Debates between James Cleverly and Clive Betts during the 2019 Parliament

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Debate between James Cleverly and Clive Betts
Wednesday 6th December 2023

(5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cleverly Portrait James Cleverly
- View Speech - Hansard - -

The Bill will go through the House, and although we are seeking to do this at pace, it will go through the processes. I have no doubt that hon. and right hon. Members will want to put forward amendments and of course the Government will listen to all ideas that seek to improve the efficiency of the Bill.

Clive Betts Portrait Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does the Home Secretary agree that our constituents would expect that, before we vote on any measure in this House, we thoroughly understand what it is going to cost? In the end, it is not our money we are spending; it is their money. Coming back to a question that he did not answer before, will he give a figure for how much it will cost this Government—our constituents—for each asylum seeker sent to Rwanda for the whole five years they are there? If he will not give us a figure now, will he agree to give a figure before we are asked to vote on the Bill?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cleverly and Clive Betts
Monday 11th May 2020

(3 years, 12 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Betts Portrait Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Israel on the proposed annexation of parts of the West Bank.

James Cleverly Portrait The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
- Hansard - -

The UK is deeply concerned about the reports that the new Israeli Government coalition have reached an agreement that may pave the way for annexation of parts of the west bank. Any unilateral move towards the annexation of parts of the west bank by Israel would be damaging to efforts to restart the peace process and contradictory to international law, and might make the chances of a sustainable two-state solution harder. We recently made clear our concerns at the UN Security Council remote meeting on the middle east peace process on 23 April.

James Cleverly Portrait James Cleverly
- Hansard - -

Our long-standing position is that such a move would be contrary to international law. We continue to have a constructive relationship with both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and we will continue to work towards a peaceful resolution that takes us to a sustainable two-state solution. That is our long-standing position, and we continue to work towards it.

Clive Betts Portrait Mr Betts [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am pleased to hear the Minister condemn any proposed annexation of territories in the west bank by the Israeli Government. Will he go further and accept that such an annexation would render any future Palestinian state unviable, would destroy its geographical integrity, and as such would render a two-state solution obsolete? Is it not absolutely essential that the Government act now with others to stop the Israelis annexing territory in the way that they currently intend?

James Cleverly Portrait James Cleverly
- Hansard - -

As I said, our long-standing position is that we do not support the annexation of parts of the west bank, as doing so could make a sustainable two-state solution harder. We support actions by the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority that take us closer to a sustainable two-state solution, and we express our concerns about anything that might put that at risk.