Oral Answers to Questions

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I had not heard that report, but it would be excellent news. I can reassure the right hon. Lady that I raised the issue when I met the Saudi Foreign Minister on my recent visit. We have asked to have access to the trials, but that has been denied. We continue to follow the case very carefully and press it at every opportunity.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the diplomatic implications of rocket fire from Gaza towards Tel Aviv.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

We are concerned by the recent violence in Israel and Gaza, and we welcome the Egyptian efforts to de-escalate the situation. At the UN Security Council on 26 March, the UK condemned the rocket attacks, which injured two British-Israeli citizens. We regret the loss of life, including the death of four children in protests over the weekend—mercifully, fears of major violence were not realised. Our diplomats in the region urge all parties to continue to demonstrate restraint in the tense days that lie ahead.

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the Minister for his response and associate myself with his comments. Last month, more than 60 rockets were fired from Gaza towards Israel. Two were intercepted above Tel Aviv, while another destroyed a residence in central Israel that was occupied by a British-Israeli family, resulting in injuries, including to a six-month-old baby. What steps are the Government taking to support our ally, Israel, as it fights this terrorist attack on the country?

[Mark Field]

I think we all recognise that Israel is an important strategic partner for the United Kingdom and that we need to collaborate actively on issues of defence, security and intelligence. In October 2018, the Government launched the UK-Israel counter-terrorism dialogue to share best practice and insights on a wide range of capabilities. We are now committed to holding such a dialogue annually, which will help to complement the already strong operational relationship between our countries.

Child Prisoners and Detainees: Occupied Palestinian Territories

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. However, this debate is about the different treatment of Palestinian and Israeli children, and the breach of human rights and international law. I completely agree that if someone has committed a crime, they should be dealt with appropriately and with due process, but that is not what is happening at the moment.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

On the specific point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about human rights abuses and whether that should result in a breach of our relationship with Israel, did not UNICEF, which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) quoted, highlight alleged human rights abuses of minors in the UK who were arrested during the 2011 London riots?

[Sarah Champion]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I am talking specifically about detention of Palestinian children. If he wants to bring his point forward in another debate, I am sure that this Chamber will be equally packed.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

I agree with my hon. Friend. His example is a good example of the level of Palestinian incitement.

[Guto Bebb]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the extent of Palestinian incitement of young people to take arms and violent action almost becomes an issue of child abuse?

[John Howell]

I agree with that. It is a question of child abuse, and we need to direct attention to the Palestinian authorities for their handling of children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

No, I am sorry. I will not take any more interventions.

I understand and accept that legally applying civil law to Palestinians in the west bank would be tantamount to unlawful annexation of the area. I agree with that point but, when dealing with civilians, both civil and military laws should be equalised so that children—whether they are Jewish or Palestinian—are treated equally. At this point I pay tribute to Gerard Horton of Military Court Watch—a great lawyer.

According to the Israeli prison service, 407 Palestinian children aged 12 to 17 have been in military detention since 30 November 2015, which is a 33% increase on the previous month. The number of children in detention is now at its highest level since March 2009, and is 54% above the level that Foreign Office lawyers witnessed when they produced their report. Of course that is wrong. Who would not dispute circumstances in which children can be arrested at night, blindfolded and hooded? Who would dispute that lawyers should be present at every interrogation, that parents should be given the option to be present too, that all interrogations should be audio-visually recorded and, importantly, that no child should be transferred out of the west bank into Israel?

In the past, when I commanded British forces in Bosnia—I am sad to say this—I witnessed what were clearly crimes against humanity. Many people, including children, were arrested because of their race. They were ill-treated, detained and improperly locked away in totally inappropriate circumstances. It saddens me to make an analogy—I do so with huge hesitation because of my love for Israel and what it has achieved, and because of the Jewish historical experience—yet I am sorry to say that the way Palestinian children are dealt with in the west bank has some disturbing similarities with what I witnessed happening to children in the Balkans. To me it is utterly wrong that a democratic, enlightened, pro-western state such as Israel, with two different legal systems, clearly differentiates—

[Guto Bebb]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Stewart]

I will not give way.

[Guto Bebb]

You should.

[Bob Stewart]

No, I should not. It is my right.

[Guto Bebb]

This is a debate.

[Bob Stewart]

Okay, I give way. Let us hear it.

[Guto Bebb]

I find my hon. Friend’s comments frankly disgraceful in view of the murder of 10,000 people in Srebrenica simply because they were Muslim. To make that comparison is unworthy.

[Bob Stewart]

I am so sorry, but I disagree. I am not making a comparison with Srebrenica.

[Guto Bebb]

You just did.

[Bob Stewart]

No, I am not making a comparison with Srebrenica. I was there; you weren’t.

It is wrong for there to be differentiation between systems, and that is the whole point of this debate. Please, Israel, we want this to stop. What is happening is plainly against international law and practice. It must stop. If it does not, people such as me, who actually are big supporters of Israel, will lose the urge to be supporters. Please, Israel, sort this out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this very important debate, and it is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.

I will keep my speech very brief. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) referred to a doll. I would argue that people do not need dolls to promote hate and violence. What we have before us in Israel and Palestine is children between the ages of nine and 12 experiencing discrimination. I have children of my own who are aged eight and 11, but I cannot begin to imagine the trauma and the stamp on Palestinian children’s brains and hearts of hatred towards the Israeli military as they grow up and face discrimination, as well as the way they are tret in custody. So I would argue that we do not need props.

Only recently, Shin Bet told the Israeli Government that Abbas was not encouraging terror and was actually promoting peace. So, I disagree with my hon. Friends when they say that the Palestinians are promoting this kind of propaganda.

[Guto Bebb]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Naz Shah]

No, I will not, because I will not speak for long.

As a former chair of a mental health charity and having my own children, I really struggle to understand why the Israeli Government and the world are silent on dealing with the trauma that these Palestinian children are growing up with. Surely we know that hate breeds hate; laws aside, that is just common sense. There are children who are blindfolded and tortured. We have got evidence before us. How can my hon. Friends ignore that? How can anyone even present a counter-argument to it? We are talking about the basic humanitarian right of children, which we in this House have signed up to, and we must support these children with conviction. There should be no excuse for taking children aged nine away from their homes, detaining them and sending them to prison. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Iran and the proposed nuclear agreement.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is an opportune moment to consider once again the proposed nuclear agreement regarding Iran. It is opportune because an outline agreement was presented on 2 April 2015, and it is expected that a full agreement might be reached by the end of this month. It is therefore right and proper that Parliament should once again consider the issue.

This debate follows the good and positive Back-Bench business debate held in November 2014, during the last Parliament. Since then, a number of parliamentary questions have been asked of the Government, and several statements have been made. On top of that, by way of context, it is important and relevant to consider the report published by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs during the last Parliament. The context extends beyond this place to the outside world, and we need to be aware of it. The debate is opportune. I shall ask the Minister a significant number of questions, to which I hope he can respond. It is relevant to ask those questions before an agreement is finalised, as there are genuine concerns across the House about the details of the proposed agreement.

To start, we must ask what the intention is of any proposed agreement. That is crucial. My understanding was that initially, the aim of any nuclear agreement with Iran was to deal with non-proliferation and ensure no further development of nuclear weapons in that country, yet given the developments that we read about, it appears that the discussion has moved from being about a non-proliferation treaty to being about something more closely related to an arms control treaty. That is an important, but not necessarily positive, development. The original talks between the P5+1 and Iran definitely commenced on the basis of a non-proliferation treaty.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. There is some merit to my hon. Friend’s points, but I called this debate to see what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s view is of the potential context and contents of any proposed agreement.

A bilateral arms control treaty is not what our partners in the region are looking for. In preparing for this debate, I was fortunate enough to be briefed by representatives of the Bahraini Government on behalf of the Gulf Co-operation Council, and it is fair to say that our partner states in the Gulf have specific concerns about how significantly the proposed treaty has moved from what was originally intended. One of the most striking comments made by the representatives of the Bahraini Government was that they felt increasingly as if they were being treated by the P5+1 similarly to how eastern European countries were treated when there were arms control treaties between the US and the Soviet Union. If that development is concerning our allies in the GCC, the Government should take that seriously.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He mentioned the GCC and Bahrain, but another linked point is Iran harbouring and sponsoring terrorism in Yemen by supporting the Houthi rebels to destabilise the region, as well as in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, in addition to supporting Hamas in Israel. We cannot have a nuclear agreement with a state that is sponsoring and harbouring terrorism. It is a short-term fix for a long-term problem for the international community.

[Guto Bebb]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, which was certainly reflected in my discussions with the representatives of the Bahraini Government last week. The fact that good intentions are being taken for granted in relation to the treaty is being questioned by some of the Gulf states, which have concerns about Iran’s foreign policy objectives, to put it mildly, in that part of the world. It is important when we consider the potential treaty that we take into account the views of not just the P5+1 but partner states in that part of the world.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not feel that what he has described as the thoughts of the Gulf states are increased by the attitude to the detail, including about centrifuges? If Iran is allowed to retain 6,000-plus centrifuges against the original estimate of 1,000, that is clearly a bad sign.

[Guto Bebb]

I fully endorse those comments. I will address the issue of the centrifuges in due course. It is reasonable to say that the figure of 6,000 now assumed to be part of a proposed treaty is significantly in excess of the 1,000 originally discussed by the P5+1 when the negotiations started. The question whether that is actually in the treaty must be addressed.

I do not want to be described as a cynic, but it is fair to question whether the agreement is actually an effort to resolve the issue, or whether it is effectively an effort to ensure a foreign policy legacy for the current American Administration. I am making this contribution in the spirit of the Back-Bench business debate held in November 2014. I think that there is a genuine realisation that we need an agreement, but must that agreement be rushed to achieve a foreign policy goal for a US Administration who might not be in place for very long? We need some certainty on that.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Many of the Gulf states—my hon. Friend mentioned Bahrain, but obviously this includes the United Arab Emirates and others—are nervous about Iran’s intentions. Iran knows that we want a deal, but it clearly understands the timetabling, and that it will be much easier to leverage something advantageous to Iran if we are working to a timeline that is affected by legacies in the United States of America or anything else.

[Guto Bebb]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The key thing is that the proposed treaty stands or falls on its own merits. It should not be subject to a timetable pushed on the basis of others’ priorities. That certainly came across in my meeting with GCC representatives prior to this debate.

We must ensure that the agreement satisfies the concerns of our allies in the middle east. In addition, it is important to clarify whether major concessions have been made by the P5+1, as current rumours about the agreement’s content would indicate. It is important for the Government to say what concessions have been offered in return for the ones that have been made, for example, in relation to the number of centrifuges. We need an outline of the concessions made.

To return to the Back-Bench business debate held in November 2014, I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who was one of the Members who secured it. It was a positive debate, in which a range of opinions were expressed about the intentions, or otherwise, of Iran, and about the historical context of any proposed deal. There were fine speeches that highlighted the missed opportunities in the past for an agreement with Iran. It would certainly benefit any Member who is interested in this subject to reread the debate, as I did prior to coming to Westminster Hall today.

I was struck by the very fair summary of that debate provided by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is also here today; I welcome him back to his position in government. He concluded that debate in an excellent manner by saying clearly:

“It is right that we should leave no stone unturned in the quest to”

reach an agreement,

“but we must not, and will not, do a bad deal. The stakes are too high.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 1034WH.]

Those comments can probably be endorsed by everybody here today. However, we need certainty that a proposed deal or compromise, which is rumoured to include significant concessions, is the right deal; we need reassurance on that.

What are the main concerns? My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned centrifuges, and I have to mention one of the biggest challenges in this debate: how do I pronounce “centrifuges”? Initially, the aim of the P5+1 was to reach an agreement that would allow Iran to maintain 1,000, or possibly 1,500, centrifuges. In the Back-Bench business debate in November 2014, the then Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee stated that the evidence that the Committee had heard as part of its inquiry was that the maximum number of centrifuges that Iran should be allowed was between 2,000 and 4,000. It is said that 4,500 centrifuges will allow the production of 25 kg of highly enriched uranium within a six-month period, yet we hear a rumour that an agreement will allow Iran to have 6,000 centrifuges. We can do the maths. We would be looking at 25 kg of enriched uranium within not six months, but four. There is a real question as to why the demands of the P5+1 have changed so dramatically and what concessions have been offered in return. We need a response to that question.

Secondly on centrifuges, perhaps 13,000 or 14,000 centrifuges would be made redundant as a result of an agreement that would leave Iran with 6,000. How many of those 13,000 or 14,000 extra centrifuges would be dismantled? If they are not dismantled, what is to stop them being recommissioned, and how long would it take to recommission them? Again, there are significant questions about the possible allowance of 6,000 centrifuges and what happens to the 13,000 or 14,000 other centrifuges that would remain in Iranian hands.

It is important to state that 30 countries have a civilian nuclear programme. In the November debate, Jack Straw, the former Member for Blackburn, forcefully made the point that any sovereign country has the right to pursue an energy policy. I agree. However, of those 30 countries, only 11 have the capacity to enrich their own fuel. On what basis do the P5+1 conclude that Iran should become the 12th, given its Government’s track record on allowing monitoring and allowing third parties to examine its military capacity in relation to the enrichment of uranium?

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that Iran remains a premier sponsor of terror, and does he feel that we ought to consider that when we compare Iran with other nations?

[Guto Bebb]

I certainly accept that the good will and good intentions of Iran should be considered in the context of its continued support for terrorism in many parts of the middle east, which, as I have said, is a key concern of many of our partner nations in the region.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

rose—

[Guto Bebb]

I will take a quick intervention.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I will be very quick. We sometimes get stuck on the number of centrifuges. However, since the negotiations began, the technology around centrifuges —I declare an interest: my background is in chemical engineering—has advanced so far that a single centrifuge now is much more productive than when the negotiations started.

[Guto Bebb]

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point that I was going to come on to. The research and development allowed as part of any agreement is very important. What guarantees can we be offered about the development of more advanced centrifuges? If there are no such guarantees in the agreement, real questions must be asked. If we are trying to reach an agreement to curtail the breakout time for Iran to develop nuclear capacity, the sophistication and possible development of centrifuges is crucial, yet there is no detail, as far as I can see, about what kind of monitoring of research and development will be undertaken.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He asked a broader question about research and development, and about the importance of the agreement being not only retrospective but prospective. It should be future-proofed, so that improvements in technology, productivity and capacity are taken into account, and sufficient protections are put in place against the future capacity to develop uranium—and, indeed, other harmful technologies.

[Guto Bebb]

Again, I accept my hon. Friend’s comments. To a large extent, one of my concerns is monitoring, and the access that monitors will be allowed, so that that type of review can be conducted. There are real concerns as to whether that monitoring will be of an acceptable nature.

We also need to address the issue of the nuclear sites. If my understanding of the proposed deal is correct, two sites—Natanz and Fordow—will be retained. I must ask the Government and the Minister a question about that. If such a concession has been made, what concessions have been offered in return by the Iranians to facilitate the agreement?

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on not only securing this debate, but approaching it in a very balanced way. He was good enough to accept that, in the past, mistakes were made by both sides, and we in the west would now gladly take up some of the concessions that we once refused, because things have been moved on.

I say to the Minister that although it is terribly important that we have the proper safeguards in place in any agreement, particularly to protect our friends in the region—I accept that point 100%, and we must focus on it like a laser—we must not lose sight of the benefits that would arise from our reaching some sort of agreement with Iran. There could be many such benefits across the region, which is becoming increasingly unstable, and we cannot ignore the fact that Iran is a major regional power that we created with our misguided invasion of Iraq.

[Guto Bebb]

I agree with many of my hon. Friend’s points, and I agree that the benefits arising from a good deal are worth fighting for. However, I suspect that many Members have concerns about the nature of the proposed deal and about the certainty that any such deal offers Iran’s neighbours, who also have real concerns, as he acknowledged. I accept the point about mistakes made in the past, and the importance of having a proper deal in place. However, the key point is that the deal must be acceptable to all and must give other countries in that part of the world confidence in the long term.

There is also a concern about the proposed length of the deal; we are looking at a deal that will possibly be limited to 10 years. Again, in the context of considering the development of nuclear capacity, we must ask ourselves whether 10 years is reasonable or sufficient. Given that the deal does nothing, as far as I can see, to deal with Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, there is a real question as to whether 10 years is insufficient.

If the aim is to secure the right deal, can we justify the type of concessions that we have been reading about? Hon. Members touched on verification in their interventions, but we need certainty from the Foreign Office and the Government that there is confidence that the degree of verification allowed under any agreement will be acceptable. Once again, the track record of the Iranian regime does not allow us to be confident in that regard. I understand from those who comment and speculate on what happens in Iran that only last month the International Atomic Energy Agency was refused access, and Ayatollah Khamenei said:

“No inspection of any military site or interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed.”

The question whether we will have a proper verification process in any agreement gives rise to real concern. If we have an agreement with a proper verification process, it must be maintained and foolproof, but once again Iran’s track record does not give us much confidence.

The other question that we need to address is whether an agreement that is as compromising as the proposed agreement appears to be actually contributes to an escalation of the arms race in the region, rather than a reduction of tensions. The agreement appears to state clearly that putting Iran in a position in which it is within six months of a breakout for the next 10 years is acceptable. My concern, which I think is shared by hon. Members, is that other countries in the region would end up in an arms race—not to produce a nuclear weapon, but to be within six months of a breakout. It is worth mentioning that Prince Turki al-Faisal from Saudi Arabia stated clearly that

“Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too”.

That comment should be taken seriously by the Government when they assess the merits or otherwise of the deal.

Any proposed deal has to satisfy the needs of the P5+1, a very unstable region and our allies in the region. However, the real test is whether it satisfies the original intention, which was to ensure that Iran did not develop a nuclear capacity. Dr Bruno Tertrais stated that we must not

“ignore the lessons of history: nuclear-capable countries never stay at the threshold for very long.”

Looking at the bare bones of the proposed agreement, it would appear that the P5+1 are now willing to accept Iran’s being at the threshold of a nuclear breakout and that that threshold will be maintained for the next 10 years. Dr Tertrais’s words are important in that context. Countries with the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon will almost invariably end up developing it.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is slightly contradicted by the experience in both Libya and South Africa.

[Guto Bebb]

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

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

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under the chairmanship of a fellow alumnus of Bromley Borough Council. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing the debate, although I will highlight one or two differences from his approach. I make apologies for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who previously dealt with the subject; he has departed from the Front Bench to spend more time with the London mayoral election. Interestingly enough, this will also be my last debate from the Front Bench on foreign affairs, because I will be spending more time on politics, which I look forward to.

Given how the hon. Member for Aberconwy introduced the debate, I think that we may find more common ground between Front Benchers than between Front Benchers and Government Back Benchers—probably not the last time that will occur in this Parliament, particularly on foreign affairs. We have to define what we see as the objective of our relations with Iran, particularly in terms of the nuclear talks. Is any agreement a nuclear freeze or, as some have described it, weapons control? Is it to influence Iran’s foreign policy, and particularly its actions in respect of its neighbours, or is it to achieve regime change? All those things might be desirable, but they are not necessarily the prime objective of the talks. An analogy was made with eastern Europe and arms control, but that was immensely successful, as indeed were the Helsinki accords that helped to bring about perestroika and glasnost.

[Guto Bebb]

To clarify, the analogy with eastern Europe was made in the context of an agreement that was possibly successful as regards arms control, but was not especially good for the people of eastern Europe. An agreement now might be successful in controlling arms, but not be good for the people of the Gulf states, or indeed of Iran.

[Mr Spellar]

That may be true, but such an agreement is preferable to achieving none of those objectives. Not everything has to be agreed, particularly if we view the possession of nuclear weapons as a qualitative rather than simply quantitative change—it is not only another step. Throughout the history of arms control agreements, it has been recognised that the nuclear threshold is a particular and qualitatively different threshold in international relations. We could therefore have arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, even though it was repressing its own citizens and the citizens of eastern Europe and sponsoring terrorism abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

The reason we needed this debate in Westminster Hall was timing. The issue is live and is reaching a conclusion. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments and for his generous offer to write to right hon. and hon. Members on points raised in the debate. I fully understand that the complexity and extent of questions made it a challenge for him to respond in full in the 12 minutes allocated. I pay tribute to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), for his final Front-Bench speech. He said he disagreed with my viewpoint, but few disagreements came to light from his comments. I wish him well on the Back Benches.

The debate has made it clear that there is interest, certainly on the Conservative side, in this important issue. The Backbench Business Committee has not yet been convened, so Westminster Hall was our only option for getting this debated in the House. Given that the Foreign Secretary will go to Vienna, and in view of the interest shown in the Chamber, a statement should perhaps be made after the visit—and there should certainly be one if an agreement is reached.

[Mr Ellwood]

A statement will absolutely be made, and there will be an opportunity for Members to comment. Perhaps I may suggest that when the Backbench Business Committee is formed, if an opportunity is not provided by the Government, a full debate should be held in the House in the aftermath of 30 June.

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the Minister, and I am sure that there will be a delegation to the Committee.

Despite the fact that most of the Members who spoke were Conservatives, we were pleased to have some opposition, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) for his comments, which showed that this was a debate, not a one-sided discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Iran and the proposed nuclear agreement.

Palestine

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams]

I entirely agree. We need to promote discussion, and that is one way of taking it forward. We need to give international legitimacy to the Palestinian people and reaffirm their right to land.

The UK Government and Governments throughout Europe and the world should recognise Palestine; otherwise, there will be no end to the blockade or the conflict, last summer’s war will be reignited and the tragic process will repeat itself on both sides. That is why I voted in favour of the motion in October calling for recognition. I said that the UK had a special responsibility as the immediate former imperial power, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as a guarantor of the Geneva convention and given our recent disastrous interventions in middle east affairs.

Hon. Members will recall that the vote in favour of the motion was 274 to 12. I was glad of the opportunity to restate Plaid Cymru’s position on the matter. I have also welcomed the decision by my local authority, Gwynedd county council, not to invest in or trade with Israel.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I actually live in the Gwynedd county council area, and I am fascinated by the fact that a majority of Plaid Cymru members voted to boycott Israel. However, the last time I contacted the local authority, it was still using IT systems using Israeli technology.

[Hywel Williams]

I am glad to hear from my constituent. That was the stance taken by Gwynedd county council, and that is the stance it will implement. It is clearly right to stop trade with illegal settlements, rather than just condemning their establishment. I hope the leadership shown by Gwynedd county council will encourage other councils in Wales and across the UK to do the same. I ask the Minister to back moves to stop trade with settlements and to follow the example of the Spanish Government by stopping the arms trade with Israel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. First, I want to associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann). We have three minutes for our speeches, and he said most of what I want to say, but I will highlight a few issues.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) chuntered from his place when comments were made about the Palestinian Authority paying prisoners. I thought that odd, because when he was in the Ministry I had meetings with him time and again at which it was confirmed that British taxpayers’ money was not being used for that, but also that money was being made available by the Palestinian Authority to pay prisoners who had committed atrocities. It is important that the record is clear on that issue.

There is a need for honesty with ourselves when arguing for disinvestment from Israel. The point that I made about Gwynedd council in north Wales is not a silly one. It is all very well to posture and argue in favour of voting for something to make a difference, but ultimately, unless the Gwynedd council computer systems are to be switched off, the council is not being true to the demands being made. Similarly, when people call for disinvestment from Israel and take selfies with their iPhones of themselves protesting, they are being hypocritical because their iPhones would not work without Israeli technology. When people make those demands, they should think of the national health service and the contributions made to it by development in Israel. That context is important.

In talking about the need for a response to the sickening events of the summer, it is important to highlight the fact that the Iron Dome barrages in Israel intercepted 700 missiles. I suspect that if some of them had hit Israeli cities we would not be talking about a disproportionate situation, but about massacres on both sides—completely unacceptable to all hon. Members. Are we honestly to say that the debate should proceed on the basis of condemning Israeli success in protecting its citizens or of condemning Israel for that success? That, too, needs to be put into context.

I have visited Israel and the Palestinian territories many times, and both sides need to feel that they have a partner for peace. I remember meeting Prime Minister Fayyad, when he was in position. He said that he felt very strongly that Netanyahu was willing to talk about peace, but that the people behind him were not supportive. Within four hours, we were in Jerusalem, meeting Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said, “Prime Minister Fayyad is genuine about peace but the people behind him are not.” As the British Parliament, we need to try to encourage that ability to talk to each other, and we will do that by giving the parties encouragement, not condemnation.

Iran (UK Foreign Policy)

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who made a thoughtful speech. I associate myself with her comments, and those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) about his constituent, which I think the whole House will endorse.

This is another debate that highlights the importance of the Backbench Business Committee, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing it. As a Welsh non-conformist, however, I might be slightly more cynical about the concept of a state-sponsored religion—something that we dispensed with at the end of the first world war in a Welsh context.

This is an important debate, and we heard a superb contribution from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is no longer in his place. It is important that the context for this debate includes that Committee’s report, which was published in June, and I argue that it is essential reading for anybody who takes an interest in the middle east.

This is undoubtedly an interesting time in the middle east. It is a period of huge unrest in the region, and it is right for us to discuss the UK’s position on Iran. There is no doubt that the way the whole western world has been almost traumatised by the development of ISIS has led to a discussion about how Iran can be brought back into the fold. However, although we might see the possibilities of working with Iran in the context of what is happening in Iraq, the situation is much more complex than that. In Syria, Iran is supporting elements that the UK Government would not be keen to support, and our support for the democratic statelet of Kurdistan within Iraq can be contrasted with the way that the Kurdish minority in Iran is treated. The complexities of the situation must be understood. We should be aware of the dangers of starting to argue the case on the basis of the old saying, “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”. It is important not to fall into that trap because time and again, history has shown that such an approach to international politics never leads to a good result.

This debate has rightly highlighted the many concerns held by hon. Members about Iran’s human rights record. I accept entirely the point that the human rights records of many states in the middle east leave a lot to be desired, but two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that we deal with allies in the middle east that have atrocious human rights records does not mean that we should forgive or forget the human rights situation in Iran. The report by the Foreign Affairs Committee stated clearly:

“No concessions should be made on human rights in the interests of making progress in negotiations in other fields.”

The Committee is not arguing that there should be no progress in other fields, but we should not turn a blind eye to Iran’s human rights record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) spoke passionately and correctly about concerns in Israel, not least about the support given by Iran to Hezbollah and Hamas. It is difficult to deny that the strategic threat to Israel is not only the development of a nuclear capacity in Iran, but the daily threat faced by Israel from southern Lebanon and the Gaza strip. Clearly, there has been a degree of breach between Iran and Hamas, but the support to Hezbollah continues to be a strong element of Iranian foreign policy, which should concern anyone who wants a long-term settlement in the middle east, not least a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian entity.

There are human rights concerns with the Iranian regime, but there are also concerns with the regime’s ability to destabilise part of the middle east and other parts of the world by sponsoring terrorism. From a UK perspective, we cannot deny that the question we need to ask is this: would it be in the UK’s national interest for Iran to develop nuclear capacity? We need to address that key question. It is currently difficult to argue that stability in the middle east would be enhanced by Iran’s ability to develop nuclear capacity. It is striking that political leaders and leaders in other middle east countries have accepted the claimed nuclear capacity of Israel—I say “claimed” with a smile on my face, because all hon. Members recognise that Israel has a nuclear capacity. Saudi Arabia and Jordan, for example, have not said that they need nuclear capacity because Israel has nuclear capacity, but those states have made the argument strongly that, if Iran develops nuclear capacity, they would need to have a nuclear warhead. We should take that seriously if we are trying to bring stability to such an unstable part of the world.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn made the important point that a sovereign country such as Iran has every right to develop a civilian nuclear strategy. I believe very strongly in the UK developing and investing once more in our civilian nuclear capacity. As a north Wales Member, I am keen for the development of a second power station in Anglesey. It is very difficult to argue with that case. However, my support for a nuclear power station in Anglesey would be somewhat tempered were Wales sitting on the second largest gas reserves behind Russia’s. If Iran has such large gas reserves, why is civilian nuclear capacity so important to it? I accept that the right hon. Gentleman’s point is a fair one—a sovereign country has that right. Therefore, as an international community, we need to ensure a settlement that allows that civilian capacity to be developed, but with assurances that it will not lead to a military capacity, which would further destabilise the middle east.

We must question seriously whether Iran has moved sufficiently towards giving assurances on whether its intentions are peaceful. The Foreign Affairs Committee, which has looked at the issue in detail, concluded:

“There is no convincing explanation for why Iran might need for civil purposes the stocks of enriched uranium which it held in January 2014. We believe that the primary reason for Iran’s decision to build such a capacity to enrich uranium and to amass stocks to current levels was to give itself the option to develop a nuclear military capability.”

The FAC is not renowned for highlighting dangers that are not reasonably identified. We should pause to consider those words when we think about how we deal with the negotiations that are supposed to conclude by 24 November.

In 2012, the Prime Minister highlighted the fact that the Iranian regime is currently flouting six UN resolutions —1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835 and 1929. His statement was clear:

“The regime’s claim that its nuclear programme is intended purely for civilian purposes is not remotely credible.”

In view of the developments of the past few months, do we believe that those words are not relevant? If they are relevant, it is imperative that any developments are considered carefully, and that we have assurances that concessions made to Iran do not allow the development of a nuclear military capacity.

As I have said, it is expected or hoped that the P5 plus 1 negotiations will conclude by the end of November. I accept that there is a possibility of a breakthrough, but certain things must be guaranteed in any deal. The British Government should be clear that, in any agreement, we need to ensure that Iran’s ability to develop a military nuclear capacity is not enhanced. We should consider the number of centrifuges—2,000 should be a maximum but, currently, there are 18,000, and Iran claims the need for 10 times more. We need clarity on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering highlighted that sources in the middle east have identified that the stockpiles of enriched material were sufficient for six nuclear warheads. The point has been strongly and passionately made that one warhead would be enough to wipe Israel off the map. Would hon. Members be comfortable with such a development? What will be done to ensure that Iran’s stocks of enriched material are dealt with?

On the Iranian enrichment programme, it is important that the 3.5% level is monitored. Despite the best efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are concerns over whether the Iranian regime is co-operating fully. I argue that there is a need for full and immediate compliance with the IAEA on the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme. Inspectors should be given unfettered access to Iranian military installations because, if the aim or intention is for a sovereign state to develop a civilian nuclear capacity, one must ask why the regime would be reluctant to allow such an investigation. An investigation would give confidence to the UK and other states that the Iranian regime’s intentions are not in any way militaristic.

We also know that the Iranian military has the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead not only on Israel, but on a significant portion of Europe. We need to ensure that any agreement that allows the development of a civilian capacity takes into account steps to ensure that that ballistic missile capacity is not a threat to any part of the middle east or Europe.

We should grasp the opportunity to ensure that the sanction regime is monitored carefully as part of an overall package that allows the development of civilian nuclear energy capacity in Iran. The opportunities of trade with Iran that hon. Members have highlighted are also important. I agree that trading relationships often lead to better political relations. The opportunity is there, but it is important that the House sends a clear message that we are dealing with a regime that does not have a track record of good will. In any agreement, we need certainty that a compromise is not conceded without due care and attention.

Israeli Teenagers (Abduction and Murder)

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

In a sense, I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend’s question. Israel absolutely faces a toxic combination of such factors and, as I have said, it is the one liberal democracy in that part of the world and is threatened by a sea of instability around it. We would absolutely expect the state of Israel to protect its citizens, but the point that I am making—do not get this wrong—is that it needs to do that in a way that precisely targets the response at those who are responsible for this action and not at a wider political aim.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

In view of this sickening crime and the celebration of the kidnapping in state-sponsored Palestinian media, what assurances can the Minister give me that the words of condemnation given by President Abbas to an international audience will be repeated for his domestic audience?

[Hugh Robertson]

I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, because I was in the west bank when it happened and the domestic price that President Abbas was paying for taking that stance internationally was abundantly clear. He is absolutely doing what the international community wants to see him do and we expect the Palestinian technocratic Government to live up to their responsibility to co-operate fully in security terms with the Government of Israel.

Iran

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

This is a good question. Indeed, the United Kingdom should be entitled—is entitled—to compensation for the damage done, and compensation will be one of the issues that we need to discuss in this step-by-step upgrading of diplomatic relations. As I mentioned earlier, the most important consideration will be whether an embassy is allowed to operate with all the normal functions of an embassy, but we will address compensation as well.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Back in 1994, an agreement was signed to curtail the development of nuclear weapon capacity in North Korea. At the time, President Clinton stated that the agreement

“will make the United States, the Korean peninsula and the world safer”.

We all know how that ended, so how confident is the Foreign Secretary that history will not repeat itself and, on this occasion, the monitoring of the agreement will be sufficient to ensure transparency in the process?

[Mr Hague]

The provision for monitoring, as my hon. Friend can gather, is very extensive and very detailed—to a much greater degree than on any comparable agreement made in the past. How confident can we be that all these things will be abided by? Time will tell. I have spoken about the sincerity, I believe, of the Iranian negotiators; but implementing this is another matter. Our confidence must be based on what actually happens. I would only say, as I said earlier, that the provisions are sufficiently detailed about a sufficient range of sites and activities in Iran that we will be able to see whether confidence is justified or not.

Persecution of Christians (Middle East)

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her superb speech. I associate myself with her remarks, and particularly her questions to the Minister.

I will keep my comments to two specific issues. First, we have heard a lot about the persecution of Christians in Syria. On Friday three Syrians, who have been given leave to remain in the United Kingdom, visited my surgery. It was moving to see three Syrians—a Christian, a Druze and a Sunni—sitting together and expressing bafflement about the way in which the religiously tolerant country they had known now posed a risk to their families. The three of them were grateful for the way in which the British Government dealt with their applications for leave to remain, but their key concern was for their families. Two of them still have significant close family members in Syria, and the third has seen family members killed in attacks. The question that they asked, which I am asking the Minister today, is whether we can have clarity on the Government’s willingness or otherwise to support Syrians who have moved to this country and whose families are still at great risk in Syria. We need an acknowledgement of that issue. The investment and contribution we are making, in terms of humanitarian aid, is most welcome, but it is important that we remain an open door for people fleeing for their lives.

The other issue I want to touch on was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who shares a Huguenot ancestry with me. He said that it was to a country’s detriment to persecute its religious minorities. The example I would give, which numerous Members have mentioned, is Israel—a country in the middle east that is often vilified, not least in this place. When it comes to religious freedom, however, it is important to highlight the difference between the way in which Israel and neighbouring countries behave towards their religious minorities.

The key point is that the Christian population in Israel has increased a thousandfold since the country was established. Christians serve in the Supreme Court, the Knesset and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and they are contributing to a stronger country. The situation of Christians in Israel can be contrasted with that of Christians in the west bank, where the Christian population has fallen quite dramatically. In 1948, about 15% of Palestinians identified themselves as Christian; today, that figure has fallen to about 2%. In many ways, the strongest, most economically prosperous country in the middle east is also the most welcoming of religious minorities. When we discuss this issue, it is important to place on record the fact that there is, in the middle east, a country that shows us how things can be done differently, and that is leading to a more prosperous situation for all the citizens of that country, regardless of their religion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The reason the Syrian National Coalition was here in London last week and why the hon. Gentleman was able to meet it was that it had come to meet me and 10 other Foreign Ministers to discuss going to the Geneva talks. That was the whole purpose of the day! The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the full body of the national coalition has not yet taken the decision on that. It has to convene a general assembly to do so, and the date for it keeps shifting; it is now most likely to be towards the end of next week, around 9 November. It did receive a clear message from me and from many other Foreign Ministers, including Secretary Kerry and Prince Saud, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, that it should be prepared to go to Geneva and to take part in a peace conference.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We need to speed up; progress is desperately slow.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

9. What progress his Department has made on increasing UK exports to established and emerging markets.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

Between 2009 and 2012, UK exports increased by 23% in the wake of the deepest recession in post-war history. This growth has primarily been driven by demand in emerging markets. In South Korea, exports have risen by 103%; in China, excluding Hong Kong, by 80%; in Russia by 76% and in Brazil by 64%. Exports to the US increased by more than 8% between 2010 and 2012, although UK exports to the EU were flat.

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the Minister for his response. During the past decade, the value of bilateral trade between the UK and Israel has increased by over 60% to about £3.8 billion. It gives me particular pleasure to note that the trade between Wales and Israel with respect to life sciences is doing extremely well. As a result of these facts, will the Minister join me in welcoming this growth in trade between the UK and Israel—a country that is forward looking in its economic performance.

[Mr Swire]

We greatly welcome the flourishing of UK-Israel trade, which is the result of concerted efforts by the Government, including, as my hon. Friend said, the creation of the UK-Israel tech hub, which celebrated its second anniversary this month, and our burgeoning co-operation with Israel in respect of life sciences, which was cemented in an memorandum of understanding on science co-operation, signed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his recent visit to Israel in May.

Israel/Palestinian Authority

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is shameful that such incitement to hatred has been denied by too many people. I appreciate the Minister’s efforts in recent weeks to further the matter in the Foreign Office, but what discussions has he had with his colleagues in east Jerusalem on the issue of incitement and hate education and how will the Foreign Office play a part in ending it?

The Palestinian school textbooks have included the same inflammatory messages that I have mentioned. I read with great interest a recent report into this matter by the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land. The US-funded report concluded that both Palestinian and Israeli textbooks could do more peacefully to portray the other side. The findings once again highlighted the fact that both sides in the conflict need to prepare their populations for a peaceful future. The report also shows the need for those responsible for Israeli ultra-Orthodox education to re-examine the material that they are putting out.

However, there are shortcomings in the report about which any reasonable and unbiased person should have concerns. Those shortcomings could explain why a number of the study’s scientific advisory panel and leading stakeholders have refused to endorse the report. For instance, the report fails to emphasise that the ultra-Orthodox school system, which makes up only 8% of the Israeli student body, is not Government-regulated. It does not represent an official Israeli line and should not be seen on a par with the PA-authorised textbooks. The report’s other major failure is that it justifies the levels of incitement found in Palestinian textbooks by asserting that perhaps it is because the Palestinians are at an earlier stage of nation building, are the weaker of the two adversaries and have suffered more hardships in day-to-day life. We must not be distracted on the path to seeking peace by that sort of moral relativism.

Consistent with the Palestinian Authority’s policy of glorifying terrorists, the PA financially reward terrorism by paying a monthly salary to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons convicted of terror offences. It pays a monthly salary of anything between £240 and £2,100 to prisoners serving multiple life sentences for involvement and facilitation of deadly acts of terrorism, including suicide bombings. The longer the time in prison, the higher the salary. To put it crudely, the more horrific the terrorist activity and the more Israelis who are killed, the larger the salary. In total, the PA is paying salaries totalling approximately £3 million each month to 5,500 Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons.

I was shocked to learn that those payments are part funded by the British taxpayer. Indeed, the payments come from the PA’s general budget, into which the UK contributes more than £30 million each year. I am unaware of any known safeguards in place preventing the use of UK aid to that end. Previous attempts by my parliamentary colleagues from all parts of the House to raise that issue have been met with apparent denial and a declaration that the payments are simply “social welfare payments to the families of prisoners.”

I wholeheartedly believe that dependent spouses or children should not be held responsible for the crimes of family members, and I doubt that any of my colleagues here today would disagree with me. None the less, PA legislation repeatedly refers to “salaries”—or ratib in Arabic—and not “social assistance” or “welfare payments”. Crucially, that legislation stipulates that a prisoner is not obligated to give his salary to his family. Unmarried prisoners also receive the same basic salary as those who are married and have children. Finally, a small stipend for wives and children paid to prisoners is received separately from the standard salaries.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. As he is aware, numerous questions have been asked of our Government in relation to those payments. Time and again, we have been told that they are salaries and not social assistance. However, in December 2012, a Palestinian Authority statement, which was released through its official news service, explicitly stated otherwise. That statement, which is made in the name of the Palestinian Minister responsible for prisoners’ affairs, Issa Karake, announced that those payments were salaries and not social assistance. It went further by stating that any talk of social assistance was incorrect rumour. How can my hon. Friend square that issue with the denials made by our own Government?

[Gordon Henderson]

I cannot—I have to ask my hon. Friend to put his question to the Government, because I cannot answer for them. However, since these payments are not explicitly given to those in need, it seems logical to assume that they are given as a form of reward for prisoners’ terror acts; to me, that is quite logical.

As I have shown today, those are the very same acts of terror that are all too frequently praised by the Palestinian Authority. I have no doubt that the Minister will have been in contact with his colleagues at the Department for International Development about this issue. However, can he tell me what discussions he has had with his Palestinian and Israeli counterparts on this issue? Furthermore, what assessment has he made of this very serious matter?

In conclusion, the PA’s failure to deliver on their commitment to end incitement explicitly undermines the principles and conditions on which the peace process is built. That incitement highlights the extent to which Palestinian society has not publicly begun to absorb the changes needed for a practical and genuinely peaceful co-existence with Israel. I contend that incitement is a form of abuse of Palestinian children. We must remember that those children are the next generation of peacemakers and state-builders. Simply put, no peace agreement will be able to guarantee peace in the medium to long term if a generation of Palestinians is growing up indoctrinated to hate Israel, Jews and the west.

I am reassured that this is an issue that the Government are starting to regard with increased seriousness. Indeed, the Prime Minister made his position clear at a United Jewish Israel Appeal dinner late last year, when he said:

“Britain will never support anyone who sponsors a football tournament named after a suicide bomber who killed 20 Israelis in a restaurant. We will not tolerate incitement to terrorism.”

The Government rightly hold Israel to account when Israeli policies stand in the way of peace in the region. By the same reasoning, it is important that they adopt a similar policy with regard to the Palestinians. The Palestinians will take any British silence as a green light to continue this practice. We must insist, as a policy, that the PA end the indoctrination of its youth with views that jeopardise a future of peaceful co-existence.

To that end, I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that the Government will make, and will continue to make, representations to the PA that incitement against Israel is unacceptable and in contravention of the Oslo agreement. Widespread PA-endorsed incitement has gone unchallenged for too long. The PA are clearly not making any effort to educate their people in peace and co-existence with Israel. As we move forward into this “year of peace”, the need to abandon all messages of incitement is more important than ever.