Israel and Palestinian Talks

Debate between Patrick Grady and Imran Hussain

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

No. The resolution calls for

“immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction”.

That clearly applies to indiscriminate rocket attacks against targets in Israel. However, the resolution also makes clear the responsibility of Israel, as the occupying power, to respect international law and the protection of civilians, and it condemns

“the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians”.

There is a responsibility on UN members, particularly UN Security Council members, to take the calls for action in the resolution seriously and redouble efforts to make progress.

We have heard in this debate that far from reducing settlement construction, the scale of building by the Government of Israel has increased. They have attempted to justify that with new legislation in the Knesset. The popularity and legitimacy of that has been questioned within Israel itself. We have heard in speeches and interventions about the worsening humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories and the need for a response to that.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fine point in respect of human rights abuses, but one thing that has not been spoken about today as much as it should be is the infringement of the human rights of children through the use of military courts. Will he join me in saying that their use is not only inhumane but unlawful?

[Patrick Grady]

All the conventions on human rights, particularly the convention on the rights of the child, should be respected in this situation and in situations around the world. Children should not be used as pawns in a conflict.

Historically, the United States and its Presidents have played a key role in the negotiations. I remember studying the Oslo accords at school. In the summer of 2000, I was in America while the last Camp David summit took place. Watching that unfold brought home to me both how close and how far away peace and a genuine negotiated settlement can be at the same time. One could almost say that it is like two sides of a wall, although it is very difficult to build bridges when there is a wall in the way.

It was heartening that one of the last acts of the Obama Administration was not to stand in the way of the resolution at the Security Council. As we have heard, the new Administration have been less than consistent on that point. At times, they have even appeared to question the consensus around a two-state solution. The first question to the UK Government, therefore, has to be how they are making the most of their special relationship with the US Administration. What steps are they taking to support a two-state solution and to encourage the US President and his team in that direction?

I want to ask the Minister more generally about the UK’s exercise of its soft power and diplomacy. A specific case has been brought to my attention by an academic at the University of Glasgow in my constituency. The Home Office recently denied a UK entry visa to Dr Nazmi al-Masri, the vice-president for external relations at the Islamic University of Gaza. I understand that Dr al-Masri has a 30-year history of entering and returning from the United Kingdom, and that he was due to travel to support research at the University of Glasgow as a co-investigator on Research Councils UK-funded grants in a £2 million project on translating cultures, other projects on global mental health and the Erasmus programme. His collaborator at Glasgow University has told me that his visa refusal seriously curtails the ability of the programme and the institution to fulfil the aims of projects that have already been funded by the UK Government’s research councils. How can that kind of Home Office intransigence possibly help to promote good will and understanding? Where is the UK’s soft power and diplomatic influence if it will not allow academics in good standing entry into the UK to promote the peaceful study of understanding between cultures and global mental health? I hope the Minister raises that with his colleagues.

That raises further questions about the UK Government’s efforts, particularly in the light of Brexit and the UK’s changing role on the world stage. Are Ministers satisfied that the discussions our Prime Minister has had with Prime Minister Netanyahu are sufficient, or is there a need to go further? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that this country will adhere to the UN Security Council’s demand that, in international relations, states make a distinction between Israel and the occupied territories? Will the Minister guarantee that, as the UK leaves the EU, it will continue to make that kind of diplomatic differentiation? Does he agree that the UK should not be trading with illegal settlements? Those are important questions, especially if the UK Government continue to interpret their so-called special relationship with the United States as essentially agreeing to whatever the incumbent US Administration asks of them.

As has been repeatedly said, a peaceful solution must be based on mutual respect and recognition on both sides. That applies not only to the people of the states of Israel and Palestine, but to their supporters and allies in the international community. Under no circumstances are attacks on or abuse of the Jewish people, or any kind of manifestation of anti-Semitism, acceptable. Anti-Semitism should be named as such and condemned. That applies to violence and extremism in any form, whether directed at Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish or Muslim communities.

In February, I finished my speech by quoting the Catholic translation of psalm 122:

“For the peace of Jerusalem pray: Peace be to your homes!”

Other translations put it slightly differently. The King James version is:

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.”

Other translations have a similar emphasis: a personal and collective injunction that we will all individually and collectively prosper if peace is achieved. Peace in Jerusalem and the Holy Land will benefit not just those who live there, but all of us around the world. That is the challenge and the opportunity to which we must rise, and to which I am sure the House will return on many future occasions.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Patrick Grady and Imran Hussain

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Q I would like to probe a little more on the specifics of the hard figures in the Bill—the £6 billion and the ultimate cap of £12 billion. Where do those numbers come from? What was the needs assessment that these are about the amounts of money that the Department feels CDC needs? Was there dialogue between the Department and CDC to reach those amounts? Why go for such hard figures, rather than some kind of proportional formula? Is there any indication of a timescale in which these amounts might eventually be reached?

Rory Stewart: It is a question of setting a ceiling. We welcome this, but it is quite unusual in the Department’s spending to have to go through primary legislation in order to make a financial allocation. I mentioned to Ms McGovern that, in a three-year period, we would allocate, say, £3.3 billion to the World Bank. We do not do that through primary legislation. This Bill attempts to give the Department the ability to do what we do with the rest of our budget, which is to make decisions on the basis of ministerial decisions, accountability to Parliament and strategic decision making. Specifically in relation to CDC, we would like the ability, should a business case emerge, to give it more money without having to come back to Parliament with primary legislation every time we wished to do so.

Where was the figure arrived at? Well, the figure was arrived at after a discussion with CDC about the maximum possible amount it could realistically require over the period, which takes into account its staff resources, the demand in the developing world and its past spend. If you look at CDC’s last round, it put about £1.2 billion through in a year, of which £735 million was a recapitalisation from the Government.

Looking forward over the next five years—2016 to 2021—this would allow them to draw down something of the order of £1 billion a year. In effect, it is only £4.5 billion because of that £6 billion they already have £1.5 billion. On the next bit of what they take in the future, if I’m honest with the Committee, my preference would have been to say, for the reasons and principles I laid out in relation to our other spend—our investment to the World Bank—that Ministers could come back through secondary legislation. A statutory instrument is how I just did a £350 million addition to the World Bank. I think you were on that Committee, Mr Grady. That would be the process we would hope to do with CDC.

My preference would have been to just give Ministers the power to go to a Statutory Instrument Committee to ask for that money, but the Clerks of the House advised us that it would be better to set a financial limit to that power, so we chose for the period 2021 to 2026 the same amount we chose for 2016 to 2021. That is how that figure is arrived at.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Q Just to build on the point made by Mr Grady in his question to the Minister, I listened to the answer, but in the absence of a business case strategy or investment policy I am finding it difficult to understand how we can arrive at those specific figures because there is nothing to suggest how that money will be spent.

Secondly, does CDC have the capacity, given the totality of its lifetime spend of £1.5 billion? Such a massive increase would be an issue. Another question, probably to the Minister, is around the point made earlier by Ms McGovern and the areas where we have availability of private sector financing. Is there any idea of where the new strategy or investment policy will go with that? I take on board the example used—India. I accept that India has pockets of poverty, but in comparison private sector financing is more readily available perhaps than for other target areas.

Rory Stewart: Those are three very good questions around the business case, capacity and private sector financing. I will take them one by one.

The idea of this proposal—the primary legislation—is to provide an indicative ceiling around which a business case can be organised. Within the Department, we would expect to produce a business case and to have some sense of what money would be available. Currently, there would be no money available so it would not be possible at the moment for anyone to write, as the Department would hope, the forward strategy for future investment or produce a business case, which we hope to do in the summer of next year because Parliament would not have given us permission to give any more money to CDC.

Bluntly, if the Committee decided not to pass this legislation, CDC would have to start reducing staff and we would have to scale down significantly the future programme of investments because there would simply be no money legally available to CDC and there would be no purpose in producing a business case in the summer for future investment because that money has already been allocated. So we believe it is important to get your permission in principle for a seemly amount that we could give CDC should a business case be produced to meet it. That brings me to the second question.

I will hand over to Graham and Diane in a second, but I am absolutely certain that the board of CDC and its chief executive will not request the money from us if they do not feel they have the capacity to spend it and if market demand does not exist for that expenditure. They are under a strong obligation to their board to make sure they take this money responsibly, so even in a case in which DFID does its business through consultation with CDC and we decided, for the sake of argument, that a reasonable sum of money going forward over a five-year period was, let us say, £3 billion—I chose £3 billion because the £4.5 billion is a ceiling and we are not saying we will take that. That is what this business case is about. So let’s say it was £3 billion. They would then effectively be able to draw down on a promissory note, effectively. The Department would be saying, “You can draw down that money over a five-year period.” CDC would then have to come up with individual proposals—“Here is a solar programme in Burundi that we think is worth investing in”—and draw down the money from us. I do not want to speak for CDC, but it would certainly not be drawing down money if it did not feel that it had the resources to spend it responsibly.

That brings me to the third question of private sector financing and to Ms McGovern’s question. We are absolutely clear that we do not want to be in the business of crowding out private sector finance. One of the really good criticisms made of CDC in the National Audit Office report, the Public Accounts Committee report and the ICDC report was that it was doing exactly that, for example by making investments in coastal China. We stopped those things from 2012 onwards. The investments that we are now talking about in India are in places such as Bihar or the poorest bits of Uttar Pradesh, where the business environment is very difficult and very little capital is going in. We are also making sure that the grid is followed absolutely with every investment, so that we are not falling into that trap.

Graham Wrigley: This very important question is about how CDC and the shareholder respond to what we think is the very clear need for long-term, patient, impact-driven and additional capital in low-income countries, and about how we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way. We fully understand that this will be a very significant step in CDC’s history, but from our perspective, having worked on this for the last five years, this is evolution, rather than revolution as it might look from the outside.

Let me explain why. If we go back to 2012, when an entirely new mandate was created, a new team was empowered to go off and explore and see what would happen. At that time, the projections showed that if things went well, more capital would be required. That is precisely what happened, and it led to the recapitalisation in 2015. As the Minister has just said, we structured that recapitalisation such that the money could be drawn down if and when there was the market demand. Indeed, it was only this week that the first promissory note for that recapitalisation was called.

Going into the next five years, the team has now been established. It was 40 people back in 2012; we are now at 220. The commitment rates have gone up. We believe that the market need in our markets is growing, and for the last year we have also been working with the Department on a series of potential new programmes focused on high risk and on unlocking new forms of development impact.

The quantum and timing of any capital given to CDC will depend on two things: first, the shareholder making its decision about how CDC stacks up against other opportunities—the opportunity cost was debated in Parliament last week; and secondly, the view from CDC. As chair of CDC, I feel deeply responsible for making sure that any capital that we call is allocated for the purpose of development impact, and that our teams can execute that responsibly. That is the context for where we are now and for the Bill. We see this as a long-term discussion about the shareholding of CDC. CDC has to perform it for the purpose of development impact, which I promise you is what drives everybody who works in CDC.

Rory Stewart: Just to confirm, Graham, am I right that you are formally saying to the Committee that you would not draw down this money if you did not feel that you could spend it responsibly and have the resources to do that?

Graham Wrigley: No, we would not do that.