Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali, for the first time, I think. The Minister is here at such short notice, and I am grateful to her and to the Government for that. I am also grateful to the Opposition Members present, because without Opposition support, the Bill could not have moved forward.

The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill is a small but important piece of legislation. It had its First Reading on 21 June 2021. Second Reading was moved on 22 October, but unfortunately it was objected to on that date. It was moved again on 29 October, when it was agreed without objection. Although there was no debate on Second Reading in the House of Commons Chamber, the issue was fully considered in Westminster Hall on 22 September in a debate entitled, “Motor Insurance: Court Judgments”. That debate was expertly led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet.

[Theresa Villiers]

That is very kind.

[Mr Bone]

That debate may be found in Hansard at column 172WH. I had intended to attend and speak in that debate, but unfortunately I was unable to do so because I had covid.

The purpose of the Bill is to remove the requirement for compulsory motor insurance for vehicles used exclusively on private land and for a wide range of vehicles that are not constructed for road use. As the Committee is no doubt aware, the law of the land is that motor vehicles must be insured for use on roads and other public land. That common-sense interpretation has been in place for a long time, and certainly since the Road Traffic Act 1988 established it in law.

On 4 September 2014, in its ruling on the case of Vnuk, the Court of Justice of the European Union extended a requirement for compulsory third-party motor insurance beyond the requirements of the law of Great Britain per the 1988 Act. That interpretation was never intended by Parliament, but if the status quo continues, the Vnuk interpretation of the European directive will be in force in our country. The Committee may ask why that is. When we left the European Union, all European directives became what is known as “retained law”. The Vnuk interpretation will put ordinary people in breach of the law for not having motor insurance for vehicles used exclusively on private land. It would also extend to the ridiculous situation of compulsory insurance for ride-on lawnmowers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I was going to deal with that, but I will answer the specifics. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that the EU is changing the directive so that it applies differently in the EU, but it is not changing it in the same way as we propose to do. I will deal with the issue later.

The Bill does not seek to invent new policy, nor would it limit the Government or Parliament in changing insurance regulations for motor vehicles in future. The Bill would simply restore the interpretation of the law that was intended by Parliament and was believed to be correct by the Government, lawyers, the motor insurance industry and motorists prior to the Vnuk judgment.

It should be noted that the Vnuk judgment has led the European Union to seek to revise the European directive, although it is unlikely to do so in the same way as we propose in the Bill. I argue that, instead of waiting for the European Union bureaucracy to change its ruling, we can do so now, here, in this Parliament. The Bill is therefore an important step in realising the benefits of our decision to leave the European Union.

The Bill would end any associated liability for insurance claims against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau for the cost of accidents on private land where motor insurance is not held. As things stand, the cost of such claims would have to be accounted for within the Motor Insurers’ Bureau charging levy, thus passing on the cost to the motor insurers, who in turn would pass it on to the consumers through insurance premiums—the very point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.

[Theresa Villiers]

I note that, under clause 2, the Bill does not apply in Northern Ireland. Will consumers—drivers—in Northern Ireland therefore face that hike in insurance bills that we are trying to prevent in England, Scotland and Wales?

[Mr Bone]

My right hon. Friend draws attention to something that I will refer to later in my speech. When she hears what I have to say, she will see why in the end that will not be the case.

The significance of this measure is seen in the Government Actuary’s estimate that the increase in premiums to extend coverage following the Vnuk judgment would be about £50 for the average motor car policyholder. The Bill will therefore save the average policyholder unnecessarily increased insurance premiums in already difficult economic times. The cost of living is rising and the Bill is an opportunity to keep pounds in people’s pockets.

You have kindly agreed that clauses 1 and 2 may be debated together, Ms Ali. Clause 1 would insert into the Road Traffic Act 1988 new section 156A, “Retained EU law relating to compulsory insurance”. Subsection (1) limits the insurance obligation under article 3 of the 2009 motor insurance directive to vehicles used on roads and other public places, and to a motor vehicle defined as a mechanically propelled vehicle intended, or adapted, for use on the roads. In effect, it removes the Vnuk interpretation as it applies to the use of vehicles in Great Britain.

Subsection (2) clarifies that the Bill does not affect the provisions requiring insurance policies to include the cover required by the law applicable in the territory where the vehicle is used, or the law applicable where it is normally based when that cover is higher. That means that the liability imposed by the Vnuk interpretation will remain in place for insurance policies covering vehicles in use in EU member states and Northern Ireland.

Subsection (3) concerns the removal of section 4 rights created in the 2008 Lewis v. Tindale case, which found that the interpretation of the 2009 directive in the Vnuk judgment could be enforced directly against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. The Lewis decision means that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau’s liability for an insurance claim extends beyond the scope of the obligations of the Road Traffic Act and applies to accidents on private land and to vehicles not constructed for road use. Subsection (3) brings an end to the relevant section 4 right to compensation from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau except in the case of motor vehicles on roads or other public places, as defined by the Road Traffic Act.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 2(3) confirms that the measure may be cited as the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Act 2021.

[Theresa Villiers]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I support this Bill and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough on getting it this far. The prospects for a presentation Bill making progress are normally minimal, so it has taken real determination on his part to get it this far. I very much hope we will see it on the statute book before too long.

As we have heard, it is clear that the Vnuk judgment in the ECJ has led to a big extension in the type of claim that can be made against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau fund for uninsured road traffic accidents. That extension is manifestly different from the scope and purpose of the scheme in operation under the Road Traffic Act 1988, which focuses on vehicles that are permitted to be used on roads.

In my view, the UK scheme for compensation in relation to collisions caused by uninsured drivers has worked well for decades. I understand that it has been there in one form or another since the 1930s, the earliest point of the extension of private ownership of the car. The combined effect of Vnuk and the later case of Lewis v. Tindle, which concluded that Vnuk had direct effect, and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, means that potentially significant costs are being loaded on to the UK scheme—costs for a scheme that was never designed for them and to which this Parliament did not consent. As we have heard, motorists will be asked to fund this via their insurance premiums unless this Bill reaches the statute book.

I agree with previous comments that we can have a legitimate debate about the potential extension of compulsory insurance and compensation schemes to new scenarios, but I feel quite strongly that we cannot justify leaving drivers to shoulder the whole cost of this potentially big bill by artificially forcing these new liabilities into our long-standing motor insurance scheme. That is a separate decision that should be taken separately by this Parliament.

As we all know, we face significant pressure on the cost of living at the moment, largely as a result of the global increase in gas prices. In Parliament, we should all strive to do what we can to relieve pressure on household bills, which is another reason to back the clauses in this Bill.

I note the analysis of the costs, which was produced by the Government Actuary’s Department. It is always hard to quantify these things, although the £50 claim is certainly credible. It is particularly worrying that this new liability for the MIB fund is potentially open to significant amounts of fraud. Therefore, the actual impact of Vnuk, if left on the statute book, could be very great. It is hard to quantify in advance. Another reason for my support for the Bill is the potential abuse of the fund we could see if the Bill does not get on to the statue book. In a column in The Telegraph in 2017, the Prime Minister described Vnuk as a

“pointless and expensive burden on millions of people.”

The Bill provides us with an important opportunity to remove that burden and prevent this addition to household bills.

[John Spellar]

Was that article in The Telegraph before or after the one in which the Prime Minister said that Brexit would enable us to do away with VAT on fuel bills?

[Theresa Villiers]

I am not going to comment on the question of VAT on fuel bills, since that is not the subject of today’s debate. I believe the debates on VAT on fuel bills date back some years, probably before that article.

It is disappointing that the Bill does not cover Northern Ireland, but I hope that it would adopt similar legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has suggested that it might. It is good to hear that there is nothing in the protocol that prevents it from doing so. It seems clear that this is not a single market-type rule, which would be covered by the protocol. There should be no constitutional or legal barrier to the Assembly passing a similar piece of legislation, and I certainly hope that it will choose to do so.

The Bill is the first piece of primary legislation to repeal retained EU law. I am certainly not aware of any other piece of primary legislation that does that. There are aspects of EU rules and programmes that have already been dismantled. Most notably, many of the fundamentals of the common agricultural policy have already gone, thankfully. However, it may well be the case that that was achieved without primary legislation. It is very clear that this will be the first time we have used primary legislation to disapply a judgment in the European Court of Justice. It could undoubtedly be described as a historic moment. The controversy around Vnuk shows that we need a faster way to remove or update EU laws that no longer work for us, most of which arrived on the statute book via secondary legislation in the first place. To have to deal with all of those modernisations, updates and amendments via primary legislation is a significant flaw in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that needs to be looked at again.

I very much support the Bill. I hope it is the first of a long series of repeals and reforms that will take place as we use our Brexit freedoms to create better regulation that is more targeted to our domestic circumstances and that enables us to compete in the big high-tech growth sectors of the future. Only when we have done that and seized the opportunity provided by Brexit will we truly be able to say that we have got Brexit done.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Wendy Morton)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee and under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough on his success in promoting this private Member’s Bill. I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. She rightly recognises the determination needed to progress a private Member’s Bill. I know my right hon. Friend fully understands this, having in the past attempted to get various private Member’s Bills through this place—as I have myself. I really do congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough.

This is an important issue. The Government have been clear since the 2014 European Court of Justice’s ruling in the Vnuk case that we do not agree with it. The decision created the unnecessary extension of motor insurance to private land and a greater range of vehicles. This is why we announced that we will remove the effects of Vnuk from GB law in February this year. Delivering on that includes removing the associated financial liability imposed on the Motor Insurers’ Bureau via the England and Wales Court of Appeal’s decision in Lewis.

The proposed legislation in this presentation Bill represents the best possible opportunity to address the issue at the earliest possible opportunity. Clause 1 rightly makes provision to clarify how the compulsory insurance obligation operates in GB and makes it clear that there is no obligation to extend insurance to private land and vehicles not constructed for road use. It removes any retained EU law rights to compensation from the MIB created by the Lewis case. The clause also provides that retained EU case law that is inconsistent with the position set out in this will cease to have effect. That, in effect, removes the Vnuk decision from GB law. The Bill does not have retrospective effect and will come into force two months after Royal Assent.

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action: Iran

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who has a close interest in these matters, given the plight of her constituent.

Before the JCPOA, the international community had built up one of the most extensive arrays of sanctions against Iran ever imposed on any country, ever. That pressure brought the Iranian regime to the table. While some of those sanctions remain in place, many were lifted the moment the nuclear deal came into operation. That gave a significant boost to Iran’s oppressive theocratic regime and to its enforcers, the Iranian revolutionary guard. It meant even more money to fund its violent proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, Yemen and Syria, and left it free to pursue its genocidal intentions towards Israel, which its supreme leader is clear he wants to destroy utterly. Yet, as we have heard, the deal did not include Iran’s ballistic missile programme, its international sponsorship of terrorism or its shocking abuse of human rights. No wonder the Prime Minister called it a “bad deal”.

In August, the E3 coalition of the UK, France and Germany confirmed that Iran is in flagrant breach of its obligations, taking what it described as

“key steps in the development of a nuclear weapon”.

Its statement was clear that Iran has

“no credible civilian need”

for the measures it has taken. What more belligerent violations are needed before the international community wakes up and snaps back those sanctions that have been lifted? I would appeal to the Minister, please, not to reward Iran for breaking its promises and for stepping up its rush to nuclear weapons. I appeal to him to accept that trying to revive this deal in its current form amounts to appeasement. It pains me to use such a loaded term, but that is what we are talking about.

The last time we debated Iran in this Chamber, our late colleague Sir David Amess expressed his regret that he was in his fourth decade of criticising the Iranian regime. For those many years, he campaigned bravely and forthrightly for a free and democratic Iran. All of us involved in the cause will miss him greatly. On this issue, as on so many others, he called it like it is. Time and again he denounced the appalling human rights record of the mullahs’ regime. Hundreds died in the November 2019 protests, when savage reprisals were meted out to peaceful protesters. Hostage taking leaves dual nationals trapped in Iranian jails for years on end. Journalists, bloggers and opposition activists are subject to intimidation and arbitrary detention. Women are deprived of basic freedoms and members of the LGBT community can face the death penalty just because of who they are.

Let us stop the pretence that the JCPOA can still be made to work. It is fatally flawed. It was always far too weak in what it asked Iran to do. All sanctions should be reimposed with Magnitsky measures applied against regime leaders, including those involved in the mass killings of 1988. It is time to stop appeasing this pariah regime and instead apply all the pressure that we can to ensure its economic isolation, so that we have a chance of delivering a deal that has a real impact, constraining its malign and brutal activities both at home in Iran and around the region.

Human Rights: Kashmir

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

The dispute over Jammu and Kashmir is clearly one for India and Pakistan to resolve. That has been the position of successive UK Governments of different political stripes and it is the right one. We should also keep in mind that the whole of Kashmir acceded to India when the country gained its independence in 1947, even if part of the area was subsequently seized and occupied by Pakistan.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) raised a number of cases related to the part of Kashmir that is administered by India. As India is a democracy where religious minorities have full constitutional protections and one that places great value on respect for the rule of law, its courts and institutions are well capable of properly investigating alleged human rights abuses. It is right that they do so. In a previous debate in the House, the Minister responding for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office welcomed assurances from the Indian Government that their army was committed to compliance with the law and that disciplinary action would be taken in accordance with the law when necessary.

We should welcome the successful conduct of local elections in October 2019, in which more than 3 million voters in Jammu and Kashmir took part, including minorities such as Valmikis who were enfranchised for the first time. Further elections took place in December last year, despite covid adversity.

We must also recognise the suffering caused in Jammu and Kashmir as a result of terrorism and fundamentalism. An infamous example occurred in January 1990, when 65,000 Hindus were expelled from the Kashmir valley by Islamist jihadists, whose slogan was “Die, convert or leave”. In 1947, a quarter of a million Pandits lived in the Kashmir valley, but few remain after systematic attempts by extremists to force out people who question Pakistan’s involvement in the region. Today’s terrorist groups continue to threaten the security of people in Kashmir. They include Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, which the Indian Government believe all have clear links with Pakistan. There is evidence of arms and equipment from the Pakistan military finding their way into terrorist hands. In June last year, Indian border security forces shot down a China-made drone flying in from the Pakistan side containing armaments.

I appreciate that the repeal of article 370 has provoked controversy, but it has been accompanied by a concerted push to improve prosperity and economic opportunity for people living in the region. Extensive investment is under way to improve water supplies, roads, bridges, technology, agriculture, tourism and industrial development. Rules that denied certain property rights to women who married men from other parts of India have been scrapped because article 370 has gone and better protection for minorities such as the Paharis has also been introduced.

Last but not least, we must welcome the efforts by the Indian Government to grapple with the covid crisis, which has seen testing and vaccination rates in Jammu and Kashmir among the best in the country. While no doubt this issue will divide the House as it has in the past, I hope that we can all agree on the importance of all sides engaging positively together to build a better, brighter and more stable future for all the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Israel and Gaza: Ceasefire

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of the diplomatic work that the UK Government have put in. I can assure him that we remain fully committed to an immediate ceasefire, and we are working to that end. As I have said, the Foreign Secretary spoke with his Jordanian opposite number only a few days ago, and I spoke to ambassadors from the region this morning.

Some of the diplomatic efforts are done, quite rightly, very visibly through institutions such as the United Nations. Some—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand why—are perhaps done more discreetly and quietly. The international community is pulling together, both in the region and in Europe and the United States, to try to bring about a meaningful ceasefire and work towards what can only be the right way of bringing permanent peace to the region, which is through negotiated political means.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Israel has the right to defend its citizens from terrorist attack, and I welcome the Minister’s strong confirmation of that this morning. Will he go further, however, and send a message about terrorism by proscribing the whole of Hamas as well as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is making possible these horrific rocket attacks?

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the points that she has made. She will know that the military wing of Hamas is recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation, and the entirety of Hamas has no contact—we have a no-contact policy—from the UK Government. We enjoy good working relationships with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Solutions need to be achieved —they must be—through negotiated political means, rather than through military means. She will also understand that we do not speculate on future proscriptions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

First of all, we at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office try to give the best advice that we can as to how such cases—I have dealt with a number of these difficult cases over the years—can be raised most effectively. If it is viewed that there is political interference, it is often counterproductive. Of course, we will take another look at the case to see whether there is anything more that we can do. We give advice in good faith as to the best and most effective means to try to secure the outcome that the hon. Gentleman wants for his constituents.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

The 2001 UN conference against racism in Durban degenerated into hatred, antisemitism and criticism of Israel that was excessive, disproportionate and unfair, so will the UK Government boycott Durban IV, which marks the 20th anniversary of that disgraceful 2001 conference?

[Dominic Raab]

We will obviously attend the UN General Assembly in September. In relation to the Durban declaration and its anniversary, let me reassure my right hon. Friend that—as we demonstrated at the Human Rights Council recently on the approach that we took to items 7 and 2—we will not support any partisan or political attacks on Israel. I reassure her that the Government are absolutely crystal clear in our condemnation of and opposition to any and all forms of antisemitism.

Sri Lanka

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding a visit I made almost exactly a year ago to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to make the case for justice for the Tamil people.

Terrible crimes were committed during the conflict in Sri Lanka. Over a decade later, as we have heard today, human rights abuses against Tamils persist. In a deeply worrying report in January, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, highlights

“the accelerating militarisation of civilian governmental functions, reversal of important constitutional safeguards, political obstruction of accountability, exclusionary rhetoric, intimidation of civil society”.

Domestic initiatives to secure accountability for war crimes have failed to produce results, and Ms Bachelet fears that this entrenched impunity could contribute to past crimes being repeated. Not one of the individual cases identified by the UN as emblematic has led to a successful prosecution. In one of the few cases where a member of the military was convicted for murdering a Tamil, President Rajapaksa chose to issue a pardon. Some of those implicated in war crimes have even been appointed to senior positions. More than 40 civil society institutions have reported harassment and surveillance. Reporters Without Borders points to “an alarming resurgence” in attacks on Tamil journalists. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights continues to receive credible allegations of abductions, torture and gender-based violence by security forces. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is still used to detain people, years after the Sri Lankan state promised to repeal it.

Driven forward by David Cameron’s Government after his historic visit to Jaffna—the first by a major world leader—much hope centred on UNHRC resolutions 30/1 and 40/1. That Conservative-led Government played a crucial role in securing those very significant resolutions. Ministers and officials under this present Conservative Government continue to lead efforts to secure a tough new resolution at the UNHRC session under way as we speak in Geneva. Welcome progress has been made on that resolution, but the international community needs to match words with deeds. If it does not, this new resolution could run into the sand, like the previous ones.

I call on the Minister today; it is time for the UK Government to use their Magnitsky sanctions regime to target the men the UN believes are culpable for the atrocities that took place during the Sri Lankan civil war. That is one of the key asks of my British Tamil constituents. I believe that could finally help break the deadlock and open the way for justice for Tamils and a better future for Sri Lanka.

Press Freedom and Safety of Protesters: India

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Anywhere in the world, in whatever country and on whatever continent, agricultural reform is very, very difficult. It is always accompanied by division and controversy, and in some instances there are protests and even law breaking. For example, our nearest neighbour across the channel has a farming sector often prepared to embark on civil disobedience and direct action. 

Many of the laws governing India’s system of farm support date back to the ’50s and ’60s, a time when the country was sometimes on the edge of famine. Thankfully, there has been massive change for the better in the intervening decades. Reform of farm subsidy and support has been under active and intensive discussion in India for 20 years, and international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund have welcomed Prime Minister Modi’s attempt to take action on this challenge, which many of his predecessors have backed away from. 

I accept and understand that protesting farmers feel insecure about their future, but Prime Minister Modi’s Government have repeatedly said that a core purpose of the reforms is to make farming more profitable, raise the incomes of people who work in farming and promote investment in agriculture in order to increase yields. Food security is obviously a priority for every Government around the world.

Although the three items of legislation that have sparked so much controversy will mean change, they also leave many structures, principles and rules intact, and Mr Modi was emphatic in a speech on 8 February that the commitment to a minimum support price has been retained and will not be removed by any of the new laws. Moreover, his Government have offered to postpone the implementation of the new laws for 18 months to allow for more engagement, consultation and discussion with the farming sector.

I hear the concerns expressed about the response to the protests, but when thousands and thousands of people are involved in demonstrations and encampments lasting months and months, no policing response can altogether avoid controversial episodes. After all, complaints about police officers here in the UK are frequently made after mass protests, but that is not evidence that democratic values are under threat in this country, and nor is it in India.

India is a country where respect for the rule of law and human rights is constitutionally protected and embedded in society. The authorities’ approach to the protests should not shake our faith in that central truth. Rather than denigrating India with unjustified criticism, we should celebrate it as the democratic success story that it is.

India: Persecution of Minority Groups

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Robertson. India is a vibrant, pluralist and secular democracy. Its constitution declares clearly that freedom of religion is a fundamental right. Article 15 outlaws discrimination on the grounds of religion, and a series of other articles provide further protections, including in relation to schools. Those rights are safeguarded by respect for the rule of law and an independent judiciary, supported by bodies such as the National Commission for Minorities and the National Human Rights Commission. An enduring goal of the Indian state has been diversity and inclusion, and a national minorities rights day is observed on 18 December every year.

The size of India’s minority populations has been growing in recent years, and India is, for example, home to 16% of the world’s Muslim population. Members of minority faiths have played a prominent part in India’s history and they continue to hold leading roles in Indian politics and public life, in science and universities, in the law and other professions, in business and culture, and across the Indian economy. Let us just take one, symbolic example. In 2004, a Catholic, Sonia Gandhi, facilitated the handover of power to a Sikh, Manmohan Singh, enabling him to become Prime Minister, with his oath of office overseen by a Muslim President, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam.

As Members present will know, I take seriously matters related to freedom of religion, whether it is Islam or Christianity. I have raised those matters in this House many times and will continue to do so. Sadly, in a country as huge as India, there will be lawbreakers who attack others, including members of minority communities and faiths. Sadly, no state can prevent all such crimes and tragedies, no matter how seriously they take policing and justice. Of course, there are hard-line individuals in India who promote hate speech and division, just as there are in this country. Again, no democracy that allows freedom of speech can shut that down either.

However, I argue that India’s record on minority faiths stands up to scrutiny. I do not accept that there is evidence of systemic or state-sponsored persecution of religious minorities. When it comes to protection of freedom of religion and belief, the more important focus of this House should be on places such as Pakistan, where forced marriage and forced conversion of young Hindu and Christian women is a serious problem, and from where Asia Bibi had to flee for her life after years of imprisonment, and China, where incarceration and oppression of Uyghur Muslims is, quite frankly, a disgrace.

Mr Modi’s Government has embarked on a huge reform agenda, tackling issues that his predecessors ducked because they were just too difficult. Change on this scale inevitably causes controversy and conflict in India, just as it would elsewhere. All such crimes must be fully investigated to bring anyone responsible to justice. In any democracy, there is further work to be done to safeguard and protect human rights, and bring to justice those who commit crimes of violence against others, including religious minorities. It will be important for some of the serious matters raised in this debate to be considered in India. No doubt, they debate similar matters in their Parliament, in the same way that we do, and the concerns raised by Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide must be carefully considered. In a country as vast as India, with so many different communities, ethnicities and faiths, there are some unavoidable tensions and it is a matter of massive regret that, sometimes, that can spill over into conflict and violence. However, the principles of unity and diversity have been a core aspiration and value of the Indian state ever since its creation.

India is a stable and increasingly prosperous home to around 200 million Muslims and 32 million Christians. While, like any country, its record on law and order and security cannot always be 100% perfect, it is still a huge democratic success story. Rapid economic development and Government action are also starting to bring many millions of people out of poverty. If we are considering some worrying points raised in this debate, let us also at the same time remember the hugely positive progress in India, which is benefiting so many of its citizens, including millions from India’s minority and minority faith communities.

Nigeria: Sanctions Regime

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 554150, relating to Nigeria and the sanctions regime.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the 220,330 people who have signed the petition—when I last checked it this morning—especially the 853 who are my constituents in Chipping Barnet. This petition has been prompted by disturbing events in Nigeria over recent weeks. There have been widespread protests regarding the activities of the Special Anti-Robbery Squad of the Nigerian police, known as SARS.

That unit has a deeply controversial reputation and the hashtag #EndSARS started to appear prominently on social media in 2017. Reports of violence and human rights abuses by SARS date back several years, but these latest protests followed circulation of a shocking video in early October, which many believe shows a man being killed by SARS officers.

On 11 October, President Buhari announced plans to disband the unit. However, such promises have been made in the past, yet SARS has seemingly continued to operate. This would be the fourth time the unit was abolished. Many protesters felt that disbanding SARS—even assuming it happens—would not be sufficient to tackle long-standing problems with police brutality, particularly if SARS officers are simply assigned to different parts of the police service. Activists are now calling a complete overhaul of policing in Nigeria. They also want police officers responsible for beatings, killings, extortion, unlawful detention and other crimes to be held to account.

The protests continued and thousands of Nigerians, mostly those under 30, took part in peaceful marches, candlelit vigils and multi-faith prayer sessions. People came together despite having different social, cultural and tribal backgrounds. Supportive comments flowed in from the Nigerian diaspora around the world, including from celebrities, and the #EndSARS movement quickly widened beyond the initial concerns about policing. It started to capture the general frustrations of a young population demanding an end to poor governance and corruption.

I am afraid, however, the situation became far graver on 20 October when the Nigerian army and police opened fire on a peaceful demonstration at the Lekki tollgate in suburban Lagos. What happened is disputed, but Amnesty International has tracked events through photos and video footage posted by protesters. These show army trucks approaching the protesters from both sides of the tollgate and blocking them in. Shooting with live rounds started almost immediately with no warning.

A local musician, Obianuju Catherine Udeh, was streaming the events live on Instagram as it happened. She later said:

“There was a guy that was running and he just…he fell, and we looked at him. He was shot in the back”.

Several people are looking for missing loved ones, including Elisha Sunday Ibanga. An eyewitness told CNN that Elisha’s brother, Victor, was shot in the head during the protest and his body taken away. The US broadcaster reported that it has seen and geo-located a photo of Victor Sunday Ibanga lying in a pool of blood and wrapped in the white and green Nigerian flag, one of the same flags held by protesters earlier in the evening as they sang their national anthem. Similarly, and equally tragically, Peace Okon has not seen her younger brother, Wisdom, since he went to the demonstration on the night of the shootings. She said:

“I’ve gone to hospitals, I’ve gone to police stations, I’ve gone to everywhere. I can’t find him”.

It is not clear how many were injured or lost their lives at Lekki, but Amnesty International estimates that 56 people have died since the protests began, and it has documented many instances where excessive and disproportionate force has been used to try to control or stop protests. The shootings at the Lekki tollgate shocked many in Nigeria—it has seemed like the last straw. The Government there have promised judicial panels of inquiry to investigate what happened, but there is widespread scepticism about whether these processes will be effective in holding to account those responsible for the bloodshed and human rights abuses that have occurred. That concern, I believe, is felt by many constituents here in the UK, especially those with Nigerian heritage or family links to Nigeria. That is illustrated by the huge support for the e-petition we are considering this evening, which asks the UK Government to consider imposing sanctions.

As I read it, the petitioners are asking for Magnitsky-type sanctions against known individuals within the Nigerian Government and security forces. There is a recognition that generalised, old-style sanctions applied to the country as a whole might cause hardship to ordinary people not in any way responsible for the problems highlighted by the petition, so this debate is a vital opportunity to hear from the Minister and have her respond to the urgent appeal from the e-petitioners that the Government consider imposing targeted sanctions against certain individuals believed to be culpable in relation to the violent and excessive police response to peaceful protests in Nigeria.

The new Magnitsky sanctions regime started to operate in July, and I believe its creation is one of the best and most important foreign policy decisions made since the Conservatives returned to Government in 2010. It puts us ahead of many other countries in showing how seriously we take human rights abuses around the world; I gather that it even earned us praise from Guy Verhofstadt, which is undoubtedly a rare thing. I believe that the petitioners have a credible case for the imposition of individualised sanctions such as travel bans and asset freezes. Of course, I appreciate that there are real sensitivities about anything that might be considered interference in the domestic affairs of another country, especially where there was a previous colonial involvement. However, I still hope that Ministers will give serious consideration to what the e-petitioners request.

My second ask of Ministers is that they provide reassurance about UK aid and security programmes which involve Nigerian police, military and security forces. In their responses to written questions on this matter, the Government have emphasised that these programmes are intended to improve transparency and accountability, as well as strengthen respect for human rights, the rule of law and protection of minorities. However, my constituents who have signed this petition want more clarity and certainty about what these UK programmes have achieved and how they are assessed. They will be reassured if we have a clear statement that UK taxpayers’ money cannot be misused by security forces in Nigeria or, in any circumstances, used on activities that suppress peaceful protests.

My third question for Ministers is what representations they have made, or are prepared to make, to the Nigerian Government about human rights abuses against Christians. Charities such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Open Doors have documented a worrying increase in attacks on Christian communities in Nigeria by terrorist groups over recent years, and their plight must never be forgotten.

Fourthly and finally, I ask Ministers to step up engagement with the Nigerian diaspora in the United Kingdom. There are many British Nigerians who want to deploy their knowledge and understanding of the country to help shape the UK’s response to unfolding events in Nigeria. Worried about the situation and distressed about the Lekki tollgate tragedy and other loss of life, they are brimming with enthusiasm to help, to make a difference, and to be involved in building a better future for Nigeria. In this regard, I particularly want to thank my constituent Lara Ayodeji Akindiji for contacting me to share her concerns and offer her help—her support and briefing for this debate has been invaluable. My final request is therefore to ask the Minister to meet me and a group of constituents to discuss these matters further.

Nigeria is a country with so much going for it: a young and hugely talented population, massive natural resources and a rapidly developing economy. If the #EndSARS protesters secure the reform and improved governance they are demanding, Nigeria could become a formidable economic powerhouse, and the diaspora community here can be a vital bridge linking our two countries in a brighter future of increased trade and prosperity in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers]

Like others, I believe this has been an excellent debate, with well-informed contributions and real insight from Members on the Back Benches and Front Benches.

I will take the last minute to urge the Minister and the rest of the team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to use all diplomatic means available to get the message to the authorities in Nigeria that they need to listen to what the protestors are asking for. While the Minister, for all sorts of reasons, has felt unable to make commitments on targeted sanctions today, there is a strong case for putting them in place. I hope that behind the scenes, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to pursue this, so that we see an announcement about it in the not-too-distant future.

In the debate, we heard disturbing accounts of what happened at Lekki, and about a long history of brutality and extra-judicial killings. Particularly grim accounts were given by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I hope that we also take away from the debate the optimism that everyone has shown about the future of Nigeria. It has so much potential. As the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) said, there is potential for a new Nigeria and a better future. I hope that these protests signal a change in addressing concerns around corruption, brutality and poor governance. If there is real progress on those issues and they are resolved, we will see a Nigeria that is successful and flourishing, not least economically.

It has been my privilege to lead this debate. I thank everyone who signed the e-petition. This is a great example of the e-petition process working effectively, because nearly a quarter of a million people signed that petition. We in the mother of Parliaments get the opportunity to urge and advocate for change and reform in Nigeria, and it has been my privilege to take part in that process.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 554150, relating to Nigeria and the sanctions regime.

International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to be back in Westminster Hall after it was closed for so long. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing a debate on this important issue.

Like the hon. Member, I welcome progress in the US Congress towards establishing a new international fund for projects to promote peace and reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. It makes sense in this context to reflect on some of the experiences in Northern Ireland, albeit that is a very different situation to the one that prevails in the middle east.

As Northern Ireland Secretary, I saw for myself the incredibly important role played by grassroots community projects aimed at bringing people together across historic and long-lasting divides. I saw how they helped to embed the peace settlement resulting from the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. Looking back in history, it is clear that they played a role in securing that agreement.

Over the years, we have seen groups such as the WAVE Trauma Centre, Healing Through Remembering, the Corrymeela Community and the Fitzroy-Clonard Fellowship. Such organisations cannot on their own resolve deep-seated conflicts—that requires political leadership from all sides. We have seen that from Israel, but sadly lacking from the Palestinian side. Grassroots groups of this nature, promoting peaceful co-existence, can be part of the momentum for peace and help to create the conditions in which political leaders feel confident to come together and find common ground and compromise.

Those Northern Ireland projects received support from many sources, including successive UK Governments, but also from the International Fund for Ireland, which has clearly provided inspiration for the ideas we are considering today. I certainly encourage the Foreign Office to deploy part of its aid budget to this new US-inspired international initiative on promoting projects aimed at securing peaceful co-existence between Israel and the Palestinians.

It is crucial that all funding, whether for this programme or others operating in the middle east, goes to worthwhile projects that are genuinely trying to bring people together. It is a concern for me and a number of my constituents that some UK charities and NGOs take a highly politicised and partisan approach to the middle east. For example, I have raised concerns about some of the activities in the past of War On Want with the Charities Commission. I hope those running any new fund will learn lessons from the problems that have beset existing aid programmes operating in the West Bank.

Just over 16 years ago, in my former role as an MEP, I first raised concerns about the abuse of aid money given to the Palestinian Authority. Those were the days of the flagrant misappropriation of cash by Yasser Arafat and his cronies—problems that, I am afraid, continue to some degree to this day.

I appreciate that successive Conservative Secretaries of State have tried to clean up the system. Those efforts were well intentioned and made a real difference. There are now far more effective controls to save taxpayers’ money than there were in the past. The issue remains, however, that the UK makes substantial contributions to UNRWA, which distributes aid on the basis of perceived entitlement rather than humanitarian need and whose definition of “refugee” as passing down generations perpetuates division rather than bringing people together.

I accept that UK aid money, thankfully, does not fund extremist or antisemitic curriculum content, but it does pay the salaries of teachers who use such materials. Thankfully, UK aid does not fund the appalling salaries paid to terrorists, but salaries were increased dependent on the number of Israelis killed. I am worried that while, thankfully, our taxpayers’ money does not go directly to fund these salaries, it indirectly enables such payments by the PLO by releasing money that otherwise would have to be deployed to cover the costs of the salaries of public sector workers that are currently met by the United Kingdom taxpayer.

Whether it is a new international fund for peace between Israel and the Palestinians or the UK’s existing programmes to support the Palestinian Authority, I urge the Minister to ensure that taxpayers’ money is always rigorously scrutinised and spent only on projects to bring people together rather than push them apart and on projects working for peace and not perpetuating conflict.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is good to see you in the Chair once more, Mr Efford.

I thank my hon. Friend for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing the debate and for an excellent speech. Like others, I believe that an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace would aim to help any future peace process by promoting co-operation, dialogue, joint economic development and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. As the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I am delighted that we are able to have this debate today; this is something we have argued for for some time.

It is important that the concept of an international fund, as we have heard, has been designed by the Alliance for Middle East Peace, because it is an independent organisation with extensive experience in this area. Therefore, I think some of the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) about other group initiatives would not apply here, because ALLMEP has an almost impeccable record in this field.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), I am pleased that the UK became the first country to endorse the concept of an international fund when, in 2017, it introduced the People for Peaceful Change project after lobbying from LFI and others.

[Theresa Villiers]

There have been several mentions of LFI, and I welcome the work that has been done on promoting the idea of funding peaceful co-existence projects. However, does the hon. Gentleman not find it sad that the leading MP who championed this idea, Joan Ryan, then MP for Enfield North, felt so intimidated and bullied by people in the Labour party, especially on the antisemitism issue, that she actually had to leave the party? We cannot ignore that significant problem within the hon. Gentleman’s party when referring to the LFI.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that, because it is probably as well to clear this issue up once and for all. LFI battled through the whole of the crisis of antisemitism in the Labour party, and I certainly do not want to in any sense pretend that it did not happen or that it was not a dark stain on our history. What I would say about my former colleague Joan Ryan is that I am immensely grateful to her for the work she did during that period. I hope that the changes that Labour is experiencing under a new leadership will herald the day when someone like Joan will feel perfectly comfortable sitting alongside me once more.

While I welcome that UK Government programme, it is important to acknowledge that, astonishingly enough, the UK Government had spent nothing on supporting co-existence projects prior to that programme. The US bipartisan and bicameral proposals, the middle east partnership for peace, is now making real progress. It aims not just to grow economic development, but to tackle the incitement and dehumanisation that has plagued both sides of this conflict. The legislation establishes a fund to improve economic co-operation and people-to-people exchanges. I think that is how we breathe life into the two-state solution. ALLMEP should be congratulated on its success in building an enormous, unprecedented coalition of support, making the fund one of the only bipartisan Israel-Palestine priorities in Congress.

In February 2018, the then Middle East Minister Alistair Burt announced the UK’s support for the concept of an international fund. However, since then the Government have failed to follow up on their warm words. The Biden Administration now present a huge opportunity for the UK to seize this moment and play a crucial part in this multilateral initiative. Our experience in development finance and in Northern Ireland means that we are ideally placed. We have heard about how we could claim one of the two international seats and use our experience to good effect.

This September, in response to a parliamentary question about plans to allocate funding to support the US fund, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa said:

“We welcome efforts towards peace…We will continue to monitor the People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund”—

as it was then known—

“as it progresses through the US legislative system.”

It is making great progress. Let us act now, to show that we are determined to get involved. Without funding from Governments and private philanthropy, co-existence projects can have only a limited impact but, operating at scale and properly funded, they can build powerful constituencies for peace, forcing politicians to return to meaningful negotiations.

As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North and for St Helens North, Northern Ireland has shown that this work can provide vital underpinnings for any future agreement. That civil society dimension of peacebuilding is about practical politics, building and embedding public support for any future agreement and ensuring that it can weather the challenges ahead. Just as we found in Northern Ireland, broad-based popular support is a prerequisite for any successful peace process.

The International Fund for Ireland spent about 8% more per head daily than is currently available for grassroots co-existence work in Israel and Palestine. Over the two decades since the signing of the Oslo accords, a growing network of NGOs has worked at grassroots level to foster values of co-existence, peace and reconciliation. The international fund would bring together public and private donors, nations, corporations and private foundations and individuals. It would focus work on supporting joint initiatives and co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians and between Arabs and Jews. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, it would lead to empowerment, civic activism and a host of other activities. It is envisaged that that $200 million per year fund would receive contributions from the international community, including the Arab world, but importantly it would be independently managed and additional to any existing support already provided directly to either the Palestinian Authority or Israel.

This work is more critical than ever because, as elsewhere in the world, Israel is suffering the economic as well as health consequences of the pandemic. It is about to enter its first recession in more than two decades. The economic crisis in the west bank is even deeper, as it was already in recession. The Palestinian economy has shrunk by an estimated 7.6% during the pandemic, pushing an existing recession into a deep depression. This raises the prospect of increased tensions, which suits those who have no investment in building for peace.

The peacebuilding sector provides essential services to many communities, but it is dependent on global donors and support from foreign Governments. We must develop greater co-ordination among major funders so that donor states improve their efforts with regard to civil society. Increased co-ordination will lead to a more efficient and effective use of resources, as well as opportunities for cross-pollination and deeper partnerships. That is why this international fund is so important and why this country must play a leading role.

As we have heard, there is a growing body of evidence showing the benefits of co-existence projects, even though most of this work has been achieved in the face of considerable challenges, most notably the collapse of the peace process and the second intifada.

Four years ago, Labour Friends of Israel was proud to launch its campaign “For Israel, For Palestine, For Peace” in pursuit of the very international fund that is now within our grasp. I acknowledge the important intervention of the British Government with the people for peaceful change fund, but I urge the Minister to build on that today by confirming that we will play a leading role in supporting this international fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing the debate and on giving such a clear exposition of her case.

We have had a very good debate this afternoon. It is also important to stress that the debate has not only been good but it has been conducted in the right kind of spirit. That is so important when we talk about the emotive issue of Israel and Palestine. We need to have mutual respect among ourselves and understand that it is a complex issue that requires sensitivity and understanding.

One thing that unites most people in this House—certainly in this Chamber—is that we believe in the two-state solution. That is the only way to bring real peace to Israel and Palestine. We need to recognise that a safe Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state can be achieved only through negotiation, and for that negotiation to be successful, there inevitably has to be give and take. It also has to be recognised that it is important to pay attention to the climate in which those negotiations can take place and their overall context.

That is why this debate is so important. It is vital to have co-operation between the Israelis and Palestinians in a daily, practical sense. It is important that they understand where each other is coming from. It is important that they respect each other and that there is reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.

It is important to recognise, as a number of Members have said this afternoon, that we have a great deal to learn from the experience of Northern Ireland. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). The contribution this afternoon from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was particularly moving, because he accurately talked about two traditions in Northern Ireland: the nationalist tradition and the Unionist tradition, historically a long way apart from each other with different histories. What is significant about the 1980s and 1990s is that people began to talk and to understand where each was coming from. Eventually common ground was found, and, hopefully, a secure way has been mapped out to have lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

I remember well the mid-1980s and the 1990s and the troubles. I was a Member of the European Parliament at the time and I remember talking to my good friend John Hume. John passionately believed in the need for a well funded international fund for Ireland. Through negotiation with others, he was able to establish that fund, which made a huge contribution towards bringing people together and establishing through civic society the very firm foundations for a Good Friday agreement. That fund in Northern Ireland—the international fund for Ireland, as it was called—brought many people together, not just in Northern Ireland but from the southern part, too. It was the great unsung hero of the peace process.

From all of that, we have so much to learn. I believe that the fund we have been talking about this afternoon, in the context of Israel and Palestine, offers the way to take forward many of the principles underpinning that fund in Northern Ireland. We have heard about the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, and hon. Members have accurately described the process in America, whereby the House of Representatives has approved legislation that is now progressing through the Senate. Significantly, the legislation has bipartisan support. It is not just Republicans or Democrats; people drawn from both parties in the United States are supporting the initiative. I, like other hon. Members, am hopeful that when the new Biden-Harris Administration takes office in January, it will take up the idea and make it a reality.

The fund is important because eventually it will become an institution—one that will have helped lay the bedrock for the peace process. However, it will not simply be an abstract institution. It will also be a fund that will encourage practical initiatives that bring people together. It will encourage entrepreneurship and—who knows?—it might even help the establishment of joint schools for the children of Israelis and Palestinians. It will provide spaces for people to talk about their common problems.

[Theresa Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman is very gracious in giving way. There is much that I agree with in his speech, but there is—sorry to use a cliché—an elephant in the room. He is a member of a party from which advocates for Israel such as Ian Austin and Ivan Lewis resigned their membership because saying anything in defence of Israel within the Labour party—a political party that they had supported for their entire adult life—was howled down and met with intimidation and antisemitism.

[Wayne David]

With all due respect, we are not talking about the internal politics of the Labour party here today. Frankly, we are talking about something far more important than that: we are talking about peace being established between the people of Israel and Palestinians. That is the important thing. That is not to underestimate what has been said about antisemitism inside the Labour party, but there is a time and place for everything. Today, we are talking about peace in the middle east and peace between the people of Israel and Palestine.

I believe that the fund, if it is established by the United States of America and others rally behind and support it, will be a huge step forward. However, I must say too that it is not an alternative to UNRWA funding but is something that must be introduced as well as that. It is not an excuse, as some people have suggested, for supporting settlements on the west bank. It is important to recognise that the fund is something quite different and it requires cross-party support from all good people who support peace in the middle east, coming together to find common ground.

I pay tribute, as a number of hon. Members have already done, to the Alliance for Middle East Peace. ALLMEP has being plugging away for a long time on this. At last, we are seeing real fruition coming about today and there is tremendous optimism. I must say that a lot of optimism is required from time to time in the middle east, but I believe the fund really offers that. All tribute to the alliance for championing that so consistently.

We are talking about the United States, but I emphasise that the fund must not be for the United States alone; we require multilateral international support. The Europeans have given support and the British can give support as well. It is vital that we do. There is a huge opportunity for the Prime Minister, when he talks about global Britain, to be proactive and to give the lead even to the Americans to encourage them to move forward quickly. I hope the British Government will be unambiguous and emphatic in supporting the fund as quickly as possible, but I want them to go further. I do not want only rhetoric from the Government; we are used to plenty of that. I want them to come forward and say that they want one of the two seats that will govern the fund when it is established. I also want them not only to say that will they support the Abraham accords that have been established between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, but to go further and say that the fund must be used for Arab support for such an initiative. That would be a huge step forward.

Finally, we all need to recognise that the fund will potentially make a huge contribution to peace. A lasting peace has to be seen as a process and not a single event.