Brexit, the crisis in the NHS, the collapse in social care, the challenge of the Trump presidency and wars over the middle east, continuing to be involved in such a bitter and long-standing dispute is just one challenge too many? In many ways, that was the message that Ministers sent to the Paris conference last month when 36 countries sent a Foreign Minister, but not the United Kingdom. Our presence there was downgraded to observer status and we declined to join the communiqué, which really did not make any sense, because the objectives of the conference and the content of the communiqué were so closely aligned to the sentiments expressed in UN Security Council resolution 2334, which, I am told, the UK had a key role in drafting last December. It is as if we have been blowing hot and cold. What is going on? Are the Government losing their nerve?

The Government’s official explanation was that they chose not to attend because no Israeli or Palestinian representatives were present, but that does not make sense, because the Paris conference was not some kind of quixotic attempt to bypass the need for bilateral negotiations, but an attempt to affirm support for them. As the lengthy list of multilateral initiatives in UN Security Council resolution 2334 showed, the international community has always had a role to play in helping to facilitate bilateral talks.

For Labour, as internationalists, friends of Israel and friends of the Palestinians, that understanding is crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), who was shadow Minister for the middle east, said a few years ago:

“We have made it very clear that we will always work with partners multilaterally to advance the two-state solution agenda.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 95.]

I hope that the Minister will explain why this Government appear to lack the same co-operative spirit—or at least they lack it sometimes.

Whatever the official reason, I am afraid that the clear subtext to the decision on Paris was the election of President Trump in the United States. Many have suggested that his election was bad news for the peace process and that we should give up hope. I can understand why. We just need to consider the words of Naftali Bennett, one of the most influential Members of Netanyahu’s Cabinet. Following the election of Donald Trump, he said:

“The era of a Palestinian state is over.”

Mr Bennett’s regulation Bill seeks to legalise the construction of settlements on privately owned land retrospectively and it should be condemned.

The fact is that a one-state solution would not enjoy the support of the people of Israel or the majority of the people of Palestine. By following the settler agenda, the Israeli Government are not acting in the interests of the people of the region, and certainly not in the interests of the people of Israel. A single state, stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river can be one of two things: it can either be Jewish, or it can be democratic. As the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) so rightly said, it cannot be both.

As friends of Israel and friends of Palestine, there is no time for the UK to sit on the side lines. Of course I understand why the regulation Bill was pushed forward at this particular time. After all, the man who has just taken office as the President of the United States has expressed some unorthodox views, to put it mildly. He has made statements in favour of more settlements, and he is in favour of moving his embassy to Jerusalem and opposed to multilateral talks. The man he has appointed as America’s ambassador to Israel has said that

“a two-state solution is not a priority”.

Many of us worry that this rhetoric is divisive, but we have heard positive words from Mr Trump at times. He said, for example, that he

“would love to be able to be the one that made peace with Israel and the Palestinians”,

and that he has “reason to believe” that he can do that. I think we should choose to take him at his word. The difficulty is that I am far from convinced that he knows exactly how to do that. That is where we come in.

The expertise of the Foreign Office and the advice we can give the Americans in these circumstances are important. It is incumbent on us, as we wish for a two-state solution, to do everything we can to push for a path to peace. For the Government, that means making the case to Washington and Tel Aviv, and convincing them that a two-state solution is still both achievable and necessary. I hope that the Minister can assure us that his Government remain committed to a two-state solution, and opposed to anything that stands in the way of that.

I am deeply disappointed that the Government continue to fail to recognise the Palestinian state. Now is the time. I ask the Minister to comment on that. What thought have the Government put into how settlement goods could be separated from other Israeli goods, as many people do not wish to buy settlement goods? Are the Government doing any further work on that? How can we persuade British companies not to invest in settlement areas? Most importantly, I hope that when President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu visit London later this year, our Prime Minister will have the courage to set out those views in no uncertain terms. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

US Immigration Policy

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing sorrow at last night’s gun attack on a Canadian mosque, which left six dead and eight injured. They were all victims of hate, and we all have a duty to stand up to hate whenever, and in whatever form, it appears.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I must say that I thought that it was missing a few pages—apparently not—so I hope, Mr Speaker, that you will allow me to ask about some details that were missing from the statement and about its timing.

First, on the detail, as the Secretary of State knows, thousands of people in Britain live here on a permanent basis but are nationals of the seven listed countries and have no dual citizenship. Many of them are here with indefinite leave to remain, having fled persecution or war. Can he confirm, based on what he has said today, that these thousands of British residents are now barred from travelling to the United States? Dr Hamaseh Tayari, an Iranian national living and working in Glasgow, was told on Friday that she was not allowed to fly home from Costa Rica because she needed to change planes in New York. Similarly, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that a Somali national with a temporary US visa who is currently in the UK visiting their family cannot now return to the US under these rules? I hope he can clarify those points.

On the timing of the announcement, the order was issued at 9.45 pm on Friday, UK time. It then took No. 10 until midnight on Saturday, a full 27 hours later, to say that it would consider the impact on UK nationals. It then took the Prime Minister until Sunday morning to tell the Foreign Secretary to telephone the White House, and it took him until midday on Sunday to call the travel ban “divisive and wrong”—that is 38 hours. It took 38 hours to have the courage to say what everyone else was saying on Friday night.

Forty-six hours after the Executive order, we got clarification that UK nationals and dual nationals would not be affected. If that was because the wheels in Washington were slow to turn, it might be understandable, but Canada was immediately in touch with its American counterparts on Saturday and by that evening it had secured the travel rights of Canadian nationals, a full 17 hours before we had secured the travel rights of ours. Canada is supposed to be five hours behind the UK, so why was it a day ahead of us in resolving this issue?

Finally, on the timing, the order was signed barely an hour or two after the Prime Minister left the White House. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether this imminent order was mentioned in the discussions about terrorism and security? I do not know what is worse: that the President has such little respect for the Prime Minister that he would not think of telling her, or that he did and that she did not think it sounded wrong. If it was the first, it would hardly be a surprise; but if it was the latter, we really do have a problem because, when it comes to human rights, when it comes women’s rights and when it comes to torture and the treatment of minorities, President Trump is already descending a very dangerous slope. When that happens, we need a Prime Minister who is prepared to tell him to stop, not one who simply proffers her hand and silently helps him along.

[Boris Johnson]

I listened very carefully, and I think the hon. Lady’s most substantial point was about the particular case of a Glaswegian doctor. I appreciate that there will be all sorts of cases—particularly difficult cases, heart-breaking cases—in which people have experienced a lot of frustration as a result of this measure. I repeat, because perhaps Members did not follow it first time, that this is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government but a policy that is being promoted elsewhere.

What we will do is make sure that all our consular network and all our diplomatic network are put at the service of people who are finding difficulties as a result of these measures, but, as I said, because of the energetic action of this Government, of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary we have an exemption for UK passport holders, whether dual nationals or otherwise. I think that most fair-minded people would say that that shows the advantages of working closely with the Trump Administration and the advantages of having a relationship that enables us to get our point across and to get the vital protections that UK passport holders need. The approach taken by the Labour party, of pointlessly demonising the Trump Administration, would have achieved the very opposite.

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

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

This has been an extraordinary debate, in which we have seen the House at its best. Let me begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) on securing it, and on the immensely powerful and important statements they have both made, not just today, but since this hateful policy was announced on Friday night. Tellingly, they and others, from Chancellor Merkel to Sir Mo Farah, were able to see immediately that this policy is abhorrent and reprehensible, and to condemn it, whereas as far as the British Prime Minister was concerned it was not a matter for comment, and almost three days later she has still not condemned it. She has only told us that it is not a policy she would pursue—that is not condemning it. As my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman both know, this is not a time for cowardice. It is not a time for staying silent or for going for trade deals at almost any cost; it is a time to stand up for what is right. So many Members have talked tonight about the desperation that forces people to flee from war, terror and persecution, and the terrible consequences that befall the world when we bar the door and turn our backs on those most in need.

Many have pointed out that it added grotesque insult to grave injury for President Trump to announce this policy on Holocaust Memorial Day. On that day, we among millions of others remember the 900 Jewish refugees on the MS St Louis who were turned away from the United States and forced to return to Antwerp, plunging them back into the holocaust from which 254 of them would never emerge. It was of course in the aftermath of those horrors that the 1951 Geneva refugee convention was agreed, which was renewed afresh and signed by the United States in 1967. That convention enshrines the principle that all signatories should give shelter to those fleeing war and persecution, regardless of their race, religion and nationality. The Executive order could not be a more calculated demolition of that principle.

We learned on Saturday that Chancellor Merkel had to explain the convention in her phone call with President Trump, but we have to do more than explain it. It is incumbent on every other signatory to that convention to press the United States to live up to its commitments and its obligations, so I support my right hon. Friend’s call for a European Heads of Government meeting to consider a united response to this Executive order and to the breach of the refugee convention. I urge the Minister to respond to those calls when he speaks.

Given the response of the Minister’s boss to my earlier questions—perhaps, more honestly, I should say the lack of response—may I ask him to address urgently the issue of the position of UK residents who are foreign nationals and not passport holders but residents? I am thinking in particular of those with indefinite leave to remain, thousands of whom will now find themselves discriminated against simply because of their country of origin, even though many are here precisely because they have fled the terror and religious extremism that the Executive order purports to prevent. Whether these people are Somali or Sudanese, Syrian or Yemeni, Iraqi, Iranian or Libyan, they are our constituents. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they are raising their families here and they call the UK their home. They are part of our communities and we have a duty to stand up for their rights as well. So may I ask the Minister as a first step to tell us how many UK residents he believes will be affected in this way, and what advice his Department and the Home Office are offering them?

Frankly, this is a debate I never thought we would need to have; the very idea that we would be looking at a new American President, just a few weeks into the job, not just aghast at what he has already done, but debating how much worse things could get from here. How long ago it seems since the Foreign Secretary was telling us to be optimistic about the new presidency and was saying that this President shared our values and we were being premature in judging him. How naive that looks now.

Yet this is the President for whom the Government are preparing to roll out the red carpet and welcome on a state visit. I was checking the figures today and I found that since the first state visit of President Reagan in 1982 the quickest period between inauguration and making a state visit to Britain was 17 months—that was for President Obama. The average has been 25 months, with both President Clinton and President George W. Bush having to wait almost three years. So why the indecent haste for this most indecent of Presidents?

This is a President who has made lewd and vile comments about the Duchess of Cambridge; who has said that he does not want to meet the Prince of Wales, because someone might finally stand up to him about climate change; and who has banned thousands of our residents and millions worldwide from visiting America simply because of their nationality and their religion. And President Trump thinks that we should put on a parade for him while that grotesque ban is still in place! If it goes ahead, it will be a national shame, which is why the Opposition will oppose having a state visit in such circumstances. We will certainly oppose any suggestion that President Trump is given the honour of addressing both Houses of Parliament.

Last week, the Prime Minister promised to speak frankly to President Trump and tell him where she disagreed with him, but we heard nothing of the sort from Washington. We heard nothing about climate change or respect for human rights and women’s rights. We heard nothing about punishing war crimes in Syria, the nuclear deal with Iran, or the illegal settlements in the west bank. We got the same stony silence from the Prime Minister when she was asked about the Executive order. Three times she was asked the question in Ankara, and three times she ignored it. Was she told about it by President Trump? There have been reports on “Channel 4 News” that she was. The Secretary of State ducked the question; perhaps the Minister will enlighten us and answer directly: did the President tell the Prime Minister about the Executive order when they met?

The Prime Minister referred in Washington to a special relationship based on our shared history and interests, but she has to realise, and needs to make President Trump realise, that it is also a relationship based on shared values. If the President is going to discard those values, whether by embracing torture or ignoring climate change, or by demonising people as aliens and terrorists based simply on their religion and nationality on the very day on which we remember the holocaust, the Prime Minister must be willing to tell him frankly: “Mr President, you are wrong. This is not who we are.” The fact that, almost three full days after the announcement, we have yet to hear a word of condemnation from her own mouth is not just shameful, it is cowardly. Some iron lady she has turned out to be.