Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who will know that we have enjoyed strong support, not just bilaterally but multilaterally, for our explanation of what happened at Salisbury. We had the NATO statement and the statements by our friends in the UN Security Council, and the EU ambassador to Russia has also been recalled.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

21. The Prime Minister swung full support behind her position among our EU allies, which is encouraging, but how will we ever replicate that influence on foreign policy after we leave, when we will not even have a seat at the table?

[Boris Johnson]

I am afraid I must correct the hon. Lady. The UK may be leaving the EU, but we are not leaving Europe, and we remain unconditionally committed to the security of our friends and partners. As she will know, we secured strong support from the EU both institutionally and bilaterally, but it is worth observing that not every EU member chose to withdraw—expel—diplomats. Many of them did, however, and that is a good omen for the future.

UK-EU: International Development

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK’s future relationship with the EU on international development.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the Minister for being here to respond to the debate, and hon. Members from across the House who have joined me for this important discussion.

This is the first Westminster Hall debate that I have secured, and I am proud to have done so on such a key issue. The UK’s future international development work will play a pivotal role in the lives of millions of the world’s poorest people. We cannot allow Brexit to undo the good work that we have achieved through overseas aid.

Before my election to the House, I ran a hospital and a community health programme in Uganda, on the edge of the Bwindi impenetrable forest, for almost five years. It offered HIV, malaria, and maternal and child health services to local communities. I have seen at first hand the difference that development programmes can make. We should be incredibly proud of the work that the UK and the EU do to save lives and end poverty around the world. We should also be proud of our continued commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid.

I called for this debate because we are at a crucial crossroads in the discussions about Brexit. In the next six months, the second phase of talks must agree what our future relationship with the EU will look like. Just as crucially, at the same time, the EU’s multi-annual financial framework—its budget—for 2021 to 2027 is under discussion.

Many questions remain unanswered. So much is still unknown and so little time remains. It is therefore right that this House should have a serious say in what the UK is trying to achieve, as well as on our negotiating position to get there. We have had very few opportunities so far to do that, so I welcome today’s debate.

I will talk about four key points: first, the impact of this vital work, and the many lives we already save and improve; secondly, the importance of working together with the EU to achieve greater efficiency and to add value to what we do; thirdly, the recognition that the UK is a world leader on development—we punch well above our weight and it is important to continue to provide that leadership; fourthly, the acknowledgement that other options and partnerships simply will not match up to what we can already offer. There is much at stake. Our future relationship with the EU on international development matters.

First, and perhaps most critically, the impact of this work is such that the lives of the world’s poorest and most marginalised populations depend on our getting it right. We must get the greatest impact and value for money out of every pound of the UK’s aid budget. If we do not, we will deliver fewer life-saving vaccinations, put fewer girls in schools and save fewer refugees from sexual violence.

In 2016, £1.5 billion—11% of our total official development assistance budget—was delivered through the EU budget and the European development fund. After decades of working with the EU, we know that it is one of the most effective delivery channels for spending taxpayers’ money to help the world’s poorest. Hon. Members do not need to take my word for that: in the Government’s multilateral aid review, the European Commission’s development and humanitarian programmes were assessed as “very good” in terms of matching UK development objectives, and “good” in terms of their organisational strengths. When the Ebola crisis happened, with leadership from the Department for International Development, member states worked together. By pooling resources, they could provide a much more effective response on the ground.

Secondly, partnership working with the EU allows DFID to improve where and how it works, and to help more of the world’s poorest. It has been said that every £1 of aid the UK spends through EU institutions is matched by £6 from other member states. The EU has operations in 120 of the world’s countries. Our partnership enables our aid budget to reach and respond in a far higher number of countries than we could ever achieve by working alone—often in places that other partnerships simply do not reach.

Anybody who, like me, has worked in international development or humanitarian response will say how important co-ordination on the ground is in responding to an emerging situation. The EU is a crucial in-country co-ordination mechanism for European donors to quickly share information and make decisions, so we must find a way to keep a seat at that table. By pooling resources and expertise with the EU and with European donors, DFID can tackle, at scale, much bigger crises than it could by itself.

Thirdly, our financial commitments to EU development and humanitarian programmes grant the UK enormous access and influence over international development globally. In 2016, EU nations spent more than €75 billion on official development assistance, but that figure could and should be higher. The UK and others led the way by spending 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance, but many countries do not. We must persuade those who are still falling short to raise their game, but we can do so only if they listen to us.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend’s passionate speech, but he mentioned 2016 and I wondered if he had seen the International Development Committee’s report of that year. It points out that the Government should

“consider the ramifications of the UK’s exit on the laws and regulations designed to curb corruption both here and overseas”.

Anti-corruption was not one of his four pillars, but the report said that it should not be de-prioritised. Yet when the Government’s anti-corruption strategy came out in December, there was no mention of this. Is he as disturbed as I am by that gaping hole?

[Dr Williams]

I did not choose to talk about corruption, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. To ensure that our aid is spent effectively, and, perhaps more importantly, to maintain public confidence in the fact that we give 0.7% of national income to official development assistance, we have to work in any way we can, and with many partnerships, to root out corruption.

DFID is widely perceived as one of the top aid agencies, which raises the standard of aid effectiveness and transparency in Europe and around the world. It has a seat in Cabinet and it is supported by deep technical expertise. Many European partners do not have that, which means that it is often able to set the standard, raise the bar, and promote important principles, such as poverty reduction and the untying of aid.

Despite the key role we play in the EU’s international development, we would be naive to think that we could achieve just as much by going it alone. To withdraw from EU development and humanitarian programmes would be a mistake. Large proportions of the money we invest on the ground to help the world’s poorest would be likely to be swallowed up by the creation of costly administrative systems to distribute those funds outside existing structures.

Government Policy on Russia

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I have to disagree with my hon. Friend, because I believe that the UK is in the frontline of a struggle between two value systems. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, Russia is determined to impose its own way of thinking, particularly on the peoples of central and eastern Europe—the countries of the former Soviet Union. Russia is effectively revanchist, and it is the UK that is in the lead in standing up to it. Many other countries would prefer to turn a blind eye. Many other countries would prefer to go to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, step up their trade in hydrocarbons and ignore what is going on. Believe me, there are many countries around the table in the European Union that would like to do that, and there are many countries around the world that believe that it is wrong and misguided to stand up to Russia.

We do not take that view; we take a principled view. We have been in the lead in the imposition of sanctions. We have been in the lead in standing up against Russian-supported aggression in Syria and in calling out Russia for what it did in the western Balkans and Montenegro. We are having a summit in this country in July on the defence of the western Balkans and all those countries against Russian encroachment. It is the UK that is resisting. As I have said to Members repeatedly, it may very well be that Russia will behave towards us in a way that is notably aggressive, but we will not be bowed and we will not allow such action to go unpunished.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The Skripal case has disturbing parallels not only with the Litvinenko case, but with the BBC drama “McMafia”, as does the report leaked to The Guardian and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project last month, which found that millions of pounds linked to the Putin family and the FSB—Russia’s federal security service—spy network had been laundered through the London property network. Does not the Foreign Secretary appreciate how simply patting himself on the back and saying that we are leading the world looks complacent? We simply must do more to promote financial transparency.

[Boris Johnson]

I certainly agree that more can be done to promote financial transparency, but across the world the UK is second to none in doing that.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Rupa Huq Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who made a thoughtful contribution on some of the gaps in this Bill. Perhaps it is because I am, with him, the co-chair of the all-party group on anti-corruption, perhaps it is because in the last Parliament I was our Front-Bench spokesperson on the Criminal Finances Bill or perhaps it is because I am in front of the TV too much at the weekend, but I get the sense that money laundering is everywhere of late.

As the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, we heard this morning of the record £6.2 million fine slapped on William Hill for not being vigilant enough in the prevention of money laundering. We have seen how the proceeds of crime have been funnelled through its channels, and the Gambling Commission has said that it must do better—as if it did not have enough on its plate with responsible gambling.

It has just finished, but for a while Sunday night was “McMafia” night—it is now “Homeland” night again in our house—and as the plot unfolded, we saw how billions of pounds can be transferred internationally very quickly, at the click of a mouse on a laptop. It also showed corrupt politicians, violent police, counterfeit goods hawked around high streets and all sorts of other things. It was fiction, but there was some factual basis.

No one so far has spoken against the idea of having such a Bill. The principle is good. No one is saying that we should turn a blind eye to dirty money. My worry is that, as right hon. and hon. Members from all parties have said, the Bill could do better and go a lot further. It is a good start, but the Paradise papers and Panama papers shone a light on a murky world of international finance and taxation working for the benefit of those with access to vast wealth and an army of lawyers—for the few, not the many—when ordinary citizens just want a fair and transparent financial system. So two cheers for the Bill.

The glaring omission, which has been mentioned many times, is that the Government need to work a lot harder to persuade the UK’s overseas territories—and one day, I hope, the Crown dependencies, too—to adopt the same level of transparency as we have in the UK and introduce public registers of beneficial ownership.

It is not for nothing that London is frequently named as the world’s money laundering capital. In 2016, the Home Affairs Committee concluded that the London property market was the primary avenue for the laundering of £100 billion of illicit money a year. As a London MP, that is particularly galling to me, because my inbox and postbag are full of housing issues, which also come up a lot when people come to my surgeries. We have a housing crisis, with people who want to get a foothold on the ladder and people in substandard accommodation.

It is not enough to think that it is not our problem; otherwise, silence equals complicity in what are becoming industrial levels of tax avoidance and evasion. The Bill will allow us to set our own sanctions and anti-money laundering policy, but our leaving the EU will inevitably damage our ability to influence the policies of the bloc. Britain’s voice will be quieter on the world stage and its global footprint will diminish. We will shrink in our role fighting corruption globally.

Some progress has been made in the adoption of private registers, but not all overseas territories have even adopted one, and if they have, they have not been centrally located or fully populated. Four and a half years on from when the Government tried to persuade the overseas territories to adopt public registers, none has so far done so, and the Government seem to have given up on them. As has been said many times in this debate, only Montserrat has made the commitment.

The ghost of David Cameron seems to have been ever present in this debate. He invited the world to an anti-corruption summit in London in May 2016—how long ago it all seems—and talked about how the public register model should be a “gold standard”. He said that tax avoidance schemes

“are quite frankly morally wrong”.

Again, there is that disjuncture between what is legally possible and what is morally correct.

Fast forward to 2018 and the Foreign Office expects the UK tax havens to adopt the public register model only when it becomes a “global standard”. There is a definite shift there. It is hardly leadership; it is followership, backtracking or a dereliction of duty, if we are being blunt.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is uselessness.

[Dr Huq]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend is so correct, as ever.

We all know what happened to David Cameron next: his ill-judged referendum was his downfall. Ironically, the EU seems to be taking the lead as it prepares to implement the fifth anti-money laundering directive. Our chaotic approach to Brexit and the slippage—we do not know what will or will not apply—is why the Bill is necessary. Last December, the EU agreed that all its 28 member states should establish public registers of the beneficial ownership of companies. We can all get behind the reasons: they allow greater scrutiny of information and contribute to preserving trust and integrity in the financial system. More and more countries are committed to implementing, or have implemented, public registers—I am talking about sovereign countries and not necessarily our overseas territories. There were 35 countries with registers at the last count, and with all EU member states required to have them by 2019, I suggest that this is a golden opportunity to build a new global standard.

When that happens in 2019, the UK Government should seize the opportunity to ensure that our overseas territories follow suit as soon as possible. Regulatory alignment is a popular watchword these days, and we should apply it in this situation. The territories that rely on wealth being stashed away from taxpayers are astute. They do it because they can get away with it, and they use the arguments of competitiveness and security against a centralised register. Our Government continue to drag their feet after so much promise, which is shameful.

The Government’s anti-corruption strategy was hastily rushed out—some Conservative Members did not notice it—because of harrying by people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who had several debates on it at the end of last year. We kept saying, “Where is that anti-corruption strategy?” and the strategy was hurriedly rushed out at the end of last year. There is full awareness of the importance of public registers, but the strategy states:

“Our ultimate aim is that public registers become the norm. If this were to happen”—

suddenly it has become conditional—

“we would expect the Overseas Territories to follow suit. The government will continue to work with these Overseas Territories to strengthen their beneficial ownership arrangements”.

The Government also promise a statutory review by December 2018. Why not now? It seems we have had a year of nothing, with the smokescreen of a consultation thrown in. People have consultation fatigue and we know what the issue is.

How can the Government aim for something if they are taking no action? It is not good enough. Only when the UK mandates the overseas territories to create the registers will transparency flow, and only then will the big question be sorted out, with all its constitutional, ethical and international dimensions—people have talked about foreign aid. It is right to hold the Government to account on the promises they have made, as the all-party parliamentary group will continue to do. I hope that the anti-corruption tsar, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who has gone from his place—I would have liked a tsarina—will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire.

I should give a short plug for the APPG. We recently had an event where we had the cast and crew of “McMafia” in the building—my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) was there. It is not just fiction, but is happening in the real world. They launched an app. If people enter their postcode, they can see how many secretive jurisdictions are near them. The programme showed Kensington and these smart central London properties, but it is happening in Ealing. I put in my own postcode: Ealing is the 14th most secret neighbourhood in the country.

We are lucky enough to live in one of the most desirable cities in the world, but it is desirable for the corrupt, too—those with dirty cash to stash and launder. The Government agreed to fix that at least two years ago, but no concrete progress has ultimately been made. There are loads of examples—I will not go into them all now because we could be here forever. There were stories of “from Russia with cash”, Magnitsky was mentioned in the debate, and there is the pop princess from Uzbekistan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking had a debate on the Azerbaijan laundromat case, and we have had Bywater Investments and North Korean shell games. The list goes on and on.

This country has a real choice ahead in defining what kind of country we want to be post Brexit. We can put an end to the millions of pounds of stolen money flowing through London’s luxury property market or we can continue turning a blind eye, kicking the can down the road, saying that we are doing a consultation, pushing these things into the long grass and making London an even more appealing playground for the corrupt.

Thankfully, the other place wants significant concessions on the Henry VIII powers that might have come to pass. We have heard mention of statutory instruments, but this House must be vigilant and ensure that the Government do not try to sneak in more secondary powers through the back door, giving Ministers carte blanche.

Leaving the EU will undoubtedly affect our ability to sanction regimes properly. We will be vulnerable to legal challenges because corporations will see us as an easy target outside the EU. They will have an easier task suing a smaller state. Despite the Bill’s title, only one and a half of its 59 pages are dedicated to anti-money laundering. The Bill is a disappointment and a missed opportunity from a Government who promised much but are short on delivering. It is not just me saying that; ask Christian Aid, Global Witness and Transparency International. My verdict is, “Could do better.”

Palestinian Children and Israeli Military Detention

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will remember that a year ago she and I both served on a delegation with Members from both sides of the House. She is quoting some horrific statistics and powerful testimony, but does she not agree that the terror experienced in military court by the kids who threw stones is often more powerful than the statistics in isolation? Sometimes people cannot get a grip on them. This debate should not be about the wider geo-political situation, but the wellbeing of children.

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree. That is what I want to focus on: we are talking about children. Regardless of the crime that they have or have not committed, they should still be treated with dignity and within the constraints of the law.

The arrest process and interrogation methods referred to by Dr Carmon were described in great detail in the UK and the UNICEF reports. It is deeply disturbing that two years after the release of the UNICEF report that concluded that ill treatment appears to be “widespread, systematic and institutionalised”, the UN agency issued an update that found

“reports of alleged ill-treatment of children during arrest, transfer, interrogation and detention have not significantly decreased in 2013 and 2014.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to promote human rights in discussions with his counterparts in other countries.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to promote human rights in discussions with his counterparts in other countries.

[The Minister for Africa (Rory Stewart)]

Human rights issues are raised directly by all Ministers in all interactions with counterparts. I myself have raised them nine times in the past four months. We also support civil society organisations on the ground and support human rights norms through multilateral and international organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

We are very focused on and aware of this issue. A lot of our focus at the moment is on the detention centres, and on ensuring that we work with the UN, with the EU and through DFID programmes on improving conditions in those detention centres.

[Dr Huq]

From experience, I know that the Foreign Secretary welcomes Opposition holding the powerful to account, even if his minders have not always done so, but on two recent delegations I heard of dissenters facing difficulties. We hear of child detainees in Israel, and in Bangladesh opponents sometimes being “disappeared.” Is it not time to place a greater emphasis on human rights in our dealings with these two key allies—or do arms sales receipts outweigh our ability to be a critical friend?

[Rory Stewart]

Ministers are very aware of both the issues of child detainees in Israel and of Opposition politicians in Bangladesh. They are raised continually in our interactions with those Governments. We try to do it sensitively, both at a ministerial level and at a diplomatic level, and we believe we can make progress on both issues.

Israel: US Embassy

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Yes. We referred earlier this year to the Balfour declaration as “unfinished business”, and that is still our view. Again, yesterday’s announcement gives renewed urgency to dealing with the second part of that equation.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership on the 45th President of the United States? Several months ago, you indicated your disinclination for him to address Parliament, and you are being proved more and more right by the day.

When the Minister meets his US counterpart at the UN, will he convey to him the words of the young Palestinian human rights activist—you hosted him at the Amnesty International reception in your rooms yesterday, Mr Speaker—who said that by taking this unilateral decision, the President is flouting international law, international consensus, and the hopes and dreams of all those who harbour a wish for a two-state solution?

[Alistair Burt]

I am sure that the words cited by the hon. Lady will be drawn to the attention of those in the United States. It is our duty to ensure that hopes and promises are not lost in these circumstances.

Palestinian Communities: Israeli Demolitions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree that many of the things that my hon. Friend listed have taken place, but the fact remains that there has been a land, sea and air-based blockade of the Gaza strip throughout that entire period. Gaza is now described as the largest open-air prison in the world, and the UN has declared that it will be unliveable by 2020, so there is a humanitarian crisis that has to be resolved, and it is in the gift of the Israeli Government to take that forward.

I have described the harsh reality of the facts on the ground. I met the commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency yesterday, and his message to the international community was clear: conflict management is not enough, and we must do more to support an actual resolution to the conflict. I agree that we cannot continue with a wait-and-see approach. Where has that got us over the last 50 years, 25 years or the 10 years of the Gaza blockade? We are where we are because of choices that have been made—choices on both sides of the conflict. Foremost among them has been the active choice to continue the expansion of illegal settlements on Palestinian territory and the forcible transfer of Palestinian families and communities from their homes. Both those policies have created a coercive environment that seeks to undermine the ability of Palestinians to continue living where they are. They are at great risk of forcible transfer, which is a clear violation of the fourth Geneva convention.

Just over a month ago, a UN report found that Israel’s role as an occupying power in the Palestinian Territories has

“crossed a red line into illegality”.

International law is clear. An occupying power cannot treat occupied territory as its own or make claims of sovereignty. Occupation must be temporary, and the power must act in good faith and in the best interests of the protected or occupied population. However—these are the findings of the UN and its special rapporteur—that has been the repeated pattern of behaviour of successive Israeli Governments over the 50 years of the occupation.

A central plank of the occupation and spread of settlements has been the demolitions. It is estimated that almost 50,000 Palestinian structures have been demolished since 1967, with 1,500 homes demolished in Rafah alone between 2000 and 2004. That is despite warnings in 1968 from Theodor Meron, later the president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, that the demolitions, even on security grounds, broke international law and the fourth Geneva convention. Article 53 of that convention prohibits the destruction of private property by an occupying power, and it is unequivocal, so how do the Israeli Government respond? They respond not by denying the substance of the claims of demolition, but by claiming that Palestine is not a party to the Geneva convention because it is not a state. Astonishing! Stepping beyond the fact that the policies of the Israeli Government are the main obstacle to Palestinian statehood, that is an utterly specious argument, because a basic and fundamental principle of human rights law is that international human rights treaties apply in all areas in which a state exercises “effective control”, and the occupation clearly constitutes such control.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the UN report and international structures. Is he aware of the EU report from March of this year that condemns the fact that, over six months, €311,692-worth of EU aid structures have also been demolished? I think that last year it was 182 structures. These are meant to be for humanitarian projects. The EU has condemned the destruction of its structures, and eight countries are putting together an approach to recover the moneys. That is seen as a very blunt diplomatic move, but desperate times possibly call for desperate measures.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend. We have talked about all sides losing out from what is happening on the ground, and clearly Israel is not doing itself any favours with the international community when it is destroying structures that have been built with European Union aid money.

Clearly, Palestine is treated as an exception to the laws to which I was referring. Currently, 46 Bedouin communities are at risk of forcible transfer in Area C of the west bank. Why? For the implementation of Israel’s controversial and outright illegal E1 plan, which would allow Israel to connect its mega-settlements from north to south, in effect splitting the west bank in two and cutting off Jerusalem from any further Palestinian state.

I visited one of the communities during my last visit to the region with Caabu. The residents of Khan al-Ahmar told us how they lived under constant fear and threat of forcible transfer, not knowing when the bulldozers might arrive and raze their homes and school to the ground. A huge campaign is under way in the occupied territories right now to protect the school—the only one for miles—from demolition. While we were there, we were told how the children’s swings in the playground were uprooted because they violated Israeli planning laws. According to reports, there are at present more than 50 schools in the west bank with demolition or stop-work orders.

In August, on the eve of the new school year, the Israeli authorities requisitioned nine education-related structures in Area C and demolished a newly established kindergarten in the Bedouin community of Jabal al-Baba.

Israel and Palestinian Talks

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

I believe that all of us have been saying for some time that we know what a peace settlement ought to look like and what elements need to be stopped. We know that we have to stop the downward spiral of illegality, violence and blame, and that the further down we go, the more difficult it is to climb out again. That is why what I want to do in my speech is to address what the British can do.

As a friend of Israel and of Palestine, I am appalled at the cycle of violence that has become so familiar that it is no longer covered by our country’s news broadcasts, let alone in some parties’ manifestos. I am equally appalled when the reaction of some, on both sides of the debate, is not to prioritise stopping the cycle of violence, but to believe that we somehow have to pick a side to support, denying the reality that in a terrible conflict such as this, no side can win, and both sides can certainly continue to lose.

What are the Government doing to bring the cycle of violence to an end? What steps is the Minister taking with Palestinian leaders with regard to: ending and condemning all the acts of terrorist violence against Israel, whether using knives, vehicles or rockets; ending and condemning all incitement to violence, including their own; and, at long last, recognising the state of Israel’s right to exist? What pressure is he also putting on the Israeli Government to end the forced displacement of Palestinians from their homes, to end the building of new settlements and to commit to the dismantling of existing ones? Ultimately, what are they doing to end the blockade of the occupied territories and allow the Palestinian people to find permanent homes and proper jobs?

While we are discussing the issue of security, it would be remiss of me not to ask the Minister when we can expect the publication of the report into the foreign funding of extremist groups in the UK. We all know that this is a central issue when it comes to Israel and Palestine. The funding network is vital for Hamas and other extremist groups. We need to look into the issue and understand it. Yet, when the Foreign Secretary was asked about the report on 6 June, he said that he would

“dig it out and have a look at it if that’s what you would like me to do”.

Well, we do not want him to “dig it out”. It should never have been buried in the first place. We want the Government to publish it and act on it. We want to know—indeed, we have a right to know—how their policy towards Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries that may be funding extremism is being informed by that report. We want to know and we can see no reason why we should not be told. Will the Minister start by telling us today which countries the report implicates? Are sovereign Governments to blame, or simply wealthy private financiers? What are the Government’s ties with those Governments and individuals? Ultimately, why has that report not been published?

Let me turn to the importance of clarity and consistency, among other things, in relation to the middle east. In Labour’s manifesto, we once more called for a two-state solution, an end to illegal settlements and a return to meaningful negotiations to achieve a diplomatic resolution. None of those things should be difficult or controversial. Indeed, they have been staples of UK Government policy and successive party manifestos on both sides going back to the aftermath of the second world war. But, as I have already said, we are now at a crossroads. The Government do not know whether Britain’s long-standing policies on the middle east are still consistent with our equally strong desire to work closely with the United States to try to co-ordinate policy, because we do not know what the policy of the United States is. The Minister welcomed President Trump’s engagement on the issue, but I note that he did not give us any indication of what Donald Trump’s policy on the middle east is, and that confusion is not restricted to Britain.

Two weeks ago, the Israeli Defence Minister said that there is an agreed level of new settlement construction that the Trump Administration have said they will support. He said that

“they respect our approach and our vision regarding…settlements”,

but last week the Israeli Education Minister said the opposite, suggesting that Trump’s approach to settlement building was a disappointment and that

“he’s…going down the same unsuccessful path that his predecessors did”.

So what is the truth? The Israelis do not know. The Palestinians do not know. And I bet a fair amount that, although the Minister of State welcomes the engagement, he really does not know what Donald Trump’s policy is. Depressingly, I am pretty sure that Donald Trump does not have the foggiest idea either.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I was on a cross-party delegation to the Holy Land in January. Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of some of the Palestinians we saw—Christians as well as Muslims—at the involvement and financial interests of some of Donald Trump’s acolytes in settlement construction? In the popular imagination, settlements are maybe just a few shacks on a hill, but Ma'ale Adumim, which we saw, has 37,500 people in it—it looks like a pleasant American commuter town, with five swimming pools and all sorts of other things—and that makes the geographically viable Palestinian state that might one day come even more difficult.

[Emily Thornberry]

The difficulty is that, certainly during the campaign, and in the early days of his—I think the word is—Administration, the statements Donald Trump has made in relation to Israel have been very alarming for those who support a two-state solution.

The point I am trying to make is that Britain has always wanted to be able to co-ordinate its foreign policy with the Americans, and this Government are so weak and wobbly that they feel they have to be in lockstep with Donald Trump. That is where we have the difficulty in relation to middle east policy, and that may be one of the reasons why the Foreign Secretary will not come to the Dispatch Box and why Israel and Palestine were not mentioned in the Tory manifesto.

Let me develop my argument further. One thing we know for sure is that waiting for Donald Trump to make up his mind is no way for the British Government to decide their foreign policy. So let me ask the Minister of State today not just to do what every Foreign Minister has done for the last seven decades and to make it clear that we want to see a peaceful process of negotiation towards a two-state solution, including an end to all acts of terrorism towards Israel and an end to all illegal settlements, but to make it clear that that will be our position regardless of what America finally decides is its policy stance. If Donald Trump departs from those long-standing policies, will the British Government condemn him? That is what they should be prepared to do.

If the Minister of State will not say those things today, we can only come to two equally unpalatable and pitiful conclusions: either the Government have abdicated Britain’s leadership role and are simply waiting to take their cues from Trump Tower, or they see no point in putting pressure on the Trump Administration, because they know they will simply be ignored—just like they were over climate change.

Let me turn to the final point on this issue. The Labour manifesto said simply and clearly:

“A Labour government will immediately recognise the state of Palestine.”

Six years ago, the then Foreign Secretary said:

“We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state...at a moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 290.]

Let me, then, urge the Minister and the Government to seize the moment we are now offered by the Balfour centenary to throw our support behind Palestinian statehood, just as we threw our support 100 years ago behind Israeli statehood.

If the question is whether this is the moment when recognising statehood will help bring about peace, I would simply ask, in Primo Levi’ s words, “If not now, when?” When violence and extremism are rising on all sides, when hard-liners are assuming increasing control, when the humanitarian crisis is getting even worse, and when all eyes are on an American President whose grand plan for peace exists only in his mind, we need the British Government, more than ever, to show some leadership and to show the way towards peace—and recognition of Palestinian statehood would be one significant step in that direction. So will the Minister of State tell the House whether such a move is under consideration? If it is not, what will it take for the Government to act? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in 2014, MPs on both sides of the House voted in favour of recognition of Palestine by a majority of 262.

I have mentioned the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am trying to make precisely the point that we all too often indulge in reinforcing our own respective positions.

No single problem is causing the stalemate, and there is therefore no single solution. Neither party holds a monopoly of power to make peace, and all sides have the capability to spoil it. Palestinians have been betrayed by years of factionalised leaderships that have failed to meet their people’s needs—from the basic governance necessary to live in dignity to the realisation of their legitimate political ambitions for self-determination. Now, possibly more than at any time in their history, the Palestinian people are trapped deep within a structural crisis of leadership, with almost all levels of democratic activity and elections suspended. This augurs badly for any efforts to address issues such as the incitement or commission of violence, and it denies Palestinians the opportunity to present their cause with the legal and moral authority that it deserves.

On the other hand, the continuation of the settlement programme, in contravention of international law—I welcome the Minister’s restatement of the British position—undermines the prospects for a viable Palestinian state in the future. Settlements are the physical embodiment of conflict between competing narratives of nationalism, in the context of a historic tragedy that has pitted entire peoples against each other in their respective searches for nationhood. Across the canvas of a biblical landscape, settlements paint a picture of a zero-sum paradigm from which no party has found the political will to escape. Aside from the practical impact that settlements have on the viability of a future Palestinian state, settlements and the multifaceted injustices that they represent are salt in the open wound of their collective dispossession.

Both sides complain that they lack partners for peace on the opposite side of the negotiating table. However, they all too often fail to think about what they themselves could do to nurture such partners. Any colleagues who have been able to spend time engaging with broader Israeli and Palestinian society will know that there are such partners, and they share many of the frustrations at their mutual predicament. These people need to be empowered to win their respective arguments in their societies. The Minister will recall that we both met Gideon Sa’ar during the election campaign. He took time out from frontline Israeli politics—he is a potential successor to Benjamin Netanyahu as the leader of Likud—to go to Northern Ireland with an organisation called Forward Thinking to see the peace and the resolution that we have made, and are trying to make, to the conflict there. He was prepared to learn lessons, and it is a sign of hope when Israeli leaders are taking time out to go and see routes to conflict resolution. We need to be able to do that with political leaders on both sides.

[Dr Huq]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

President Trump: State Visit

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for opening the debate on the two petitions. I am absolutely delighted that nearly 4,000 of my constituents signed the petition that argued that Donald Trump should not be given a state visit. They are a part of the 1.8 million who signed across the country. It tallies with the concerns raised with me in person in recent weeks. I have had people contact me directly about the matter. Ultimately, I speak for my constituents and I know where they firmly stand.

I love America and Americans. I have travelled to 25 of the 50 states. My grandfather was an American GI who came here in 1944 to help us fight the Nazis. We do not know much about him, but he came over here. I have walked with Government Members on the beaches of Normandy and along Omaha beach and other places where many Americans sacrificed their lives in the service of the freedoms of Europe and our country.

We should have contact with any American Administration. Much as I disagreed fundamentally with the policies and actions of President George W. Bush, I was deeply disappointed that that turned for many into a wider strand of anti-Americanism and anger towards America and Americans. In fact, America at its greatest is a place that espouses the very best of liberty and equality. At its best it has an optimistic Government that allows all people to have freedom. It allows freedom in the press and in the courts, and allows the exercise of democracy at state, local and federal level. It is for that reason that I feel deeply concerned and frightened when I see the very principles on which the founding fathers developed the constitution being called into question by a President. Indeed, he has done so in recent days with attacks on the press, the judiciary, religious freedoms and other parts of the Government that disagree with him. That is what I am most worried and fearful about, and I think we are right to be so.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is as much about our Prime Minister as about the American President, and that this apparent cosying-up to people with questionable values or records—not only Trump but Erdogan the day after and Netanyahu recently—has compromised our ability to be a critical friend?

[Stephen Doughty]

It is not an easy job to be Prime Minister and to deal with Governments. The nature and difficulties of diplomacy mean that we often have to have contact, for wider national and global interests, with people with whom we fundamentally disagree, but herein lies the fundamental point. This is not about whether Donald Trump should be banned from coming to this country or whether our Government should have contact with him—indeed, it is absolutely right that the Prime Minister meets the President to discuss matters of mutual interest. We choose whom we honour, the way in which we honour them and the way in which we negotiate. I note the comments of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond): we choose how we engage. Prime Minister Trudeau has shown a very different way of dealing with President Trump and has maintained his integrity while retaining contact.

The fundamental issue is that we have rushed into offering the Palace, the Mall, the razzmatazz, the champagne and the red carpet. Even if one were the ultimate pragmatist for whom the matters of equality or of standing against torture, racism and sexism do not matter, giving it all up in week 1 on a plate with no questions asked would not be a sensible negotiating strategy. How can that make sense to anybody—even those who argue that we should have a strong relationship with the United States?