Oral Answers to Questions

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that wonderful question. I am delighted to include the British Museum’s work as another area of soft power for the great UK and for global Britain everywhere. My right hon. Friend is standing down and will be greatly missed not only here but in the middle east, where his expertise and humanity are respected by everybody.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

As the first Bury Member of Parliament to speak, may I congratulate you on your fantastic achievement, Mr Speaker? Following yesterday’s decision, which was based on merit, you have been able to bring a great sense of unity to the House.

Turning to soft power, what are the Government doing to make it clear to the Indian Government that we have extremely serious concerns about human rights abuses in Kashmir? What will the Government do to promote the concept of self-determination for the Kashmiri people? Time and again before elections, people on the Front Benches make commitments to promote self-determination, yet Governments have repeatedly failed to do anything about the issue when it comes to using soft power in international institutions.

[Mrs Wheeler]

That was a serious question, and it behoves me to give a serious answer. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Indian Foreign Secretary about the matter, raising our concerns about humanitarian issues, particularly in Kashmir. As for the election and commitments regarding an independent Kashmir, the matter should be sorted out on a bilateral basis between the two countries.

Jewish Refugees from the Middle East and North Africa

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

It is always a pleasure to participate in debates under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing this important debate.

As the right hon. Lady has made clear, it is important to acknowledge the historical facts relating to Jews forced to flee their homes in the middle east and north Africa. Too often, the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is dominated by a narrative that demonises Israel and delegitimises the rights of Jews to self-determination in their own state.

In the aftermath of the creation of the state of Israel, as the right hon. Lady said, a minimum of 850,000 Jews were forced from their homes. From Iraq to Egypt, Syria, Libya and Yemen, state-sanctioned pogroms descended on Jewish neighbourhoods, killing innocents and destroying ancient synagogues and Jewish cemeteries. New draconian laws prevented Jews from public worship, forced them to carry Jewish identity cards, and seized billions of dollars of their property and assets. Any future peace plan must tackle that issue. It should be part of any full and final settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. Naturally, there must also be justice for Palestinian refugees, based on credible proposals. As Palestinian leaders have privately accepted for decades, it is not feasible to demand both a Palestinian state and the right of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees. Other solutions have to be found, which are just and recognise the losses that refugees have suffered.

It is also time to question the need for Palestinians to live in United Nations-run refugee camps. Surely, they should be encouraged and supported to live in better conditions in Arab countries in the region. That need not in any way compromise or prejudice their rights in any future peace agreement. Refugees, especially children, should not be used as political pawns in the frontline of a public relations campaign.

Regarding these issues, in the past I have accused the Leader of the Opposition of supporting a one-state solution. Today, I reiterate that charge. It is the logical conclusion of the positions he has adopted for decades and his support for the view that the creation of the state of Israel was a catastrophe. His personal attempt to persuade the Labour national executive committee to amend the definition of antisemitism, to allow people to say that the creation and existence of Israel is a racist endeavour, tells us all we need to know about his view of Jewish people’s right to self-determination.

The Leader of the Opposition and many of his supporters support the campaigns of every minority around the world who demand the right to self-determination. Why are Jews the only exception? It is to be hoped that the Equality and Human Rights Commission inquiry will shine a light on the Leader of the Opposition’s and his inner circle’s failure to act against their allies who are found to promote antisemitic rhetoric and imagery.

In conclusion, it is a source of regret that there is no meaningful political dialogue taking place at the present time between Israelis and Palestinians. Let us hope that this changes, in the interests of peace and stability for both peoples.

Democratic Republic of the Congo: Presidential Elections

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is scheduled to hold a presidential election in only five days’ time, on 23 December. This historic election could see the country’s first-ever democratic transfer of power, or bring further instability and violence to a country riven with human tragedy and despair. It is essential that this House and the Government send the strongest possible message today that we will settle for nothing less than a free and fair election, and that working with our international allies we will take punitive action against the regime should they attempt to steal the election. Conversely, as the DRC’s second largest bilateral donor, in the event of a free and fair election, we stand ready to support a new democratically elected President to face up to the mammoth challenges that lie ahead.

The country will only move forward with new leadership committed to a vision rooted in economic growth and poverty reduction. That will only be possible with better governance and a plan to end horrendous levels of violence and endemic corruption.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

How will this election affect the endemic corruption in the DRC, which is even worse than in Nigeria where I am a trade envoy, and how will it deal with the 2.7 million internally displaced people?

[Mr Lewis]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. The international community has poured billions of pounds into the DRC over many, many years. Until the leadership of that country changes so that it is transparent, open and accountable to the people, and free of corruption, we will not see the kind of changes that the people of the DRC have a right to expect. That is why this presidential election is so crucial. Without a change of leadership, we will not see the kind of changes that are so necessary and which the hon. Gentleman articulates.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this matter for an Adjournment debate. I have always had an interest in the politics of Africa, in particular the DRC. He knows that the level of violence against those who are eligible to vote, in particular women, is very high. How does he see the elections taking place when that violence is being targeted at voters? How does he feel the Government can ensure that people are safe to vote? The democratic process must go ahead and the voters must be safe. How will that happen?

[Mr Lewis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the question of violence. As any Member of this House who has visited the DRC and spoken directly to victims of violence—particularly, women who have been victims of sexual violence—will know, there is not a more horrendous or horrific example anywhere in the world of rape being used as a weapon of war. Therefore, the ability—I will come to this later—of that country to protect voters from the threat of violence is central to having free and fair elections.

As hon. Members have alluded to, it is important to understand the scale of the challenge. The DRC is a country of some 80 million people and has a landmass the size of western Europe. According to the World Bank, with its 80 million hectares of arable land and over 1,100 minerals and precious metals, the DRC has the potential to become one of the richest countries on the continent and a key driver of African growth. That is almost the irony of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Between 2005 and 2012, the poverty rate has decreased only from 71% to 64%, and the DRC ranks among the poorest countries in the world. It was 176th out of 187 countries on the UN human development index. As of 11 December, as hon. Members will be aware, there have been 505 suspected cases of Ebola, including 457 confirmed cases, and at least 296 people have died. I know that this country has made a tremendous contribution to trying to contain the outbreaks of Ebola that we have seen.

UNICEF said that the humanitarian situation in the DRC has deteriorated dramatically just over the past 12 months. That is from an incredibly low base. A surge in violent conflict in the Kasai and eastern regions has forced more than 1.7 million people from their homes. The number of internally displaced people has more than doubled since January 2017, reaching 4.1 million, the highest number in Africa. More than 13 million will need humanitarian assistance this year alone, including 7.8 million children, and 13.6 million people are in need of safe water and adequate sanitation and hygiene facilities. Some 7.7 million people are facing severe food insecurity, which represents a 30% increase since 2016, and a shocking estimated 2.2 million children will suffer from severe acute malnutrition this year alone.

The country continues to experience frequent and deadly disease outbreaks, including measles and malaria, and is undergoing one of the worst cholera outbreaks of the decade—that is in addition to Ebola. Grave violations of children’s rights, including forced recruitment, killing, maiming and sexual violence, are key features of the conflict. Violence and insecurity are seriously impeding access to basic education for 3.4 million children across the country.

Recent UNICEF data show that more than 3,000 children have been recruited by militias and armed groups over the past year alone. According to an April 2014 UN report, sexual violence remains “extremely serious due to” its

“scale…systematic nature and the number of victims.”

Human Rights Watch talks about the “horrific levels of rape” and other forms of sexual violence used by all armed groups in the conflict, which has been destabilising the country for several decades. Unfortunately, members of the country’s armed forces are among the main perpetrators of this violence.

As the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) suggested, as the DRC goes to the polls, the stakes have never been higher. This election will decide who succeeds President Kabila, whose second and final term expired on 20 September 2016. The promised elections have been delayed until now. Kabila has been in power since 2001. Many had feared that he would never relinquish power, but largely as a result of pressure from the international community, he reluctantly agreed to step down. However, he has nominated a chosen successor, Emmanuel Shadary, who, due to his actions as a member of the Kabila Government, is currently subject to European Union sanctions. Opposition parties in the country fear that the electoral process will be a sham, orchestrated by Kabila, who wants to stay in power at any cost. They believe that the regime will do whatever is necessary to steal this election.

Kris Berwouts, of the African Studies Centre, wrote only last month: 

“If the Congolese government manages to organise the elections in time, it will organise them in order to win them. It will deploy all the pressure, fraud, intimidation and violence necessary to do so. The chances of free and fair elections are nil. That is why the authorities are deploying heavy repression against any potential watchdogs. Congolese journalists and observers bear the brunt of this, but foreigners are also targeted.”

If the international community is serious about its commitment to peaceful, credible elections, it would be wise not to ignore the wisdom of the Congolese people regarding the conditions needed for legitimate elections.

In that context, I should like the Minister to address a number of specific concerns. I thank him in advance for his politeness in contacting me today to discuss some of them.

Electronic voting machines will be used for the first time in these elections, and civil society groups fear that they are not secure enough and there is a possibility of the results being rigged. The United States ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has affirmed the US belief that the DRC should stick to the tried and tested method of paper ballots. The technology for the machines was created by a South Korean company which built similar machines for elections in Argentina last year, but the devices were subsequently rejected because of security issues that made them vulnerable to hackers.

In fact, Congolese law does not provide for the use of voting machines, although that has been denied by the electoral commission in the DRC. I should add that there is a question mark over the commission’s independence in the entire process. It has also claimed that changing the system would mean delaying the election. According to a review of the devices by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, they have not been thoroughly tested, and there is a potential for long delays and also, crucially, for abuse and misuse.

Earlier this month, 7,000 of 10,000 voting machines in an electoral commission warehouse in the capital, Kinshasa, were destroyed in a fire. The Kabila Government blamed unidentified “criminals” for the blaze, but the warehouse was being guarded by their army. The destruction of the machines is therefore highly suspicious, and, obviously, reinforces the concerns about the use of such machines. There are also concerns about the voters’ roll, which has revealed that 6 million voters have not been fingerprinted. It would aid transparency, and would be incredibly helpful, if the UK Government could argue that the electoral commission should publish the names of the people concerned and the areas in which 50% of fingerprints have not been obtained. That would establish whether it was a case of random distribution or evidence of dubious practices.

It is also essential, even at this very late stage, for the international community to seek an agreement between the armed forces and the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—or MONUSCO—for a MONUSCO brigade to be deployed to guarantee safe, free voting in eastern and central parts of the country. That point was made by the hon. Member for Strangford. If such an independent force is not deployed, there is a real risk that people will be intimidated by the threat of violence. There are also concerns about the lack of observers. Analysts and activists have warned that if polls are seen as fraudulent, the country could face years of protests. Civil society organisations are operating in a highly restrictive political environment, with regular threats to employees and their families.

Finally, should the outcome of the elections become a matter of intense dispute, that could lead to further upsurges in violence across the country, some parts of which, especially the east, are seriously affected by intractable conflicts. Africa Confidential reports—this is shocking—that some national army officers are even talking in terms of a “third Congolese war”, with troops from neighbouring countries potentially becoming drawn into the DRC once again. Although the international community has poured much money and effort into the DRC over the last 20 years, there are justified fears that, in the end, a Shadary victory could be met with international acquiescence.

Let me make this point very strongly to the Minister. In the past, our Government and others of successive political persuasions have chosen perceived stability over democracy and free and fair elections, and, on those grounds, have often not called out elections as being illegitimate when they clearly have been. This country’s last best chance for the next decade, in the context of the human tragedies that I have described, is to determine whether the result of these elections demonstrates that they were free and fair. I call on the Minister, and the UK Government—who, because of their donor status and their diplomatic reputation, still have a tremendous amount of influence in that country—to take a very tough line, even at this late stage, in putting pressure on the DRC Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My hon. Friend has an amazing reputation for his interest in Africa, and I totally share his judgment. I agree with what he has just said.

We are concerned that some candidates have been prevented from moving and campaigning freely around the country, that activists from all sides have been subjected to violence, and that some candidates have used inflammatory language. The UK issued a joint statement with the American, Canadian and Swiss ambassadors in response, which condemned all forms of violence as well as expressing regret at the news of the recent fire at an electoral commission warehouse in Kinshasa, to which the hon. Member for Bury South referred.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that electronic voting machines were being used for the first time in this poll. The DRC electoral commission—known as CENI—will be responsible for their operation. In response to a request from CENI in February, we funded the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to carry out a technical analysis of the electronic voting machines. The WFD’s report is publicly available on CENI’s website, and it notes that it is not best practice to introduce the machines on this scale without a pilot. However, it does not endorse or reject their use, because this is a sovereign decision for CENI and the DRC. The report provided a number of recommendations to mitigate the risks associated with using the machines, many of which have been adopted by CENI. All the major presidential candidates have now indicated that voters should use the machines.

In addition to our support for the electoral process, we also run an extensive programme to alleviate the humanitarian situation in the DRC. This includes our support for the World Health Organisation-led response to the Ebola outbreak in the east of the country, where we are the second-largest bilateral donor. More broadly, we are working to improve the humanitarian and human rights situation in the DRC through advocacy work, through bilateral projects and programmes and through our support of multilateral interventions such as the UN peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO.

We help to fund a programme run by the UN’s Joint Human Rights Office to document human rights abuses. We continue to call on the DRC Government, as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, to demonstrate their commitment to the highest standards of human rights and to take decisive action against abuses and violations. With the EU, we have established a sanctions regime against members of the Government responsible for the violation of human rights. We have made it clear that we are prepared to take further action as necessary, including against those who seek to obstruct the democratic aspirations of the Congolese people. We will continue to use all channels available to us to end human rights abuses in the DRC, to press for accountability, and to demand a better future for the Congolese people. I hope I have shown that the UK is engaging closely with the electoral authorities and civil society in the DRC to support free, fair, safe and credible elections on Sunday.

[Mr Ivan Lewis]

Given that this is not the Minister’s portfolio, I thank him for giving such a comprehensive response. Will he make it clear today to the current regime that if there is strong evidence that the elections were not free and fair as a consequence of its actions, there will be accountability through whatever measures the UK and the international community deem fit, including the potential for further sanctions?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We want to see the highest standards applied to these elections, and we will monitor them very closely. If we feel the need to express a view afterwards, we will of course do so both in this House and more widely.

I hope that what I have said on the Government’s behalf tonight shows that we hope that everything we are doing helps to address some of the root causes of the DRC’s many problems and that the elections provide the political stability the country needs in order to build the secure and prosperous future that the Congolese people rightly crave. That stability is vital not only for them, but for the region. This Government are clear that we will continue to provide support to help the DRC to achieve that longed-for stability and prosperity.

Question put and agreed to.

Gaza Border Violence

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear at the time of the commemoration of Balfour that there were indeed two parts to that declaration, and the second remained unfinished business. That is still the view of the United Kingdom Government.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)]

The Israeli Government have a moral duty to minimise civilian casualties in defence of their borders. The loss of life yesterday was a horrendous tragedy, but to be clear, Hamas members are not freedom fighters; it is a terrorist organisation sponsored by Iran and using civilians as a human shield. Does the Minister agree that a new reality whereby Iran is in Syria, Hezbollah runs Lebanon and Hamas controls Gaza means that Israel faces grave security concerns? Is it not time for the United States and the Arab League countries to show responsible leadership on an equal basis and jointly sponsor a new political dialogue aimed at rebuilding trust and a new peace process between Israelis and Palestinians?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman understands this situation extremely well, having held my post in the past, and knows the risks in the area. He is right to explain the risks that Israel feels all around it. He is also right to suggest that, unless we get something new into the situation to understand it and bring the confrontation to an end, we will not see progress. Whether it is led by just the United States or others, it is essential that we put something new into the process, otherwise we will be back here again.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

It is always a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and it is a great relief today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing this important debate, which provides an opportunity to reflect on the impact of the Balfour Declaration, 100 years on.

The state of Israel was born in the wake of the holocaust—the Shoah—which was a meticulous plan on an industrial scale to wipe out an entire people because of their faith and cultural identity. It was shocking not only because of its depravity, but because of the complicity of many individuals and leaders who looked the other way in the face of unspeakable evil. It is a sad truth that we still need to counter those who seek to deny the holocaust.

Resurgent anti-Semitism is the only form of racism that unites far right and far left. My own party has serious questions to answer about a minority of members and supporters who stain the reputation of a movement rooted in equality and in an abhorrence of all forms of discrimination and racism. Although they are a small minority, they feel able to act with impunity when there should be zero tolerance. To Conservative Members, I say: let us not play party politics with these incredibly sensitive issues. It was not that long ago that senior Tories talked about there being too many Estonians and not enough Etonians in the Thatcher Government.

Why is anti-Semitism so salient to this debate? Quite simply, for many Jews around the world, Israel is the safety net that gives meaning to the phrase “Never again”. The reality is that contemporary anti-Semitism is predominantly tied up with attacks on Israel that cross the line in their use of anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery.

There are many people and organisations who legitimately criticise the policies and actions of the Israeli Government but are not in any way anti-Semitic. They have every right to do so without facing the false accusations that sometimes damage those who claim to be Israel’s friends. However, 100 years on from Balfour, this country, more than any other, has a duty to ensure a balanced scorecard when it comes to judgments about the state of Israel—a small country the size of Wales that has always existed in a hostile neighbourhood and attracted hatred, venom and the daily threat of violent terrorism. It must be acknowledged that Hamas and Hezbollah continue to use violence, not politics, to pursue their objectives. Globally, Israel is a lightning rod not just for anti-Semitism but for people who loathe western values. It is often forgotten that that is what much of the hostility towards Israel is actually about.

Modern Israel is a vibrant democracy with a free judiciary and an independent press. How many countries put former Presidents and Prime Ministers in the same prison cell block? That is just one slightly strange example. Israel is at the cutting edge of the global technological revolution and of life-changing medical and scientific advances. For the most part, Jews, Arabs, Christians and Muslims live side by side in peace. Its stance on LGBT and women’s rights is often an example to the rest of the world.

It is only right, however, that we acknowledge that Israel must face up to some harsh realities. West bank occupation dehumanises both Palestinians and young Israeli soldiers. Security must be the No. 1 priority for any Government, but the time has come to consider a different framework that protects Israel’s security while allowing maximum freedom for Palestinian residents. Settlement expansion is wrong and unnecessary in advance of a final negotiated settlement. Inequality and poverty have disproportionately affected Israeli Arabs. More should be done to put that right.

Like many supporters of Israel, I continue to believe in a two-state solution that guarantees Israel’s security and normalises its relations with the mainstream world alongside a viable Palestinian state that can offer dignity and opportunity to all its citizens. The harsh truth is that the political leadership on both sides cannot—perhaps will not—make the compromises necessary for that to happen. Let us hope that that changes, because bitterness, hatred and division grow every day, leading to no progress and, more importantly, no hope.

The Balfour Declaration was right, because it laid the foundations for the recognition that the Jewish people had a right to self-determination in their own country—the true definition of Zionism, which is a word that has been distorted and demonised by those who do not really believe that Israel has a right to exist. Of course, there are a tiny minority whose Zionism means expansionism and the appropriation of more land, but they do not speak for the vast majority of Israelis or friends of Israel around the world.

I doubt that Balfour believed he was beginning a process that would lead to the creation of a utopian state. Israel is far from that, but nor should she be too often singled out for disproportionate, ill-conceived criticism and wrong-headed calls for boycotts. Our country should be proud of the Balfour Declaration, while also championing the importance of a two-state solution and the rights of the Palestinians to have the dignity of statehood. In this place, perhaps the greatest tribute we could pay to the legacy of Balfour would be for more of us to reject the entrenched divisions of the past and claim the right to define ourselves as friends of Israel and friends of Palestine.

Budget Resolutions

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

The test of the Budget should be whether it tackles the big challenges facing our country now and in future. I shall focus on three of those challenges: the need for support for business to alleviate the inevitable uncertainty that will prevail throughout the Brexit negotiations; the need to tackle the inequality that is dividing our society more each and every day; and the need to provide sustainable funding to build a new integrated NHS and care system that can cope with ever-increasing demand. On all those counts, the Budget is a missed opportunity.

The increases to business rates and national insurance contributions for the self-employed have raised questions about the Government’s competence, integrity and business credentials. Even David Cameron has expressed concern that a clear Tory manifesto commitment has been broken. At a time when Brexit is causing so much uncertainty for business, it is unforgivable that the Government should make the situation worse, not better. Alongside that, the Budget failed to identify any measures to begin the process of mitigating the impact of the UK no longer being a member of the single market. As that is the Government’s stated objective, they have a duty to take it fully into account from now on when they introduce measures that will affect business.

Inequality is fuelled by many factors, but wage stagnation is one of the worst. The Government should commit to phasing in a proper living wage over this Parliament, not the bogus living wage they are currently implementing. I propose a register whereby every three years companies would be required to publish their profits and the pay increases they have awarded their staff, from the boardroom to the shop floor. If companies are struggling, or if they are start-ups, it is totally right that job protection, not wage rises, should be a priority. However, if significant profits are being made, it is immoral that workers are not seeing an increase in their pay.

Perhaps the most grotesque symbol of inequality in today’s society is the epidemic of rough sleeping we are seeing in many of our towns and cities. I welcome the Homelessness Reduction Bill and the work of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that made it possible, but it will not solve the problem alone. The Government should have used the Budget to make specific resources available to ensure that local authorities and third-sector organisations can come together to offer people who are sleeping on the streets emergency accommodation and a package of support to enable them to reintegrate into the community. In the longer term, the Chancellor must consider new ways to enable councils and housing associations to access finance so that they can build a mix of social and affordable housing.

On the NHS and social care, I welcome the extra money for social care in the Budget, but the gerrymandering of public money to favour political friends brings the Government into disrepute. The extra money will not change the fact that in the vast majority of local authorities, the eligibility criteria that determine access to publicly funded social care mean that people have to deteriorate to a very poor state before they receive any help whatsoever. People whose financial means make them ineligible for funding are all too often not even offered advice and support to choose the right care and support for themselves and their families.

As a former social care Minister, I can testify that successive Governments have been reluctant to tackle the social care funding issue because there is no credible solution that will not require the public to pay more. Unlike the NHS, social care has always been means- tested. Higher taxes and/or national insurance, greater individual and family contributions, payments out of inherited estates, and an insurance-based system for social care are all difficult options. Any solution, therefore, must not be a political football, and any work must be done on an all-party basis.

I am sorry to say that the Budget commitment to yet another Green Paper on social care funding matches neither the scale nor the urgency of the challenge. I reject the view of those on the right who argue that the NHS as a system free at the point of use, funded by general taxation, cannot be sustained. It must be sustained as a non-negotiable and enduring statement of unique British values.

The Government rightly talk about the importance of shifting the focus of public services to prevention and early intervention, yet their slash-and-burn approach to council funding is having the opposite effect. My local authority, Bury, will be required to make cuts of approximately £30 million between 2017 and 2020, and the situation is made worse by an unfair local government funding formula. If Bury were funded at the English average, it would equate to an additional £9 million per year. The reality is that Bury and local authorities are having to shut preventive and early intervention services rather than invest in them.

The Budget exposes, once again, the illusion that the Government have been economically competent or successful. Not only have they failed using their own measures of success—deficit reduction and borrowing—but they have failed to address low pay and the rising cost of living for too many of our fellow citizens. They have also failed to address the growing under-employment of young people, the impact of benefit sanctions, child poverty and cuts to grassroots and frontline public services, all of which are creating a deeply divided society—a division that both contributed to and was reflected in the Brexit vote.

The incompetence of this Budget has brought the Prime Minister’s honeymoon period to an end. She can talk as much as she likes about standing up for working people and those struggling to get on, but unless her Government change course, that will not happen, and furthermore her legacy will be a deeply divided country, and a party once again viewed by many as the nasty party. That would be both an irony and a tragedy for the first Tory politician with the courage to face up to the reality of her party’s reputation.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on securing the debate and on a good set of opening remarks.

This debate gives us the opportunity to reflect on the unique contribution of this country to the creation of the modern state of Israel. There is much to be said about the historical significance of the Balfour declaration, but I will focus my remarks on its significance in the context of today’s stark realities. We are seeing a serious and concerning resurgence of anti-Semitism globally, which more often than not is inextricably linked to a hostility towards the state of Israel. In many quarters, Zionism has become a toxic word that is equated, by some, with the oppression of the Palestinian people. In the recent past, there was a global campaign by Israel’s strongest critics to falsely equate Zionism with racism.

Although it is true—and we should make this point—that some people inappropriately label any criticism of the Israeli state as anti-Semitism, it is also true that hostility towards Israel and Zionism too often consists of language and imagery that crosses a line and becomes anti-Semitism—or, to give it its true name, Jew hatred. This is the case among some on the left in this country including, sadly, a small minority in my party. Such hostility has led to a significant flight of Jews from France, and is a growing problem in many European countries. Too often, anti-Semitism is viewed as a second- class form of racism, and justified or legitimised by many who claim to be staunch anti-racism campaigners, but who abhor Israel and attack Zionism.

It is chilling that, 100 years on from the Balfour declaration, Marine Le Pen has a serious prospect of power in France, and the President-elect of the United States has appointed someone with well-documented anti-Semitic views to a senior position in his forthcoming Administration. Incidentally—it is important to put this on the record—it is equally chilling that misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia are trivialised as just part of the rough and tumble of an election campaign, as though women, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, Muslims, Mexicans and other minority communities can simply move on, the morning after an election, and that the anger, fear and insecurity for many citizens in a country that prides itself on being the world’s leading liberal democracy should be relegated to a mere footnote in history. That would be the worst kind of double standard.

No serious attempt to tackle contemporary anti-Semitism can duck the Zionism question. All too often, those who talk about tackling anti-Semitism do not want to recognise that fact. I raised that point forcefully in my direct representations to the leader of my party and Shami Chakrabarti as part of their recent inquiry. Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own state—a right to self-determination that many of Israel’s fiercest critics demonstrate for on behalf of many other minority communities now around the world.

It is true that a small minority demand, in the name of Zionism, a greater Israel, which means the expansion of her current borders, but that is not the Zionism of the overwhelming majority. I passionately support a two-state solution, which means a viable Palestinian state and opposition to settlement expansion by Israel. I have profound differences with aspects of the current Israeli Government’s policies, but I am proud to be a staunch supporter of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the state of Israel—a right supported by the United Nations in 1947 and enshrined by full recognition in 1949.

That right is in the finest traditions of the Labour party and many socialists who were the pioneers of the modern state of Israel. It was the British Labour party that led the way in supporting the right of Jews to have a homeland in Palestine. Three months prior to the adoption of the Balfour declaration, Labour’s stated policy was:

“Palestine should be set free from the harsh and oppressive government of the Turk, in order that this country may form a free State under international guarantee, to which such of the Jewish people as desire to do so may return and may work out their salvation free from interference by those of alien race or religion.”

The party’s then leader, Arthur Henderson, said:

“The British Labour Party believes that the responsibility of the British people in Palestine should be fulfilled to the utmost of their power. It believes that these responsibilities may be fulfilled so as to ensure the economic prosperity, political autonomy and spiritual freedom of both the Jews and Arabs in Palestine.”

This debate is a welcome opportunity to challenge both the rewriting of history and the ignorance of history, a toxic combination that is fuelling so much of today’s anti-Semitism.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, recognise and acknowledge that it was the Labour party that first expressed such support for the creation of the state of Israel and advanced the Balfour declaration? The Labour party went on to re-establish and recommit its support 11 times in the months and years that followed.

[Mr Lewis]

My hon. Friend is right. That is a historical fact. The reason for repeating that point is that there are some who talk about a two-state solution, which she and I support, but whose rhetoric and language often appear to be about a one-state solution—and that state is not the state of Israel. Her intervention is an accurate reflection of history, and it is important to make that point in the debate that often rages in our party. It is important to clarify the difference between the two, because people are saying that they want two states when they really want one state. That too often appears to be the language and rhetoric.

This timely debate has given us an opportunity to debate something that is incredibly important, particularly because of the impact in contemporary Britain, in Europe and across the world. To be clear, Zionists have no right to seek exemption for Israel from legitimate criticism of the actions of her Government or to brand those who engage in such criticism as anti-Semitic. Equally, some of Israel’s fiercest critics must not be allowed to get away with the delegitimisation of Israel through the rewriting of history, which seeks to deny the legal and moral basis of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their own state. It is entirely consistent and morally right both to support and celebrate the Balfour declaration and to strongly and passionately support a two-state solution that includes a viable state for the Palestinians.

Europe, Human Rights and Keeping People Safe at Home and Abroad

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) on an excellent maiden speech? I am sure that Members from all parts of the House would agree that it was a great way for him to start his parliamentary career.

I want to focus my remarks on the Bus Services Bill, which includes measures that are welcome and have long been argued for by political leaders in Greater Manchester. However, the Bill also contains serious weaknesses that expose how this Tory Government’s belief in “private good, public bad” acts against the public interest and highlights the need for a fair, not flawed, devolution deal. I will expand on that later. It is frankly a scandal that successive Governments, including the last Labour Government, failed to give us the same powers to regulate bus services as there are in London; for decades, the people of Greater Manchester have been denied the right to have a fully integrated public transport system because of free market ideology and vested interests. Of course, we are very proud of our Metrolink light rail system in Greater Manchester, which was developed as a result of the vison of local council leaders, often in the face of opposition from the Department for Transport. But the financial arrangements that have made that possible are also flawed, with the result being excessive fares, too many areas still without a service and a high debt burden.

The people of Greater Manchester want and deserve a world-class public transport system that is accessible, reliable and affordable. That is essential for not only jobs and growth, but our environment and quality of life. Congestion is a scourge of everyday life, with traffic jams, tailbacks and unacceptable delays the norm for motorists, especially during the rush hour. Our unregulated bus services and inadequate tram and train network do not offer a viable or attractive option for too many people. Although the new powers are welcome, we also need a new transport fund on a par with that in London, so that we, too, can offer subsidised services to communities that do not have adequate connectivity, develop orbital schemes around Greater Manchester and enhance access to local hospitals. We should not be penalised for rejecting congestion charging—that was and is the settled democratic will of the people of Greater Manchester.

I believe five radical changes are necessary: a price freeze for bus and Metrolink fares at least until 2020; the development of a Transport for Greater Manchester connect card and smart ticketing system, so that all tickets can be used on buses, trams and local trains; a new transport fund on a par with that for London to support non-profitable routes for isolated communities, deliver easier access to hospital appointments and prioritise new orbital routes around Greater Manchester; reduced fares for young people, to support travel to study, apprenticeships and work; and a publicly owned, publicly controlled Greater Manchester bus company that could bid for some or all franchises. That fifth change is prohibited by the Bill, which is why I am today urging the Labour Front-Bench team to move amendments to remove this prohibition. If that proves unsuccessful, I will work with colleagues in Greater Manchester to explore the possibility of developing a not-for-profit, co-operative organisation as an alternative.

I believe the vast majority of people feel we should have a publicly owned, publicly controlled public transport system. Public transport should be operated for the public good and in the public interest. Real devolution would allow Greater Manchester to choose our own system. That is why Labour must seek to amend this Bill. If that proves unsuccessful, we in Greater Manchester should explore the not-for-profit, co-operative option.

Beth Schlesinger (Custody of Children)

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for securing the debate and for the compelling way in which he has explained this incredibly complex case in a truncated fashion. I also thank other hon. Members for their concern about a case that puzzles those of us who have been involved in it over a long period of time.

We should begin by saying that the only thing that matters is the best interests of the children, Benji and Sammy Schlesinger. After two and a half years in the care of their father, they are suffering from seriously impaired development and appear traumatised. The decision to award custody to the father, Dr Schlesinger, is one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have ever experienced during my long period as an elected representative. Beth Schlesinger has been falsely and cruelly labelled mentally ill and an unfit mother, labels both disproved by independent professionals. She is a mother, by the way, who is still allowed unsupervised access to her children. If this woman were an unfit mother and suffered from serious mental health problems, surely the norm would be supervised access at the very least. As my hon. Friend has said, the father’s documented history of abusive behaviour has not even been considered by the relevant court. A senior Austrian judge, Konstanze Thau, a friend of the father’s family, sought to influence the judge hearing the case on behalf of the father.

There is an element of the case that my hon. Friend did not mention. A senior social worker, Dr Kindlehoffer, who testified to the mother’s positive parenting skills and expressed serious concern about the integrity of the legal process, has been intimidated and threatened with the loss of her job. As a consequence, she is no longer willing to express an opinion on the case. As my hon. Friend has said, the final decision made by the Austrian court was that the father should be awarded custody without any independent professional assessment of the father, the children or the interaction of the father with the children, despite the fact—this is not generally known—that one of the children has been referred for professional help because they are self-harming, at such a tender age, and despite the fact that child protection agencies have been called to the father’s home following reports of children crying endlessly, in an unusual way, in distress. Despite all that the court’s final decision was one word: “refused”. It refused the appeal.

As my hon. Friend has said, it is ordinarily incredibly difficult for any Government to intervene in the justice system of another country. I can testify to that as a former Foreign Office Minister. The default position of the civil service in the Foreign Office—I hope that people will take this in a good natured manner—is not to get involved in civil disputes of any nature. That is the default position and I am almost certain that that is the advice that the Minister will have been given.

The Minister has been incredibly sensitive in how he has previously dealt with the case and he has offered to provide an element of assistance on behalf of the Foreign Office. At that time, the solicitor for Beth Schlesinger advised that that would not necessarily be helpful, but we are long past that point now. The family and their current legal representative are very clear that any assistance that the UK Government could give would be welcome and could make a difference. We are asking the Minister to raise the case, as my hon. Friend said, with the Austrian ambassador to the UK, to raise it, through the relevant channels, with the Austrian Justice Ministry and to ensure that there is a comprehensive review so that, if possible and where appropriate, the case can be reopened. We are realistic enough to realise that it would be entirely inappropriate for the UK Government to instruct the Austrian Justice Ministry or the Austrian courts on the decision they ultimately make, but there is no question but that there are serious issues to be addressed about a flawed process and, as my hon. Friend said—I will go even further—about corruption. The Austrian justice system is not renowned for corruption—it is viewed as modern and transparent—but in this case there are so many questions to answer that it would be entirely appropriate for the UK Government to ask the Austrian Justice Ministry to look at all the elements of the case and reopen it as a matter of urgency.

I have one final point to make. The earliest years of a child’s life are the most important, as you, Mr Speaker, know better than most, having done a tremendous amount of work in recognising that in a different context. We make the greatest difference in the earliest years of a child’s life. That is why there is no time to waste. Anyone who has met those children and observed them will be extremely concerned about their lack of development and their apparent traumatisation. In those circumstances, I think that we all have a duty to act.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Ivan Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

This has been a high-quality debate at a time when a strong, intelligent British voice has never been more important, as the world faces a number of complex, high-stakes challenges: the eurozone crisis; the negotiations between E3 plus 3 with Iran aimed at securing Iranian compliance with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty; enduring poverty and growth inequality in a world where more than 70% of the poorest now live in middle-income, not developing countries; the appalling repression and violence in Syria; the impact of the Arab spring; the lack of political progress towards a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians; continued instability in the horn of Africa; and disappointing global progress on trade and climate change. All these require British foreign, defence and development policies that are joined up and have clear strategic objectives.

It is of serious concern, therefore, that only today the Atlantic Council has criticised the incoherence of the Government’s foreign policy, as well as the complacent approach to key alliances in Europe and the United States. The Government should take seriously criticism that comes from such an independent and widely respected body.

In any foreign affairs debate we should reflect on the tremendous debt of gratitude we owe to the brave men and women who serve on the front line in Afghanistan. Their courage and professionalism represent Britain at its best. We must always remember those who have fallen and their loved ones left to grieve—husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters: every life precious, no life given in vain; we are humbled by their sacrifice.

I want to focus primarily on aid and development—we get few opportunities in this Chamber to do so—but let me first briefly acknowledge the many important contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made. First, as we heard from the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), it is important at this difficult time, in an age of austerity, that Members of this House are willing to make the case for aid at every opportunity. I will talk a little more about that later.

The hon. Members for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) made a really important point about the centrality of the role played by women in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Where there are no women’s rights, we find no progress on development. There is a direct correlation between the two. Gender should be at the heart of development policy, not a “siloed” issue.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) brought his usual knowledge and passion to this debate. He reminded us once again that our relationship with the European Union is central to our economic future. If we are to make any economic progress whatever, we need a policy of being at the heart of Europe, rather than being isolated in Europe. He was also right to make the point that the failure of the strategic defence review was not just a failure to respond to the defence challenges of the future; rather, it amounted to waving the white flag to the Treasury, in terms of the resources available to fulfil our various responsibilities.

The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) talked about the Sahel. I recently visited Chad, and he was absolutely right to raise that part of the world, for two reasons. The first is that we have a food emergency there right now. As we meet in this House this evening, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who are worried about whether their families will be able to have one meal a day. However, the Sahel is also a part of the world that has the potential to be the next breeding ground for terrorism and insecurity. The Secretary of State for International Development has often said that the area is primarily a responsibility for the French, and I do not totally disagree with him. However, we must also understand that, even if we are not going to provide a lot of aid, we should provide political leadership by saying that that part of the world is incredibly important for stability and security, as well as from a humanitarian point of view.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) raised the question of Tibet. I was privileged to be the first British Minister to be allowed to visit Tibet in 50 years, when I was a Foreign Office Minister. We should use every opportunity to say to the Chinese that we keep a close eye on human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of faith in Tibet, and that we have serious concerns about the human rights abuses that continue to occur.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) rightly talked about the importance of trying to prevent fragile states from falling into worse disrepair. It is important to stress, in a debate such as this, the need strategically to bring together defence, diplomacy and development.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) does a tremendous job in fulfilling her role as vice-chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. She rightly pointed out that although we should welcome the tremendous progress made in Burma in recent times—progress that none of us could have expected—we cannot afford to be complacent. There is still a long way to go, and we need to send that message at every opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) brings to these debates a particular, specialist knowledge. He recognises, from a military background, the importance of bringing development, diplomacy and security together in many of the most challenging parts of the world. He also rightly made the point that we need to get much better and smarter at preventing humanitarian crises in the first place, rather than responding to them when the situation has deteriorated.

We must acknowledge the tremendous work that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has done over the years to draw attention to the disgraceful human rights abuses taking place in Zimbabwe. She has often been a lone voice when raising those concerns in the House. I was delighted to hear her praise the work of DFID in Zimbabwe; it has made a real difference there, in incredibly difficult circumstances. I should also like to pay tribute to Dave Fish, the head of the DFID office in Zimbabwe, who is due to resign in the next few weeks—

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

Retire, not resign.

[Mr Lewis]

I meant to say retire—although, knowing Dave Fish, now that we have a Tory Government, he might be about to resign. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, that was not a serious suggestion. He has served both Governments with great distinction, as I think the Secretary of State would acknowledge. He has been one of the wisest voices and has a great understanding of the many political dilemmas in Africa. So, seriously, I think that Members on both sides of the House would like to pay tribute to him.

[Mr McCann]

I should like to ask the whole House to pay tribute to Dave Fish. He was my first boss in the Overseas Development Administration, now DFID, in East Kilbride. He has done marvellous work in every single job he has been given by the Government, irrespective of which political party has been in power, and it is important that we recognise his contribution to international development across the globe.

[Mr Lewis]

I agree entirely. Dave Fish embodies the best of the British civil service, and it is important to place that on the record here this evening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) was absolutely right to point out the dangers of the austerity programme being pursued by this Government and others. It is clear that, economically, it has been a failure, and what we desperately need in this country and across Europe is a set of serious policies for jobs and growth.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) raised the question of Israel/Palestine. There is absolutely no doubt that in that part of the middle east we urgently need security and normalisation for the state of Israel, and dignity and statehood for the Palestinians. A lack of progress on the two-state solution is creating instability in the middle east as a whole, and we need rapid political progress.

I shall turn now specifically to development. Rooted in my party’s DNA is a commitment to social justice, not only in our country but across the world. For Labour, ensuring that the United Kingdom plays a leading role in aid and development is not political positioning or the detoxification of our brand; it is the application of our core values. I am immensely proud of our legacy. Through the political leadership of Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), we led and changed the world. Labour’s international leadership achieved great results by cancelling debt, increasing aid, improving trading opportunities, leading on climate change, creating DFID as a Cabinet-level Department and championing the millennium development goals.

In these difficult, austere times, we—and enlightened right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—recognise our duty to make the case to the British people that we should continue to honour our commitments to the world’s poorest. We should do so because levels of poverty and inequality remain an affront to humanity, but also because it is in our national interest. Poverty is frequently the breeding ground for the terrorists who threaten our national security, and yesterday’s poor nations are our trading partners of today and tomorrow.

The idea that spending 0.7% of our gross national income on aid is excessive simply does not stand up to scrutiny, even in the context of difficult times and difficult choices. There are those who argue that aid does not reach the people who really need it and that it is invariably misused by corrupt agencies or Governments. That is a sweeping generalisation and it is not supported by the facts. There is of course a need to focus on global aid effectiveness and transparency. That formed a central part of the agreement at the 2008 Accra conference, which was brokered by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. He asked me to include that point in my speech.

Aid has made, and does make, a tremendous difference. The UK’s support to developing counties under the Labour Government was life changing. Over 10 years, we enabled the distribution of 70 million bed nets, provided more than 1.4 million people with antiretroviral therapy in Africa through bilateral aid, assisted more than 12 million people through food security programmes, trained 165,000 teachers and provided loans for 450,000 entrepreneurs in Helmand and ensured that 19,000 women could get a proper education in Pakistan.

I have made it clear that we will support the Government when they do the right thing. If they honour Labour’s commitment to achieve 0.7% by 2013, we will support them. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s personal commitment to development. However, when the Government are wrong or break their promises, we will not hesitate to hold them to account.

The Government’s failure to include the 0.7% aid commitment in legislation in the first Queen’s Speech breached a clear Tory manifesto commitment and a key element of the coalition agreement. Their failure to include it in this second Queen’s Speech is not only a broken promise, but represents something far more significant—a Prime Minister weakened by the omnishambles of recent months with no authority to change his party and a Chancellor pandering to the right, always with an eye to the succession. Development policy should not be used as a dividing line for internal ideological battles in the Tory party; it is too important for that. Will the Secretary of State now confirm when the Government will bring forward the legislation and whether there will be full Government support and co-operation for any private Member’s Bill that seeks to enshrine the 0.7% commitment in law?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I would like to emphasise that the hon. Gentleman seems to be under some illusion, probably based on stuff he has read in the media or on certain internet sites, that the Conservative party is not committed to 0.7%. He listened to my speech earlier and I hope he is not going down the road of saying that we are not committed to it, which is deeply offensive to many Conservative Back Benchers.

[Mr Lewis]

I read in the hon. Gentleman’s manifesto and I read in the coalition agreement that 0.7% would be enshrined in legislation in the first Session of Parliament. We are now at the beginning of the second, yet there is no intention to do so. That is why people have doubts.

I am concerned about other aspects of the Government’s policy direction. The Secretary of State recently provoked controversy by linking aid to India with a defence contract—a breach of his commitment to maintain our policy of de-linking aid from specific trade deals. Will he confirm in his response that de-linking remains Government policy? He is demanding an ideologically driven rapid expansion of DFID’s private sector spend, to which I have no objection in principle, but this raises serious concerns about a lack of focus on ethics and responsibility, and fundamental questions about the Department’s capacity to ensure the spend is effective.

In government, we were very clear that both our taxpayers and poor people in developing countries have a right to see tangible results from UK aid spending, so I support the Secretary of State when he places an emphasis on results. Meaningful results, however, are often about long-term sustainable change, not simple quick fixes or easy-to-measure outcomes. It would be an abdication of responsibility if support for state building, the empowerment of women and civil society were sacrificed for easier headlines.

I am concerned that many Government objectives require DFID to work in partnership with other Government Departments. On Rio+20 and private sector/tax transparency issues, I am not convinced that this is happening or that DFID is playing a leading role across Whitehall.

Turning to the future, I welcome the Prime Minister’s appointment by the UN Secretary-General to co-chair the high-level group considering the future millennium development goals framework post 2015. It is good that, after a golden decade of UK global leadership on development, the UK has a further opportunity to help shape the direction of future policy. My test for the Prime Minister is whether he understands that development is about social justice and human rights, not charity, and that an ideological approach that espouses “private good”, “public and NGO bad”, would be a missed opportunity.

A new global covenant for development must recognise that in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Arab spring and the new concentration of poverty in middle-income countries, the world has changed. A new covenant must be developed on an equal basis by developing, developed and middle-income countries—not by a settlement imposed by developed on developing countries. It must seek to address the big global challenges of fair trade, sustainable growth, climate change, inequality, social protection, universal human rights and responsible capitalism. Instead of global targets, it may be more appropriate to have a matrix of indicators that enables every country to set its own targets.

As we face these big questions, I hope DFID will continue to be a thought leader and policy innovator, not simply an aid agency. It is one of the main reasons why, when we left office, DFID was regarded as the world’s leading state development agency—a source of great national pride. The complex challenges of today’s world require defence, diplomacy and development to be deployed in a strategic and integrated way. Britain has a distinct and crucial role to play, working with allies old and new, to help build a stable, fairer world. The Government must step up to the plate and ensure that their antagonism to the EU does not lead to isolation in Europe and marginalisation in the world. That would be a betrayal of Britain’s national interest.