Rohingya Crisis

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) on securing this very important and timely debate. I thank her not just for making her speech, but for taking the time to go to Bangladesh to see the situation of the Rohingya people. I also thank, for giving their time and bringing back their testimony, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn). Their words have been heard today in the House. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for their excellent speeches.

The humanitarian situation, as the Minister knows better than I do, is extremely serious. He will have heard the many terrible stories about sexual violence. We therefore want to know that the Foreign Office is continuing the excellent initiative of the previous Foreign Secretary, William Hague, in deploying the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict team. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps that needs more resources than it has at the moment.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I am hugely concerned about the unaccompanied children now in the camps. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that those children, living in the dreadful conditions that we have heard about today, are ripe for exploitation by people traffickers? We need to be in there, ensuring that that is not happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The risks to the people in the camps, whether of disease or violence, are very significant. The British people have done a great thing in mobilising a lot of resources, and the Government have responded well to that.

I welcome the acknowledgement by the United Nations and the United States Government that this is a case of ethnic cleansing. I am pleased that the Minister has moved on from saying that it looks like ethnic cleansing to saying that it is ethnic cleansing. Clearly we need to look into the legal situation. That means we must have people going into the camps and to Myanmar to find out about the situation. I am talking about qualified, legal experts from the UN. As many hon. Members have said, on both sides of the Chamber, it is extremely important that the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes are brought to justice, and the first step is securing the evidence. The Myanmar military continue to deny their responsibility and to deny access, and that must be one of the things that we now make a priority.

Everyone in the Chamber recognises the fantastic generosity of the Bangladeshi people. Notwithstanding that, there are clearly a lot of questions about the proposal to repatriate people from Bangladesh to Myanmar. These are people; they are not cattle to be shunted backwards and forwards across the border. We need to make that absolutely clear. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the conditions in northern Rakhine state are not suitable at the moment for “safe and sustainable returns”.

Hon. Members have spoken about the problems of putting together documentation. It is also vital, if this is to be done in the right way, that it is voluntary repatriation and that people are not forced, with the fear of yet more violence, back across the border. Obviously that means that the UN and the international community need to put resources in to facilitate that situation, probably on both sides of the border, because at the moment the situation is clearly not safe.

The fundamental issue, of course, is that the Rohingya people are not equal under the law in Myanmar and their citizenship is not recognised. Like the hon. Member for St Albans, I think it is regrettable that the Pope was advised that he would inflame the situation if he said that these were Rohingya people. It is basic to people’s identity that they determine that identity themselves and everybody else acknowledges it. I am pleased that Ministers have been calling on the Myanmar Government to implement the recommendations of Kofi Annan’s Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, because only those will give us a sustainable solution and secure the legal status of the Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar, which has the highest number of stateless people anywhere in the world. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke about the importance of changing the 1982 citizenship law. That is obviously a crucial part of building a new, safe situation and returning the law in that country to international norms.

Great Britain has an important role to play here. We have an historic involvement with these countries and we have shown our generosity by giving aid, but we have also been the pen-holder at the United Nations in the diplomacy through which the Government have been trying to secure an international consensus on the need for change. If it helps the Minister, I will say on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition that China and Russia should be supporting the British Government’s diplomatic efforts, because it is clear that the UN cannot move on substantively without their agreement. I think that they need to acknowledge their international responsibilities.

Getting the Myanmar Government to acknowledge the rights of the Rohingya people will require a change to the Myanmar constitution. That means it must go through their Parliament with 75% of the vote. That is only going to happen if they feel that they need to do this. We can help them to understand that they do need to do it. This is where the issue of sanctions comes in. I ask the Minister to consider a few further points on sanctions, in line with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). Will the Government join the United States in considering targeted sanctions? Will the Government confirm whether it supports a UN-mandated global arms embargo against Myanmar, comprehensive visa restrictions against the military and their families and associates, and, significantly, halting investment in business with companies owned by the Myanmar military?

This is an extremely difficult situation. I know that the Minister is committed to tackling it as well as is possible. He has been in the region twice. I just want to assure him of our support in facilitating a resolution to this crisis, in both the short and the long term.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am very happy to put that on our agenda, but may I also reassure my hon. Friend that the UK is a co-proponent of the proposal to establish a marine protected area in the Weddell sea, and that is being developed by the European Union and its member states? British scientists are taking a leading role in preparing a final MPA proposal, which is to be presented to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources in October next year.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) mentioned “Blue Planet II”, and 12 million people watched it on Sunday. We want to know what the Government are going to do to protect the beautiful environment around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Will the Government now commit to establishing a marine sanctuary around this British overseas territory?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

This issue has been championed very much by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). Indeed, it is not just in the Antarctic that the UK is championing marine protection. The UK is on track to deliver our Blue Belt manifesto commitment around the overseas territories. We will have protected 4 million sq km of ocean by 2020, and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were designated in 2012 as a sustainable use MPA covering 1 million sq km. The first formal review of that will take place next year.

UK Relations with Taiwan

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who gave us a really good overview of the current state of modern Taiwan and our relations with it. He asked the Minister a good question about the current situation in the South China sea. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about the British Government’s position on that.

My ears really pricked up when heritage rail and Lord Richard Faulkner, a Labour peer, were mentioned. In my constituency in 1825 we built the first passenger train, so we are keen to strengthen links with all countries to whom we have exported trains over the years.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a good and important point when he spoke about religious freedom and the conference that was held in Taiwan. That is an indication of the good human rights record in Taiwan, which is an extremely important issue. I know he cares a lot about that.

We heard from two Cornish Members of Parliament. Like the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), I think that the recent court judgments on same-sex marriage are another indication of the significant progress on human rights in Taiwan. In terms of economic possibilities for trade and development, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) was right to point out the importance of developing our relations on renewable energy.

Her Majesty’s Opposition fully accept the One China policy, as we did in government. After being elected, President Trump made a telephone call to the President of Taiwan—probably the first time that there had been a direct conversation between presidents since Chiang Kai-shek was in America in the middle of the second world war. President Trump said:

“I fully understand the One China policy, but I don’t know why we have to be bound by the One China policy, unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”

Will the Minister tell us the Foreign Office’s response to that?

At the same time as accepting the One China policy, we recognise the significant progress that Taiwan has made in the last few decades in implementing an effective democracy and in human rights. We should acknowledge the role of civil society organisations, which have often been at the forefront of that progress on human rights.

Hon. Members have spoken about the involvement of Taiwan in international organisations. Taiwan is a successful and important member of the World Trade Organisation, and a good case was made for its membership of the World Health Organisation and the UN climate change body. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that Taiwan could have observer status in some international organisations should be explored. I would like to hear from the Minister about that as well.

Obviously, relations between China and Taiwan are a matter for China and Taiwan. We want to see the continuation of dialogue between those countries, because that is ultimately the best way of securing peace and stability, which is in their interests, and those of the region and the wider world. The remarks by the Scottish National party’s Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), about not ramping up military pressure and stress were wise, and I share those sentiments.

From the United Kingdom’s point of view, trading relations and cultural exchange are clearly important, and the Opposition feel that they should be developed. That development does not have anything to do with Brexit; Taiwan is an important country—it is particularly advanced in modern electronics—and there is obviously a lot of scope for mutual benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

In fairness, I should point out that Taiwan acts independently—no one would dispute that—and the issue is that Taiwan is in a rather anomalous, unique situation in international affairs, which I shall try to touch on in my remarks.

There has been no official contact between the authorities in Taiwan and the Chinese Government since last year’s elections in Taiwan. However, both China and Taiwan’s leaders have recently noted that cross-strait relations have thickened substantially in the past decade; President Xi Jinping said so as recently as the 19th party conference, which comes to an end today. Economic ties have grown and continue to grow, and there has been more interaction between the people of China and Taiwan.

Turning to the relationship between Taiwan and the wider international community—something close to the heart of many hon. Members who have spoken today —the British Government believe that the people of Taiwan have a valuable contribution to make towards international co-operation on global issues such as aviation safety, climate change and organised crime. Their involvement would, in my view, reduce co-operation black spots, which pose a risk to the international community, including the United Kingdom and our own people.

However, I also accept that Taiwan’s ability to play the fullest possible role in addressing global challenges is restricted and has been under increased pressure over the past 18 months. As a number of Members have observed, Taiwan’s observer status in international organisations has come under closer scrutiny, and it was not permitted to observe the World Health Assembly as recently as May this year. The UK Government continue to support, and will continue to speak up for, Taiwan’s participation in international organisations where there is precedent for its involvement, where it can contribute to the global good, and where there is no prerequisite of nationhood for participation. We will uphold that nationhood issue and the one nation policy.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister explain what he means by “where there is precedent”? For example, the climate change body is new, so there cannot be a precedent because we have only just set it up.

[Mark Field]

I appreciate that. It has been set up for quite some time, actually. Climate change has been a major global issue for 30 years, and I guess that Taiwan has had some involvement in international organisations of that ilk. It plays a useful and active role in, for example, the World Trade Organisation and the OECD, and I would like it to have the role that hon. Members referred to in Interpol and the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We meet Taiwanese delegations at the margins of such international meetings, and we will continue to do so. I accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, and I will do my best to raise that issue. Many of the issues to which hon. Members referred, including aviation safety, international terrorism and climate change, are global and clearly apply as much to the 24 million people of Taiwan as to the other 7 billion inhabitants of the world.

The subject of this debate is the UK’s relations with Taiwan. Taiwan is a thriving economy, which enjoys the same democratic norms and values as the UK, including a free media and a vocal and active civil society. The UK and Taiwan enjoy strong, albeit unofficial, relations, which deliver significant benefits to us all. Taiwan continues to behave as a de facto state, but the UK does not recognise it as an independent state. Therefore, with great respect to all of my hon. Friends who referred to the ambassador, the truth is that the gentleman concerned, who is in the Public Gallery, is the unofficial representative to this country, not an ambassador in any official way. That is obviously a position we maintain, with our policy on China. That is an issue not just for this Government but for successive Governments over many decades. The relationship between us is strong and delivers significant benefits. That collaboration is built upon dynamic commercial, educational and cultural ties, facilitated by the Taipei Representative Office in London and the British Office in Taipei.

Taiwan and the UK are both open to foreign investment. We share a belief—much diminished, I fear, in international affairs today—that free trade and open markets are the very best ways to grow our economies and enhance our prosperity. That means that trade is the cornerstone of the relationship between Taiwan and the UK. Taiwan is the UK’s sixth-largest trading partner in the Asia-Pacific region and our 33rd-largest globally. I suspect we will move up in those rankings rapidly in the years to come. Bilateral trade reached £5.3 billion in 2015. Although business and financial services were our largest export sector, two thirds of the UK’s exports to Taiwan were goods—notably vehicles and state-of-the-art pharmaceuticals. Taiwan is also our fourth-largest export market, as was pointed out, for Scotch whisky, taking in £175 million-worth of it in 2016—they obviously enjoy it. Of course, our trade flows both ways. The UK is Taiwan’s third-largest investment destination in Europe, ahead of France and Germany, and Taiwanese investment in this country totalled some $115 million in 2016.

A number of Members discussed Brexit. As we prepare to leave the EU, the British Government are working closely with all our major partners and investors in the Asia-Pacific region, including Taiwan, to grow those economic links.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman pointed that out. It is greatly to the credit of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and it advances the relationship between the UK and Taiwan. I would not want the focus of this debate to be just on trade and investment co-operation—important though that is. We need co-operation to tackle crime and to promote educational connections and judicial and cultural exchanges, and those links will only be strengthened when direct China Airlines flights between London and Taipei resume in December.

I want to touch on a few issues that were brought up during the debate. On the issue of naval visits to Taiwan, I must stress that the UK’s policy is non-recognition, which means that Ministry of Defence Ministers, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and military assets cannot visit Taiwan. Doing so would imply recognition of Taiwan, which is not Government policy. However, we continue to develop strong links with Taiwan on Government priorities such as prosperity and the low-carbon agenda.

The UK’s position on the South China sea is long-standing and has not changed. We have very deep concerns about tensions and are committed to maintaining a peaceful maritime order under international law. We do not take sides, but we urge all parties in the region to settle disputes peacefully—ideally diplomatically but, if necessary, through arbitration. The UK Government remain committed to freedom of navigation and overflight.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked about President Trump’s now-notorious call to the Taiwanese Head of State. Our position on Taiwan has not changed since the call to President Tsai. The UK’s long-standing policy on the status of Taiwan has not changed at all. We enjoy strong but unofficial commercial and cultural ties. The long-standing policy is that the status of Taiwan has to be settled by the people on both sides of the Taiwanese straits. We call on all sides to continue to engage in constructive dialogue. There has been no change, either from within or as a result of external causes.

I will conclude in a moment or two. We have a bit more time—do not worry, I am not going to delay the House for too long, Mr Paisley—so I will let everyone into a little secret. Like a lot of MPs, I have connections with Taiwan and although I have not visited myself, I was about to do so when the election was called.

In the previous Parliament, I was vice-chairman for international affairs for the Conservative party, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), I took the view that, as well as being a friend of China—Chinatown is in my constituency, and I have long-standing connections with the People’s Republic of China as a result—I should visit Taiwan. I was due to visit in September, but the election was called and I was thrust into a different office. I have had the chance in the past to meet the representative of the Taipei office in London and his team, and I have a great deal of respect for them. They also recognise that, unfortunately, our acquaintance has to go into cold storage for as long as I am a Minister—

[Helen Goodman]

Don’t worry, it won’t be long.

[Mark Field]

Yes, it may not be very long at all—honestly, it is nice to get support on a cross-party basis on such important matters, isn’t it?

There is a lot of support here and—to be fair it is worth pointing out for the record—I have spoken with a couple of Labour MPs who wanted to come to the debate but had other engagements. They had been in Taiwan in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) made a robust point, but I think it is fair to say that there are friends across the House, and having that cross-party connection in place is a positive state of affairs for the relationship between the Taiwan and the UK.

The Rohingya and the Myanmar Government

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for initiating this debate, to the Backbench Business Committee for giving it time, to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for describing the testimonies that she has heard and to the other 28 Members of the House who have spoken so passionately this afternoon.

The whole country has watched in horror as hundreds of thousands of people from Myanmar have been forced out of their homes and across the border into Bangladesh. The motion before us this afternoon is surely right. The UN defines ethnic cleansing as

“a purposeful policy…to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

It includes murder, torture, rape, severe physical injury to civilians, forcible removal, displacement, deportation of a civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks as well as the destruction of property, and robbery. These measures are clearly present in Myanmar. The office of the UN human rights commissioner found grave and serious violations, including the rape and murder of children. Rohingya villages in Rakhine state have been destroyed so as to ensure that the refugees cannot return to their homes. If they do, it would be to a barren wasteland that once held their crops, livestock and livelihoods.

The scale of the violence inflicted on civilians by the Myanmar military cannot be justified as a proportionate response to attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. In fact, the UN makes it clear that a strategy was pursued to drive out the Rohingya before this, violating their rights and traumatising them. It is very disappointing that Aung San Suu Kyi did not immediately condemn the military actions. I saw the Minister’s dispatch from his recent visit on the BBC, and I have to take issue with the way he expressed himself. No one is asking her to emote, as he put it. The horror of the crimes needs simply to be acknowledged. They speak for themselves. It is vital that we all put responsibility squarely where it belongs: with General Min Aung Hlaing, who has overseen the calculated attack on the Muslim Rohingya over many months, if not years.

I wrote to the Minister in September about a number of things, including Amnesty’s report on landmines. He replied to me, but he did not mention that. Could he please also raise that with the Myanmar Government?

The UK has a special duty to both Myanmar and Bangladesh due to our historical ties. The Foreign Secretary evidently knows them well, but reciting Kipling is not appropriate. We want to express our understanding in the form of an effective policy. The British public have been typically generous in responding to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, and I urge people who are concerned to give in that way. It is the most effective way to help the Rohingya refugees, and I am pleased Ministers are matching the funding from the DFID budget.

It is now vital that we press the Myanmar Government to allow full humanitarian access to Rakhine and full, unhindered access for the UN Human Rights Council’s independent international fact-finding mission, and to allow independent media organisations to report freely. Will the Government encourage other countries to contribute to the £437 million target, which is the UN estimate of what is needed? It is essential to get the information that will secure the prosecution of those perpetrating crimes. Will the Minister go back to his colleagues to see whether more money can be made available from the British Government so that disease is not the next thing to be visited on the refugees?

It is now evident that the British Government need to be prepared to take a tougher line with the military of Myanmar. Will the Government please consider imposing personal sanctions and visa restrictions against the military and their families; promoting an international arms embargo mandated by the UN along the lines of the EU’s; and halting investment in and business with military-owned companies, and ending any aid flows to parts of the country that they control?

We need a long-term, sustainable solution. Myanmar has the highest number of stateless people, and until all minorities in Myanmar are equal under the law and are able to gain political representation, the transition to democracy for which so many have struggled for so long will not be complete.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

As I have said, there is a long-term plan to restore those overseas territories to full economic health, and it will take a long-term commitment from this country. I want all those British nationals there to realise that this Government are absolutely determined to vindicate their rights and to give them the support that they need.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Following the hurricanes, the British overseas territory has a reconstruction bill of about £4 billion. The Government are providing grants to the Dominican Republic, but seem to be relying on private sector loans for the British Virgin Islands. With the loss of EU funding, is it not time that the Government stopped trying to fiddle the definition of overseas aid and set up a dedicated scheme and used the contingency reserve for the first year?

Venezuela: Political Situation

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on showing the foresight he did in requesting this debate in July. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it.

My hon. Friend pointed out clearly the importance of looking at the Latin American countries and seeing the connections between what is happening in those countries and what goes on on our streets. He described the problems of drug-taking in his constituency. I join him in asking the Minister to say some more about what the Government are doing to limit and control the arrival of those drugs in this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke eloquently about the humanitarian crisis. She has constituents with relatives who are suffering some horrendous experiences. We have all been reading about the issues over the summer in the newspapers. Her Majesty’s Opposition entirely share the concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the deteriorating and serious humanitarian and political crisis in Venezuela. We mourn all those who have been killed and injured in recent months on either side of the sham election in August. We believe that the bloodshed must end without delay. While that means that all sides must put down their arms, there is a special responsibility on the so-called forces of law and order to live up to their name.

We condemn the closure of the Parliament, which was established in 1999 under a constitution supported in a referendum by 88% of the Venezuelan people. We are also deeply concerned about President Maduro’s sacking of his independent-minded Attorney General. When we see police and security personnel assaulting civilians in the streets, using military tactics and weaponry against unarmed protestors and snatching political opponents from their homes at dead of night, it is obvious that they stand for neither the rule of law nor the restoration of order. Those actions must stop.

The Government of Venezuela must recognise their duty to protect human rights, free speech and truly democratic elections, rather than undermining them. They must stop the ever-escalating cycle of repression, division and violence for which they have been responsible.

Of course, in making that demand, we are not blind to the historical and economic context in which today’s tragic situation occurs. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) pointed out that the recycling of drug moneys into Europe predates 1998, but everybody—particularly the Minister, who was an oil trader in a former life—must understand the significant impact that the collapse of the oil price was bound to have, and undoubtedly has had, on the Venezuelan economy.

In 2012, Venezuela was selling its oil at $103 a barrel. By 2016, the price had collapsed to $35 a barrel. That is bound to be a problem for a country when 90% of its export earnings are from oil exports, which raises another issue. Why has there not been greater diversification over time to build up other parts of the Venezuelan economy? That debate is not confined to Venezuela; Nigeria suffers similarly. When the oil price is high and the exchange rate is pushed up artificially, it can be difficult to get other sectors of the economy to become competitive and effective—indeed, such criticisms were made of this country in the 1980s. It is clear that the Venezuelans have not diversified in an intelligent and strategic way.

Notwithstanding the economic difficulties, the Maduro Government have no excuses for the political crisis that now faces the country, to which they have contributed. The Government must take responsibility for the crisis and respond to the legitimate concerns, expressed on both sides of this House and throughout the international community, about the increasingly dangerous direction the country has taken over the last five years, and particularly since the beginning of 2017. If they believe that those concerns are misplaced, it is not enough to ignore or dismiss them. They must take the necessary actions to prove them wrong.

One of the major long-term problems is that millions upon millions of ordinary Venezuelan people now regard themselves as “ni gobierno, ni oposición”. They are not for the Government or for the Opposition. They regard Maduro’s current Administration as a long way distant from the aims, methods and achievements of the original Chavista movement, but they have no faith in the official Opposition to do anything but return to the pre-Chávez norm of serving the elites and ignoring the masses.

As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said, there can be no political or economic solution in Venezuela until the needs of those disenfranchised citizens are met. If the rest of the world treats the dispute simply as a binary one between the PSUV and the MUD—the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática—that will not help. I hope that the Minister will reflect that in his remarks.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, in terms of elite transition, there is a requirement for civic society—every Venezuelan—to be included in the debate about how Venezuela moves forward?

[Helen Goodman]

The basic foundation for a flourishing civic society must be respect for human rights. We need that before we can build the democratic institutions. The destruction of the popular democratic institutions in that country is unhelpful, extremely concerning and straightforwardly wrong.

Hon. Members have asked the Minister a number of questions, and I will add a number on the Government’s policy towards Venezuela. In addition to asking about the Government’s policy on limiting the drugs trade, I want to ask about the funding programme. The Government previously committed to improving the operation of the National Assembly via the Magna Carta fund. I shall be grateful if the Minister brings us up to date on how that money will now be used. What are the Government proposing to do to build civic and democratic institutions in Venezuela, or will they abandon that plank of Government policy? The need to fund the promotion of human rights is obviously greater than ever, but there will be concerns about how to guarantee that any future funds are spent appropriately in the country when its institutions are so weak. We would like an update.

Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister about arms sales. Given the legal requirement for UK Ministers not to authorise arms sales to regimes that might use those arms for internal repression, will he explain why £80,000-worth of such sales to Venezuela were authorised in the past year alone? In light of the Maduro Government’s refusal to co-operate with the ongoing UN-led investigation into human rights abuses, will the Government suspend any further arms sales until those concerns are resolved?

Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned, will the Minister tell us how the Government are supporting UK nationals affected by the crisis in Venezuela? How many requests for consular assistance has the Foreign Office received? What assistance has the embassy in Caracas been able to provide? What fees have been charged to individuals for that assistance?

Fourthly, as I am sure the Minister will spell out, what initiatives are the Government supporting to put pressure on the Maduro Government and bring about peace in Venezuela, including the mediation offered by the Vatican? On the issue of sanctions, a good case has been made by some hon. Members for individual, targeted sanctions against those involved in serious and organised crime and drug trafficking, but what assessment have the Government made of the American Secretary of State’s proposals to implement all sanctions? Is the Minister not slightly concerned about possible conflicts of interest in the American Administration, given that the Secretary of State, before he took up his post, received a payment of $180 million on leaving Exxon? Will the Minister explain whether he believes that further reducing Venezuelans’ export earnings would be helpful? Will he also make it clear that one plan the UK will definitely not support—and that we will actively oppose should it be put on the international table—is Donald Trump’s threat of military action against Venezuela?

In closing, I have one more important point to make. When we face a situation such as that in Venezuela, with demands for an immediate end to bloodshed and hardship, and the full restoration of human rights, it does this House proud that we are united in such calls, as we have been today. It is also important that we are consistent, and that we avoid anything that could be construed as double standards. If we are prepared to speak out with one voice on the issue of Venezuela—rightly—then, by contrast, people will not understand any equivocation about other countries with serious human rights records, such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. We must not allow anyone to claim that this House discovers its conscience and its voice only when there is an argument to be had in domestic politics. We must be consistent. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that the Government are wholehearted in their condemnation and addressing of the human rights problems in Venezuela, as across the globe.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I point out that we are not pressed for time, even though the debate was well attended, and I ask him to leave two or three minutes at the end for the proposer of the motion to respond to the debate.

Exiting the European Union: Sanctions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Sanctions are obviously an extremely important policy lever. People often think of sanctions as a modern policy instrument, but Thucydides mentions them as one of the instruments used against Megara in 432. Unfortunately, on that occasion they did not succeed in averting the Peloponnesian war. Sanctions are crucial nowadays, and it is vital that Ministers have the legal powers to implement sanctions policy in line with foreign policy objectives and responsibilities.

As the Minister has just said, the Government produced a consultation document on 21 April, and the deadline for people to respond was 23 June. The plan was originally that we would have a Bill before the summer recess, and I ask the Minister who will respond at the end of the debate: where is the Bill, and why have we not got it?

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I may be able to help the hon. Lady. There was something called a general election that came along, and these things cannot be announced during purdah, so to have a proper response to the consultation, it is appropriate that we should prepare it during the coming few weeks and months. It would have been improper to have done so earlier.

[Helen Goodman]

I am not of course suggesting that the Bill should have been produced in the middle of the general election campaign, but it is quite clear that consultation responses were coming in during that period. As the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said, officials have been looking at the responses. This is another example of the chaos and confusion that is evident on the part of the Government in the whole Brexit process. We had another example of that on Monday, when, without any explanation, Ministers withdrew the motion on a unified patent court. Across the board, policy is not being processed sensibly. These are not pieces on a chess board, but important areas of policy responsibility.

The consultation paper said that the legal powers we need to maintain sanctions will be put in the Bill, but it will not look at the policy goals or at how we will align future UK sanctions with those imposed by the European Union. I can understand the first part, but I really want to learn from Ministers whether the second part can be true. For sanctions to be effective, they must obviously be co-ordinated with our partners. Surely the way we make decisions to initiate and review sanctions must be explicitly linked with the processes of our partners in the UN and the European Union.

Hitherto in the EU, sanctions have often related to upholding values set out in the common foreign and security policy, including human rights, democracy, good governance and the rule of law. These should continue to be the cornerstones of our policy post-Brexit. I would be grateful to the Minister for Europe and the Americas if he confirmed that. The European Council has hitherto adopted decisions, together with any necessary regulations, and set out the elements of each individual sanctions regime. A number of UK Departments—principally, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Department for International Trade—have then taken on the responsibility for implementation. Will Ministers explain which Department will take the lead in co-ordinating other Departments on future sanctions?

In 1998, the Labour Government carried out a wide-ranging review of UK sanctions policy. When reporting to Parliament on the outcome of that review, the then Government outlined the core principles of sanctions policy: sanctions should be targeted to hit the regime, rather than ordinary people; they should include exemptions to minimise the humanitarian impact on innocent civilians; they should have clear objectives, including well defined and realistic demands against which compliance can be judged, with a clear exit strategy; there should be effective arrangements for implementation and enforcement by all states, especially neighbouring countries; and sanctions should avoid unnecessary adverse impacts on UK economic and commercial interests. We believe that these principles remain appropriate, and I would like an assurance from Ministers that they take the same view.

In the consultation paper, the Government state:

“Primary legislation will create a framework containing powers to impose sanctions regimes, the details of which will be laid out in the secondary legislation”.

That is somewhat vague. We seem to be being presented with a number of Henry VIII powers. We would be grateful if Ministers could tell us what the supervision and accountability arrangements with Parliament will be.

Assuming that the Bill creates a broad framework, and given the importance of ensuring that individual sanctions regimes are carefully calibrated, we believe that there is a good case for saying that all secondary legislation imposing UK sanctions should be subject to the affirmative procedure. In other words, new sanctions or changes to sanctions should require a debate on the Floor of the House, rather than in Committee upstairs. That is the only mechanism that would provide the requisite parliamentary scrutiny and the opportunity for us to hold the Government to account.

We would also like to know what level of oversight will be built into the process of reviewing sanctions. The consultation paper says only that both

“UN and EU sanctions are subject to internal reviews…We propose a similar approach under our new legislation…Internal reviews by the Government could include periodic reviews of individual designations or of entire regimes.”

Obviously, sanctions regimes need to adapt to changing circumstances, so ongoing parliamentary scrutiny and independent oversight will always be necessary. We want Ministers to provide clarity on that, so that procedures for accountability and independent oversight are built into any new legislation. We would like the Government to publish an annual report on the implementation of the sanctions regime, and to give Parliament a role in periodic reviews of UK sanctions—for instance, by making the Government’s annual report the subject of debates in both Houses—as well as a role in re-authorising ongoing sanctions on a yearly basis.

It is really difficult for a meaningful debate on this issue to take place until we have more clarity on the extent to which future UK-EU co-operation can take place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has said. That is particularly true of decisions as to whether sanctions should be imposed in the first place. The case of Ukraine is a good example of why it will remain important for us to work with the EU in future. It serves as perhaps the most prominent recent reminder of how collectively imposed sanctions can still have a real impact outside the UN. Everybody knows that the UK played a key role in making the intellectual case for those sanctions, and that the UK undertook significant diplomatic efforts in the EU and at the G7. How will the Government ensure not just that UK-EU co-operation on sanctions continues after we leave the EU, but that we will maintain our ability to shape decisions on when the EU sanctions are imposed? [Interruption.] “We won’t,” mumbles the Minister. We will hear whether, instead of mumbling on the Front Bench, he can answer those questions at the end of the debate.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to not mumble from the Dispatch Box. I was trying to alert her to the fact that most of those sanctions are imposed by the UN, to whose authority we are subject as a member.

[Helen Goodman]

As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, just said—I think this is right—that about half the sanctions in which we are involved are not subject to UN resolutions, but have come separately from the European Union. Given that the debate is about exiting the European Union and sanctions, it is reasonable to focus on the European angle.

The Government have set up their consultation and scheduled this debate, but they are not able to explain how in practice we will co-operate with our allies in the EU on issues such as intelligence sharing, policing and judicial matters, and all the things that are needed to enforce compliance with sanctions regimes in an effective way. The lack of any plan is another example of the Government’s recklessness in threatening to use security co-operation as a bargaining chip in the Brexit negotiations.The role of the financial sector is likely to be key in implementing any effective UK sanctions regime, particularly in terms of tackling money laundering and terrorist funding. The size of the City of London means that our role is vital. We have a record of leading in this area, although concerns remain about money laundering and sanctions evasion.

A critical question concerns the extent to which any new sanctions regime will be applied to the UK’s overseas territories. Following the revelations of the Panama papers, it is clear that all the UK’s overseas territories could play a part in tracking down and clamping down on illicit finance. That applies especially to the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands, which have faced heavy criticism in the past, but also to territories such as Bermuda that are responsible for their own legislation in this area.

What is the Government’s assessment of whether sanctions are being adequately implemented and enforced in all UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies? Will the Channel Islands and Bermuda be responsible for their own legislation in this area under a new regime? What steps will the Government take to monitor implementation and enforcement in the overseas territories? Will they commit to reporting regularly to Parliament on this matter?

The question of sanctions is important and significant. It is a shame that we have not had more clarity from the Government today in the form of legislation, but I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will be able to answer some of our questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) for her speech. It was comprehensive, but rather different in its thrust from mine. I must not pass up the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) on her excellent speech and to refer to the really great camaraderie that she and I and the rest of our intake have enjoyed. I am particularly fond of Saffron Walden as it is where my mother went to college. In fact, Rab Butler cut the ribbon at the opening of her college in 1965. I hope she does not get annoyed with me for mentioning the date.

I am truly honoured to have been chosen as the Member of Parliament for Northampton South. I have big boots to fill, in a town that is rich with an industrial history of manufacturing boots and shoes. There is not a place in the world where a British man or woman has not left their footprint with a Northampton boot or shoe, whether in a jungle or a desert, or on a mountain or a snow-laden plain. In 1830, there were 40 shoe and boot manufacturers in Northampton, and they employed a third of all the men in the town. That does not include the ancillary industries; they were employed in actually making the boots and shoes. The fortunes of the town’s shoe and boot industry have risen, fallen and risen again. Although we are now left with only a handful of shoe manufacturers, they produce some of the most exclusive and desirable handmade shoes in the world.

My upbringing, most particularly at Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School in Ashbourne, taught me the value of tradition. Thus—and staying with the metaphor of footprints—I would like to acknowledge the work of the former Member for Northampton South, Mr David Mackintosh. Although his tenure was short, his impact and the footprint of his public service to this House and to his constituents were significant. When I recently visited the Hope Centre, a local homelessness and anti-poverty charity in Northampton, I learned that he was held in high regard there for helping to push through the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and for his local work on combating homelessness.

The Northampton South seat was established in 1974, and those who represented the constituency are still making their footprints on public life to this day. Lord Naseby sits in the other place and still has an involvement in local public life through his work with Northamptonshire county cricket club. Mr Tony Clarke, who succeeded Lord Naseby in 1997, was a passionate public servant and continues to be so today by educating the young adults of the town in the local further education college. Then there was Mr Brian Binley, who is well known to many here and still centrally involved with the regeneration programme, Northampton Alive.

Charles Bradlaugh, whose bust I walked past today, was a particularly famous Northampton MP. He was a radical, and I came across him many years ago when I was doing postgraduate research—he and Charles Newdigate Newdegate had some enormous debates across the House about the difference between taking an oath and taking an affirmation. Previous Northampton MP Spencer Perceval is also well known in this Chamber. It is interesting that speeches made about him in previous years referred quite light-heartedly to his fate. In more recent years, of course, that has changed significantly. When we think of Spencer Perceval now, we think of much more recent and tragic events, and about the continuity of the risks that people run when they enter public service.

Francis Crick, who—with James Watson—co-discovered DNA, which is now the driving force of so many scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, was from Northampton, but there are also less well-known people, such as Walter Tull, who played for Northampton Town football club and then for Spurs. He was the British Army’s first black officer; he fought in the first world war but, after an incredible war record, alas he was killed in 1918. Margaret Bondfield, the first ever female Cabinet member, briefly served as MP for Northampton, so there are big shoes to fill indeed.

The constituency of Northampton South is the home of Cosworth, Travis Perkins, Barclaycard and Carlsberg. Those are prestigious brands and significant employers for the area, but I draw colleagues’ attention to another business. Under the shadow of the Carlsberg plant is the Phipps brewery, which was recently re-established after years of dormancy—and a welcome return it is. Pickering Phipps II served as the Member of Parliament for Northampton from 1874 to 1880. In many ways, his brewery and Northampton—because of the tannins involved in shoe manufacturing—was responsible for the revival of recipes that gave birth to the real ale movement, which has been going from strength to strength since the 1970s.

Northampton is one of the fastest-growing towns in the country, and has been for decades—I noticed that all my predecessors made reference to that fact in their maiden speeches. As I will, they referred to the pressures on public services, challenges for the high street and the major issue of housing. With the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), I will be campaigning for new and better facilities for Northampton General Hospital to meet the needs of a rapidly expanding town. We need more housing, better transport infrastructure and a more focused regeneration effort. As championed by Northampton Borough Council and the county council, we need an emphasis on culture and heritage to bring new vitality to Northampton town centre.

I hope my time as a county council leader myself will be helpful for all that, but—and here is a link to the debate topic—just over a month ago I was a Member of the European Parliament in Brussels. I have been told—I keep saying it and no one has contradicted me yet—that I am the only person ever to have served as a council leader, a Member of the European Parliament and an MP. As an MEP, I specialised in culture, education and regional development and fought for things that matter to me, such as the possible continuation of the Erasmus+ programme, or the introduction of a home-grown successor if not.

[Helen Goodman]

A very good idea!

[Andrew Lewer]

I do not know whether that is in reference to Erasmus+ or the home-grown successor—don’t answer that!

As an MEP, I also spent quite a lot of time working on the revision of the audiovisual media services directive, making the case for avoiding the unnecessary burden of over-regulation while protecting freedom of speech. I was also particularly interested in religious freedom and highlighted the case of Asia Bibi, who lives under a death sentence for blasphemy in Pakistan. I hope in this place to continue the work I was involved in to try to save her from the terrible situation she is in.

I was a reluctant leaver, but I still believe it is the right choice for the UK. In many ways, the complexity of leaving, which we are discussing tonight, simply underlines how much of our sovereignty we had lost and reminds us all that our work here is about not only getting a good deal as we leave but being ready to innovate in policy areas that this House has not had the lead on, or even much of a say about, for many years. Trade, environment and agriculture are not just something on which we will get a deal, but something on which we will need to work and innovate for ourselves henceforth.

Finally, let me go back to the tradition of describing one’s constituency as the most beautiful. Northampton certainly does have some beautiful buildings. It has a fascinating history, notably in the medieval period. It is my non-conformist and Methodist roots coming out when I say that much of its beauty lies in its industriousness, and that much of what makes the country as a whole great is to be found there. Much of what will challenge us as politicians in the years ahead can also be found there within its boundaries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his assiduous work over many years on behalf of Mr Taylor’s parents, his constituents in North Swindon. We have been providing ongoing consular and welfare support to Kevin Taylor since his arrest almost 10 years ago. Most recently, he was visited in prison, and we liaised with his parents only yesterday. Our consular support has also extended to delivering funds and vitamins. Most recently, we requested additional medical appointments after Mr Taylor brought his health concerns to our attention. A clemency request was made as recently as 2015, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we will do our level best to continue that work. I will be in touch with our department in Manila to ask it to redouble those efforts in the days ahead.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In the year since Rodrigo Duterte became President of the Philippines, 13,000 people have been killed. He has threatened to extend martial law across the entire country, and last week he said that he would eat the livers of terrorists with salt and vinegar, but the Secretary of State for International Trade claims that Britain has “shared values” with President Duterte. Can the Minister tell the House which values we share with the President?

[Mark Field]

The hon. Lady will recognise that there are shared values on international trade, and it is not an issue of ditching anything else. I, like her, am very concerned by the high death toll in the war on illegal drugs that has come to a head under President Duterte. We have been urging much more thorough and independent investigations into all violent deaths, and the Foreign Office has repeatedly raised, and will continue to raise, human rights concerns with the Administration. I hope to visit Manila at some point to make precisely the case that the hon. Lady has made.

Turkey: Human Rights and the Political Situation

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ryan]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; indeed, it is the point I am emphasising. Those people came out on to the streets of Turkey to defend their democracy, but they are now having to defend their democracy from the people who they actually protected on that night.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an important speech on a vital issue for the people of Turkey and its neighbouring countries. Has she observed the way in which that repression also affects the media? We have heard that one journalist has been killed and 56 have been detained, and up to 118 media organisations have been closed down, which is an obvious infringement of freedom of speech.

[Joan Ryan]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend also makes a powerful point. It has been said that in 2016 more journalists were arrested in Turkey than in any other part of the world. I think we all know that a free press is fundamental to the operation of a democracy; I will come to that later.

As the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), pointed out in July, the arrest of 3,000 members of the judiciary in just a few days following the failed coup seemed a rather strange way to uphold the rule of law, which speaks to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). The Committee to Protect Journalists tells us—I think my right hon. and hon. Friends have read my speech—there has been a media crackdown in Turkey that is unprecedented since the committee began keeping a record, in 1991. It states Turkey jailed,

“more journalists than any other country in 2016”,

and closed

“some 178 news outlets and publishing houses by decree in the space of five months, allowing only a handful to reopen.”

The judiciary and a free press are being undermined. Both are requirements for any operating democracy.

Human rights have been drastically curtailed, particularly in minority Kurdish and Alevi areas. There has been a clampdown on the freedom of assembly, with military curfews imposed in Kurdish and Alevi neighbourhoods. Dozens of Kurdish and Alevi newspapers and news channels have been shut down. I have been shocked by the information I have received from my Turkish, Kurdish and Alevi constituents regarding attacks on their family and friends in Turkey. Reports have included accounts of co-ordinated lynching attempts in Alevi areas following the failed coup. Members from the community have expressed grave concerns that the ongoing state of emergency is being used as an opportunity to intimidate Kurds and Alevis in their towns, villages and homes.

Civil society space has been shrunk, with non-governmental organisations such as the Rojava Association, a charitable organisation that has helped Turkish flood victims and women and refugees from Kobane in Syria, being forced to close. We can ill afford to see such organisations close down, given the circumstances.

Sadly, the slide to authoritarianism in Turkey is not a new development. Last summer’s failed coup attempt was not the starting point of this descent, but instead has served as a catalyst for anti-democratic trends that have been apparent under President Erdogan for some time. Almost three years ago, in the build-up to the country’s presidential elections, Mr Erdogan spoke of creating a new Turkey founded upon a new constitution. He promised to strengthen democracy, resolve the Kurdish issue and work towards ensuring Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Since those pledges were made, two parliamentary elections have been held in a climate of fear.

The elections may have been free, but they were not fair, with attacks on the offices and supporters of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic party, the HDP. President Erdogan has denounced the rulings of constitutional courts and threatened their future independence. More than 2,000 people have been killed since the breakdown of the Kurdish peace process in 2015. Although Kurdish militias and civilians have shown incredible bravery at the forefront of the conflict against ISIL/Daesh, there has been widespread alarm at the Turkish military’s attacks on Kurdish fighters during Operation Euphrates Shield in northern Syria, which has intensified the already dire humanitarian situation in the region.

President Erdogan’s temporary suspension of provisions in the European convention on human rights and his support for the reintroduction of the death penalty indicate his unwillingness to engage meaningfully in accession talks with the European Union. If that is the case, it would be a tragedy for Turkey and for the EU. Both parties have much to gain by tackling together many of today’s most important international issues, from terrorism to migration and the pursuit of peace in Syria.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I would like to give credit to everybody who has spoken—every speech has added to the debate. I am very grateful that there was cross-party support for bringing the debate forward.

So far, I do not think we have been straitjacketed by polarised views. If someone criticises Palestine, it does not mean they are an apologist for the occupation. If someone criticises Israeli policies, it does not mean they are against Israel or anti-Semitic. I deplore Hamas’s support for terrorism, and I deplore the building of settlements and outposts beyond the green line.

Our monitors say that the motion is “Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements”. That does not do credit to the full motion, which talks about the two-state solution and asks our Government to take a more active role. This is a very important debate, especially in this year of sad anniversaries—anniversaries of occupation, anniversaries of a blockade and, vitally for us and for our Government today, the centenary of the Balfour declaration. The declaration did commend the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, it also uses the words:

“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

That is where our role is critical.

It is correct that the settlements are illegal. I know there is some dispute in Israel about the Geneva convention, but the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations Security Council claim that the settlements are illegal. President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry—he said this in December—and even Ronald Reagan also claimed the settlements are illegal.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a good speech. Does she agree that the Government are to be congratulated on supporting resolution 2334? Will she, like me, be looking to the Minister to say what action the Government are planning to take to enforce resolution 2334?

[Dr Mathias]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention. That is the problem with so many resolutions—2336, 242 and 181. Yes, I would look to the Minister to tell us what actions the Government are planning to take.

Worryingly, the number of settlements has increased to over 100, as has the number of outposts, to over 100. They are increasing in number, in population, and in geographical area. A matter of concern for anybody who has seen images of them are the settlements in the area just by Jerusalem, the so-called E1 area, which may split the Palestinian west bank north and south. Gaza and the west bank have been separate since 1947, yet this year there is the danger of even more fragmentation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for securing this important debate. This is not the first time I have raised the issue of Palestinian rights in Parliament; sadly, I am sure it will not be the last.

In 2012, when I was chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, I had the privilege of visiting the west bank for the second time. I saw at first hand the degrading and inhuman way in which Palestinians were treated by the Israelis, who had demolished or stolen their homes. I also saw the effect that that had on Palestinian businesses and farmers. The suffering and the sense of loss experienced by the Palestinian people are indescribable. The loss that they have suffered is illegal under international law—a theft of land that continues to be denounced by world leaders across the globe and condemned, quite rightly, by the United Nations. Above all else, the perpetual land grabs are not only immoral and illegal, but a barrier to peace.

Although the Palestinians must provide assurances that Israel will be able to live in peace beside a Palestinian state, the Israelis, too, must come to peace talks in good faith. How can Palestinians take a peace offer seriously when settlements continue to be built? How can Palestinians trust Israel to recognise a Palestinian state when their homes are being demolished? How can Palestinians believe in a genuine two-state solution based on the 1967 borders when Israel continues its encirclement of East Jerusalem? The settlements must stop in order to give any framework for peace a chance, and Britain must be at the forefront of that effort. Britain has a moral responsibility to the Palestinian people, given our role in the region and our betrayal of the people who lived under our mandate after the first world war.

Given the new President in the White House, our country has to play a more important leadership role. Many in this House may be sceptical about the idea that the US has ever been an honest broker in this conflict. However, despite its strong ties with Israel, the US has condemned settlements and aggression. Trump’s view of the conflict appears to be a world apart from that of the former Secretary of State, John Kerry. Trump has made potentially inflammatory remarks about moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and he has selected a pro-settlement real estate lawyer to be the US ambassador to Israel. That has so emboldened the Israeli right that within days of the Trump inauguration, the Israeli Government announced their plans to build a further 2,500 housing units in the west bank.

[Helen Goodman]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to make it clear to the Israelis how unsatisfactory the situation is, we should adopt the same policy as we have adopted towards the Russians over their invasion of Crimea and introduce personal sanctions on those who promote and benefit from the settlements?

[Simon Danczuk]

I appreciate the intervention, and I have to agree that there needs to be some consistency in British foreign relations regarding our attitude towards different countries.

Let me start to conclude. I am glad that Britain, alongside the EU, denounced the awful regulation law allowing further housing units to be built. That allays some of the fears I have that Britain is turning its back on the safeguarding of human rights and the promotion of democracy. However, I worry that in this post-Brexit world, such values will be sidelined as the Government seek to secure trade deals. I know that trade was on the agenda at the Prime Minister’s meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister and I am sure many benefits can be gained from the new UK-Israel trade working group, but will the Minister assure me and my colleagues that the UK’s opposition to the new settlements in the west bank will be made forcefully? What is more, will he assure us that increased trade with Israel will not benefit those making a living out of the illegal occupation? Such small steps could make a difference.

In conclusion, Britain must live up to its responsibilities to the Palestinians. The aid we give makes a difference and it must continue, as must our criticism of illegal settlements, and our vocal condemnation must get louder if the US Administration choose to turn their back completely on the Palestinian people.