Bahrain

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) not only on achieving this debate but on detailing forensically, as he always does, the many concerns he has—that we should all have—about human rights violations in Bahrain. He has always been a champion of the oppressed, wherever they may be in the world. He pointed out the systematic clampdown on the majority Shi’a population since the Arab spring. He mentioned that the United Kingdom’s policy towards Bahrain is of great concern to many organisations that champion human rights around the world.

We heard an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group dealing withn. Bahrain, who is concerned about the sexual abuse of female prisoners. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith highlighted the arrest, torture and abuse of human rights protesters and listed numerous individuals, including the well-known human rights activist Nabeel Rajab. He mentioned that the executions resumed in January 2017, following the end of the suspension of the death penalty. All Members in the Chamber have equally condemned the reintroduction of the death penalty. He gave a comprehensive list of the UK’s involvement in Bahrain, in spite of the well-documented violations of human rights. One of his conclusions was a quote from Freedom House, which said that Bahrain is more oppressive and less free than it was just six years ago.

We heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has considerable experience of Bahrain going back 50 years. He gave a very different view of that country. He talked about its independence in 1971 as a constitutional monarchy, and that he was posted there in 1969. He said that it was a very different place then, but he mentioned, as many hon. Members have, that Iran is stoking up subversion. We should not forget that the majority population is Shi’a and that Iran feels that it has a right to interfere in Bahrain’s internal matters. He said Bahrain was trying hard to act well with regard to human rights, that it tries hard to represent all minorities and that the people banned in Bahrain are those who advocated violence. He asked how we in the United Kingdom would feel about accepting parties that advocated violence. I am not sure that the evidence I have seen backs that up, but I accept what he said. He also mentioned that women have greater freedom to choose in Bahrain than in most of its close neighbours. All those are positive things. Like other hon. Members, he mentioned freedom of worship being far greater in Bahrain than in any other country in the region. Human rights are a good deal better in Bahrain than in the rest of the region.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, champions freedom of religion worldwide. Wherever there is a threat to anyone’s freedom to worship, he stands up and speaks about it. He said that with friendship comes responsibility, and that we should be a critical friend of Bahrain. He said that if we see human rights abuses, we should say, as a friend of Bahrain, “You need to stop this; you need to ensure that everybody’s rights to political freedom are equal.”

The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who visited Bahrain last year, talked about his experience of engaging with and listening to religious minorities in synagogues and churches as well as mosques. It is to the huge credit of Bahrain that people have real religious freedom in that country. He mentioned that reform is taking place. Clearly, for many of us, it is not happening fast enough.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), who is also an expert in the region, told us that Bahrain is a young country that has achieved remarkable development in a very short time, and that there is much greater freedom for women in Bahrain than in any other country in the region. He mentioned the regional context—that Iran’s interference in Bahrain’s domestic affairs is a real threat to the country. We also heard a good summing-up speech from the Scottish National party’s spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), who always speaks well in our debates.

Let us go back to what is actually happening. As we know, Bahrain is a slight anomaly among its peers in the region because it lacks the abundant oil and natural gas reserves of many of the other Gulf states. For Bahrain’s Sunni royal family, unrest among the country’s Shi’a population is obviously an existential threat. That is why freedom of religion and closeness between Shi’a and Sunni forms of Islam is so important. Bahrain hosts the US navy’s fifth fleet, and we heard much about the new UK military base there. Some 70% of Bahrain’s population is from the Shi’a branch of Islam.

Bahrain has been ruled by the al-Khalifa family since the 18th century, which gives that family an enormous history and tradition in the country. However, the recent increase in repression must be a cause for concern. Since June 2016, the Bahraini authorities have dramatically stepped up their crackdown on dissent. There has been an indefinite ban on peaceful demonstrations in Manama since August 2013. Amnesty International found that at least 169 critics or their relatives were arrested, summoned, interrogated, prosecuted, imprisoned, banned from travel or threatened between June 2016 and June 2017.

This year, the United Nations stated that it

“is concerned at reports of excessive and disproportionate use of lethal force and at reports of enforced disappearances, torture, arbitrary detention and threats against civilians involved in peaceful demonstrations for political and democratic change in 2011.”

However, the Assistant Foreign Minister of Bahrain, Abdulla al-Doseri, stated that Bahrain was a model in the region for its religious tolerance, social protection programmes, the empowerment of women and the development of human rights.

The UK has opened a new naval base at Mina Salman, which cost more than £40 million and is staffed by approximately 500 military personnel. It is the first UK base in the region since the 1970s. The British Government stated that the base will

“enhance the Royal Navy’s ability to operate effectively in the Gulf and further demonstrate the Government’s enduring commitment to regional security.”

The UK has licensed more than £80 million of arms to the Bahraini military since the Arab spring uprising in 2011. It has also licensed exports of military equipment to Bahrain; in 2017 the Government issued licences for the export of military and dual-use components to Bahrain to the value of £36,862,990. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the UK transferred £28 million of arms exports to Bahrain in 2016 and 2017.

The British Government ensured that training for more than 400 prison guards was paid for by the British taxpayer from the £1.52 million that was paid in overseas aid to Bahrain in 2016-17 as part of the conflict, stability and security fund. Some of those prison guards have been accused of torture. Reprieve has stated that, despite the UK Government giving Bahraini authorities training for seven years, the number of inmates on death row tripled. The UK Government continued to fund that training even after the executions of January 2017.

Let me conclude by asking the Minister four questions. What pressure will he apply to our close ally, Bahrain, to ensure that its human rights violations are brought to an end? Is it acceptable to overlook recorded human rights violations in the name of military co-operation and security? Does he feel that the introduction of an ombudsman, which the UK helped to provide, train and support, has genuinely improved the human rights situation in Bahrain? Finally, has enough progress been made on human rights in Bahrain in recent years?

Oral Answers to Questions

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The United Kingdom continues to work very closely with all parties to ensure that special envoy Martin Griffiths has the necessary space. We are in constant contact; I spoke to the Deputy Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates yesterday and spoke to the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister just this morning to urge the maximum support for the negotiations, and we have spoken to other parties who have an opportunity to make representations to others involved in the conflict to do exactly the same.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Last week’s United Nations expert panel report on Yemen completed before the bus bombing of 9 August said that the Saudi coalition was routinely ignoring its own no-strike list of 30,000 civilian sites. Surely that is the very definition of indiscriminate bombing. In light of that, how can the Government continue to claim that there is no clear risk that the arms we sell to Riyadh are being used to violate international humanitarian law?

[Alistair Burt]

The particular report that has been brought forward is not accepted in full by the coalition, and there are some elements of it that the UK does not accept, so we are looking at that more carefully. The important thing is—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct on this—that international humanitarian law must be adhered to, but the practices of the coalition that have developed over the conflict to ensure proper investigation should anything go wrong are far more developed than they were. Nobody wants to see such investigations because nobody wants to see the actions that have caused them, and that is the UK position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The answer is probably not. Everyone knows that the right of return will be dealt with in the ultimate negotiations in relation to an agreement. There are legitimate reasons to protest in Gaza, and there is also illegitimate exploitation of those reasons.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It has been widely reported that the Foreign Secretary intends to convene an imminent summit with Jared Kushner and other interested parties to lay out the red lines that the Government will apply when evaluating the Trump Administration’s Israel-Palestine peace plan. Will the Minister of State tell the House in clear terms today what those red lines are?

[Alistair Burt]

No, I will not. There is plenty to do in relation to this without me setting out any red lines that may or may not be extant.

Yemen

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. Friend is right: Iran does have a relevance to this conflict. It is engaged in supplying weaponry and support to the Houthis and we have consistently called on Iran to recognise the damage and danger done through its actions. It is still possible that Iran can be part of the solution and part of the answer to the conflict, as many parties that take part in conflicts clearly are.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the chair of the all-party group on Yemen, on securing it.

There is a bitter sadness in the fact that, less than three weeks ago, we were welcoming the publication of the all-party group’s latest report, a blueprint for bringing about a peaceful political solution to this terrible conflict and an end to the humanitarian crisis, yet here we are, 20 days later, facing the exact opposite—an attack on Hodeidah by the UAE, which according to the UN envoy, Martin Griffiths, will

“in a stroke, take peace off the table. ”

And not just that but, as has already been observed by Members on both sides and by every aid agency working on the ground, this planned attack will not just threaten the lives of the hundreds of thousands of civilians living in Hodeidah, but turn the humanitarian crisis facing the rest of Yemen into a full-blown humanitarian disaster. Why is this happening? After all, we are used to hearing the mantra in these debates that “There is no military solution to the conflict in Yemen.” However, let us be clear what that actually means. What it means is that we take it on trust that the Saudis and the Emiratis have the good sense and humanity to understand that any conceivable military solution would cause such catastrophic loss of life that both politically and morally it would be impossible to pursue. But that, I am afraid, is exactly what we now face in Hodeidah.

Trusting to the good sense and humanity of the UAE and the Saudis is therefore clearly no longer a viable option, so may I ask the Minister today whether, at the emergency session of the Security Council due to take place in a matter of minutes, the UK will take action and table an immediate resolution demanding that the UAE stop this assault on Hodeidah before it is too late, and will he immediately suspend the sale of arms for use in this conflict?

[Alistair Burt]

The United Kingdom will continue to do what it has done for a lengthy period, which is to seek to discourage any attack on Hodeidah or on the port. The Foreign Secretary has been engaged in this over the weekend, we will continue to be so and that same case will be made through the United Nations.

In relation to arms sales and the like, I remind the House again that this is covered by international humanitarian law. Any suggestion of breaches of that will be subject to the law, as always, and the UK will continue to consider any possible risk of that in any future arms sales.

Turkey

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) on securing this debate, together with her co-sponsors. As she said, it has been six years since we debated Turkey in the Chamber, although it is only 15 months since the Westminster Hall debate, in which I was also privileged to speak. I recall my right hon. Friend saying in that debate that it was time that we had a debate in the Chamber; here we are, 15 months later, and sadly things in Turkey have got considerably worse.

My right hon. Friend said in her opening speech that she has serious concerns that the state of emergency will prevent the elections in Turkey on 24 June from being free and fair, and that theme was echoed by many other right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate. She said that this debate was the opportunity for the British Government to ensure that Turkey keeps to its international human rights obligations and that our Government cannot turn a blind eye to human rights violations, in spite of the fact that Turkey is such a valuable trade partner.

My right hon. Friend quoted the OSCE saying that the constitutional referendum in April 2017

“took place on an unlevel playing field”.

Many of us similarly felt that it was not a fair referendum, yet still the changes only just squeezed through with 51% of the vote—even tighter than our own Brexit referendum. She asked whether the Turkish Government will sustain a genuine democracy, and that has been the theme this afternoon. Of course, she also condemned the use of torture since the July 2016 coup attempt, as we all do.

My right hon. Friend said something else: she asked for a stronger reaction from her own Front Benchers, so let me take this opportunity to assure her and the House that the Opposition condemn utterly the human rights violations, the use of torture, the rolling back of human rights, the arrest of journalists, the increasingly authoritarian regime of the Turkish Government and President Erdoğan’s AK party, and, of course, the horrific violence and military action in Afrin, allegedly against Turkish PKK brigades and militia, who have now joined the YPG in Syria. The action in Afrin was not only a gross violation of the lives of those Kurds who had sought refuge in Syria but the violation of another state’s territory. We utterly and wholeheartedly condemn that, and have done since the Turkish army took that action.

We also heard a very good speech from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) who talked about the authoritarian crackdown by President Erdoğan and the AK party. He said that the AK party and President Erdoğan were determined to remain in office under the new constitution past that centenary that he mentioned of the modern Turkish republic being established in 1923, and, from the evidence that we have seen, there is no doubt that that is exactly what President Erdoğan wishes to do.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned something else that is very important and close to my heart and the hearts of all Members present in the Chamber today: the increasingly anti-Semitic rhetoric that we hear from President Erdoğan and his Government. It is all the more tragic given the sanctuary that Turkey and the Ottoman empire offered to the Jews escaping persecution in other parts of Europe, down the centuries, including to my own ancestors who left Spain in 1492. That old trope of blaming Jews worldwide for the devaluation of the lira, for currency fluctuations and for financial issues is something of which we have heard far too much. It is a tragedy that that country that we have come to admire over the years is going down that path.

We then heard an amazing, knowledgeable, experienced and excellent contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—my colleague and friend—who talked about the treatment of Turkish MPs who had been jailed. Over the years, she has been associated with many friends and activists in Turkey. Importantly, something she said was echoed by many Members this afternoon, which is that, as a true friend of Turkey—I believe that we are all true friends of Turkey in this Chamber this afternoon and that our country is a true friend of Turkey—we have to hope that the criticisms that we make are heard in good faith, because we want Turkey to be back on the path of democracy and the liberal values that we so treasure in this country. Many Members said that the UK Government should challenge Turkey in public, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that. They said that Turkey, once a beacon of democracy and freedom, is now a great cause for concern.

My right hon. Friend also said that we should now cease arms sales to Turkey until the authoritarian regime returns to some kind of democratic values. I am talking about those who have been arrested and imprisoned for simply speaking their mind, not for plotting to overthrow the Government of Turkey, and about the widespread use of torture and the arrest of journalists. Turkey now arrests and imprisons more journalists than anywhere else in the world per head of the population, including countries such as China and other authoritarian regimes. That is a disgrace. We want to see that practice reversed.

The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) said that it was difficult to have a debate on Turkey without mentioning the Council of Europe. He talked about the important role played by the Council of Europe. He said that 2,000 organisations and NGOs have been permanently closed by the Government since the coup attempt.

We then heard from my friend—I hope he does not mind me calling him that—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who was one of the backers of the motion. He said that it was a timely debate given the elections on 24 June. He is well known as the chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. He talked about the crackdown on freedom of speech and human rights since the coup, expressing his concerns that our counterparts in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey can no longer express their views freely as we can in this House. Had we been Turkish, we could well have been arrested for expressing our views today.

Following the coup attempt of July 2016, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Foreign Secretary said:

“Turkey is of pivotal cultural, political and strategic importance to the world, straddling as it does the east-west divide with borders to eight countries. It is a vital NATO ally and has important minorities, particularly Kurds and Armenians, as its citizens. Half a million people of Turkish or Kurdish descent live in the UK and they are desperately worried about their families. With 2 million British visitors a year, Turkey is greatly loved in this country, and the interests of our two countries cannot be separated.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 686.]

Things have got considerably worse in a country with which we have a very close friendship and in which we have very good alliances.

The coup of 2016 resulted in a state of emergency enacted by the Parliament that was expected only to be temporary, yet it has been extended almost indefinitely. It allows, as we know, for rule by decree and the temporary suspension of so many rights in Turkey. The authorities have used it to target suspected political rivals and to reduce the space for civil society. As a consequence—we have heard about this today—checks and balances on human rights have shrunk, and Turkey is pushed further away from a system in which the rule of law is guaranteed. On 18 January 2017, just as Donald Trump was taking office in the United States, The Guardian said that Turkey was

“fast degenerating into outright dictatorship, emboldened by the imminent ascent of Donald Trump”—

a rise that has of course now happened.

Turkey under President Erdoğan is part of a new generation of authoritarian populists who seek to overturn the concept of human rights protections. The irony is that before President Erdoğan and his party democratically won power, they were themselves victims of human rights abuses under the old regime before 2002. In fact, Erdoğan was imprisoned in 1999 for reciting a religious poem. The fiercely secular constitution and the then elite consistently attempted to undermine even mildly Islamist political forces in the country.

The UK Government consistently state that they work closely with Turkey—as I hope they do—and underline the importance of the rule of law and the protection of freedom of expression. It is a statement that the Government make frequently when confronted with the issue of human rights and the current political situation in Turkey, but this seems to be having no effect. I urge the Minister to do more, speak louder, and I hope upon hope that the Turkish Government will listen.

The Turkish Government blamed the coup on followers of the exiled Turkish Islamic cleric Fethullah Gülen and imposed the state of emergency, which suspends many of the normal functions of the constitution and derogates many provisions of the European convention on human rights. Since the coup, nearly 160,000 people have been arrested and 152,000 civil servants dismissed—many, as we have heard, totally arbitrarily.

Let me conclude with a few words about the situation for women in Turkey. There is no doubt that Turkish journalists are being arrested and held in prison in a way that we have never seen before, but the situation for women’s rights is also going into reverse. Erdoğan has publicly stated that he does not believe in gender equality. He calls abortion murder and birth control treason. The AKP has been accused by critics of seeking to erode the country’s secular principles to limit the civil liberties of women. In 2013, the World Economic Forum ranked Turkey 120 out of 136 nations for gender gaps in education, politics, health and economics.

This has been a timely debate. I hope that, as a close friend of Turkey, we will emphasise how important Turkey is to the rest of Europe, the region and the world and that we can see a reversal of this appalling slide into authoritarianism.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir David, as well as that of Sir Henry, who has now left the Chamber. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing the debate and on introducing it so passionately and clearly. She made it clear that the situation for 1.8 million Gazans is inhumane, and one cannot but agree. She also pointed out our Government’s weak response to the bloodshed on the Gaza border. I know the Minister will address those points in his response. My hon. Friend said that Israel has the right to defend itself, and that the role of Hamas has not helped the situation, although the UK Government’s abstention on the Human Rights Council resolution was, in her words, “disgraceful”.

My hon. Friend drew our attention to the fact that the Israeli ambassador, Mark Regev, described the Israeli response last week as “surgical”, which is appalling, especially coming from a man who is so well respected in the diplomatic community. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) intervened to reaffirm his commitment to a two-state solution as the only way forward to peace, and he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, to affirm hers, which she duly did, of course.

The only Conservative Member present, the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is not in his place right now, said that the two-state solution might be becoming increasingly difficult to achieve, and asked whether it would be possible to accept a one-state solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, said no, and that a two-two state solution was the only way forward for peace, which is what the Labour party completely supports.

We had a further intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who pointed out the mental health crisis in Gaza as well as the physical health crisis. We often forget that mental illness can be as debilitating as physical illness or injury if not more so. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked about the illegal blockade of goods going into Gaza. There is no doubt that there is a massive crisis in healthcare on the Gaza strip, with no supplies of basic dressings or medication, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, pointed out. There are serious water shortages, increasing pollution of that water, and diminishing water tables. My hon. Friend said that action by the United Kingdom and the international community would help to diminish the ability of Hamas to recruit, and she is absolutely correct.

We next heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), whose record on standing up for the rights of Palestinians is as exemplary as it is long. I have known him for more than 40 years, and even as a student he was a champion of the rights and cause of Palestine. I remember clearly the poster on his student room wall: a reproduction of an airmail letter that said “Palestine: return to sender—no such address.” He asked for the UK Government’s view of the United Nations Human Rights Council decision, now that the commission of inquiry has been set up. My hon. Friend also talked about B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation, which I am also familiar with, and which has serious concerns about Israel conducting its own inquiry and about how independent that will be. He questioned the use of UK-supplied equipment against protesters, but was encouraged by the Government’s response to questions about humanitarian relief in Gaza. I know that the Minister will deal with his questions.

I thought that the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) was positive, because although she talked about the toxic cocktail of hopelessness and despair in Gaza, which must be tackled, she put forward some of the ideas that are being discussed in Israel, and mentioned the Labour leader, Avi Gabbay, whom I had the pleasure of meeting when the shadow Foreign Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—and I were in Israel and the occupied territories six months ago. Avi Gabbay has suggested economic aid from Israel and its Arab neighbours, which could be extremely positive but is of course being thwarted by the appalling Government of Binyamin Netanyahu. The idea of a sea port is such an obvious one. It could solve not just the economic problems of Gaza but the security issues. Why can that not be created, if not by Israel then by her Arab neighbours and the international community, supported by the United Kingdom?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North also said that of course Palestinian Authority control of Gaza must be reinstated. One can only agree with that sentiment; it would be good—although, of course, as other hon. Members have pointed out, Hamas was actually elected in the last elections to be held, which were more than 10 years ago. My hon. Friend also commended Egypt for its efforts. She said that the root of Gaza’s problems lies in the brutal rule of Hamas there, and there is no doubt about that.

My hon. Friend mentioned the kibbutz of Nir Oz, which I had the privilege of visiting in November with the shadow Foreign Secretary. I was struck not only by its nearness to Khan Yunis across the Gaza strip—you could see it from the kibbutz—but by the stories that we were told about mortar bomb attacks and shelling from Gaza, and the lack of anger from Nir Oz residents. Of course they were upset and did not want to live under gunfire and shelling—and people in a nearby kibbutz had been killed by shelling. However, one resident told me he could understand the anger and frustration of Gazans, and why they were so angry that they wanted to attack anyone in Israel. He said something had to be done to relieve the appalling plight of those living in Gaza, and to allow them to live as the residents of Nir Oz could live. That was extraordinary, because there was no anger, or desire to kill Gazans or react to the shelling or violence. There was simply a view that it would be possible to live in peace if the circumstances were right and the Government did something more positive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) has left his place, but he has a strong record of standing up for the cause of the Palestinian people. He talked about the Gaza blockade having begun long before Hamas gained power in the Gaza strip, and said Gaza was a vast open prison, hermetically sealed by Egypt and Israel. He said that there had not been a single rocket fired from Gaza in the past two months—but of course that rather covers up the fact that there have been many rockets in the past 10 years.

It was 10 years ago, in fact, that I had the privilege of visiting Gaza, when it was still possible for parliamentarians to go there, and I was struck by the appalling damage that Operation Cast Lead had done—supposedly striking individual buildings without damaging hospitals, although that was actually far from the case. We saw damage to residential blocks and two medical facilities, and the way in which food aid has to be handed out in an area that is very fertile. If they were allowed to, people there could grow their own food quite easily. That was being stopped by the political situation. We also saw damage to the British war cemetery, which is carefully managed by Gazans and kept as it should be. My hon. Friend condemned, as we all do, the use of live ammunition, which should be a last resort but of course was used to pick off demonstrators, whether they were attacking the fence or running away from it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) is another colleague and friend who has always stood up for peace and the rights of the Palestinian people. He mentioned the concern of his constituents, from whom he has had 800 messages since Monday. I have had a few, but not quite that many. He quoted Human Rights Watch’s description of Israel’s response as “disproportionate and illegal”—a theme echoed by almost every speaker this afternoon. He also mentioned the culpability of Hamas. Human Rights Watch has said that it has certainly supported protests, and that criticism of Hamas can be met with arrest and torture. My hon. Friend mentioned high unemployment, which must be a contributory factor in people’s anger and frustration, living in that prison. He also mentioned the plummeting water quality.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made a passionate, emotional and extremely articulate speech. She always speaks very well. She said that Monday 14 May was a dark day in Jerusalem, with the US embassy opening to great celebration and fanfare, while 60 protesters had died from live fire in Gaza an hour down the coast. She condemned Hamas and the waving of swastikas, the spreading of lies, and the manipulation of protestors, but she noted that the response of the Israeli Government was disproportionate—that word again. She quoted an Israeli commentator saying that Gaza is a war zone and shooting to kill is justifiable in the circumstances. That is shocking and appalling.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was with me and the shadow Foreign Secretary in November in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He has long been a champion of the cause of the Palestinian people. He spoke of the devastation caused by Israel during three wars in Gaza, in which more than 5,000 people died, mostly civilians and children. We have seen clearly on the news the death, destruction, injuries and terrible bloodshed caused by the Israel Defence Forces shooting directly at protestors on the grounds that they were terrorists, and were all Hamas members. If we do not believe most of Hamas’s propaganda, why do we believe the statement that virtually all the protesters killed were Hamas members? I do not believe a word of that, either, frankly.

The majority of injuries in recent unrest were caused by live fire, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary pointed out in column 139 of Hansard when asking an urgent question on 15 May, those live fire rounds are designed to destroy every organ of the human body, or of any organism or creature that might have the misfortune to be hit by one of those bullets. Why do the IDF use such lethal rounds, when clearly non-lethal crowd-control means could have been used at the Gaza border to repel those trying to break the fence?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith pointed out the deliberate targeting of 38 ambulances, which were damaged by the IDF. Medical relief facilities were also deliberately targeted. I saw that for myself when I was there 10 years ago with other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend talked about recognition of the state of Palestine, as did many other hon. Members. That is Labour party policy; if elected, Labour will recognise the state of Palestine immediately. I wish that the Israeli Government would do the same. It would go a long way towards a two-state peaceful solution in the region. My question to the Minister is why the Government do not recognise Palestine right now. If not now, when?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said something else very important. This debate is often polarised; people on either side are unable to see both sides at the same time, even if they have a very strong view of violence, bloodshed, cruelty and the appalling way in which people treat each other. He said something important: “There is so much to admire about the state of Israel”—I repeat, “so much to admire”. I passionately agree with that. I wanted to repeat it because he is rightly known for championing the cause of the Palestinian people, but he says something like that about Israel. He also said that Gaza is a stain on Israel, and I cannot but agree with that, too.

Finally, we heard from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I have heard him speak twice in 24 hours—yesterday it was on the subject of Qatar and UK relations with it. He always speaks with great clarity, and he is a very accomplished Member of this House. He concurred with everything that had been said this afternoon. He, too, was very concerned about the United Kingdom’s abstention last week on the issue of an inquiry by the Human Rights Council. He, too, said something important, which was that, as we all know, the United Kingdom has “a substantial voice on the world’s stage”, but it is not being heard on the violence in Gaza. What more can we do to ensure that it is?

To be clear, in such a critical but apparently intractable situation, it is more incumbent than ever on the global community, and not just the United Kingdom Government, to act to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the residents of Gaza. It is therefore too appalling for words that the Trump Administration have chosen this critical moment to halve their funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, as so many have mentioned this afternoon.

For almost 70 years, UNRWA has helped hundreds of thousands of Gaza residents and millions more Palestinians across the region with their essential humanitarian needs. Its budget last year was $760 million and, as a direct result of its work, tens of thousands of children in Gaza received schooling, and tens of thousands of their parents received healthcare that would otherwise not be available to them. Goodness knows that if it was not available, there would be nothing whatever.

This year, however, UNRWA must deal with the fact that Donald Trump has cut its funding by $65 million, because—I quote his tweet—

“we pay the Palestinians HUNDRED OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year and get no appreciation or respect”.

In January in Davos he went further, saying that the money had been cut as a direct result of the Palestinian authorities’ refusal to meet Mike Pence, and that he considered the money to be “on the table” now, as a negotiating chip to force the Palestinians to accept the mythical US peace plan. So young children in Gaza are being denied education and medicine, until the Palestinian authorities start showing Donald Trump some “appreciation or respect”. If it was not so cruel, it would be laughable.

Other countries, including most recently Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have tried to plug the gap in UNRWA’s funding, but when all they can offer are one-off contributions rather than annual additions, the funding crisis is only delayed rather than stopped. That is why we have called on the Government to take the lead on a longer-term solution, by initiating a special global funding conference, such as those held in response to humanitarian emergencies, the difference in this case being that we must not wait for the emergency to strike before acting—it has already struck and is present every single day.

My fear, however, is that the Government are unwilling to act—though I hope they are not. Why? Because their friend President Trump will say: “What are you doing? I’m punishing them, and you’re letting them off the hook. I’m trying to blackmail them into accepting my peace plan, and you’re removing my leverage.” If that is the argument, however, I respectfully say to the Minister that they should not just differ in private; the Government must have the courage to differ in public, and to tell President Trump that he is wrong.

This is no time for passivity. As we have heard throughout the debate, Gaza cannot afford to wait. There is a massive opportunity for someone to step into the global leadership gap that Donald Trump’s America has left in Palestine. I urge the British Government to listen to what they have heard today, and urgently fill that gap.

UK Relations with Qatar

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I thank all those who have contributed this afternoon, and as ever it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Henry. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) on securing the debate—it is timely for us to discuss Britain’s relations with Qatar. He said that he visited Qatar for the second time in February and met the Emir. He also passed on thanks to the excellent ambassador in London, Yousef Ali Al-Khater. I have met him on several occasions in my role, and I agree that he is one of the finest ambassadors at the Court of St. James’s. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned one of the people who works there—a British national called Ibrahim Pasha, who I believe is of Turkish-Cypriot origin. He does a very good job working for the embassy and linking and liaising with British parliamentarians, and I echo those thanks.

The hon. Gentleman gave us a brief history of the blockade of Qatar. I will not go into that further this afternoon, because we have already heard quite a lot about it. He mentioned the 13 demands and the fact that Kuwait is acting as an intermediary. He talked about labour reforms, human rights reforms, the defence relationship, and of course the cultural and sporting relationship. He said that our links with Qatar are wide-ranging and historic, and I certainly agree.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), with his great experience and his position as chair of the all-party parliamentary British-Qatar group, made an important contribution to the debate. He mentioned that he had led delegate visits to Qatar and pointed out that there was never any restriction on members of that delegation talking to workers or to people outside Government supervision, and that nobody told them who they could and could not talk to. He was encouraged by changes in Qatari law, but he also quoted the Financial Times as saying that the continuing blockade of Qatar makes no sense at all. The Opposition certainly concur with that.

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely agree that the continuing blockade of Qatar makes no sense. One problem with it is that it may well push the Qataris toward the Iranians, which is exactly what Saudi Arabia and others would not want.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that contribution. That danger is always there, but from what I have seen myself and from speaking to people from Qatar—people within the Foreign Ministry and visiting dignitaries here in London—I have the impression that the Qataris want to become a beacon of openness and liberalism in the region, rather than falling into the hands of one of the larger regional superpowers. I hope that that will continue and that they will press ahead with that. I will say a little more about that in the time I have remaining, but I want to leave time for the Minister.

The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) talked of his affinity for small nations punching above their weight as a Welsh Member of Parliament and a former Secretary of State for Wales, and I agree that that is important in international relations. He mentioned the huge investment in the South Hook LNG terminal in Milford Haven, where the first tanker came in on 20 March 2009, and how important that has been as an investment in his constituency and his part of Wales. He also mentioned the direct flights from Doha to Cardiff; I urge Qatar Airways to open direct flights to Leeds Bradford airport as well, which I believe is even smaller than Cardiff airport.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned charitable donations, a very important issue for Qataris. I have met officials from the Qatar Charity and I was impressed at the way they collect charitable donations and ensure that, as part of their faith, they distribute those donations wisely, sensibly and for the best possible use of those less fortunate than they are. That is a duty that all Muslims, Christians and those of other main faiths share, but the charity carries it out with great aplomb.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about strong defence ties and said that things are not always black and white—we know that, but we always need to be reminded of it. The relationship with Qatar should, of course, be mutually beneficial. He mentioned another important player in Britain’s relations with Qatar, our excellent ambassador Ajay Sharma, whom I have met and with whom I was extremely impressed. The hon. Gentleman also said that we should use UK influence to help to improve workers’ rights, and I believe that is something we have indeed been doing.

Qatar, as we know, has a population of 2.6 million, of whom only 313,000, or approximately 12%, are official Qatari citizens. Qatar is a former British protectorate; the UK has had an embassy in the emirate since 1949, and Qatar has had an embassy in London since 1970. We have heard a lot this afternoon about the emirate getting ready to host the 2022 World cup. Qatar is allegedly spending up to $500 million a week on World cup-related infrastructure projects.

The UK Government have consistently highlighted the fact that their close links with Qatar allow them to speak candidly with the emirate, in a friendly manner, on issues relating to human rights, migrant labour issues and so on. The Government see their close ties as a means to promote regional stability in a well-known unstable region. Since the blockade of Qatar by its neighbours, the UK has been a firm supporter of the Kuwaiti mediation process that is attempting to end the crisis. We in the Opposition totally support that policy and the work the Kuwaitis are trying to do.

The Emir, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, has continued his father’s desire to make Qatar an internationally open state. Qatar likes to profess that it is a state that does not take sides and is open to dialogue with anyone. It has maintained relations with Washington, but has also managed to build bridges with Iran, develop ties with Hamas and Hezbollah—not something we would necessarily approve of—and backed rebel groups in Syria and Libya. It also provided troops to help quell unrest in Bahrain before the blockade. Qatar opened trade relations with Israel in 1996 and maintains close ties with that country, as was alluded to earlier. That makes Qatar a possible candidate to be a negotiator for peace between the Palestinian people and the Israelis.

In 2016 the United Kingdom exported £3 billion of goods and services to Qatar, which represented 0.6% of all British exports in that year, and imported £2.2 billion from it. According to the House of Commons Library, Qatar was the UK’s 32nd largest export market and 42nd largest source of imports in 2016. We have heard a bit about the Qatar Investment Authority, which is one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds and has invested hugely in the United Kingdom. It owns 879 commercial and residential properties in London, including the Canary Wharf Group, Chelsea Barracks, the Shard, the HSBC tower and Harrods. The QIA also has a stake in the Savoy hotel, while another unit of the QIA, Qatar Holdings, owns Claridge’s, the Berkeley and the Connaught, with an additional stake in the InterContinental London Park Lane. Qatari authorities also own over 20% of Sainsbury’s—I wonder what they think about the proposed merger with Asda—and 20% of London Heathrow airport, and have a 20% stake in International Airlines Group, the parent company of British Airways.

I know the Minister has a lot to say, so I will conclude by mentioning labour issues. As we have heard, Qatar was home to 1.7 million migrant workers in 2015, accounting for more than 90% of the country’s workforce. Some 40% of those workers are employed in the construction sector alone. The majority of migrant workers, mainly from south Asia, live in labour camps where thousands of them are forced to live in abject squalor in overcrowded and insanitary accommodation. The Daily Mail—not a paper I am normally apt to quote from—highlighted in 2015 the lack of a minimum wage, with workers such as carpenters paid as little as 56p per hour. I am not sure it took the same view when we were looking at the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, but none the less I am glad it highlighted this matter.

Examples of abuses include contractors withholding workers’ passports and personal documents so they cannot leave the country. Workers need permission from their employer to leave. They are housed in unsanitary camps, sleeping in small dormitory rooms, sometimes with more than 20 people to a room. Many workers are paid less than £1 an hour. The reforms implemented by Qatar are significant in the region, because Qatar would be almost unique in aligning its laws and practices with international labour standards. The International Labour Organisation has recognised that the reforms being carried out amount to quite a lot and would put right the past abuse of migrant labour.

Finally, we know that the effect of the blockade has been to liberalise the constitution—the opposite of what was intended. There is an improvement in the role of women, a reform of the education system is taking place and there is now discussion of citizens’ rights for non-Qataris, so that many of those who have lived in the country for more than 30 years will be able to become citizens even if they are not Qatari-born. The increasingly popular young Emir, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, has been Emir for nearly five years, since 25 June 2013. He was born after I got married; his birth date was 3 June 1980, so he will be 38 next month. He has become increasingly popular, not unpopular, as a result of the blockade.

We in the Opposition also call on all the states that have implemented the blockade to lift it, and we hope, as other hon. Members have said this afternoon, that progress toward liberalisation and openness will continue beyond 2022, as it must.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

Before calling the Minister, I just remind him, although I am sure he does not need to be reminded, that the proposer of the debate would like to have two minutes at the end to wind up.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We publish our advice on travel to Iran on our website—it is public—and the issue of dual nationals is specifically mentioned.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. It is deeply regrettable that we need to be standing here again asking an urgent question on the plight of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It was only in November last year that the shadow Foreign Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—tabled an urgent question on the case of Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe, yet sadly here we are once more.

This week’s events only further highlight the pressing need for urgent action to end the arbitrary and illegal detention without due process of a British citizen who has been incarcerated in Tehran’s Evin prison since April 2016. The Iranian judiciary has now brought a second false charge against Nazanin and has denied her access to a lawyer. However, even to this day, the Government have yet formally to call for her release. They have stated that they have raised the concerns of Nazanin’s family with the Iranian Government, but have not formally called for her release. Is that not the lowest possible expectation a British citizen can have of their Government, and should not the Minister call for her release today?

However, it is good to hear that for the first time since her arrest, Nazanin was allowed direct contact with the UK embassy in Tehran. What is the Minister’s assessment of this development? Does he believe that it signals that the Iranian regime is finally starting to treat Nazanin as a British citizen? What action has the British embassy in Iran taken to ensure that Nazanin is able to access the legal support, including access to a lawyer, to which she is entitled during any further hearings?

The Foreign Secretary has repeatedly mentioned that he has spoken to his counterpart, Foreign Minister Zarif, about these issues, but he will know as much as anyone that Nazanin’s fate ultimately lies with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Will the Minister of State today explain what pressure has been placed on the IRGC to ensure Nazanin’s release? Has the Foreign Secretary actually made any efforts to meet those elements in the regime who are really responsible for Nazanin’s detention in order to call for her release?

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, but I am unable and unwilling to answer many of them—in the circumstances I outlined earlier, it would not be appropriate—and I know he would not press me to deal with the detail of the negotiations and their handling between us and the Iranian Government in such a sensitive case. I can well understand the reasons for the questions, which were all perfectly fair, as were those of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), but their position is different from mine in terms of dealing with the answers.

Like everyone, I share the sense of regret that we still have to discuss this in the way we do—even though we are limited in how we can talk about it—but I can only repeat the assurances I gave a moment ago: at the highest levels here in the UK, with the Prime Minister’s call to President Rouhani and the Foreign Secretary’s intervention, and through our ambassador’s interventions, we continue to call for access and the temporary furlough. We are doing all we can in our belief that this is the right way to handle this delicate situation. I do not think it would be appropriate or helpful, however, to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

There is no indication yet of any change in the attitude of the Iranian authorities towards Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s status, and we are having to work with what we have, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no conversation goes by at any senior level in which these issues are not raised. Our consular team handle this very carefully, and representations will continue to be made, but as I indicated, to deal with every single part of this would not be the appropriate way to help Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is completely right to raise the disgraceful behaviour of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the missiles that are fired from Syria at Israel and elsewhere. The JCPOA was not designed to constrain that activity; it was specifically designed to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon and it has succeeded in that effort so far. That is why we propose to keep the core of that deal alive, but to work with our friends and partners to constrain the malign activity that my right hon. Friend describes.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Last July, at a conference of the Iranian resistance movement in Paris attended by a number of Conservative Members, John Bolton announced that the Iranian regime is

“not going to change…the only solution is to change the regime…And that’s why, before 2019, we…will celebrate in Tehran!”

Now that Mr Bolton is President Trump’s national security adviser, does the Foreign Secretary believe that regime change is still his objective?

[Boris Johnson]

I have a very high regard for John Bolton and his intelligence and vision, but I have to say that I do not believe that regime change in Tehran is the objective that we should be seeking. I must be very clear with the hon. Gentleman that I think that we might conceivably achieve regime change at some stage in the near future, but I cannot with any confidence say that that would be a change for the better, because it seems equally plausible to me to imagine that Qasem Soleimani of the IRGC could put himself in a very good position to take over from Ayatollah Khamenei, for instance.

Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing this debate. I also thank every Member who has contributed with such knowledge and such sympathy for the victims of IRA bombings, especially those bombings that were supplied by explosives from Libya. This afternoon, we have heard many tragic and moving cases of victims who have still received no compensation, while they look around them and see other countries that have managed to obtain compensation for the victims of terror instigated by the Libyan regime under Colonel Gaddafi.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury called on the Government to compensate victims now. He referred to similar cases and the role of the Libyan Government in the IRA terror campaign and quoted the comments of the former Labour Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, on Libyan-sponsored terror. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said quite clearly and accurately that this is not a party political issue, but it is one of justice. She told the House of a harrowing case. Victims were told that this was a private matter, but she does not believe that and nor should we.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) drew our attention to a 22-year-old woman police officer who was killed in the 1983 bombing of Harrods. A United States citizen was eventually compensated by Libya for that same outrage. The hon. Gentleman wants similar legislation to that which has now been passed by Congress in the United States—the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about that.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who has been a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee since 2004. He said that we must never forget the victims over so many years who are still suffering today. That was generally the theme of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), if I may call him that, said that it was time for this matter to be debated on the Floor of the House and at last we were debating it. He also said that British citizens had been failed by their own Government. As always, his words were strong and very clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) hoped that the Minister would be the champion of the campaign for compensation for these victims. He spoke about the IRA terror attack in his constituency in February 1996 and the effect that that had on victims. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that not just explosives were supplied by Libya. He told us the story of the 80 tonnes of weapons on the Swedish ship, the Villa, including SAM missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. Of course, he should know better than anybody exactly how that happened.

Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who stands shoulder to shoulder with the innocent victims of terror and was appalled by the different treatment of victims on UK soil, with foreign victims treated somewhat better than domestic victims.

This debate is connected to a private Member’s Bill submitted in the other place by Lord Empey. According to Lord Empey, since the lifting of sanctions against Libya in 2004, there has been a series of missed opportunities to sort out this issue of compensation once and for all. The use of weapons supplied by the Libyan Government exacerbated the violence in Northern Ireland. However, the Government—not just this Government but previous Governments—have rejected many calls from several quarters, from cross-party groups to civil society organisations, to press the legitimate Government of Libya, if we can find out who they are, to compensate the victims.

There is no doubt that the Gaddafi Government sponsored terrorism in Northern Ireland—we have heard many examples this afternoon—and in other parts of the world. From 2004, the Libyan Government have been active in processes to compensate victims of terrorism in the United Kingdom by third parties that it sponsored, such as the IRA. However, since 2011, Libya has descended into civil war, which considerably complicates matters of trying to obtain compensation. The United Kingdom Government have made it clear that compensation for these victims of terrorism should be pursued through civil proceedings. That contrasts with the Governments of the United States, Germany and France, who have intervened forcefully and directly to try to obtain compensation for victims of direct Libyan terror. The problem is that Libya is in the throes of a civil war involving competing authorities. Right now, there does not seem to be an end to that conflict, nor a clear picture of who the legitimate authorities are.

In the 1970s and ’80s, at the height of the troubles, Libya supplied the IRA with vast quantities of weapons. Many Members, especially the hon. Member for Beckenham, have talked about how much was supplied. I understand that the amount of arms was at least 1,000 rifles, with appropriate ammunition, and at least 10 tonnes of Semtex, plus all the other destructive weapons that have claimed so many lives.

[Bob Stewart]

I intervene briefly just to remind the House that many people were killed not by explosives but through the use of the other weapons that Libya provided, and we will never be able to ascertain exactly who they were, either.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—the hon. and gallant Gentleman—for that important contribution.

Over 3,500 people died in the troubles over many decades. To quote the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report of 2017:

“There is no doubt that the weapons, funding, training, and explosives that Colonel Gaddafi provided to the Provisional IRA over the course of 25 years both extended and exacerbated the Northern Ireland Troubles, and caused enormous human suffering.”

I want to read two further quotes. One is from the Minister, who said:

“There is no lawful basis on which the UK could seize or change the ownership of any Libyan assets. The UN Security Council resolution under which those assets were frozen, which the UK supported, is clear that they should eventually be returned for the benefit of the Libyan people. To breach that resolution would be a violation of international law.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 256WH.]

The second is from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, the former Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, who said:

“The UK Government cannot allow this litany of missed chances to continue. There needs to be direct dialogue with the Libyan Government, and if the situation there makes this impossible, the Government must begin the process of establishing a fund themselves.”

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments. I want to make it clear that Labour Members—like, I am sure, Members on both sides of the House—have nothing but sympathy and support for every single victim of IRA terrorism, especially when much of that bloodshed was assisted by Gaddafi’s Libyan regime.

In conclusion, I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, is there incontrovertible evidence of the supply of up to 10 tonnes of Semtex and more than 1,000 rifles by the Gaddafi regime to the IRA? Secondly, have the Government compiled a list of victims of the IRA and their families who the Government have evidence were victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism—in other words, where there is a connection between the two? Thirdly, has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spoken to whoever is currently recognised as the legitimate Government of Libya about the possibility of providing any compensation for the supply of explosives and arms to the IRA by the Gaddafi regime?

Fourthly, has the Minister had any contact with countries that have negotiated compensation deals with Libya on behalf of their citizens who are the victims of terrorism directly or indirectly perpetrated by Libya? Fifthly, is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office providing every possible assistance to the families affected by Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism? Is there any more the FCO can do to help and support those families and victims, such as the provision of translation services or access to any evidence of the connection between the IRA and the then Libyan regime? Finally, can the Minister comment on what the hon. Member for South Suffolk said about the US victim of the 1983 Harrods bombing being compensated while his constituent is still waiting?