UK-German Relations

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK-German relations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I requested that this debate take place today because tomorrow the German Bundestag will have its first reading in ratifying the Kensington treaty. That treaty is an important step in rebuilding our relationship with Germany after the post-Brexit negativity from the previous Government. The relationship has a long and difficult history but in times of increased international pressure it is more important than ever. In that regard, it is a pleasure to welcome the German ambassador Susanne Baumann as well as Anne Finger Harries and her team to the debate.

My personal connections with Germany date back to a childhood pen friend from Essen, who I began writing to over 50 years ago—we are still in touch. Later, when I was in my 20s, I went to Germany to train as an electrical engineer with AG Telefunken, working in the Frankfurt area. Like many others, I took advantage of an opportunity to live and work in Germany that is not available to young people today because of the folly of Brexit. Today, there are around 6,780 people from Germany studying in the UK and 2,074 Brits studying in Germany. However, they are students, not workers with freedom of movement, so it is a different scenario nowadays.

Across the United Kingdom there are twinning agreements between German and British towns and cities, not least in my own constituency, which is paired with the town of Recklinghausen in Nordrhein-Westfalen in Germany. That partnership will celebrate its 70th anniversary this year. Naturally, relationships of this sort have their ups and downs; in recent history, Brexit stands out. That decision and the way it was conducted severely damaged people-to-people trust; it has weakened longstanding partnerships in private, public and economic affairs and made cross-border trade much more difficult, particularly trade conducted by small and medium-sized enterprises. It will, in my view, take a long time to mend the damage caused by Brexit. It is also a reminder that trust, once lost, is slow and difficult to rebuild.

Across British society, there is a wish for a closer relationship with the EU and with Germany. Recent polling shows that close to 60% of Britons believe that it was a mistake to leave the European Union, and shows that the majority of voters want to rejoin the EU. Despite increased travel restrictions, more than 70 million trips were made by Britons to Europe, close to 1 million of which were made to Germany.

In Parliament, the work of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany brings together politicians and stakeholders from both countries. To do that effectively, we work closely with our counterpart in the German Bundestag: the German-British friendship group. That allows us to bring politicians from both countries together to discuss shared priorities and projects and organise parallel debates such as this one. In that regard, I look forward to the UK parliamentary delegation’s visit to Germany, which is planned for May.

The momentum towards a closer Europe that is felt among Britons and in Parliament is also driven forward by this Labour Government. From our first day in office, we have worked on rebuilding our relationship with our European partners, be that through rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme, which gives young people across the UK and EU the opportunity to study and train on either side of the channel, or through the range of bilateral and multilateral agreements that this Government have signed and which lay out the road maps to further collaboration.

For example, the signing of the Trinity House agreement in October 2024 represents the most significant deepening of bilateral defence ties with Germany in decades. It signifies our commitment to European defence and especially to working in close accord with Germany. We are strengthening joint defence capabilities through a range of measures, such as committing to collaboration on big defence projects in, for example, aerospace. That was underlined by the first state visit by a German President in 27 years last December. President Steinmeier visited following the signing of the Kensington treaty, which defines six main areas of co-operation. They are all of paramount importance, but in this speech I want to focus on defence and economic co-operation. In the light of international instability, these seem to be the most pressing areas for this relationship.

Last week’s Munich security conference showed the strength of and commitment to a shared European defence. As the Prime Minister outlined in his keynote speech, in a crisis such as the current one, we have to stand together. We are doing that through agreements such as the Trinity House agreement and the Kensington treaty.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. One of the most important areas for UK-German security co-operation is in tackling the full range of threats that Russia exposes us to as Europeans. It is very clear from discussions with German colleagues and others that we need a better doctrine on that and one that includes sharing information, attributing the attacks that are happening weekly across Europe and deterring them through a co-ordinated response. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can work on that bilaterally and through the triad with France, and use the lessons we learn to improve our partnership working across Europe as a whole?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I totally concur with my hon. Friend, who has had a distinguished military career in the RAF.

As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent horrors, there is growing awareness in the UK that we need to be able to defend ourselves and that it is not enough to contract our security out to the United States. This means that there is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain. Partnership with Europe, but specifically with Germany, is delivering on that growing awareness.

Through the coalition of the willing, Germany, Great Britain and France have a wish to drive forward the defence of Ukraine, and yesterday we commemorated the fourth year since the start of the war. Utilising the DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—initiative, the UK and Germany, along with other NATO allies, are bolstering NATO’s eastern flank and building an alliance ready to defend itself. Our shared values and the ideas defining that relationship are not universal and the knowledge that they might need to be defended by force has driven that paradigm shift. In Germany, we have a partner on whom we can rely, come what may. That is why the Kensington treaty is so important. It sets in stone the indispensability of this relationship and how we can further develop co-operation between our two countries.

I come now to the subject of economic co-operation. The other important aspect of this relationship is our trading and economic partnership. Germany is the UK’s second largest trading partner, closely following the United States. Trade to Germany accounts for 8.1% of total British trade, and after the low of Brexit, bilateral trade is improving, with a 1.4% increase in trade last year. The German Chamber of Commerce and Industry has more than 1,600 German member companies operating in the UK. They include industry giants such as BMW, Bosch and Deutsche Bank. About 160 of my constituents work in the German company Krempel, which is located very close to my constituency. German companies bring £50 billion of foreign direct investment into the UK, while British companies invested over £40 billion in Germany last year alone. That important relationship can be seen in much of our day-to-day life. For instance, the 94 new state-of-the-art Piccadilly line trains are produced by Siemens Mobility in East Yorkshire. That is a great example of our partnership in action, combining German engineering with British craftsmanship.

The numbers convey a larger picture: the flow of products and ideas; the connection between small family-run businesses in both countries; the co-operation of industry that employs tens of thousands; and a synergy that is not only mutually beneficial but actively combines the greatest parts of our two countries.

In conclusion, the Kensington treaty is more than a diplomatic document; it is a recognition of what we already know: Britain and Germany are bound together by history, values and commerce, and a shared vision of a stable and prosperous Europe. From the twinning of our towns to the trains on our underground, from our students crossing the channel to our soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder, this relationship is alive in the daily fabric of both our nations. Brexit was a serious setback, and we should not pretend otherwise, but it did not sever the ties that matter most, and this Government are working hard to rebuild what was damaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I thank all my colleagues in the Chamber for showing such warmth and affection for our relationship with Germany. It is 10 years since the Brexit referendum. The discussion that was taking place in this country at that time was very damaging to Britain and to our economy. Our relationship not just with the EU, but with Europe more generally, is improving step by step. The Government have done an excellent job in promoting that relationship. It is nice to have so many colleagues speaking positively about our relationship with Germany and Europe more generally. I wish we had not had that experience 10 years ago, because we could be building on what was an excellent relationship that should not have been stopped, rather than trying to pick it up again now.

I thank you, Mr Twigg, for chairing this debate, and I thank my colleagues, the German ambassador and her team for attending.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UK-German relations.

International Immunities and Privileges

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is an absolute champion of the defence industry in Northern Ireland. He is right: one of my last visits was to the Thales factory in Belfast, which of course is home to the next-generation light anti-tank weapon, the lightweight multirole missile, and other key munitions. In terms of aerospace, the first small and medium-sized enterprise forum that I held as Defence Procurement Minister was in Larne in Northern Ireland, on Armed Forces Day last year. Spirit was one of the attendees, and I am confident that it has a strong place in the future of British aviation in the defence sector, as long as we put the funding in place and keep with the programmes.

Having said all that, there must obviously be debate when we are spending this amount of money on a capability, and I understand why there are those who question the sums of money involved, the timeframes and so on. To be clear, as a former Defence Procurement Minister, I would not support a programme that was purely about spending such a vast amount of money just on a new core platform to replace Typhoon. That brings us to what GCAP is really about, which the Minister mentioned in her opening remarks, to her credit. On one of my last visits to a land company—a company manufacturing armoured vehicles for this country—the chief executive I spoke to referred to the GCAP of land. The point is that, although the “A” stands for air, when we talk about GCAP in military capability terms, it is equally about how we work with autonomous and uncrewed systems. That is the key to the sixth-generation concept.

I am very passionate about this issue—I was proud to bring forward the first defence drone strategy at the Ministry of Defence—and although there are those who are concerned about the timeframe, I would just make the following points. First, the timescale for delivering GCAP is very ambitious compared with that of Typhoon; secondly, we can gain capability benefits from GCAP on a much shorter timescale. We have heard the Chief of the General Staff talking about the need for the Army to be able to fight a war within three years, and when I was Defence Procurement Minister, I was keen to ensure that all the services were looking at what they could do to boost lethality and survivability in the near term. Surely, the key to that is how we make use of uncrewed systems.

The United Kingdom is incredibly well placed in that regard: we jointly lead the maritime coalition in respect of Ukraine alongside Norway. Of course, Ukraine’s greatest military success has been naval, having pushed back the Russian fleet using what we might describe as innovative weapons rather than traditional naval deployments. Likewise on land, the incredible importance of drones cannot be overstated, including the psychological impact on those who are fighting out there.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I totally agree with what the former Minister is saying about the requirement for and necessity of sixth-generation aircraft, as well as about maintaining sovereign capability. However, does he agree that it seems peculiar that the Americans are developing their own sixth-generation aircraft with Lockheed Martin, the French and the Germans are developing their own sixth-generation aircraft as well, and we have forged this strange partnership with the Italians and the Japanese to develop GCAP? Does the Minister think that makes sense, in terms of pooling effort and making sure that our allies have at least one good sixth-generation fighter aircraft?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not regard it as a strange partnership. All my experience of dealing with GCAP and meeting my Italian and Japanese counterparts, particularly industry representatives from all three countries, and working so closely together—there is already so much work going on—tells me that this is about developing a brilliant platform that is needed by all three nations. There will always be a multiplicity of platforms from different countries, which I think is perfectly healthy. What is good about the hon. Gentleman’s question is that he has opened up the debate about sovereign capability, which I will come to shortly. I just wanted to finish my point about the uncrewed domain, and what it means to be sixth-generation.

Israel and Palestine

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith]

I share the—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. As I said before, this is quite a long debate, but that being said we have a lot of people here. Can we keep interventions brief? Thank you.

[Cat Smith]

Thank you, Sir Mark, and I hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) does, that the Minister can respond with more details of the commitments the Government are planning to make in order to work with the international community to bring about that lasting peace.

I say that because we must look to the future and any solution to this conflict must be a solution that respects the human rights of both Israelis and Palestinians, and establishes a statehood solution that includes ending the intolerable settlements in the west bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they should bob—as many of you are doing now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

No, I will not give way at the moment. It was like something I have never seen and will never forget. We heard about and saw the most horrific destruction carried out by those terrorists. Women had their breasts sliced off. There were children who had their limbs sliced off in front of their parents. There were people butchered in the most horrific ways. Sir Mark, you can still see that destruction in that kibbutz, as you can in the kibbutzim across southern Israel, and you can still smell it. Such was the butchery and the savagery that the smell of the rotting blood and flesh is still there several weeks on. So I am not neutral when it comes to this conflict—not one bit.

As if the destruction in the kibbutzim were not bad enough, we, of course, had the appalling gender-based violence that was committed by Hamas terrorists on that day. Let us just consider some of that, particularly for young women who were attending the Nova music festival—a festival, ironically, for peace, of course. Some of the witness testimonies from there are truly shocking. I will read some of them for you, Sir Mark. “They had caught a young woman near a car and she was—”

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. There are many hon. Members wishing to speak, so I will introduce a time limit of five minutes.

[Andrew Percy]

After I have spoken, presumably. I think I am the only Back Bencher speaking on the Government side, Sir Mark, so most of this debate will be dominated by the Opposition parties.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

There was another of your colleagues here who intervened but has now left. Having said that, you are partly correct.

[Andrew Percy]

Thank you, Sir Mark. I thank you for your protection. People may not want to hear it, but it is important that these things are put on record, so that, when we are asked to take a neutral position on this, people know exactly what evil was wrought across Israel on 7 October and since—and that the people who did that intend to do it again.

I will start those quotes again:

“They had caught a young woman near a car and she was fighting back, not allowing them to strip her…They threw her to the ground and one of the terrorists took a shovel and beheaded her and her head rolled along the ground. I see that head”

to this day.

“They sliced her breast and threw it on the street.”

“He penetrated her, and shot her in the head before he finished.”

“I saw this beautiful woman with the face of an angel and eight or ten of the fighters beating and raping her. She was screaming, ‘Stop it...I’m going to die anyway’. When they finished they were laughing and the last one shot her in the head.”

When there is such butchery and such horrors have been wrought on innocent people, I am certainly not going to take a neutral position.

The humanitarian pause was mentioned. Of course we all want humanitarian pauses, because we want all the hostages to be released. I think that we can all agree on that. It is important to record that those hostages were taken against their will from their homes; some of them are as young as 10 months old. We still do not know what has happened to the Bibas family, for example, and their cute 10-month-old, ginger-haired baby; we do not know whether he is alive or dead. Those who have come out so far have recounted examples of sexual violence. Eitan Yahalomi, who is 12 years old, was forced at gunpoint to watch the beheadings and the murder of people from his own community, and 77-year-old Margalit Mozes was denied access to medication while in the terror tunnels. They were denied any access to independent treatment, and children were marked by having their skin burned. That is what happened. That is what we are dealing with in this conflict.

We all want to see peace across the middle east. I want to see a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. I am proud to serve as patron of a charity that brings children from Gaza into Israel to receive life-saving treatment. We are all appalled by what we have seen and want an end to the violence, but I will not pretend for a moment to support the petitions or to take an independent, neutral position on the matter. I want Israel to succeed. I want Israel to succeed in defeating Hamas, because defeating Hamas is in the best interests of everybody in the region, not least the Palestinians living in Gaza, who themselves have suffered the most appalling abuse under that leadership.

It is great that people have engaged in the civic process of signing petitions, but there can be no ceasefire with Hamas, who have made it clear that they are not willing participants in that regard, and I will not pretend in any way, shape or form to urge the Government to support one. I hope the Minister will continue his strong support for Israel’s right to self-defence, for increased aid to the Palestinian people living in Gaza, and for efforts at a humanitarian pause, which we all wish to see, but Hamas must be defeated.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

There are lots of speakers, so I will introduce a five-minute limit. I know that the previous speaker spoke for longer than that, but, as he said, he is one of only a couple of speakers on the Government Benches, apart from the Minister, so I have tried to be fair. I call Alison Thewliss.

Situation in Russia

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The work that has been done by Vladimir Kara-Murza and others like him who have stood up publicly to criticise the brutality of the Putin regime is admirable, and we continue to call for his immediate release. My hon. Friend is of course right that we have sanctioned a number of the individuals involved with his completely inappropriate and unjustified detention. He will know that we do not speculate about future designations, but I and my Department have heard what he has said.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Have the Foreign Secretary and his Department managed to ascertain the rationale behind Prigozhin’s move towards Moscow? Was it because Russian forces were shelling the Wagner Group in Ukraine, was he not being paid enough or not being paid at all, or was it because he was critical of Shoigu and Gerasimov and the effectiveness of Russian forces’ actions in Ukraine? Indeed, why did he stop short of going as far he could towards Moscow?

[James Cleverly]

It is hard to know with any certainty what the trigger event for this advance on Moscow was. Over a number of weeks, we have seen increasingly escalating rhetoric from Prigozhin. He has complained about his troops being starved of supplies, complained about ineptitude in the Russian military leadership and made all kinds of claims. It is not possible for us to assess which one of those is the trigger point, but we have of course been watching as his comments have become increasingly critical and increasingly intense. I think that, for me, the main thing I take away from this is the fact that he makes it absolutely clear this is a war of aggression and a war driven by Vladimir Putin’s ego, rather than by any threat to Russia itself. While there is much that we do not know and much that we do not believe, I think I am willing to believe that that is very much the case.

British Council Contractors: Afghanistan

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The frustration expressed by the hon. Gentleman is shared by many of us. It is not possible to quantify the figures in precisely the way he requests, but I will ensure that we write to him with the closest possible approximation.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

On 20 January 2022 there was an urgent question on British Council staff, at which I told the then Minister of State for Asia, the right hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), that

“many of us have thousands of constituents—in my case, up to 150—who have relatives and friends who have worked for the British in Afghanistan and who are in terrible need of resettlement to this country. The ARAP scheme and the ACRS have done very little to bring many, if any, of my constituents’ relatives and friends away from the horror going on in Afghanistan.”

The Minister pointed out that the ACRS was open and

“will prioritise those who have assisted the UK efforts in Afghanistan and those who have stood up for values such as democracy, women’s rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law, as well as vulnerable people, including women and girls who are at risk and members of minority groups who are at risk.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 505-6.]

We have seen that pathway 3 was open not from January but from June. Six months later, not one person has been settled in this country.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman conflates the ARAP scheme with the ACRS. The prioritisation is precisely as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) set out. The pipeline is proceeding, and pathway 3 started in June and was open for eight weeks. The process is moving from the Foreign Office to the Home Office, and officials are handling these matters as fast as they can. It is very frustrating for all of us, but that is what is happening and we will get there.

British Council Staff: Afghanistan

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

As I have said, international aid to the region is absolutely essential and we are working with our international partners to ensure that we get that assistance to those on the ground. We are co-ordinating with our partners. We have doubled the aid for this financial year to £286 million, which will be used to ensure that we get that humanitarian assistance to those on the ground.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In addition to British Council staff, many of us have thousands of constituents—in my case, up to 150—who have relatives and friends who have worked for the British in Afghanistan and who are in terrible need of resettlement to this country. The ARAP scheme and the ACRS have done very little to bring many, if any, of my constituents’ relatives and friends away from the horror going on in Afghanistan. When will the Government really gear up these schemes to ensure that people can be rescued from the horror that is Afghanistan at the moment?

[Amanda Milling]

The ACRS announced earlier this month will provide those most at risk from recent events in Afghanistan with a route to safety. The scheme will prioritise those who have assisted the UK efforts in Afghanistan and those who have stood up for values such as democracy, women’s rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law, as well as vulnerable people, including women and girls who are at risk and members of minority groups who are at risk.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

It is extremely important that the mistakes of the past are not repeated, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will raise the issue with her NATO counterparts today.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many of us remember the 1990s and the horrors of the first major war since the second world war. We also remember the horrors of Srebrenica, where Muslims were massacred by the Serbs. Should the Government not be speaking to the Americans and engaging with NATO to see what can be done to stabilise the situation? I remember observing the elections in Bosnia. It was a very delicate democracy then; it is even more delicate now. It is urgent that the Government act.

[Vicky Ford]

Let us be clear that Srebrenica was a genocide, as confirmed by international courts. We must not forget the victims. The UK has urged all political leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region to reject hate speech; to condemn any glorification of the perpetrators of genocide and war crimes; and to respect the courts. It is precisely because it is so important that we work with our NATO partners that the Foreign Secretary will raise the situation in Riga today.

Palestine: Road Map to Peace

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of a roadmap to peace in Palestine.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. The long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine remains one of the greatest foreign policy challenges faced by the UK and the international community. The conflict has been costly in terms of human life, as well as for the stability and security of the region. It is therefore clear that a road map for peace is desperately needed. The necessary steps have never been clearer, but there remain significant obstacles to the peace process that I will spend some time outlining.

The most recent round of violence between Israel and Palestine cost countless lives. The attack on Al-Aqsa mosque by Israeli authorities sparked a wave of violence that culminated with renewed bombing in Gaza. This violence has emerged as a result of the ongoing injustices faced by Palestinian people, injustices which continue to make peace in the region impossible. For months, Palestinian families have been illegally evicted from their homes and businesses in several historically Palestinian neighbourhoods in east Jerusalem. Those evictions are being driven by illegal state-backed settler organisations whose sole aim is to displace all Palestinians from their rightful home in east Jerusalem.

This process goes hand in hand with the growth and consolidation of illegal Israeli settlements on the west bank and Golan Heights and the land that was stolen from Palestinian families. If we are serious about achieving a lasting and just peace between Palestine and Israel, it is abundantly clear that the injustices, such as the evictions in east Jerusalem, must be stopped and all land stolen from the Palestinian people must be returned to them.

The UK Government can certainly play a positive and leading role in working out a road map to peace in Palestine. First, our trade relationships with Israel mean that we can make use of sanctions to exert leverage over the Israeli Government to ensure that the human and civil rights of Palestinians are respected and that all illegally seized land is returned.

It is unfortunate to have to resort to sanctions, but it is clear from the ongoing violence and evictions that imposing sanctions is the start of the process to bring about change in the region. That is why I am pleased to see the Israeli Arms Trade (Prohibition) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), which would end all arms trade between the UK and Israel until a meaningful solution to the conflict has been found.

Furthermore, I believe it is time for the UK to follow many other countries around the world in finally recognising the state of Palestine. Many like to speak about the two-state solution to the conflict, but how can we commit to that if we do not even recognise Palestine as a rightful state? Moreover, how can peace be achieved if Israel refuses to recognise the state of Palestine? It is a prerequisite to peace that the statehood of Palestine be recognised and respected. The two-state solution has never been so imperilled as it is today. Recognition of the state of Palestine is not only the right thing to do, but perhaps a means of salvaging what is left of the two-state solution.

When speaking of a road map to peace in Palestine, we must consider what we can do to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and ensure that diplomacy and dialogue can defeat the drive towards more violence. A meaningful peace process between Israel and Palestine can occur only when the two meet as equal partners, which in turn can occur only when the rights of Palestinians are upheld and respected, when illegally occupied lands are returned and when the sovereignty of Palestinian people is recognised. I believe that once these conditions are met and the rights of the Palestinian people are firmly respected, we will see strides towards peace in the region. I still believe we can see peace between Palestine and Israel within my lifetime, but in order to see this hope fulfilled we must be willing to take strong and decisive action now.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I remember that in 2003 when the first road map to peace was introduced, there were some 50,000 settlers occupying the west bank. Eighteen years on, there are now close to half a million. What was a possible route to peace seems to have been lost greatly by the vast numbers taking land in the west bank. Does my hon. Friend not feel that the situation is far worse now than it was when the road map was first talked about, and is it not the case that we have seen Israeli Prime Ministers since who are not interested in the two-state solution, but instead in a one-state solution, and that is Israel?

[Tahir Ali]

I agree with the comments my hon. Friend makes on the two-state solution. As I have said, it is possible that a two-state solution can be a means of progress if Palestine is recognised as a state. Without that recognition, the peace process is going nowhere.

When we speak of a road map to peace in Palestine, we can no longer repeat the failed mantras. I believe that progress can be made, but only if the peace process is recentred around the human rights of Palestinian people rather than simply on territorial or security considerations. A human rights-based approach to brokering peace between Palestine and Israel would focus on securing civil and political rights for the Palestinian people, and would place justice at the very heart of the peace process. That, of course, would mean recognition from both sides of the conflict of the centrality of the principles enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights.

The peace process must centre around equality, non-discrimination, participation, and accountability and the rule of law. That would be a clear set of criteria by which the peace process could be monitored by both Israel and Palestine, and would establish a universally held basis for a solution to the crisis. Instead of focusing on security and stability, the international community should be seeking strategies that instead focus on human lives and the rights and wellbeing of individuals and families. That means drawing into the peace process groups from civil society that are often excluded from negotiations. That means including charities, non-governmental organisations, women’s organisations and other groups in the peace process, from both sides. With that approach, the traditional actors—Governments and political parties, with the hostilities between them—can be meaningfully held in check by the interests and concerns of Israeli and Palestinian civil society.

That humanitarian approach, however, is clearly not being adopted by Israel, Palestine or the international community as a whole. It is a step that needs to be taken, and it is one that the UK could be the first to take towards bringing about a peaceful resolution for Palestine and Israel. Only if Israel recognises the humanitarian injustices being committed against Palestinians can new steps be taken towards peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), on securing this important debate.

I begin by reminding people that this debate has been about a road map to peace in Palestine. Over the past two decades, there have been a number of attempted road maps to peace between Palestine and Israel, but sadly, as we know only too well, none of them has brought about peace. We have in recent years seen initiatives by President Obama, supported by President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan; by President Abbas of Palestine; and by John Kerry. We even saw an initiative by President Trump, though it hardly merits that description, because it was rightly thrown in the dustbin by most responsible parties. I mention those points because they serve to underline that peace between Israel and Palestine cannot be a quick fix. It has to be thought out, well planned and based on certain principles, and the agreement must be acceptable to all parties concerned. That is the essence of achieving a peace settlement.

I am absolutely clear that there must be a negotiated peace. There are some who seek to destroy the state of Israel, and some who wish to deny any kind of statehood to the Palestinian people. Those who hold such views are profoundly wrong. Our aim should be the creation of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel that can live in peace. I very much agree that there must be an emphasis on human rights. Now, in future negotiations and when the two-state solution becomes a reality, human rights should be at the top of the agenda.

I condemn the labelling of the six non-governmental organisations in Palestine as terrorist organisations by the Defence Minister of Israel, and I ask the Government to respond to that point, rather than take the holding position of, “We’ll see what the evidence is.” Others who have been told by the Israeli Government that there is evidence are yet to see it, and there is no evidence at all, I suspect, to justify that designation, so I ask for a firm Government response on that. It has been a number of weeks since the designation was made.

A two-state solution must therefore be the goal on which we continuously focus.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

My hon. Friend says that our goal must be a two-state solution, and he mentioned the contributions of previous US Presidents in trying to broker a solution. He will be aware that the Biden Administration have voiced opposition to Israel’s settlement expansion plans, saying that they will damage the prospects for a two-state solution. Our Government can play a role. However, does he not think that the Biden Administration—the US Administration is the Government to which the Israelis probably listen the most—should play a major role in pursuing that and putting pressure on the Israelis to make it impossible for them to rule out the two-state solution through de facto developments on the ground?

[Wayne David]

I very much agree with all the points that my hon. Friend made, and I will touch upon each one in just a few moments.

Britain and the international community have to focus on a number of principles and key positions, so that we lay the groundwork for an eventual peace. Those must include, first, an adherence to the rule of international law—not ifs, no buts. There must be an adherence to international law by all parties, including the Palestinians, and including the state of Israel. Moreover, the forced evictions of Palestinians from Sheikh Jarrah and other communities in east Jerusalem and the west bank must stop. The ever-growing number of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are clearly illegal under international law, and the displacement of Palestinians from land that they have held for generations is clearly wrong. That is one principle—what follows from international law.

The second principle is that the city of Jerusalem must be shared by Israelis and Palestinians. The annexation of east Jerusalem by Israel cannot be accepted. Those two principles are the cornerstones on which any future negotiation has to be based. However, before we get to any meaningful negotiations, we have to press for a number of things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

With due respect, I think that really the most important thing is that right now—today—Israel and Palestine are talking, and talking about their future and moving towards peace. We believe, and we make it very clear to Israel, that human rights and civil society organisations have a vital role to play in developing thriving and open societies, and we support them. However, it is important that we continue to make it clear that a strong and vibrant civil society is in Israel’s own interest. We are concerned, and we have made that concern clear, about any developments that would undermine that commitment to being an open society. Israel is a fellow democracy, it has had a long-standing commitment to democracy and we make it clear that civil society has a vital role to play in open democracy.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

rose—

[Vicky Ford]

To conclude, this occupation will not end and peace will not be achieved by symbolic measures. Peace will only be achieved by real movement towards renewed dialogue between the parties that leads to a viable Palestinian state living in peace and security, side by side with Israel—

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

On a point of order, Ms Rees. I find it quite remarkable that, given how much time was left, the Minister was first reluctant to give way to our Front-Bench spokesman, which is very discourteous, and in fact wanted to talk the debate out before I could make an intervention. She had already finished her speech earlier.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman has got his comments are on the record. Minister.

Syria: Security Situation

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern. I saw the reports of rocket exchanges going into Israel from Syria. Obviously, the Government want to see peace in all parts of the region, including Israel, and we want to ensure that there are no pockets for terrorists, which is one of the key reasons why peace and stability in Syria is such an important issue.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following on from what was said by the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), what the Government are trying to do in terms of humanitarian aid is very laudable, but, as has been said, we are in danger now of the United Nations beginning to look like the League of Nations. Is a possible solution the one suggested by the right hon. Gentleman: that we look at how we can use NATO and Turkey’s involvement with NATO to provide some sort of cover for the people of Idlib, because clearly the Russians in the Security Council are not going to suddenly agree to actions that we would like to see taken? It is not just about humanitarian aid and good words in the Chamber; it is also about something happening on the ground to stop the killing of innocent people.

[James Cleverly]

I understand the point the hon. Member makes. I think the international community would be concerned about committing military forces, which could have the impact of increasing, rather than decreasing, the violence in the area.

UK Telecommunications

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee—[Interruption.] I am sorry; that may have been premature. I appreciate that there are one or two other candidates who spoke earlier, and I hope that they will forgive me.

The 35% is set out very clearly in the papers. I understand that, effectively, it would be roughly equivalent to the existing market share, but of course it could be changed over time. It is linked with the broader, medium-term challenge that we face, which is to diversify the supply of home-grown and other highly trusted companies —if I can put it that way—from other countries and other jurisdictions. That will ensure that we have a far more diverse supply for telecoms and technology which will contribute to vital national infrastructure in the future.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Government on a decision that I believe will greatly enhance the digital infrastructure of the UK without compromising the security of our communications networks. I believe that 5G networks will be greatly beneficial to businesses and individuals and that this will prevent this country from being dragged into a Donald Trump-inspired trade war with China.

[Dominic Raab]

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman’s question was, but we are taking the right decision based on a whole range of technical, commercial and security considerations for this country. Of course we will need to go out and explain our position to all our different partners, but I think that, particularly as we are leaving the EU, it is right that the United Kingdom does the right thing for the people of this country, that we do it in the right way and that we have enough self-belief and the courage of our convictions to stand up and take those decisions. That is what this Government are doing today.