Yemen: Aid Funding
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I align myself with the news story that the right reverend Prelate relates. As a parent, I totally understand the issue of children, in particular, who are suffering in Yemen and elsewhere in the world. That is why we remain very much committed to our programmes on vaccination, but also, importantly, as noble Lords have brought to our attention again today, to humanitarian aid. On the issue of our support to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that is subject to a very rigorous arms control regime which is applied quite specifically. It was also revisited after the court case a couple of years ago, to ensure that the application of that regime could be more specific.
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab) [V]
This is an almost 50% cut in aid compared with last year, at the same time as the UK Government have granted £6.7 billion of arms sales to Saudi Arabia to be used in Yemen. Surely given the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and as the UN penholder on Yemen at the UN Security Council, the UK should be increasing aid to Yemen and putting all our endeavours into trying to get peace talks going.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point out that we are the penholder of the UN Security Council. It is through our leadership, both in resolutions and regular updates, that the situation in Yemen has been at the forefront of each discussion of the UN Security Council, no matter who holds the presidency of that body. We have also extended support to the UN special envoy’s office in pursuit of peace, with £342,000 provided in direct support to the peace process, and have seconded advisers to the UN special envoy Martin Griffiths. We will continue to support the international community in alleviating the humanitarian crisis currently engulfing Yemen, but the best way out of it is through a political settlement.
Yemen
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the right reverend Prelate’s first point, we remain very much committed, through the challenging exercise of the reduced total spending, to playing a leading and active role in combating hunger in Yemen. For example, in the financial year 2020-21, we spent £214 million. On his final point on our relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as I alluded to earlier, we have strict criteria on which we agree to exports of arms sales.
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab) [V]
The Minister will be aware that arms sales to Saudi Arabia amount to approximately 40% of the volume of all UK arms sales. Does he agree that UK arms sales and technical support are sustaining the war in Yemen and that we should use the US decision to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia as an opportunity to pursue peace talks?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already given the Government’s position on arms sales, but I agree with the noble Baroness; we will work very closely with the US and other allies, and through the UN, to ensure that we can bring about peace in Yemen. However, that requires the participation of all parties to the conflict.
Palestine and Israel
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate this evening. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate and on enabling the space to be created for such powerful arguments from both sides of the House that tonight is the time for the UK to send a clear message that we recognise Palestine as a state. Those who say that this is just a gesture and that it does not matter what the UK Parliament says are simply mistaken. Our historical position in the world in relation to Israel and Palestine, the fact that we still hold a highly influential position and have a close relationship with the United States, and the foreign policy positions that we have taken over many years, mean that we can now send an incredibly powerful message from this House tonight.
This is the right thing to do morally, but it is also the right thing to do politically. It is important in relation to all our other foreign policy in the region that we should be seen to be even-handed and fair, and that we should no longer be accused of having double standards or of failing to stand up for the Palestinians. We have to give our support to those Palestinians who believe in a political route to self-determination based on non-violent action and international pressure. All too often, those people feel that they have not been given that support by the United States and the United Kingdom.
My constituents gave me a clear message this summer that they did not believe that the Israeli response was proportionate to whatever was happening in Palestine. Between 8 July and 27 August, there were 2,104 Palestinian deaths, including those of 495 children. In that period, there were 72 Israeli deaths, seven of which were civilians. The UK urged Israel to avoid civilian deaths, but made no condemnation of Israeli actions. The then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated on 23 July:
“There seems to be a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes”.
She also condemned Hamas for “indiscriminate attacks”.
Recognition of the state of Palestine would mean a more regulated relationship between the international community and Israel and Palestine. At the moment, we are not seen as being even-handed. Whatever people in this House might believe, the reality is that we are the ones who are supplying the components for the weaponry being used against the Palestinians. I asked a series of parliamentary questions this summer and did not get any answers out of Ministers, but on 2 August The Independent detailed the weaponry being used against civilians in Palestine that had been produced from components made by the UK—in particular, that being used by drones and tanks against civilian populations. I say to the House that we need to send a clear message tonight that we are even-handed, that we believe in justice and that we recognise the Palestinian state.
Human Rights: Saudi Arabia
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray, and to have the opportunity to open this Adjournment debate on human rights in Saudi Arabia. I am very grateful to have been allocated this slot. I am not quite sure how Adjournment debates are chosen, but this is an important subject that requires scrutiny and therefore I am very grateful for this opportunity today.
The UK Government accept that Saudi Arabia has a poor record on democracy and human rights, particularly in relation to women. The country is deemed a “country of concern” by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has one of the worst records in the world for executions. More than 2,000 people were executed between 1985 and 2013. The most recent Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index listed Saudi Arabia as the fifth most authoritarian Government in the world. Saudi Arabia is ranked equal to Burma and even lower than Iran in that index. However, although other countries with appalling human rights records are criticised and, indeed, action is taken against them, Saudi Arabia is often courted.
The Saudi Arabian authorities react to those pressing for democratic rights or political change with repressive measures. Protesters are held without charge and without access to the outside world for days and, indeed, weeks on end. Some are reported to have been tortured or otherwise badly treated. Many people have been taken to trial simply for taking part in demonstrations. Independent human rights organisations are banned. There are protests in the eastern region by members of the minority Shi’a community who allege long-term discrimination on grounds of faith. The security services are alleged to have used excessive force against those protesters.
Migrant workers comprise about one third of the population and are inadequately protected against exploitation and abuse by their employers. We regularly hear of examples of migrant workers being badly treated and, in particular, women being abused sexually and treated badly in other ways.
Let me give some examples of the treatment of those who take a different view from the Saudi Arabian state. Zakaria Al Safwan, a writer, was sentenced to 10 years in prison last November for writing an article entitled “In Defence of Peaceful Protest”. Waleed Abu al-Khair, who set up the Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, has been imprisoned, harassed and banned from travelling outside the country. Similarly, Raif Badawi was imprisoned and sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison on 7 May for setting up a peaceful liberal website. Charges against him included breaking allegiance with the King. New terrorism laws were used against him and have increasingly been used against human rights activists. Another human rights activist, Fadhel al-Manasif, received a 15-year sentence and a 15-year travel ban under the new terrorism laws. That was for charges such as breaking allegiance with the King and being in contact with foreign news agencies in order to exaggerate news and harm the reputation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people. New terrorism regulations include such offences as calling, participating in, promoting or inciting sit-ins and protests.
Other recent convictions include those of Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Oyouni, who founded the Association for the Protection and Defence of Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia and were sentenced to 10 months in prison and a two-year travel ban after giving food to a Canadian woman who had been left in her house without food supplies by her Saudi-born husband.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Katy Clark
I will give way to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), as I heard him first.
David Simpson
We all know that Saudi Arabia is a very advanced country in many ways, but the persecution of Christians is rife in that country. It allows Christians to enter the country for temporary work, but does not allow them to practise their faith openly, even with Bibles or any Christian symbols. Surely more can be done by the Foreign Office or whatever in London, because we do a lot of business with Saudi Arabia. Surely more pressure can be brought to bear for the defence of Christians and their beliefs.
Katy Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point and one that has been raised by a number of Members of the House on many occasions. Indeed there is persecution in relation to the Christian community and a number of other religious communities. We need to have a consistent position in relation to the defence of the rights of people to hold religious views and practise their religion and, indeed, to hold no religious views and practise no religion.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am speaking as the chairman of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia. The hon. Lady is making all these allegations about human rights abuses. May I ask her this in the first instance: has she ever visited Saudi Arabia?
Katy Clark
The hon. Gentleman has asked me that question before. I am aware that he has visited Saudi Arabia and has suggested that I do so. However, the trips that are being suggested are funded by the Saudi royal family and I personally do not think that that is an appropriate way to take part in a visit. I therefore have not visited Saudi Arabia and frankly, from what I have heard, have no particular wish to travel to Saudi Arabia, particularly for pleasure purposes.
Katy Clark
I will give way one more time. The hon. Gentleman is chair of the all-party group. He has made these points to me before in debates, but I would be happy to hear them again.
Daniel Kawczynski
The hon. Lady says that she does not wish to visit Saudi Arabia. I think that it is very important for her to take the opportunity of visiting that country before she makes all these allegations. Let me tell her that there is a growing list of Labour Members of Parliament who have been with me to Saudi Arabia and seen the situation for themselves by interacting with human rights organisations and women’s rights organisations and who have a very different perspective from the hon. Lady.
Katy Clark
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would have been appropriate for him to make reference to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The trips to which he is referring are funded by the Saudi Arabian royal family and, as I have indicated, I have no wish to take part in a trip that is funded in that way. If a trip is funded in a different way, that may be a different issue, but as I have said, from what I have heard, it would not be my top holiday destination to go to for pleasure purposes. He has made these points to me before. He may have the opportunity to speak later in the debate and expand on what he wishes to say, but we have debated these issues on the radio previously and I suggest that the focus in this debate should perhaps be on what is happening in Saudi Arabia, rather than on whether I personally should go on a trip organised by his all-party group.
There are many more examples of human rights abuses that are narrated by organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and, indeed, many people who have travelled to Saudi Arabia and have reported back on what is happening there.
The court system in Saudi Arabia falls far short of international standards for fair trial. Defendants are rarely allowed formal representation by lawyers and in many cases are not informed of the progress of legal proceedings against them. Torture allegations are widespread.
Saudi Arabia has a guardianship system for women and girls that means that they are forbidden from travelling, conducting official business or undergoing certain medical procedures without the permission of their male relatives. Likewise, under uncodified rules, women are not allowed to marry without the permission of their guardian. Unlike men, they do not have a unilateral right to divorce. Also, they often face discrimination in relation to custody of their children. There are reports of women being unable to be provided with essential medical treatment because of the lack of consent from a male guardian.
I wish to use this opportunity to raise a specific case that I have raised previously with the Government—with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions on 30 April and in his statement to the House on 11 June, and with the Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in correspondence, when I have specifically asked that the Government make representations in relation to this case. Despite that, the Government do not seem to have taken any action.
I first became aware of the case in March, when I was contacted by a journalist who was covering the story. I was advised that Princess Alanoud Al Fayez, who lived in London, was raising concerns about the condition of her daughters, who had been kept in a compound in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for the past 13 years. I later learned that as a result of her speaking with the international media, food supplies for two of her daughters, Princesses Sahar and Jawaher, had been stopped and no new food supplies were being allowed into the compound.
I met Princess Alanoud, who advised me that she was concerned that her daughters were being starved. Since then, their situation has become more desperate. The compound apparently has sea access, so although they have no access to fresh water, they are able to desalinate water to an extent because they have some primitive equipment that can be used to desalinate about 1.5 litres per day, but I am told that that is inadequate in the heat. The compound is large and their food stocks have quickly been exhausted. This is the 100th day for which they have not had access to new food. They have lost a considerable amount of weight, their health has been affected and time is running out. Princess Alanoud’s other two daughters are being held separately and she has no contact with them. All her daughters are in their late 30s or early 40s.
When I met Princess Alanoud, she asked for our help. She advised me that she had an arranged marriage to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when she was 15, and he divorced her for the final time when she was 26. In Saudi Arabia, a man is allowed to have four wives at a time, and he can divorce one wife in order to take another. During the time she was married to him, she had four daughters but no sons. After her divorce, around 1983 or 1984, she maintained a reasonable relationship with her husband, but her daughters were put under house arrest in 2001 and she came to the UK in 2003. Since that time, private representations have been made to try to enable the daughters to leave the compounds in which they are kept, but without success.
The case is a sensitive one, because it involves close family members of the leader of Saudi Arabia. It also illustrates the poor state of women’s rights—indeed, those of all people—in Saudi Arabia, where most women are granted freedoms only at the whim of their male guardian. As Princess Alanoud described, however, legal guardianship laws do not normally affect women in the royal family, who usually have free movement. She said that when she and her daughters were in favour they had a wonderful life, but when they fell out of favour that changed.
I asked for this debate because of the poor standard of the Government’s answers to questions about that case and others that I have raised. Each time the Government are asked about it, they simply state that the case of the Saudi princesses is a matter for the Saudi Arabian authorities and for the family concerned, not for Her Majesty’s Government. Of course, there are millions of women in Saudi Arabia who have never had a wonderful life, but if that is how female members of the Saudi royal family are treated, it takes little imagination to work out the horrific situations that many other women in Saudi Arabia must suffer if their guardians do not hold enlightened views, given that women do not have independent legal rights.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing that matter to the Chamber for our consideration. In relation to the case of the Saudi Arabian princesses, has she been able to obtain opinions from all parties in the House? What have other parties done to help the campaign that she has spearheaded?
Katy Clark
The Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), is here, and I expect that he will outline the position of the official Opposition. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has been extremely helpful in this case—he has attended a meeting with the mother, as well as signing an early-day motion and letters to representatives—that a number of Members from all political parties have been extremely supportive. I could not extend such a description to Government spokespeople, however. I believe that there is a great deal of sympathy in all parts of the House, but unfortunately those who hold the power have not indicated that they share such a view.
Saudi Arabia was Britain’s biggest arms market last year. The Committees on Arms Export Controls report from 2013—the most recent available to the House—states that the value of arms exports licences amounted to more than £1.8 billion. That includes weapons that are likely to be used for internal repression, such as tear gas and other irritant ammunition, components of water cannon and CS hand grenades. The Prime Minister has visited Saudi Arabia several times, and the Saudi Government has had extensive contact with the UK Government. The Prime Minister has defended arms sales to the region, saying that they are “entirely legitimate”. The UK Government deny that the commercial relationship between the kingdom and the UK prevents the UK Government from speaking openly about the problems. Saudi Arabia clearly has a pivotal role in the region, but that is no excuse for the Government’s failure to take up human rights cases; indeed, that undermines our position in relation to other matters. The Government take up human rights cases in other countries, but they are reluctant to do so with Saudi Arabia.
I call on the Minister, in summing up, to outline in detail the Government’s position on human rights in Saudi Arabia, the action that the Government have taken on the case of the Saudi princesses, and the action that they have taken regarding the other human rights abuses that I have mentioned. Given what is happening in the world, the question of human rights in Saudi Arabia is important and requires a great deal more scrutiny. I look forward to hearing contributions from all parts of the House.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I speak as chairman of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) suggested that the all-party group’s trips to the kingdom were paid for by the Saudi royal family, but they are actually paid for by the Saudi Government. They are, of course, registered appropriately with the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
We have to accept the hospitality of the Saudi Government when we take British parliamentary delegations to the kingdom, because there are insufficient funds for the House of Commons to pay for such trips. The most that one can apply for is a small amount of money from the inter-parliamentary group, which does not cover the costs of a large delegation. It is possible to apply, I think, only once in each Parliament. If we want to engage with a country such as Saudi Arabia and to take large numbers of parliamentarians from all political parties, under the current system of funding from the House of Commons we have to rely on the hospitality of our foreign hosts. If we are not to do that, funding will have to be made available, but I do not think that to push for such a measure would be particularly popular.
The hon. Lady seemed to say that accepting such hospitality was somehow inappropriate and that pressure was brought to bear on us. She suggested that because we are there thanks to the largesse of our hosts, the situation and the meetings we attend were managed and controlled. That is not the case, and I strongly urge her to listen not to me but to the large number of Labour Members of Parliament who have joined me on such delegations—not least the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—who have been to the kingdom and interacted with human rights organisations rather than simply listening to media coverage in this country. The BBC is adept at putting forward negative aspects of Saudi society, but it is not interested in disseminating information about positive aspects of the reforms that are taking place in the kingdom.
Katy Clark
A wide range of human rights organisations—particularly Amnesty and Human Rights Watch—have been to Saudi Arabia and produced reports on the situation. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept their conclusions?
Daniel Kawczynski
The hon. Lady will have to interact with those organisations and ask for their perspective. I can only give her my perspective as someone who has been to the kingdom on a number of occasions and interacted with those organisations—and by the way, not with chaperones or under their auspices, but by actually selecting organisations off our own bat, going to see them and interacting with them and with ordinary men and women in the street.
Daniel Kawczynski
Later in my speech I will address how we raise human rights issues with our hosts. Yes, of course we have met a wide range of Saudi Arabian citizens—both ordinary men and women in the streets, and through various industries—and we get a perspective from those people.
I have been chairman of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia for the past eight years, since 2006. Unlike many MPs, who join a lot of all-party groups, I am a member of only two: the all-party groups on Saudi Arabia and Libya. I feel passionately about the importance of our strategic alliance with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is an extremely important country of the most profound strategic importance to the United Kingdom, globally and, in particular, to the middle east. Our two countries co-operate on counter-terrorism and on trying to bring peace and stability to the middle east—at another stage I hope to share with the House the extraordinary work and effort that Saudi Arabia gives us in helping to fight terrorism and the extraordinary efforts and investments that it puts into de-radicalisation programmes, but of course this debate is specifically on human rights.
I have stated that the delegations that go to Saudi Arabia are cross-party, but we also welcome delegations from the Shura council to the House of Commons. Those delegations visit us on a regular basis. Many members of the Shura council are keen to come to the House of Commons, and they spend considerable time here trying to understand the procedures of our House and learning about the Select Committee process. They are keen to understand the Westminster model—which, as we all know, is highly respected across the world—so that they can learn from how Parliament works and take some of that information, expertise and experience back to the Shura council. Fundamental changes to accountability and transparency are taking place in the Shura council, and we are very pleased to be able to interact with our Saudi counterparts to give our perspective.
One of the most recent delegations even asked to come to visit my constituency of Shrewsbury and spend a day in our beautiful county town trying to understand how a parliamentarian interacts with his constituents and the local council, how a parliamentarian deals with people’s problems and what rights citizens have. Every time they come on these delegations, they give us a real sense that they are interested in learning from our experience.
I say to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran that the Saudis are trying to pursue a system of evolution, rather than revolution. As the King has said to me in the past, there are conservative elements in Saudi society who are reticent about big-scale, radical, fast changes to the structure of society. The King is desperately trying to modernise and improve various aspects of society, but he has to move at a pace that the most conservative elements will allow. I think he wants to take the whole society with him in the transition that he and the country are trying to make.
Katy Clark
I have also met Saudi delegations over here; indeed, I have met a number of members of the royal family. When I raise human rights cases, members of the royal family often ask to meet me to try to persuade me that I simply do not understand what is going on in Saudi Arabia. Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the independent human rights assessments from organisations such as Human Rights Watch, which make it clear that, in their view, the human rights situation and the repression have become greater since 2011?
Daniel Kawczynski
The hon. Lady made that point a moment ago. My view is different from some of the conclusions that those organisations have come up with. I think they are perfectly entitled to those views, which we will debate. We always ensure that we take a large group of female MPs on all our delegations to the kingdom, which is extremely important. I am delighted by the interaction that many female British Members of Parliament have had with their Saudi counterparts during the course of our deliberations with the Shura council.
I have to tell the hon. Lady that there has been a major change in the number of women appointed to the Shura council. Women now account for 30 of the 150 members of the Shura council, which is 20%. She will know that women comprise 22.6% of the House of Commons, so Saudi Arabia has only two percentage points fewer women on the Shura council than we have in the House of Commons. Let us not forget that we have an awful lot more to do in our own country to empower women and ensure that they play their full role in the process of parliamentary democracy before we start castigating Saudi Arabia on certain women’s rights issues.
The hon. Lady will also know that recently not only have there been significant appointments of females to the Shura council, but women have been appointed as Ministers, which is an important new development. She will also be pleased that there has recently been a significant increase in Government jobs for women. Last year there was an 8% increase, and the Saudi Government are pursuing affirmative action deliberately to ensure that more women are employed in every aspect of Government Departments and Government operations.
The hon. Lady—and, I am sure, you too, Mr Gray—will also be interested that 473,000 women were in higher education last year, which compares with 429,000 men, so far more females are going to universities in the kingdom. What really pleases me is that the 473,000 women going to university compares with just four women who went to university in 1961. I am sure the hon. Lady will be pleased with that trajectory—from four females going to university in 1961 to 473,000 now. Even she will be pleased with the way in which those figures are coming about. Our Olympic games here in London welcomed the Saudi Olympic team, which for the first time had women representatives. Now, of course, there are major changes to the way in which girls are allowed to play and watch sports.
I asked the hon. Lady whether she had visited Saudi Arabia, and I know that she has been invited in the past. I am not saying this to her because I want somehow to trip her up, but I genuinely believe that if we are going to talk about a country, and if we are to get a good feel for what is going on in a country, it is helpful and beneficial to go there. I might have to take her with me somehow, without the funding of the Saudi Government. I am not quite offering to pay for her out of my own pocket, but if we can find some way for her to visit the kingdom without the Saudis paying, I will have to give that due consideration. It is extremely important to interact with Saudis themselves.
I will give one brief example of something that the delegation experienced on our last visit to Riyadh. We left all the official meetings and went to one of the parks in downtown Riyadh. All the children in the park were wearing English football T-shirts—Arsenal, Manchester United and others—because they are all passionate about English football. None of them was wearing a Shrewsbury Town football club T-shirt, which was rather disappointing, but they were all there, and they were keen to interact with us and talk to us as parliamentarians. We talked to them and their parents, and as a result of those interactions, we went to see organisations in which they were involved, without our chaperones or official Ministers. That is important, because it gives a perspective on what the Saudis themselves are feeling and how women feel about women’s rights in the kingdom. It is a very effective process to engage in.
I say to the hon. Lady that I am not here to defend Saudi Arabia in the sense of saying that there are no issues. Of course there are—it would be ludicrous for me to say that everything in that country is going well and that no more needs to be done—but which country does not have its share of social ills? If the Saudis and the Saudi media were to start looking at this country and evaluating and continuously pondering some of the problems we have as a society, they would find many problems that are different from the ones they have. I will not go into all the social problems that we have in this country—she is perfectly aware of the wide range of human rights issues and other problems that we face.
Of course the Saudis have their own issues, and we raise those with them at every opportunity, even in front of the King. British officials were petrified at the prospect that I might raise issues involving Christian rights in front of the King. They do not like British Members of Parliament raising such issues—I think that they think we will undo and destroy a whole year of their work in a five-minute conversation—but we do raise them. We talk to the King about the rights of Christians, and we talk to Ministers. I say quite openly that, as a practising Christian, I am not happy about the restrictions put on Christians working in the kingdom—the fact that they find it impossible to celebrate Christmas is regrettable—but we take the opportunity to go there and meet them, because we are good friends. Good friends can be open with one another and critical. They challenge us on other things involving the United Kingdom, but I assure the hon. Lady that we raise the rights of Christians and women with officials and even with the King.
Again, I urge the hon. Lady to join me, without her expenses being paid by the Saudis. We will find a way for her to come to Saudi Arabia without the Saudi Government paying for it.
Katy Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is being most generous. I raised a number of human rights cases in my speech, including the case of the four princesses currently being detained. Would the all-party parliamentary group be willing to take up those cases with the Saudi authorities?
Daniel Kawczynski
It is very much for the Minister to respond on the case of the princesses, but I will say that if the hon. Lady would like me to raise the matter with officials at the Saudi embassy, I would be delighted to go with her to do so. We can make representations together. I would be delighted to afford that to her.
Sir John Jenkins, as the hon. Lady will know, is our ambassador to Riyadh. On our last visit to the kingdom in February, we had very good deliberations with him. He is writing an important report at the moment on the Muslim Brotherhood. I take a strong interest in that, and I await the outcome of the report. I know that he is also very good at raising issues involving human rights with Government officials. I hope that the hon. Lady will have a chance to meet him when he next comes to see me at the House of Commons. I will, of course, inform her of that visit.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)
I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for securing this debate. I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), in offering sincere condolences to the family and friends of Nahid Almanea, the Saudi Arabian student who was tragically killed in Colchester last Tuesday. I am sure I speak for everyone in saying that our thoughts are with her family.
Before I address the individual contributions made in the debate, it may be helpful to set out some of the current political dynamics that influence our relationship with Saudi Arabia. The UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is a long one, and this debate is timely, as the kingdom prepares for the holy month of Ramadan, Saudi Arabia of course being the worldwide centre of the Islamic faith for the UK’s near 3 million Muslim citizens. Many thousands of Britons will visit Saudi Arabia this month during the Hajj period. Some 16,000 Saudi students are currently studying in the UK. As others have mentioned, the UK also has a strong bilateral trade relationship with Saudi Arabia. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Wrexham will believe me, but I can reassure him that that is not the only thing that guides our relationship. Saudi Arabia is a key strategic partner in the region and our relationship is not simply about selling military hardware. Both the UK and Saudi Arabia have seats on the UN Human Rights Council, which is one of the many areas in which we work with the Saudi Government on issues of mutual interest.
All that said, today’s debate has shown some of the fault lines and judgments involved in the relationship. We have a frank and robust relationship with Saudi Arabia and the breadth and depth of the relationship matters to both sides. The relationship is at its most acute where we have shared priorities in foreign policy, defence, energy and counter-terrorism, and is underpinned by close personal and institutional ties. That does not mean that any particular issue is off limits, however. When we have concerns, we make them clear to the Saudi Arabian authorities, just as the Saudi Arabian Government are frank with us when they disagree. The review of the Muslim Brotherhood, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), is one such area.
To make it clear and put it on the record, we regularly make our views on human rights known through the UN’s universal periodic review process and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s annual human rights and democracy report, which many hon. Members mentioned. Saudi Arabia continues to be a country of concern and we represent those concerns to Saudi Arabia at the very highest level. However, we have to balance that with the point my hon. Friend made: this is a country with widely held conservative social values. In a sense, the judgment we always have to make in trying to make progress is whether it is best to highlight a case publicly and make a fuss or to try to effect change through private diplomacy. We will come to the princesses in a minute, but the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made the point that highlighting the case in public actually made their conditions worse, so standing up and shouting at people is not always the best way to effect change.
Let me go through the various contributions and try to address some of the points that were made. I have touched on the issue of the Saudi princesses, and the Government line will not, I am afraid, move from the one I have set out, but that does not mean these issues are not raised. I would absolutely encourage the hon. Lady to make use of the offer to go to speak to the Saudi embassy. As I say, however, there is always a real judgment over whether change is best effected by public or private diplomacy. Where we need to conduct private diplomacy, we are not shy about doing so.
Katy Clark
I would just advise the Minister that private representations have been made for more than a decade, but they do not seem to have been successful. Obviously I encourage the Government to use any avenues available to them to continue to raise this case.
Hugh Robertson
It is a point well made and one that I have clearly taken on board.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham for his work with the all-party group, and I wish him good fortune in expanding the number of people on his visit next time round. However, there is a serious point here. He is absolutely right that although Saudi Arabia is a deeply conservative country, powerful elements in Saudi society are trying to change the way it approaches these things. By far the best way for people in this House to help to effect change in Saudi Arabia is to engage constructively with the system to see what we can do to help, but that does not mean that we have slavishly to agree with everything that is said or to accept every single explanation. Going there and questioning things is absolutely the right approach.
My hon. Friend helpfully highlighted some of the improvements in women’s rights. He mentioned the appointment of female Shura council members. There is also the right to vote and run in the municipal elections in 2015, which is the first time that option has been open to women. In 2013—the last reporting year—more women than men were in tertiary education, which is an extraordinary statistic. Many had enrolled via the King’s scholarship programme. In terms of effecting change over the longer period, that is an extraordinarily encouraging statistic.
It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) speak. He asked specifically about migrant workers, and I absolutely acknowledge that there is some way to go. In a sense, however, as with other issues we have touched on, there is some progress, albeit not enough. He will be aware that the recent legal reforms have tried to improve migrant workers’ most basic rights. Such workers are now paid at least monthly and they have access to their own identity documents.
The hon. Gentleman also highlighted the issue of domestic workers, and they must now have at least nine hours’ rest a day and a day off a week. Those are small, incremental steps and they are not enough, but at least some progress is being made. In addition, Saudi Arabia finally became a member of the International Association of Labour Inspection on 12 June. I therefore take the hon. Gentleman’s point that not enough has been done and he is right to highlight that; again, however, there is some progress.
At the risk of annoying you, Mr Gray, let me touch on the issue of ISIL. I think it is clear that the ISIL we thought we were dealing with two weeks ago is not the one we are dealing with now. There are terrorist elements in it, but there are also a considerable number of Ba’athists, ex-Saddamists and tribal members—it is a very different body from the one we originally thought we were dealing with. However, let me move swiftly back to the subject of the debate.
On many occasions, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I have discussed Christians’ role in the middle east and what they are subjected to. As I have told him, I have made it a mission of mine to make contact with Christian communities when I am in the middle east. Indeed, I took time out during a meeting of the international contact group on Libya to visit the Holy See to co-ordinate our activities in the region. So far, I have managed to make contact with the Coptic Christians in Egypt and Christians in Jordan, and I am going to see members of the Christian community in Lebanon next week. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I will continue to raise the plight of Christians in the area. I have enormous sympathy with his point of view.
I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) for his very balanced contribution, which, in a sense, showed the dilemma that underpins the whole debate. He raised a number of cases, which I will be happy to take up if he wants to write to me. I will look into them personally and get him a proper answer.
The hon. Member for Wrexham returned to a theme that many people have touched on. The difficulty is not only striking the right balance, but finding the right way to pursue our foreign policy objectives. Having spent a year in the Foreign Office, I am not necessarily sure I have spotted a contradiction between the desire to promote Britain’s commercial interests around the world and a values-based foreign policy. Where the issue is most acute—to be completely honest with him—is over arms exports, and we rigorously follow the guidelines. The Foreign Affairs Committee hauls the Foreign Secretary in front of it at least once a year to go over the issue, and the Committees on Arms Export Controls—CAEC, as they are known colloquially—do a similar job. As a Foreign Office Minister, I am very conscious—I deal with them regularly—of the legal advice and rules that underpin our decisions, and I can promise the hon. Gentleman that we follow them scrupulously.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Foreign Office policy on ministerial visits to countries of concern. As I said, in a sense, in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, the Government would encourage people to engage with countries of concern. I really believe—this is a self-fulfilling element of being a Foreign Office Minister—that, through contact with countries, we give ourselves the best chance of effecting change.
I have talked about arms export licences. As I say, we abide by the rules. I appreciate that the assurances I have given about the princesses will not be enough, but there is a judgment as to whether to pursue the issue publicly or privately. Unless there are any other issues, I will return to where I started: I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for bringing about this important debate, and I thank all Members who have taken part in it.
Syria
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
They are playing a very energetic role. We are fortunate to have an outstanding team at the UN, which has often succeeded against the odds in a whole series of negotiations on UN Security Council resolutions. On this issue, they have, depressingly, often been blocked, including by actual vetoes, by Russia and China, but they are working hard with the other permanent members of the Security Council. A meeting took place in New York yesterday afternoon, and there will of course be further meetings in which they will be intensively involved in the coming days.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Given the contradictory statements from the Government on the issue of chemicals being exported to Syria—seen in responses to parliamentary questions and in the correspondence between the Business Secretary and the Committee on Arms Export Controls—will the Foreign Secretary undertake to do everything he can to ensure that there is full transparency, including over the naming of the British and the Syrian companies involved and the quantities and particular form of chemicals exported, so that we can learn lessons for the future?
Mr Hague
The Business Secretary and I are always very much in favour of tremendous transparency on these things, and we make an annual appearance at the Committee on Arms Export Controls. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government also regularly publish the details of such licences and exports. Let me reiterate that the licences granted in the most recent period were revoked, and there is no evidence that exports took place. In the earlier period when licences were granted under the previous Government, they related to cosmetics and health care products for legitimate commercial use, and we have no evidence that they were not used for that purpose. That is the position. All the normal transparency about these issues will apply. The record shows that the system works, that we have strong export controls in this country, and that when licences are revoked, the system works, too. Our strong system should be supported across the House.
Non-Proliferation Treaty
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate, Mr Sheridan, and I am pleased to see you in the Chair today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) both on securing this debate and on his comprehensive, articulate opening contribution.
I should like to ask the Government for more information about how they intend to deal with this issue. Many such debates take place in the context of the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system, about which we have heard many references. Strong arguments are made by those who believe that we should not renew Trident and by those, such as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who believe that renewing it would be the right step for Britain to take. I would find it difficult to justify the cost of more than £100 billion being spent—we believe that would be the cost during the lifetime of a replacement for Trident—in the context of some of the cuts in the public sector and in public spending at this time, the cost of which we know is bearing down on many people throughout the country.
I should be interested in hearing the Minister provide a more detailed explanation of the position that Britain is taking internationally. I do not agree with the hon. Member for New Forest East that it would be wrong to get rid of nuclear weapons before getting rid of all weapons in this world. The position of some states on nuclear weapons makes it more likely that other states will acquire them. One of my great concerns is proliferation, particularly with the kind of people running some regimes in the world at the moment. Of course, there is much debate about Syria. Previously, there was much debate about Libya and Iraq. We have had debates and there has been discussion this week about the regime in Iran. The reality is that many of those regimes, at various points, may have had the capacity to develop and possess nuclear weapons.
It is beholden on the United Kingdom Government, as one of the five countries that are signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and one of the countries that it is recognised as possessing nuclear weapons, to put a great deal of energy, expertise and political commitment into the process, to try to rid the world of nuclear weapons and take steps to ensure that, until we get to the point where there are no nuclear weapons, as few nuclear weapons exist in as few hands as possible. The more nuclear weapons that we have and the more countries that possess them, the more likely it is that they will be used, either by accident or design. I am interested in hearing a great deal more than we have heard up till now from the Government about what energy, resources and commitment they are putting into this process.
I should also be interested to have a more detailed explanation of what the Government’s position is in relation to some other initiatives taking place in the world by other states that do not possess nuclear weapons, or perhaps previously possessed nuclear weapons but no longer do, and that seem to be putting a great deal of diplomatic and political energy into trying to move towards a situation where fewer states possess nuclear weapons.
In particular, for example, I should be interested to hear from the Minister the detail of the Government’s position in relation to the humanitarian initiative undertaken by a number of non-nuclear weapons states. The Minister will be aware of the conference that took place in Oslo earlier this year. He has had to address many parliamentary questions, including some asked by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, asking why Britain did not attend and engage in that event. The Minister will be aware that that initiative explored issues to do with how we stop nuclear weapons proliferating and stop the political situation in which states can justify acquiring and developing nuclear weapons, by using the same arguments that we use in this country.
I should like the Minister and the Government to say what they intend to do now to put this issue at the top of the political agenda. He will appreciate that the possession of nuclear weapons by any country and the development of this technology means that it is more likely that these weapons of mass destruction will be used. As we lead towards our upcoming discussions on whether to renew Trident, Britain should be actively engaged in that process and, indeed, be a leader of the move towards a nuclear-free world.
Alistair Burt
Absolutely. To that extent, the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in how he conducted the case.
The world has of course benefited from the case put forward so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East. It is a case with which I am broadly in agreement: our possession of nuclear weapons has contributed to the peace of the world, provided it has been allied to a commitment, demonstrated by successive Governments, to rid the world steadily of nuclear weapons through measures of mutual confidence. I appreciate the restatement of the Opposition position by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who echoed the position of successive Labour Governments and reiterated the 2007 commitment, made under a Labour Government, to proceed with Trident. In general, I accept that she has restated a relatively common position. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) made a strong contribution on the side of those who challenge such an opinion, but, again, in a moderate way and recognising the responsibilities of the United Kingdom not only to its own defence, but to the mutual defence with which it is associated through its various treaty obligations.
In the time allotted, I will do my best to do justice to the contributions. I am not sure, however, which part in “Les Mis” we would all take. “Who am I?” Well, I am the Minister responsible for counter-proliferation, but at least I am not “On my own”, and I am grateful for the support I have had from colleagues in putting together these remarks. Enough of this.
The United Kingdom is a firm supporter of the non-proliferation treaty, which we believe is the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime. Of course, the NPT faces challenges and pressures, such as the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, the risk of a nuclear terrorist attack and the spread of sensitive nuclear technology. We must also remember, however, that the consensus outcome of the 2010 NPT review conference, with agreement of the cross-pillar action plan by 189 state parties of the NPT, was a real achievement and a boost for multilateralism. We are now halfway through the five-year review cycle. Looking ahead to the review conference in 2015, we need to ensure that we deliver against our action plan commitments.
In response to the question of the hon. Member for Bristol East, we in the Government take our action plan obligations seriously, on all three pillars of the NPT, which are nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses, and our role as co-convenor for the conference on the establishment of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east. I will say a little more about each of those.
On disarmament, under the first pillar of the NPT, the United Kingdom is committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Successive UK Governments—the hon. Lady can take pride in her party’s achievements—have played an active role in helping to build an international environment in which no state feels the need to possess nuclear weapons. I take the opportunity to highlight the UK’s strong record on disarmament. In our 2010 strategic defence and security review, we announced reductions in the number of operational warheads and our overall stockpile. I remember making some of those announcements in New York at the time of the 2010 conference. We announced, for the first time, the total size of our nuclear warhead stockpile, and gave a new, stronger security assurance that the UK would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states party to the NPT. Those announcements meant that the UK has been more transparent than ever about our arsenal in a declaratory policy that we believe will assist in building trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states, and contribute to efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons worldwide. We continue to call on other nuclear weapon states to take reciprocal steps.
In essence, as we all know, the NPT is a grand bargain between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states. It is essential, and at the heart of our disagreements with Iran in particular, but not only Iran, that both sides keep that bargain, otherwise mutual confidence is not there. If we do keep the bargain, we can make progress towards the world we want to see. China’s involvement in the P5 process—in particular, its leadership of the P5 working group on nuclear terminology—is a positive indication of China’s interest in engaging in efforts to help enhance understanding on nuclear matters. That and Russia’s involvement in the P5 plus 1 talks with Iran indicate that, despite difficulties and disagreements in some areas, the consensus on nuclear issues and nuclear disarmament is quite strong under the overall NPT umbrella.
Katy Clark
The Minister is talking about non-nuclear states and the work of nuclear states. He is aware of the Oslo conference and humanitarian initiative, and of the New Agenda Coalition disarmament statement; will he have the opportunity to outline the Government’s approach to such initiatives from non-nuclear states to encourage nuclear disarmament?
Alistair Burt
I will indeed; I will come to that in a moment. Our groundbreaking work with Norway, a non-nuclear state, on the verification of warhead dismantlement has been the first time that a nuclear weapon state has engaged in such an open way with a non-nuclear weapon state on such a sensitive issue. I hope that we have also been active in building the conditions for further progress on disarmament. The United Kingdom instigated the P5 dialogue between nuclear weapon states in 2009 to help build the trust and mutual confidence to take forward further progress. The hon. Lady is right that as part of the action plan—though it was not a commitment—there was much discussion about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and, therefore, the Oslo conference.
Of course we recognise that any use of nuclear weapons would have grave humanitarian consequences—it is unthinkable. The best way to prevent such an event is to make progress on multilateral disarmament, on counter-proliferation and on improving the security of non-nuclear materials and facilities. Our decision not to attend the Oslo conference on humanitarian consequences does not change any of those commitments to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. We believe, however, that the energy behind the humanitarian campaign could have been more effectively channelled through existing processes, by helping to tackle blockages, and by making progress in the practical step-by-step approach that includes all states that possess nuclear weapons. Only in that way can we realistically achieve a world without nuclear weapons. That is the reason why we and the other P5 members chose not to attend.
Iraq War (10th Anniversary)
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lucas
I cannot pass judgment on the work of the Committees, because I have not looked in great detail at the position they took at the time. I am sure that the vast proportion of hon. Members will have made their decision honestly and in the way that they thought was right.
We know that the decision was important not just to Members of this House, but to an enormous number of people outside. It had a profound impact on British politics. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the war led to a fundamental loss of trust in the Labour party, and it is right that the Labour party should acknowledge that. Those who knocked on doors in the subsequent general election were made well aware of that, which is one of the great qualities of our democracy.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend not just on the position he took 10 years ago, but on the way he is presenting his case today. A number of Labour MPs took the same decision. Indeed, if it had not been for the votes of the Conservative party and others, the motion would not have been carried. Has he given consideration to the suggestion that votes on war should be matters of conscience, and not be whipped?
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and to congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on the efforts that I know she put in to secure it. I know that a great deal of work was done over some time to get to the point where today was chosen as the day of the debate.
I shall use most of the time available to me to focus on a legacy issue in relation to Iraq. That may have come to the attention of some Members when they have seen television footage of families who have experienced the effects of depleted uranium and other weaponry used in Iraq. It seems to have resulted in very unusual levels of birth defects and other conditions, especially among children who were conceived during the Iraq war. I intend to focus on those issues mainly because they are not often talked about and because those are issues on which the Government could be taking more action so that we can understand what happened and learn the lessons from that for the future.
The use of depleted uranium in weapons has been controversial from its development in the 1960s to the present. Much of the work in this area has been done on the effects on veterans, rather than on civilian populations. The Ministry of Defence discovered in the early research and development programme that depleted uranium released a chemical that was toxic and radioactive and that contaminated areas that it had been fired into. The scientific work that has been done, as I said, related mainly to veterans, but in recent years more evidence has been collected from civilian populations, including in Iraq.
The work relating to veterans shows clearly that in certain circumstances depleted uranium has the potential to cause cancer and damage to DNA. It can lead to birth defects and contaminate soil and ground water. Depleted uranium was used in the first conflict in Iraq in 1991 and also in the more recent conflict in very significant quantities. It is thought that 290,000 kg of depleted uranium was fired during the Gulf war in 1991, and that in the first six months of the Iraq invasion 140 kg of depleted uranium was used. Studies of the effects on civilian populations which have been made public so far show a staggering rise in birth defects among Iraqi children conceived in the aftermath of the war, with high rates of miscarriage, toxic levels of lead and mercury contamination and spiralling numbers of birth defects ranging from congenital heart defects to brain dysfunctions and malformed limbs. Compelling evidence seems to link these birth defects and miscarriages to military assaults.
We cannot sure whether these are due to depleted uranium or the effects of other ammunition used in the area, but it is clear that there are particularly high levels of birth defects, for example, in Falluja, where the United States has admitted using white phosphorous shells, although it has not admitted using depleted uranium. Findings published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology are the latest in a series of studies suggesting a link between bombardment and a rise in birth defects. Its findings in 2010 prompted the World Health Organisation to launch an inquiry into the prevalence of birth defects in the area affected. Although that report was expected to be published last year, it still has not appeared. Some claim that it is being buried and 58 scientists have written to the Iraqi Government and the World Health Organisation calling for its immediate publication. It is right that we, as elected politicians, ask the British Government to use their influence and power to do everything they can to ensure that as much information about these issues is brought into the public domain.
As a result of previous work, the Work Health Organisation is looking at nine high-risk areas in Iraq, including Falluja and Basra. We need to say clearly that we want that information in the public domain. We must do more to work out exactly the impact that some of the weaponry used in modern warfare has on civilian populations. Perhaps in previous centuries the effects of war were felt predominantly by military people and those who went to war, but one of the clear effects of modern warfare is that many of the types of weaponry used have long-term implications for civilian populations.
Of the studies that have been made available in the public domain, one shows that more than half of the babies born in Falluja between 2007 and 2010 were born with a birth defect. Before the siege the figure was more like one in 10, and prior to the turn of the millennium fewer than 2% of babies were born with a birth defect. According to that study, in the two years after 2004 more than 45% of all pregnancies surveyed ended in miscarriage, whereas the figures before the bombing were below 10%. Between 2007 and 2010, one in six of all pregnancies ended in miscarriage. The research that is in the public domain is clearly incredibly concerning.
Another piece of research looked at the health histories of 56 families in Falluja and examined births in Basra in southern Iraq, which was attacked by British forces in 2003. It found that more than 20 babies in 1,000 were born with births defects at the maternity hospital in 2003, which is 17 times higher than the rate recorded a decade previously. In the past seven years, the number of malformed babies born has increased by more than 60%, to 37 in every 1,000.
We have spoken a great deal today about the politics that led up to the decision to take forces into Iraq in 2003, and that is absolutely proper, but the reality is that families in Iraq are now dealing with the aftermath of decisions that might have been taken by the British Government and the action of British and other troops. I think that it is beholden on Parliament to insist that the Government do everything they can to ensure that this is researched more thoroughly. We must try to find the facts and see whether there is evidence linking the use of particular types of weaponry and the effects on civilian populations, and we must ensure that any lessons are learned for whatever future actions we might be involved in.
Palestinian Resolution (United Nations)
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
No, I think that our influence will be important whatever happens in the vote and, indeed, however we vote. As a member of the Security Council and given the good relations that we have with the Palestinian Authority and Israel and our special relationship with the United States, our influence will continue to be very important. That absolutely will be maintained. We will be using that influence from the moment after the vote is conducted to try to ensure that negotiations begin again.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Surely, a vote for Palestinian statehood would give faith to many Palestinians that a political solution is possible, and surely the strengthening of such moderate Palestinian opinion must be key to progress.
Mr Hague
The thing that would most give those people hope and confidence that there is the future that they rightly desire would be to see their leadership sitting down with the Israeli leadership, both making the necessary concessions and talking about how they can help each other to achieve the goal of a settlement based on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as a shared capital of both states and with a settlement for refugees. That would really give them hope, as it would have done at the time of the Oslo peace accords, so everything that we do should be calculated to encourage that, and that is what has dictated our policy.
Middle East
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
After 23 years in the House, the Foreign Secretary well knows that the fact that a point has been made does not prevent it from being remade, usually on multiple occasions, very eloquently and sometimes at length.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I will try to raise an issue that has not been raised so far. Has the Foreign Secretary been able to assess whether UK-made components are being used in Gaza, as part of Israeli equipment, and what implications do the actions of recent days have for UK military links with Israel?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady has raised an issue that no one else raised, which is pretty good going after one hour and 40 minutes, so I thank her for that. As she knows, we have very tight export controls, through our and the EU’s consolidated guidance. We always evaluate any arms export licences against the risks of misuse, of intensifying conflict and of being used for internal repression. That leads us to refuse some export licences for Israel, but to grant others. Of course, any future grant or refusal of licences will be considered against the background of recent events.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bellingham
I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern. That is why we have called on all parties to end this violence, to respect their humanitarian responsibilities and to allow access to urgently needed international assistance. It is essential they take action and do so immediately.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of the legislation passed in March in Egypt restricting the right to strike and criminalising protests. Will the Government raise concerns with the Egyptian authorities about restrictions on the right to protest and to take part in industrial action?
Mr Hague
This is the kind of issue that I discussed with Egyptian authorities on my visit to Cairo last week. Clearly, we want to see a much more normal state of affairs in Egypt. We hope that the onset of elections and greater political freedom will bring that about. People having basic rights, including those to which the hon. Lady refers, is an important part of that.