Human Rights Day

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. I want to place on record my gratitude for the intervention, but also how amazed I am by the hon. Lady’s strength and what she is doing.

I promised I would raise in this place the issues that the people at the virtual event raised with me. I hope that the Minister can respond to some of them tonight. Nationally, there remains a massive challenge. We need to change the culture of our society, which needs strong, determined leadership driving a multifaceted strategy that ultimately not just determines what are acceptable behaviours, but shifts attitudes and beliefs.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on this excellent debate. It is such a shame that, yet again, we have made so little progress. Does she agree that the revelations in recent days about even the police having WhatsApp groups with misogynistic content are shocking, that every single institution in our country needs to act hard and quickly to explain to people how dangerous and insidious that is and how attitudes can lead to acts of violence, and that we must stamp out such behaviour?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I could not agree more. There is an important point about leadership, which has to come from the top, and it has to be visible that such behaviour is totally unacceptable.

Women should be paid the same as men if they do the same or equivalent jobs. They should also be protected under the law from misogynistic hate speech, online and offline, in the same way that other groups with protected characteristics are. I hope that the Government will adopt the Law Commission’s recommendations on online hate—and it is online hate—as well as today’s report from the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill, which strengthens the provisions.

Boys and girls should be brought up believing that they are equal to each other. I go every week to primary schools in particular. We talk about girls not being able to access education and the children look at me as though to ask, “Why?” We need to develop that and ensure that it is not lost as those children grow up. Our society and our laws should reflect that. Fundamentally, our children need to understand what healthy relationships look like and that violence of any sort is unacceptable.

We need to build understanding of behaviours and attitudes that are abusive and unacceptable, so that women and girls, who are disproportionately the victims in gender-based violence, are empowered not to accept that.

There is a need for a national, co-ordinated approach to education and behaviour change, but at the moment, measures feel piecemeal and ad hoc. The matter needs a whole-system, public health approach.

I welcome the recent introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, sustainable funding is really important and currently there is no guarantee that the money will run on to next year. It also does not address the societal and cultural issues I mentioned.

There are other issues, too. The duties under the Act are restricted to support for accommodation-based services, rather than thinking about the support offer as a whole, including community-based services. Voluntary sector organisations have consistently said that the scope of the duty is too narrow. Strengthening the accommodation and support offer is really valuable, but there is also a need to better support victims and their children in remaining safe in their own home, including, for example, through practical sanctuary measures. There is also insufficient investment in behaviour change work with individuals who have perpetrated domestic abuse, which is outside the Act’s scope of funding. Better support for children is also important. The pandemic has placed greater pressures on services, and a SafeLives survey of frontline domestic abuse services found that 42% said that they were not able to effectively support child victims at risk of domestic abuse at this time. When we think of that in the context of little Arthur, we see that that really is worrying.

Support for victims with no recourse to public funds remains an issue and can be a barrier for victims in escaping abuse. The domestic violence destitution concession allows victims to access financial support for three months while they make an application for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence rules, but that option is available only to those who have come to the UK on a spousal visa—it is not available to those who have come on student visas, for example. Local authorities also bear the cost in the interim period before the DVDC is agreed by the Home Office. In addition, a recurrent issue for services relates to victims of domestic abuse with complex needs, including mental health issues or substance misuse issues. In some cases, their vulnerabilities and difficulties in leaving an abusive relationship may also leave them at risk of having children removed. These victims have often experienced adverse childhood experiences themselves, which gives them a legacy of trauma. In such cases, victims may often have poor engagement with support services, but because they are often determined as having “capacity” to make their “own decisions”, not accepting help to leave an abusive relationship can be treated as an “informed choice”. Instead, we could have a recognition of the impact of traumatic experiences on their ability to safeguard themselves. Developing the support offer for victims with complex needs is a key gap, and again I would be grateful if the Minister gave us her views on that. The Care Act 2014 does not accommodate this.

In Oldham, Keeping Our Girls Safe, a local charity, works with children and young people, supporting them to learn about unhealthy relationships, child sexual exploitation, grooming and other risks. I have seen its inspirational work and how it empowers these young people, giving them confidence, helping to improve their self-esteem and inspiring them to make positive life choices. It has just celebrated its 10-year anniversary. KOGS was set up to address the gaps in the statutory services available to young people, particularly on prevention and early intervention. KOGS works with young people in familiar environments such as schools and youth centres, which makes it more accessible. Over the pandemic, it has carried on working with young people. Its chief executive attended the virtual event that I held and I just want to pay tribute to her, because one of her friends had died a few weeks before and she came to the event. This friend had died at the hands of her ex-partner, and I just want to repeat Hayley’s powerful words about this. I hope I can manage this. She said:

“How many times will we look the other away

How many times will people ask why she stays

How many times will a word become a hand

How many times will we have to make a stand

How many times will we demand some action

How many times will we be shocked at their reaction

How many times will a child lose their mother

How many times will she be hurt by hands that are supposed to love her

How many times will excuses be made

How many times will the ultimate price be paid”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Member raises a point that I suspect every Member of the House has been considering over the last few days and weeks, and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State will no doubt refer to that in a few moments. It is fair to say that whatever the means by which we come out of the covid restrictions this will need to be carefully considered at every step and in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, to ensure that the fairness the hon. Member seeks can, between our two Governments, be delivered.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) [V]]

Welsh businesses have been hard hit by this pandemic, and they desperately need support to stay viable. Despite the Chancellor promising to do all it takes, the UK Government’s loans for small and medium-sized businesses have a very low take-up rate, not because firms do not need the money but because of the personal risk involved. How will the Secretary of State ensure that more businesses in Wales can access that support, and when will the Government do the decent thing and underwrite 100% of the loans, to give businesses the confidence they need?

[Simon Hart]

May I start by welcoming the hon. Lady to her position on the shadow Front Bench? I look forward to lively exchanges with her, remotely or in person. I dispute the underlying point that she makes. There has been probably as much support offered by UK Government for UK businesses as any nation on the planet affected by the coronavirus. Even the Barnettised figure for the Welsh Government of a little over £2 billion is a significant contribution to address the concerns that she raises. I stress that her point is as relevant to her colleagues in the Welsh Labour Government as it is to us in the UK Government—that is crucial. I give her an assurance that it is my intention to work with the Welsh Government to ensure those outcomes, but I hope that she will not politicise this more than absolutely necessary.

[Nia Griffith]

The UK Government’s job retention scheme is an important tool for Welsh businesses and their workers, but gaps in the programme have left some employees relying on dismally low universal credit payments. For example, where reduced demand means that employers need to put workers on short-time working, they cannot top up from the scheme for their lost hours. Will the Secretary of State urge his colleagues to close the gaps and introduce flexibility, so that those put on short-time working can receive a proportionate payment for their lost wages?

[Simon Hart]

As the Chancellor himself has said, we are fully aware that with schemes of this nature, set up under enormous pressure and at great pace, there may be occasions when they do not work perfectly for everybody. I offer this to the hon. Lady: if there are examples of the system not being as watertight as we think it could be and she alerts me to them individually, I will take them up with either the relevant Department in UK Government or colleagues in the Welsh Government, if that helps.

UK Involvement in Rendition

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

That is what I understand the position to be, although obviously our knowledge is incomplete.

The correspondence continues:

“I know that I did not pay for the air cargo but the intelligence on him was British.”

To refer to another human being as “air cargo” is just about as degrading and dehumanising as it is possible to imagine.

When I raised the issue with the Prime Minister today, during Prime Minister’s questions, he told me that

“very few countries in the world would have had such an independent and thorough investigation into an issue like this.”

He was right—up to a point. The investigation of the role of senior British officers in the rendition of the al-Saadi family and another one was carried out by the Metropolitan Police Service. It was a thorough investigation, which does the police credit. At the end of it, a report running to 28,000 pages was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, which announced on 9 June that no proceedings would be taken against the suspect in the inquiry.

I shall turn to the question of the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service in a moment, but first I want to address the Prime Minister’s assertion about the rigour of the investigation. As I have said, the Metropolitan Police Service appears to have done a thorough piece of work; the fact remains, however, that the whole investigation only ever happened because, in the chaos following the fall of Gaddafi, someone from Human Rights Watch happened to come across those documents. But for that, we would almost certainly never have known of our country’s involvement in this affair.

A number of issues arise from the statement made by the CPS on 9 June, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed them in his reply. The first relates to the review of the decision. The decision itself has been greeted with some scepticism and incredulity. I understand that there is to be a review of it, but that the review will be carried out by other CPS officials, subordinate to those who made the decision. Surely a case of such political sensitivity deserves better than that. There is a precedent for the review of a politically sensitive decision being conducted by lawyers who are independent of the CPS: that was done in the case of the decision not to prosecute the late Lord Janner. I suggest that this is another case in which an independent review is appropriate. Will the Minister tell me whether or not there will be such an independent review?

Most remarkably of all, the CPS statement of 9 June concludes that the CPS has sufficient evidence to conclude that

“the suspect had...sought political authority for some of his actions albeit not within a formal written process nor in detail which covered all his communications and conduct.”

Let us pause for a second to consider the significance of that. Officials of the Crown Prosecution Service have evidence that politicians—presumably that means Ministers of the day—were told of an illegal act by British intelligence officers. It cannot be right that officials of the CPS can know that, but we as parliamentarians cannot. It is ironic to think that if the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) had remained in his post as Director of Public Prosecutions, he would know more about this than he can today, having faced the voters and been elected to the House. So how are we to get to the truth here? The Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition said of rendition:

“As a moral purpose always must be accompanied by moral means, surely we must recognise that, in the last six years, issues like Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition have done huge damage to our moral authority.”—[Official Report, 21 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 267.]

It was unsurprising, therefore, that in July 2010, in the first couple of months of his time as Prime Minister, he set up an independent judge-led inquiry into torture under Sir Peter Gibson. At that time, the Prime Minister took the view, and told this House,

“For public confidence, and for independence from Parliament, party and Government, it is right to have a judge-led inquiry.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 185.]

He expressly excluded the use of the Intelligence and Security Committee for the task. The Gibson inquiry was suspended in 2012 when the documents discovered by Human Rights Watch were published. At that time, the then Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), said:

“The Government fully intend to hold an independent, judge-led inquiry, once all police investigations have concluded, to establish the full facts and draw a line under these issues.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 752.]

The view expressed by the Prime Minister today about the investigation of this by the Intelligence and Security Committee is the direct opposite of the view he expressed in 2010. When the Minister replies, will he tell the House when Government policy changed on this and why? Surely public confidence demands that a full, independent and judge-led inquiry be reinstated.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. While we may have every respect for the commitment by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the Chair of the ISC, that he will carry out an inquiry into rendition, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that reform and much greater transparency are needed on the way in which this House scrutinises MI6 activities in future so that this cannot happen again?

[Mr Carmichael]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady and I think she will find that the Chairman of the ISC himself has said that he sees the need for a measure of reform there.

European Union Referendum Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), whom I congratulate on a truly excellent maiden speech. Indeed, I congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today—my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Havant (Alan Mak), for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster), my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and the hon. Members for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) and for Glasgow South (Stewart McDonald), the part of Glasgow where I grew up.

This debate has raised issues about sovereignty and co-operation that have reverberated through the House for decades. The Bill puts before the British people one of the most important questions in a generation: should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? The answer to that question will impact on our trading relationship, our economy, jobs, exports and our place in the world.

Since we joined the European Union many years ago, British foreign policy has had two key pillars: the first is exercising a leading role in Europe; and the second is being the principal ally of the United States. As we were reminded by the comments of the President of the United States this week, leaving the EU would have an impact on not just one, but both of those pillars.

At root, this debate is about how to maximise Britain’s opportunities and influence in the world. We are offered two alternative visions. On the one hand, there is a vision that this is best done alone, unencumbered by the rules that membership of the European Union entails. On the other hand, there is a belief that the challenges we face in the world are best faced up to in concert with others, whether about global trade, responding to climate change, the regulation of cross-border flows of people, money and ideas, or many other issues. This debate is therefore about power and influence, as well as about rules, and it is about how to maximise British power in an interconnected world.

The Prime Minister has set out a strategy for the renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union. He has not set out in full detail what he is asking for; he has talked about the issue of ever-closer union, migration and benefits, and the rights of non-eurozone countries. At the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary said that he felt it would be unwise for the Government to display its full negotiating hand. Even as we debate the Bill, we do not yet know exactly what the Government are asking for.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be very unwise for the Prime Minister to raise false hopes about things like the free movement of people, and that he has undermined his negotiating position by saying that, whatever the outcome, he will recommend a yes vote?

[Mr McFadden]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I believe that the reason the Prime Minister has not outlined his full negotiating position is the problem, which we have seen in this debate, of how it will go down with many members of his own party.

Almost before the Prime Minister has begun the process and before the Bill has even had its Second Reading in this House, a new group has been established on the Conservative Benches, anticipating the failure of his strategy. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who spoke in the debate and who chairs the new Conservatives for Britain group, said at the weekend:

“We wish David Cameron success”

in his negotiation. At first glance, that looks like warm backing, but when one realises that the benchmark for success that has been set by the group is an individual parliamentary veto over all EU matters, one can see where this is heading.

Rohingya Community (Burma)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I thank the hon. Lady, who hits the nail on the head with that intervention. I will come later in my remarks to the persecution of the Rohingya in Burma, which is what is driving the migrant crisis. I saw her statement a few weeks ago on behalf of the Conservative party human rights commission, which I entirely endorse. I am pleased that she has been able to put her point on the record this evening.

Throughout early May it seemed that every day brought another report of abandoned migrants found at sea: 10 May, 575 migrants were recued near Indonesia; 11 May, 1,018 migrants were found on the Malaysian coast; 11 May again, a vessel carrying 400 migrants was intercepted by the Indonesian navy; 13 May, a boat carrying 300 migrants was turned away from Langkawi island near Malaysia; 13 May again, another boat carrying 500 migrants was turned away from Penang island near Malaysia; 14 May, a boat carrying 300 migrants left the Thai shore, having been given food and water but refused refuge; 15 May, 700 migrants were rescued by a fishing boat after their vessel sank near Indonesia; and last week more than 700 refugees were brought ashore in Burma/Myanmar, having been found drifting in the Andaman sea in an overloaded fishing boat that was taking in water.

The coverage we have seen—I pay tribute to the BBC and al-Jazeera, in particular, for their reporting—has shown desperate scenes of dehydrated refugees and emaciated, starving children. On the boats women endure rape and other sexual violence, and many are forced into marriage with the men who pay for their journey.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that no preconditions were set before the British Army started training the Burmese military, despite allegations of continued sexual violence? Given that Burma has now been included in the initiative on preventing sexual violence, will he join me in asking the Minister to look into what is being done about that?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I hope that the Minister will reflect upon that and perhaps say something when he responds to the debate.

The people traffickers had abandoned those boats, leaving those on board with no food or water. The migrants were then refused sanctuary by the countries to which they were trying to escape. The Rohingya people are often described as the most persecuted in the world. Those men, women and children were fleeing Burma/Myanmar to escape what have been described as apartheid-like conditions, hoping to reach predominantly Muslim counties such as Malaysia via the jungles of southern Thailand. Yet many meet certain death; if they are not swallowed up by the south-east Asian seas, they are slung into mass graves when they eventually reach the Thai-Malaysian borders.

One migrant, Ziaur Rahamn, spoke to the Financial Times. He escaped from Burma/Myanmar to Bangladesh, but he was then kidnapped and trafficked to Thailand before being sold on and making it to Malaysia. He said:

“I have an ambition to help my mother and help my nation…Everywhere is dying for the Rohingya. Everywhere is killing and beating and trafficking, everywhere.”

Today it is not clear how many migrants remain at sea in boats abandoned by the people traffickers; search and rescue vessels from Malaysia and Indonesia have not yet located any more migrant ships. So many of the boats have been abandoned as a tragic consequence of Thailand’s seeking—for entirely the right reasons, I emphasise—to stamp out its appalling record on people trafficking in the region. As a result, many of the smugglers, no longer able to bring people ashore, have resorted to abandoning boats or dumping their human cargo on islands near the coastline—essentially, they have killed some of their human cargo. The circumstances are tragic. The Thai authorities have found graves with 150 bodies along the Thai-Malaysian border, many thought to belong to Rohingya migrants.

The US and EU have criticised the authorities for failing to deal adequately with people trafficking. In recent months, the Thai authorities have arrested several Government officials, from army colonels to town mayors, thought to have been involved in people trafficking. Indeed, in the past 24 hours there have been reports of a senior major-general’s involvement in trafficking the Rohingya.

The problem is that no single Government in the region is prepared to show any leadership or take any real responsibility; it is no wonder that the UN has described the situation as a “massive humanitarian crisis”. Yes, there was a conference in Bangkok on 29 May to respond to the crisis. Yes, it is welcome that the countries attending agreed to intensify search and rescue operations and that the Indonesians and Malaysians agreed to offer shelter to migrants—albeit temporarily and in the expectation that the international community will resettle them within a year. Yes, there was a welcome agreement to tackle the causes of migration through job creation and the promotion of

“full respect for human rights and adequate access of people to basic rights and services, such as housing, education and health care”.

Those commitments are all welcome; I will be interested in the Minister’s assessment of them. However, was it not hugely disappointing that the conference refused even to utter the word “Rohingya” publicly? It refused to recognise that driving this issue is the persecution of the Rohingya people in Burma/Myanmar and the fact that to this day Burma/Myanmar refuses to recognise the citizenship of the Rohingya.

Like many Members here tonight, I have spoken before in the House about the citizenship issue and I will reiterate some of the points in a moment. Before that, let me say a brief word about the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. I hope the Minister will agree that the crisis has become a major test of the association. If those nations want to launch a single economic market by the end of the year, as is their plan, does that not imply rules on movement of labour—and not trafficked labour with smugglers’ networks in which it seems Government officials are complicit? The single economic market that ASEAN wants to create by the end of the year needs to face up to the human rights abuses of the Rohingya in Burma.

Britain in the World

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I add my congratulations to all those who have made excellent maiden speeches today. I particularly want to mention my hon. Friend the new Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and her comments on Syrian refugees and Palestine, of which I hope the Government will take note. I congratulate the hon. Members for Wells (James Heappey) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on their enthusiasm in their new roles.

As time is so limited, I will keep much of my comments on Europe for another time. I just briefly acknowledge the importance of our overseas development work and the need for the UK to take a positive lead in this year’s conferences on climate change and on sustainable development. I will focus instead on arms exports controls, the prevention of the use of sexual violence in conflict, and human rights and religious freedoms.

On the issue of arms exports controls, back in 2000, the right hon. Peter Hain, the former Member for Neath and then a Foreign Office Minister, confirmed it was Government policy that an

“export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by…concern that the goods might be used for internal repression”.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 200W.]

However, last October, during a debate on the scrutiny report of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, the former Conservative Member, the right honourable Sir John Stanley, who chaired the Committees, explained how, after repeated dialogue and correspondence with Ministers, it had become clear that the Government were taking a more “relaxed” approach to issuing arms export licences. That is very worrying. Indeed, the Committees identified 12 countries on the FCO’s list of 28 countries of top human rights concern where specific exports were feared to be in breach of one or more of the Government’s arms export criteria. Those 12 countries were: Afghanistan, China, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Libya, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Uzbekistan and Yemen. I urge the Government to examine carefully the issue of arms export licences; we should not allow a lax and careless attitude to arms export control.

Furthermore, we need much more transparency about not just which country arms are going to, but who the end-user is—Government, non-governmental organisation, civilian and so on. We also need to trace a lot of arms that are being exported through foreign subsidiaries hidden abroad.

The preventing sexual violence initiative was a priority during the UK’s presidency of the G8 in 2013, but it remains a major task to root out the use of rape as a weapon of war. Even if Governments sign the declaration of commitment to ending sexual violence in conflict, there is much to do to challenge and change the culture of violence against women. The UK has a reputation for providing high-quality military training. As a condition of providing such training, we must challenge those countries that want it to demonstrate a genuine commitment to eradicating from their military ranks the use of rape as a weapon of war.

I am glad the Government have not included in the Gracious Speech plans to withdraw from the European convention on human rights or to introduce legislation that would have meant human rights were okay only as long as the Government approved of them—what a slippery slope that would be. However, the very way in which the Prime Minister called into doubt the value of human rights considerably weakens the UK’s position on the world stage when it comes to challenging other countries. How can he challenge repressive regimes when they can retort that he has created newspaper headlines by talking about watering down human rights legislation and pulling out of the European convention on human rights?

With the horrific increase across the world in the persecution of people for their religious beliefs, Britain must champion religious freedom. I hope the Government will consider adopting the Labour manifesto commitment to creating a specific role, and have a person, in the FCO to take forward the religious freedom agenda across the world.

As I said, other speakers want to get in, so I will leave my comments on Europe until next week.

Palestine and Israel

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Mia concluded her letter with the following:

“I’m so ANGRY about what’s going on in Gaza. Most people are, I think, which is why I’m confused as to why it’s being allowed to continue. If this cycle of hate and violence is ever going to end, it has to start now with an end to killing—of Palestinians and Israelis.”

Ms Thomas is clearly a brave woman. She came back impassioned, disillusioned and angry. That anger and disillusionment was not just about the conflict she had witnessed; it was about her frustration that we in this House were not giving her a voice. Today I want to give her a voice, in the same way that I believe we must give Palestinians a voice.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that UK recognition of Palestine as a state would give a tremendous boost to the moderates in a state of Palestine and significantly strengthen their voice in the international community?

[Lyn Brown]

I totally and utterly agree.

It is time to recognise a Palestinian state, a right they have long deserved, and use that recognition as a path to a wider process of negotiation—two equal states living side by side in peace and security and sharing in prosperity. We cannot stand here today, say that we believe in that goal of a two-state solution and then stand by and refuse to recognise one of the states. I encourage the House to take this opportunity and support the motion.

Gaza

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

This is a very important point. The hon. Gentleman will know that our embassy in Tel Aviv and our consulate-general in Jerusalem support such projects, with the encouragement of Members of Parliament on all sides. They are often difficult to bring about because of such a tense and acrimonious situation, but we will continue to do that and we will look at how we can broaden such work in the future.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We understand the immediate need for a ceasefire and for humanitarian aid, but we must look at the underlying causes, with Gaza under siege and 60% of the west bank now under direct military rule and a seemingly complete failure to halt the continuing expansion of the Israeli settlements. The Foreign Secretary has mentioned how difficult it is to influence Israel in the treatment of Gaza, but those settlements in the west bank are illegal, so surely more could be done there. Can he explain what more could be done to put pressure on Israel in order to deal with the way that it is behaving and therefore to bring forward the peace process?

[Mr Hague]

This, too, is a very important point. Illegal settlements on occupied land are a major obstacle to peace. We believe they should stop. We have our own guidelines on settlement produce in this country, as the hon. Lady knows. We have recently agreed across the European Union a common statement of guidelines on doing business with settlements. This reflects increased international pressure, but of course the ultimate answer to the issue of settlements is a two-state solution; it is to resolve the final status issues. That is the only way in which the issue of settlements will be resolved in the end, and that is why the work led by Secretary Kerry on this is so important.

bill presented

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Theresa May, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary William Hague, Secretary Philip Hammond, Secretary Theresa Villiers, Danny Alexander and James Brokenshire presented a Bill to make provision, in consequence of a declaration of invalidity made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to directive 2006/24/EC, about the retention of certain communications data; to amend the grounds for issuing interception warrants, or granting or giving certain authorisations or notices, under part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; to make provision about the extra-territorial application of that part and about the meaning of “telecommunications service” for the purposes of that Act; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 73) with explanatory notes (Bill 73-EN).

Human Rights

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee on its report and I appreciate much of the Government’s response. There are rarely quick fixes with regard to human rights. Much of the work is painstaking and involves like-minded countries trying to help bring international pressure to bear, to tackle human rights abuses. I wish to raise a few points in the short time that I have.

I fear that President Putin may be attempting to trivialise the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in Russia. I ask that all means are used—all channels of Government communication—to bring as much international pressure as possible to bear on Russia, to stop the repression and recognise full LGBT rights. Once the Sochi Olympic games are over, there is a danger that the issue will slip from view.

The UK is not in the Schengen area, so it is technically correct that it does not have influence on countries within that area. However, these are partner EU countries with which we have frequent interaction, so I find the Government’s answer in the report a little weak. We have clear expectations of other countries that want to form closer relationships with the EU and there could be much broader collaboration with EU colleagues, specifically on putting pressure on Russia in this matter. Perhaps the Minister will mention that.

On Burma, I support the comments of the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Committee Chair. Although we were all delighted at the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and with her visit to Parliament, that is certainly not the whole story. Renewed efforts are needed to tackle the Government in Burma on the continued repression, recent arrests of political activists, and issues relating to Rakhine state.

On sexual violence, I concur with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne). I support the UK’s initiatives in challenging the use of sexual violence in conflict and in the difficult task of trying to change attitudes, to try to stop the collusion in and cover-up of such crimes and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The Government response makes exhortations about approaching other countries to provide expert teams for the painstaking and challenging work involved in tackling the use of sexual violence in conflict, and it mentions the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 28 November, saying likewise. What progress is being made on involving other countries and providing teams for this work? Although the initiative has been taken, in some ways, by this country, the area is so huge that we need as much help as we can possibly get.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, that is true. I absolutely agree, as other hon. Members have said, that settlements on occupied land are illegal. That is why the previous Government and my predecessor proposed and introduced the guidelines on settlement produce. This Government have continued support for them and, as I have said, we are discussing how to apply them across the EU. I believe we are taking the policy forward in the appropriate way.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

5. Whether he has had discussions with the Government of Israel on their response to the recommendations of the report “Children in Military Custody”, published by a delegation of British lawyers in 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just said, I visited Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories last week, when I had the opportunity to raise the issue of the report with the relatively recently appointed Israeli Minister of Justice. We will continue to press on the matter of children in detention.

[Nia Griffith]

It is a year since the publication of the “Children in Military Custody” report and the lack of reform is lamentable. Will the Minister press the Israeli Government on specific deadlines on specific issues, such as the implementation of the use of audio-visual recordings in all interrogations? Specific deadlines on specific issues could help progress.