Turkey: Human Rights and the Political Situation

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ryan]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; indeed, it is the point I am emphasising. Those people came out on to the streets of Turkey to defend their democracy, but they are now having to defend their democracy from the people who they actually protected on that night.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an important speech on a vital issue for the people of Turkey and its neighbouring countries. Has she observed the way in which that repression also affects the media? We have heard that one journalist has been killed and 56 have been detained, and up to 118 media organisations have been closed down, which is an obvious infringement of freedom of speech.

[Joan Ryan]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend also makes a powerful point. It has been said that in 2016 more journalists were arrested in Turkey than in any other part of the world. I think we all know that a free press is fundamental to the operation of a democracy; I will come to that later.

As the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), pointed out in July, the arrest of 3,000 members of the judiciary in just a few days following the failed coup seemed a rather strange way to uphold the rule of law, which speaks to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). The Committee to Protect Journalists tells us—I think my right hon. and hon. Friends have read my speech—there has been a media crackdown in Turkey that is unprecedented since the committee began keeping a record, in 1991. It states Turkey jailed,

“more journalists than any other country in 2016”,

and closed

“some 178 news outlets and publishing houses by decree in the space of five months, allowing only a handful to reopen.”

The judiciary and a free press are being undermined. Both are requirements for any operating democracy.

Human rights have been drastically curtailed, particularly in minority Kurdish and Alevi areas. There has been a clampdown on the freedom of assembly, with military curfews imposed in Kurdish and Alevi neighbourhoods. Dozens of Kurdish and Alevi newspapers and news channels have been shut down. I have been shocked by the information I have received from my Turkish, Kurdish and Alevi constituents regarding attacks on their family and friends in Turkey. Reports have included accounts of co-ordinated lynching attempts in Alevi areas following the failed coup. Members from the community have expressed grave concerns that the ongoing state of emergency is being used as an opportunity to intimidate Kurds and Alevis in their towns, villages and homes.

Civil society space has been shrunk, with non-governmental organisations such as the Rojava Association, a charitable organisation that has helped Turkish flood victims and women and refugees from Kobane in Syria, being forced to close. We can ill afford to see such organisations close down, given the circumstances.

Sadly, the slide to authoritarianism in Turkey is not a new development. Last summer’s failed coup attempt was not the starting point of this descent, but instead has served as a catalyst for anti-democratic trends that have been apparent under President Erdogan for some time. Almost three years ago, in the build-up to the country’s presidential elections, Mr Erdogan spoke of creating a new Turkey founded upon a new constitution. He promised to strengthen democracy, resolve the Kurdish issue and work towards ensuring Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Since those pledges were made, two parliamentary elections have been held in a climate of fear.

The elections may have been free, but they were not fair, with attacks on the offices and supporters of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic party, the HDP. President Erdogan has denounced the rulings of constitutional courts and threatened their future independence. More than 2,000 people have been killed since the breakdown of the Kurdish peace process in 2015. Although Kurdish militias and civilians have shown incredible bravery at the forefront of the conflict against ISIL/Daesh, there has been widespread alarm at the Turkish military’s attacks on Kurdish fighters during Operation Euphrates Shield in northern Syria, which has intensified the already dire humanitarian situation in the region.

President Erdogan’s temporary suspension of provisions in the European convention on human rights and his support for the reintroduction of the death penalty indicate his unwillingness to engage meaningfully in accession talks with the European Union. If that is the case, it would be a tragedy for Turkey and for the EU. Both parties have much to gain by tackling together many of today’s most important international issues, from terrorism to migration and the pursuit of peace in Syria.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I would like to give credit to everybody who has spoken—every speech has added to the debate. I am very grateful that there was cross-party support for bringing the debate forward.

So far, I do not think we have been straitjacketed by polarised views. If someone criticises Palestine, it does not mean they are an apologist for the occupation. If someone criticises Israeli policies, it does not mean they are against Israel or anti-Semitic. I deplore Hamas’s support for terrorism, and I deplore the building of settlements and outposts beyond the green line.

Our monitors say that the motion is “Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements”. That does not do credit to the full motion, which talks about the two-state solution and asks our Government to take a more active role. This is a very important debate, especially in this year of sad anniversaries—anniversaries of occupation, anniversaries of a blockade and, vitally for us and for our Government today, the centenary of the Balfour declaration. The declaration did commend the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, it also uses the words:

“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

That is where our role is critical.

It is correct that the settlements are illegal. I know there is some dispute in Israel about the Geneva convention, but the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations Security Council claim that the settlements are illegal. President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry—he said this in December—and even Ronald Reagan also claimed the settlements are illegal.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a good speech. Does she agree that the Government are to be congratulated on supporting resolution 2334? Will she, like me, be looking to the Minister to say what action the Government are planning to take to enforce resolution 2334?

[Dr Mathias]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention. That is the problem with so many resolutions—2336, 242 and 181. Yes, I would look to the Minister to tell us what actions the Government are planning to take.

Worryingly, the number of settlements has increased to over 100, as has the number of outposts, to over 100. They are increasing in number, in population, and in geographical area. A matter of concern for anybody who has seen images of them are the settlements in the area just by Jerusalem, the so-called E1 area, which may split the Palestinian west bank north and south. Gaza and the west bank have been separate since 1947, yet this year there is the danger of even more fragmentation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for securing this important debate. This is not the first time I have raised the issue of Palestinian rights in Parliament; sadly, I am sure it will not be the last.

In 2012, when I was chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, I had the privilege of visiting the west bank for the second time. I saw at first hand the degrading and inhuman way in which Palestinians were treated by the Israelis, who had demolished or stolen their homes. I also saw the effect that that had on Palestinian businesses and farmers. The suffering and the sense of loss experienced by the Palestinian people are indescribable. The loss that they have suffered is illegal under international law—a theft of land that continues to be denounced by world leaders across the globe and condemned, quite rightly, by the United Nations. Above all else, the perpetual land grabs are not only immoral and illegal, but a barrier to peace.

Although the Palestinians must provide assurances that Israel will be able to live in peace beside a Palestinian state, the Israelis, too, must come to peace talks in good faith. How can Palestinians take a peace offer seriously when settlements continue to be built? How can Palestinians trust Israel to recognise a Palestinian state when their homes are being demolished? How can Palestinians believe in a genuine two-state solution based on the 1967 borders when Israel continues its encirclement of East Jerusalem? The settlements must stop in order to give any framework for peace a chance, and Britain must be at the forefront of that effort. Britain has a moral responsibility to the Palestinian people, given our role in the region and our betrayal of the people who lived under our mandate after the first world war.

Given the new President in the White House, our country has to play a more important leadership role. Many in this House may be sceptical about the idea that the US has ever been an honest broker in this conflict. However, despite its strong ties with Israel, the US has condemned settlements and aggression. Trump’s view of the conflict appears to be a world apart from that of the former Secretary of State, John Kerry. Trump has made potentially inflammatory remarks about moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and he has selected a pro-settlement real estate lawyer to be the US ambassador to Israel. That has so emboldened the Israeli right that within days of the Trump inauguration, the Israeli Government announced their plans to build a further 2,500 housing units in the west bank.

[Helen Goodman]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to make it clear to the Israelis how unsatisfactory the situation is, we should adopt the same policy as we have adopted towards the Russians over their invasion of Crimea and introduce personal sanctions on those who promote and benefit from the settlements?

[Simon Danczuk]

I appreciate the intervention, and I have to agree that there needs to be some consistency in British foreign relations regarding our attitude towards different countries.

Let me start to conclude. I am glad that Britain, alongside the EU, denounced the awful regulation law allowing further housing units to be built. That allays some of the fears I have that Britain is turning its back on the safeguarding of human rights and the promotion of democracy. However, I worry that in this post-Brexit world, such values will be sidelined as the Government seek to secure trade deals. I know that trade was on the agenda at the Prime Minister’s meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister and I am sure many benefits can be gained from the new UK-Israel trade working group, but will the Minister assure me and my colleagues that the UK’s opposition to the new settlements in the west bank will be made forcefully? What is more, will he assure us that increased trade with Israel will not benefit those making a living out of the illegal occupation? Such small steps could make a difference.

In conclusion, Britain must live up to its responsibilities to the Palestinians. The aid we give makes a difference and it must continue, as must our criticism of illegal settlements, and our vocal condemnation must get louder if the US Administration choose to turn their back completely on the Palestinian people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

It is, of course, true that the loss of UK tourist business to Egypt has been very severe, and we are working hard with our Egyptian counterparts to get the reassurances that we need to restore those flights, which we all want to happen.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Earlier this morning, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said that the Government only support UN Security Council resolutions when they know they can be enforced. So, if the Israelis continue with the settlement programme, what steps will the Foreign Secretary take to enforce resolution 2334?

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Lady will know very well that we are working with our international counterparts to persuade both sides to get to the table, to persuade the Palestinians to drop their violence and recognise the existence of the state of Israel and show some leadership, and to persuade both sides to understand that a two-state solution is the only way forward. I believe that that is the best thing for the Government to do.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you, like many of us, might have seen a front-page splash in The Times last week trumpeting the support for Brexit from Lord Anthony Bamford of JCB, the iconic digger maker based in my county of Staffordshire. I was intrigued by the story, mainly because it smacked a little of desperation. It was, as it is called in the trade, old news, because anyone reading The Sentinel newspaper in Staffordshire would have known that when the good lord came out all of a year ago.

Anthony Bamford is part of just a small smattering of industrialists on the Brexit side that includes a maverick knight of the realm, Sir James Dyson, who makes those costly, complicated hoovers—in Malaysia. In reality, their views are not reflective of the large majority of British businesses, investors or economists. Our membership of the EU has been vital to our attracting much needed investment here. Nissan, Toyota and Honda from Japan made that clear very early on, when they urged the UK to remain, and the likes of BMW, Volkswagen, Bosch and Siemens from Germany have since joined them.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Did my hon. Friend see the story in the Financial Times today pointing out that both Sir James Dyson and Anthony Bamford had been caught breaking competition laws by the European Commission, and suggesting that that was their motivation?

[Paul Farrelly]

I cannot speak for their personal motivation, but I am sure that they are speaking for themselves personally rather than for their own businesses.

German companies here employ 500,000 people. Along with the Japanese, they have made the UK car industry today the most successful in our country’s history—along with Tata of India, of course, with its investment in Jaguar Land Rover. Tata, too, cannot fathom why Britain would want to leave the world’s biggest single market. In this debate, their voices deserve to be heard and listened to, not silenced through intimidation, as was the intention at the beginning of the leave campaign. Then, of course, there are the voices of great British companies—household names such as Rolls-Royce, one of our biggest exporters. My grandad built Spitfire engines at Crewe for Rolls-Royce, and today the company, patriotically, urged its staff to vote remain.

It is not just multinationals that are emphatically in favour of our remaining in the EU. This spring, like other colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I carried out a survey of about 1,000 predominantly small businesses in my constituency, and we had a good response. Some 80% were in favour of remaining. Some wanted reforms, but they firmly believed that we should stay in, to reform from within. The response to our survey reflected the balance within the wider membership of Staffordshire’s chamber of commerce and the views of the British Ceramic Confederation—the industry from which my area of the potteries takes its name. This—particularly for us—vital export-led industry wants us firmly to stay in because it is in its and the country’s interests. It recognises that it is better to have one rule book, rather than 28 different ones for each country in the EU.

Let me take a local example of the new economy. One of our most passionate supporters of the remain campaign is bet365, which is now the world’s biggest online gaming company and the owner of Stoke City football club, which I must of course mention. In little more than 15 years, the Coates family has built that business up into the biggest private sector employer in North Staffordshire, with more than 3,500 highly skilled staff. It is one of the UK’s biggest business success stories of the last decade. Frankly, bet365 can only dream of one rule book, because at the moment it has to contend with not only 28 but far more rules, with each of the German Länder and other different European regions having their own individual regulations. Bet365 is precisely the sort of business that will benefit by staying in and extending the single market to services and e-commerce, which were key topics in the Prime Minister’s renegotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Britain stands at a crossroads. The nation has to make a big choice: whether to stay in the EU or to leave. The EU was built on the ashes of world war two once people realised that security and prosperity were linked. Today, again, the world is an uncertain place. Russia has forcibly taken Crimea. Syria is in the throes of a devastating civil war. What is the best approach? Should we pull up the drawbridge or co-operate with our neighbours?

The Labour and trade union movement was built on the principle of solidarity, and what is true for individuals is also true for nations. I believe that, since 2010, this Tory-led Government have set about mending the public finances in the wrong way—cuts instead of investment, austerity rather than growth—and this has led to deep unfairness and economic insecurity. People must now think carefully about what is the best choice in the real world.

On putting jobs first, why has the head of Hitachi said that “jobs would be lost” if we left the EU? Because Britain is a market of 60 million people, whereas Europe is a market of 500 million people. If we leave, next time he invests in a new production line, it will be more economic to build it somewhere else. Today, Rolls-Royce has said the same. Foreign indirect investment creates 85,000 jobs in this country every year, which are all at risk from Brexit.

The Brexit campaign has totally failed to set out how a new trading arrangement would work. It has suggested the arrangements for Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Albania, but even the Prime Minister of Albania does not think that that is a good idea. Why has the head of Glaxo, part of our brilliant pharmaceuticals industry, said that the EU is the best platform for success? Because one system for drug licensing is faster and more efficient than 28 systems. Yet Dominic Cummings, the Lord Chancellor’s former Spad who now runs Vote Leave, told the Treasury Committee that “that is complete rubbish.” Such breath-taking arrogance is putting 93,000 jobs at risk.

Let us look at the car industry. If we leave, it will face tariffs of 10%. It is supposed to cope with that through labour market flexibility, which, translated into English, means wage cuts. Wages account for only a third of total costs, so people would have to take a 30% pay cut or lose their jobs. There are 450,000 jobs at risk.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) have visited textile factories that, outside the EU, would face a 6.5% tariff. It is hard to cut wages in such factories because the Low Pay Commission reports that most of the workers are on the minimum wage, so another 56,000 jobs are at risk, mainly in the north and the midlands. When I challenged the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip about that, he said that

“there is no need for them to worry.”

It is all right for him: on top of his MP’s salary, he takes home another £250,000 every year for his column in The Daily Telegraph. His attitude is flippant to the point of irresponsibility, and this is not a joke.

Let us look at what is happening in the markets: £60 billion has been wiped off the value of shares in London in a week, and people are so desperate to get their money out of London that they are prepared to pay the German Government to look after it. That may be good news for the hedge funders, who make their money betting on volatility and then use it to fund the Brexit campaign, but it is certainly not good news for the millions of people whose pensions depend on the strength of the FTSE 100.

Security and prosperity are linked. The question on the ballot paper is the choice between letting off the leash a right-wing Tory Brexit group that is able to destroy the life chances of millions of ordinary people, and voting to remain in and holding on to the security and prosperity that we have in the EU.

Saudi Arabia

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend rightly underlines the importance of this bilateral relationship, which is not only commercial but includes academic and medical perspectives and so forth. The more we are able to engage and share ideas, the more we will be able to encourage change, modernisation and adaptation of international standards and the rule of law.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

What preparations has the Minister’s Department made for the potential legal action which the Government now face owing to the fact that arms have been exported to Saudi Arabia which, it has been reported, have been used against civilians in Yemen?

[Mr Ellwood]

I repeat what I just said. Saudi Arabia has a legitimate right to purchase weapons systems. It also has a legitimate right under UN Security Council resolution 2216 to provide legitimate support to the President Hadi in Yemen. Had actions not been taken, as I said, the humanitarian catastrophe in that country, which the hon. Lady’s Front-Bench spokesman rightly mentioned, would be worse than it is, as would the challenges that we face. A port off the Red sea called Al Mukalla—a town bigger than Bournemouth—is now run by al-Qaeda. That is the threat that we face in Yemen. So yes, we must be concerned and aware of any weapons systems that we sell across the world. We have robust systems in place, but let us keep in check how they are used and what the consequences are in the country where they are used.

Human Rights (Egypt)

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I had an opportunity to visit one of the Coptic churches in Cairo, and I raised that very important matter of the minorities in Egypt. It will also be raised during President Sisi’s visit in the next couple of days.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In July 2013, after the military coup, the then Foreign Secretary said that

“we cannot support military interventions in democratic processes.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 385.]

The new regime in King Charles Street seems to be taking a completely different tack. What has happened since that time is that the human rights record in Egypt has plummeted. The Minister knows that there was a trial in which 520 death sentences were issued after one hour, and 683 death sentences were issued without a single defendant being present. We do not hear about it, because 125 journalists are locked up. Does the Minister not understand that appearing to endorse President Sisi is likely to make people more engaged with radical terrorism than the other way round?

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. President Sisi was elected and has had a referendum as well. The first round of parliamentary elections took place in October and the second round will take place on 23 November. That will provide additional scrutiny of what the Executive are doing. We take every opportunity to raise the issue of the mass arrests, as I said in my opening remarks; perhaps the hon. Lady did not hear that, but I am happy to send her a copy. In December 2013, 20 al-Jazeera journalists were arrested and we took every opportunity to make it clear that we had concerns about the manner of the arrests, not least because two Britons were involved. They were convicted in absentia and we are encouraging a full pardon to ensure that their names are cleared.

Arms Sales (Human Rights)

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the implications for human rights of promoting arms sales.

I am particularly pleased to be having this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Amess; we have been in the House for about the same amount of time, so it is a great pleasure. I am also pleased to see so many hon. Members here to discuss this very important issue. I will keep my speech relatively brief to allow everybody to get in who has something to say, so that as many Members as possible can share their views about the implication for human rights of promoting arms sales.

As many hon. Members know, I have always been passionate about human rights and have argued against arms sales to human rights violators ever since I became an MP. As chair of the Committee against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq—known as CARDRI—in the 1980s, I argued against the supply of military equipment to Saddam Hussein, a man who, at that time, was gassing his own people, had executed a British journalist and generally oversaw a very repressive and brutal regime. Iraq was, of course, also then at war with Iran.

I was horrified when, in 1986, the then Conservative Government invited a five-strong Iraqi delegation, led by its director of armaments and supplies, to the British Army equipment exhibition in Aldershot. Of course, in 1990 Saddam’s troops invaded Kuwait, and he became no longer a friend, but an enemy of the west. Lord Justice Scott’s report a few years later detailed the involvement of the UK Government and British companies in arming him. However, Saddam had not changed overnight in 1990.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. Does she recall that the ultimate obscenity was that because these weapons were sold using the export credit regime, and were never paid for, the British Government, in fact, gave them to Saddam Hussein?

[Ann Clwyd]

That is a very good point. I am really sorry that so few companies have been prosecuted since for supplying some of the arms. The authorities did that in Germany, and are continuing to do so, but there have been very few prosecutions in this country.

As I was saying, in 1990 Saddam’s troops invaded Kuwait and he became an enemy of the west, but Saddam had not changed overnight. Enough was already known about his regime’s human rights violations—backed by detailed information from inside the country about the savage nature of the regime—and about the UK Government’s and companies’ attempts to arm him. Some us had tried to stop that, but our warnings were not heeded.

When the Labour Government came to office in 1997, there was a test case for the new Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s “ethical foreign policy”. I remember sitting at the Foreign Office, listening to the speech he made. I went up to him at the end of it and said, “I am very pleased to hear those words from you, but I’ll be watching you”. I did not realise how quickly I would have to put those words into operation, because the test case for the ethical foreign policy that he spelt out, with human rights at its heart, was selling arms to Indonesia, as we were doing at that time. Anybody who followed that particular conflict will know that repression in Aceh, for example, was acute. President Suharto’s troops were still occupying East Timor then. I am glad to say that our new Leader of the Opposition came to East Timor with me at the time and monitored some of the things that were going on there.

The previous Conservative Government had issued licences for the export of Hawk aircraft and armoured vehicles to Indonesia, but when Labour came to power, the equipment had not yet been delivered. Unfortunately, Robin Cook was not able to convince his Cabinet colleagues at that time and the export licences were not revoked. Hawk aircraft were later in action in Aceh and the armoured vehicles out on the streets of Jakarta.

However, the new Labour Government in 1997 did institute annual reports on arms export licences. Members of the four relevant Select Committees—the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Trade and Industry Committee, the International Development Committee and the Defence Committee—came together to look at those reports. Initially known, for obvious reasons, as the Quadripartite Committee, it became the Committees on Arms Export Controls in 2008. I was a member of the Committees in both guises.

In the last Parliament, the Committees on Arms Export Controls was chaired by Sir John Stanley. As everybody knows, he is a former Conservative Defence Minister; I pay tribute to the work of Sir John, my colleague both on the Committees on Arms Export Controls and the Foreign Affairs Committee. I also note that every CAEC—as it began to be known—report was unanimously agreed by their members during their 15 years of existence, including those when Sir John was chair. Sir John assiduously raised arms export issues with Ministers and civil servants and he came to see what is at the heart of this debate—that it is not possible to promote human rights at the same time as promoting arms exports. The two are not compatible.

The CAEC report from the last parliamentary Session said that

“the Government would do well to acknowledge that there is an inherent conflict between strongly promoting arms exports to authoritarian regimes whilst strongly criticising their lack of human rights at the same time rather than claiming, as the Government continued to do…that these two policies ‘are mutually reinforcing’”.

Although so far unable to convince Governments of this, the Committees on Arms Export Controls’ oversight was of immense benefit—I stress that it really was of immense benefit—in shedding light on this cross-departmental issue. For six months now, we have been without those Committees. As yet, my inquiries have not indicated when they are likely to be reformed. The global situation regarding conflict and arms transfers, not least as it affects the middle east and north Africa, makes it vital to have the Committees functioning at the earliest possible date. I would therefore urge the relevant Committee Chairs to come together as a matter of urgency to ensure that this process of scrutiny continues.

UK Governments—plural—argue that they operate one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control regimes in the world, that their export licensing criteria take human rights into account and that licences will not be granted if the equipment might be used for human rights abuse, or more particularly, if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression, to provoke or prolong armed conflicts or to aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination. All applications are subject to a case-by-case assessment.

In the first instance, I note with regard to the “clear risk” criteria that I just mentioned, that that is vague as to what exactly constitutes a clear risk. How can that be defined? What meets that threshold? To my mind, “clear risk” is in effect a blank cheque in human rights terms. In connection with that, it would be helpful, as a starting point, to know about the UK’s risk assessment methodology. We were always being told, when Ministers in Governments of all colours were being questioned, that there would be or was monitoring in the countries to which the arms were supplied. However, I have continually failed to find out what that monitoring constitutes.

In the previous Parliament, CAEC also raised concerns about the insufficiency of information being released about specific end users. Although the country is mentioned, there is no more specific designation. That means that the public are left in the dark about exactly who will be receiving the arms in question. I call on the Government to provide information about who exactly UK-supplied equipment will be used by and for what purpose.

In addition, situations change. The fact that after the uprisings in north Africa and the middle east in the spring of 2011, more than 150 licences—more than 150—had to be revoked indicates that the Government’s licensing process leaves a lot to be desired. Frankly, many of those licences should never have been granted in the first place, because licence revocation can be of only limited effect, for the simple reason that revocation is of no use whatever for exports that have already been shipped—those arms can never be recovered. It is imperative, therefore, that the utmost caution—that is, much more caution—be exercised when assessments are being undertaken on arms exports to authoritarian and war-torn countries.

However, the incompatibility between promoting human rights and promoting arms exports is primarily a difficulty not with export controls, but with the mindset that prioritises export promotion. Arms sales are promoted by those right at the top of Government. That is not new. Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron have all led delegations to promote arms sales, including to some of the world’s most repressive regimes. Earlier this year, licences to Foreign and Commonwealth Office-designated countries of concern were valued at almost £12 billion.

In the middle of the brutal suppression of protest in the middle east in February 2011, the Prime Minister chose to go ahead with an arms promotion tour of Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman. The message sent to those regimes is quite alarming; the UK Government were in effect legitimising the regimes and provided them with political cover. Even the help of the royal family is enlisted. Prince Charles famously did a sword dance in Saudi Arabia in 2014 to secure a fighter jet deal for BAE.

Those high-level sales efforts in relation to human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia mute any criticism of their abuse of human rights. In the case of Saudi Arabia, it is a “priority market” for the UK Government’s arms sales agency, the UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organisation.

I think that the desire for arms deals prevents meaningful UK Government criticism of, for example, Saudi human rights abuses. That is a country where, according to Amnesty International, someone is executed every two days. Raif Badawi was brutally flogged and is in jail simply for blogging. Women are treated as second-class citizens, and immigrant workers far worse. The arms sales links have prevented the UK Government from criticising Saudi Arabia for the humanitarian catastrophe being created in Yemen. There are, it is said, even UK civil servants and military personnel in Saudi Arabia, who are now presumably supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign.

I mentioned the licences that the Government were forced to revoke in 2011, when the Arab uprisings took place.