Gaza

Michael McCann Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, in particular because you are one of the few Members of the House who can properly pronounce my constituency’s name; I will say it now as a hint for any Members who wish to refer to it during the debate—East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow.

I am pleased to be having this important debate today. I was motivated to secure it by the Westminster Hall debate of 1 December 2014, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), on the subject of ending the conflict in Palestine. I re-read the Hansard report of that debate recently and was struck by how much common ground there was between the Members who contributed. I spoke in it, championing my belief that the two-state solution is the only way forward. It also struck me that that debate could be a foundation to build upon; that is what I want to try to do today.

I recognise that there are still significant problems. From my perspective, our problem in the UK Parliament is that far too many Members cannot separate the troubled history of that part of the world from the objective of a two-state solution; as a result, far too often, debates in this place become mired in a grisly, macabre and desperate pit, relying on the body count in the most recent conflict or on a selective part of history so as to condemn one side over the other. Whether the contribution of a fractured and weak Palestinian leadership or the lurch to the right in Israeli politics, both sides often fail to recognise properly their own weaknesses. In particular, when violence breaks out the rush in this place to condemn Israel is matched by a pedestrian-paced admonishment of the Hamas violence that has started that same trouble.

Although the debate on 1 December marked, for the most part, a coming together of minds on many issues, every proposal made was negative. It was an oxymoron of a debate: a positive start conjoined to a negative finish. The conclusion was that there should be boycotts and sanctions. But they will not solve the problems of Palestine and Israel; rather, they will pour diesel on an already blazing fire, and create more resentment and more obstacles to peace. The aim of this debate is to create an environment for peace, to recognise the plight of the people of Gaza and to identify how we can overcome the barriers and create a more successful outcome for everyone. I will also set out the very real threat that Gaza faces from within, and the internal struggles that beset the Palestinian leadership.

In the interests of transparency, I place on the record the fact that I am one of the vice-chairs of Labour Friends of Israel. I am also an unequivocal supporter of a two-state solution for two peoples, with Israel safe, secure and recognised within its borders and living alongside a democratic, independent Palestinian state. I will be clear from the outset that last summer’s war was a disaster and tragedy for the people of Gaza and the people of Israel. Six months on from the end of Operation Protective Edge, this debate presents a timely opportunity to discuss ways in which Britain can contribute to halting the recurring spiral of violence in Gaza.

At home and in this House the war caused both anger and division, but surely we should now be able to unite around one goal and single objective—to ensure that the death, destruction and suffering experienced by both peoples are not repeated. Let me be absolutely clear: the people of Gaza did not cause or start the war, nor did the people of Israel. The responsibility for it and for the destruction that followed rests squarely with Hamas, and has done so on each of the three occasions in the past six years when Hamas has launched indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians from residential areas of Gaza.

The question today is what can be done to break the vicious cycle of violence, against a backdrop of Hamas’s ongoing efforts not to support the people of Gaza but to continue its war against Israel. Although Arab nations and international donors have pledged the enormous sum of $5.4 billion for investment in Gaza, not one thin dime has been spent, because Fatah and Hamas cannot agree on payments to Hamas’s civil servants and cannot decide who will control the Rafah crossing—those are the priorities in those discussions. Instead of taking the opportunity to invest resources in its people, Hamas is investing in rearming. Now, ominously, it has almost regained its full military capability. I will put on the record that Hamas is preparing for further attacks on Israel as this debate takes place.

That point leads me to my first positive contribution on the way forward to peace. The international community needs to put an end to the threat posed by Hamas and other terrorist groups by halting rearmament and urgently pursuing disarmament in the Gaza strip. Secondly, the lives of the Palestinians living in Gaza must be improved, not simply through reconstruction but through concrete steps to lift the restrictions on the movement of people and goods, imposed not only by Israel but by Egypt, that stifle Gaza’s economic development and future prosperity.

Let me be unequivocal: the second of those objectives has to be utterly dependent on the first. The reality of Hamas’s perpetuating of conflict and laying the groundwork for another bloody war must be confronted by everyone. In December, Hamas celebrated its 27th anniversary by burning effigies of Jews and parading trucks carrying long-range rockets through the streets of Gaza. At the celebrations, Hamas’s military spokesperson, Abu Obeida, thanked Iran and Qatar for supplying the group with arms and support. A month earlier, Iranian leaders had confirmed their good relations with the Islamist group; having already done so much to hamper the cause of peace between Israel and its neighbours, Iran has pledged to redouble its malevolent efforts with these words:

“West Bank will surely be armed just like Gaza”.

That was tweeted by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

Hamas claims to be concerned about the welfare of the Palestinian people, but many of us have long known that that is a lie, as it is proving once again. As I mentioned earlier, instead of turning its efforts to rebuilding Gaza, Hamas has rebuilt its depleted arsenal of rockets and mortars. In addition, it is rebuilding its terror tunnels. It is also rebuilding its armed forces by recruiting a new so-called popular army of young men aged between 15 and 21. Last month, 17,000 teenagers spent their mid-term break at Hamas’s military camps being drilled on how to launch attacks through tunnels and how to kidnap and murder Israeli soldiers. That is Hamas’s education policy—teaching young people to kill.

Hamas also likes to tax and spend. That is the name of a policy that is sometimes the subject of debate in the UK, but Hamas’s tax and spend is slightly different. It taxes the people of Gaza so that it can spend the money on reconstructing its terrorist infrastructure. For example, in a list I saw recently, furniture imported to Gaza at a cost of 1,200 shekels faces an additional tax of 800 shekels. That is also true of many other goods that have to be imported into Gaza. Hamas says that Israel and Egypt should lift the blockade, but only two weeks ago we learned that the Israeli navy had intercepted a ship travelling from Sinai to Gaza. On board was liquid fibreglass, one of the many dual-use materials Hamas uses to build its weapons of war—in that case, booby-traps for houses with tunnels running underneath them. The reality of Hamas is clear: it does not care at all for the people of Gaza. The intentions of Hamas are also clear: it seeks to wage another bloody war against the people of Israel.

In the face of that reality and those intentions, there is only one solution: demilitarisation. The international community knows that and during last summer’s conflict, both the EU and the United States of America made it clear that demilitarisation of the Gaza strip rested at the heart of ending the violence. Moreover—this is a really important point—the Palestinian Authority support that.

The prevention of a new war requires an urgent drive towards demilitarisation of Gaza, but it needs more than that; it needs hope and opportunity for its people. There is real disappointment that despite last spring’s Palestinian reconciliation deal, the Palestinian unity Government have failed to establish control in Gaza, where Hamas operates what President Abbas calls a “shadow Government.”

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

To take the hon. Gentleman back to his comments on demilitarisation, given the Egyptian crackdown in Sinai and the recent evidence of increased smuggling of weapons into Gaza through the Mediterranean, does he think that the building of a seaport in Gaza—which we would all like to see eventually, but not in the current circumstances—would increase the likelihood of Gaza being demilitarised or increase the likelihood that weapons would be smuggled in?

[Mr McCann]

I will come on to talk about a seaport and an airport, but my proposal for a route map to peace must be premised on demilitarisation. No one will invest that type of money in Gaza when the whole thing could fall apart and be destroyed again because of Hamas’s malevolent influence.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Given my hon. Friend’s opening comments, I am looking forward to what he will say about Israel’s responsibility and contribution, because so far his speech could have been written by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tel Aviv. Is he seriously suggesting that aid should be restricted and the reconstruction of Gaza refused without demilitarisation? Does he realise that most non-governmental organisations have said that that is not an appropriate way to behave?

[Mr McCann]

As a member of the Select Committee on International Development who visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories and saw first hand the tragic circumstances that the Palestinians face, I hope that the Palestinian leadership want to take all steps necessary to improve the plight of their people. Goodness, surely that would be immeasurably improved if the people who are causing the problems and violence stopped doing that.

Demilitarisation should be a prerequisite, because as my hon. Friend knows, until that is done, there will not be a willing partner in the state of Israel to participate in talks. It strikes me—perhaps he missed the first part of my contribution—that we continually look backwards at the problem and do not look forward. In my coming words I hope to look in that forward direction and make a positive contribution to a proposal for peace.

As I mentioned, President Abbas calls Hamas a “shadow Government” and the renewed tensions between Hamas and Fatah since last autumn are ominous. When Hamas’s reconciliation agreement with Fatah was under pressure in June last year, it responded by kidnapping and murdering three Israeli teenagers, which was a precursor that provoked the war. Reconstruction and the political and security environment are inseparable issues and I cannot fathom anyone who says otherwise. I have received correspondence from charities and NGOs who work in the area and, based on my visit to the area and witnessing such events first hand, they are deluded if they think that investment can be put in without dealing with the military and security issues.

The people of Gaza have been the casualties of those failures. The lives of the Palestinians living in Gaza must be improved through reconstruction and by the lifting of restrictions on imports and exports, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said a few moments ago. The blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt restricts not only the movement of people and goods in and out of the territory, but any prospect of much needed economic development and prosperity, and any prospect of the alleviation of poverty. If poverty is the breeding ground of terror, cannot prosperity be a catalyst for peace?

While the Palestinian Authority and Hamas argue over salaries and who controls what, the Israelis have kept Gaza supplied, and while Hamas has concentrated on guns and bombs, and with access to Egypt completely closed, Israel has allowed 43,000 residents from Gaza to purchase building materials for personal use. It has also allowed students to cross the border to study and, contrary to what was said in contributions made in the 1 December debate, people have been able to travel to the al-Aqsa mosque and visit their families in Israel.

I completely recognise that there is a massive journey still to be undertaken, but for Israel and Egypt to open up Gaza crossings further and to allow the maximum amount of material in, they must be given credible guarantees about their own security, with assurances that Gaza will no longer be used as a base for terrorist activity. I will be happy to take any interventions from hon. Members who want to condemn or make that point.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I did not really want to intervene, but I must quickly challenge my hon. Friend on a number of issues. I listened to a Palestinian last night in the room adjacent who was denied access to the Gaza strip to visit his dying father, who was denied the opportunity to transfer from Gaza to a specialist hospital. Perhaps he died because of that. Is my hon. Friend seriously supporting the blockade, which predates Hamas’s control of Gaza, as a collective punishment? Surely all the United Nations agencies and charities—[Interruption.]

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. The intervention is too long.

[Mr McCann]

Thank you, Mr Hood. Unlike some people who contribute in these debates, I will give a direct answer. I believe that the blockade of Gaza is unsustainable and cannot be continued, but if I was part of the Palestinian leadership, the argument that I would be taking forward in those debates is: we must ensure that there is demilitarisation so that we have security for our own people as well as the other people who live beside us in the borders to ensure that we can get reconstruction and development and traffic in and out of Gaza to allow people to get treatment.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr McCann]

I will not take an intervention at the moment, because I am still dealing with one. In terms of the tragic circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington relayed about the individual who was prevented from getting medical treatment, I also heard such tragic stories when the International Development Committee spoke to people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but I find it difficult to understand that hon. Members would seek to refute my contention that the way forward on all of these issues is demilitarisation and taking the weapons out of Gaza.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for what needs to happen. Does he agree that the stumbling block is Hamas control in Gaza and that, unless Hamas gives up its power, we will almost certainly have the same problems in the years to come?

[Mr McCann]

Sadly, I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the future if we do not see these major impasses removed. That leads me neatly to what the international community needs from Hamas and what Hamas’s reaction has been.

[Chi Onwurah]

rose—

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr McCann]

May I make some progress? I will then be happy to give way again. Hamas—[Interruption.]

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McCann]

Hamas continues to reject the Quartet principles. It has publicly condemned any peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and it continues to reject the two-state solution. By contrast, the Palestinian unity Government have committed to the Quartet principles and they are the legitimate interlocutor in Gaza, both for the international community and for Israel. All sides must do their best to enable that Government to govern in Gaza.

[Mr Ward]

If Gaza was demilitarised, could the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the Palestinians will be treated as well there as they are in the demilitarised west bank and East Jerusalem?

[Mr McCann]

I think we could hope for even better than that. In terms of a normalisation process, we can hope for the rights of Palestinians to be restored completely and for them to live in freedom and peace alongside their neighbours, the state of Israel. I very rarely hear those words said by people who propagate the type of view that the hon. Gentleman holds—[Interruption.] Someone says, “Nonsense” from a sedentary position, but I am sick and tired of coming to debates in this House where we hear about people dying, about the blood, and about the disaster of buildings being destroyed and hospitals being destroyed. I am sick and tired of coming to debates like that. I am trying to move forward with a positive proposal for peace.

A Labour Government were responsible for proscribing Hamas’s military wing. I commend the Government for their work to ensure that it remains listed by the European Union. However, I also urge the Minister—perhaps he can address this in his contribution—to assess the increasing evidence that Hamas’s political and military wings are contrapuntally linked, and they should also be looked at in terms of their contribution to peace or war.

Britain can contribute to preventing another war in Gaza. I have set out the practical steps: first, demilitarisation and initiatives to stop Hamas’s rearmament, with additional reassurance that the British Government must also pledge that the push to secure a nuclear deal with Iran does not lessen the pressure on it to cease its destabilising policies in the region.

Secondly, Britain can show leadership at the United Nations Security Council by proposing an initiative that would impose sanctions on UN members caught attempting to transfer weapons to Hamas and other militant groups. Such a resolution would provide a clear signal that the international community is committed to preventing a return to hostilities in Gaza. However, it should also go further by providing for disarmament inspectors on the ground who would oversee the destruction of rockets, mortars and other heavy weaponry in Gaza.

Thirdly and crucially, a robust staged disarmament mechanism in return for economic development must be designed to open up Gaza and reconnect it with the world. Together, Israel, the Palestinian unity Government, the Quartet, Egypt, Jordan and the Arab League should present Hamas with a clear choice: let the disarmament inspectors into Gaza and let them do their job; and in return, the international community, Israel and the Palestinian unity Government will immediately begin the work needed to ensure Gaza’s reconstruction and future prosperity.

I remind hon. Members that that $5.4 billion investment has not been prevented by Israel or the international partners. It has been prevented because the two competing elements of the Palestinian leadership cannot agree on a way forward. Most importantly, with our place in the European Union and our seat on the Security Council, Britain can lead an international effort to stop the inevitable next step without demilitarisation, and therefore the inevitable next step and next debate in this House—perhaps led by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Easington or another hon. Member—in which we talk about another bloody war in Gaza.

I suspect people may not agree with this point, but nothing in my contribution today should divide us. If some hon. Members want to go over the history of who is right and who is wrong, count me out. If people believe that what Hamas is doing can be justified, please will they have the honesty to stand up and say so in their contributions? However, unlike the solutions—

[Chi Onwurah]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr McCann]

No, I will not, because I am coming to my peroration, and I want to ensure that other people have the opportunity to contribute as well. Unlike the solutions offered on 1 December 2014, when my hon. Friend the Member for Easington led the debate, my solutions are positive and realisable. They combine the need for the people of Israel to be secure with the needs of the Palestinians to have the rights that they are entitled to.

I finish with this challenge for those who will follow in this debate: if their motivation is a desire to seek a resolution, I welcome that, but they must also consider whether their motivation is a desire to be a proxy for the status quo.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Palestine

Michael McCann Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Another purpose of this debate is to take the momentum from that previous debate and put various points to the Minister on what we can do to move things forward, level the playing field and encourage a return to negotiations. Part of that has to involve applying further pressure to the Israeli Government, perhaps through economic sanctions and by highlighting some of the iniquities of trading with illegal settlements on the west bank.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

The danger of my hon. Friend’s contribution is that he is coming at the problem from only one direction. Does he not agree that the same pressure has to be applied to the Palestinians so that they come to the negotiating table? Ultimately, all their problems will be solved only if the two peoples start dancing together in a tango, rather than looking at the problems through the prism of one side.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The purpose of this debate is to identify some of the obstacles to moving forward to a just and equitable solution. It seems as if many of the obstacles that I and other Members have mentioned in relation to child prisoners, the demolition of Bedouin villages, settler violence and illegal settlements, are a consequence of the occupying power’s actions. We must address those obstacles and help to defuse the tensions and growing violence in the west bank—particularly in Jerusalem—before we can move forward. I hope to develop that argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Pritchard, for your chairmanship, and I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for bringing forward the motion. He already made a significant contribution to the issue with the motion he proposed a couple of weeks ago.

An insightful article in Prospect magazine recently concluded:

“As one senior British official put it: ‘This is barely anymore about who is more right or who is more to blame. The question is where this is going for Israel, as well as the Palestinians, if the years continue to pass and there simply is no deal.’”

For more than 30 years, I have been a friend of Israel; I will not stop now. Israel needs its friends today as much as ever. I have perhaps not been a friend of Palestine in quite the same way. The last four years have enabled me to address that without, I hope, losing other friends.

I open my few remarks with a plea that it is time for us to search harder for an end to the polarisation that means we are either on one side or the other. We should widen that sense of friendship and support those seriously searching for a peaceful end to this long-running tragedy, whoever’s side they are on. We need to speak out continually for all those disadvantaged every day by the fact that there is no end to the dispute. They are on all sides—they are the victims of violence from a missile or from a bloody and wicked murder; the families who grieve; and those who despair of their children and grandchildren facing the same fate, of a conflict-riddled land, seemingly for ever.

[Mr McCann]

Does the right hon. Gentleman despair, as I do, that although even today we all say that we want to go in the same direction of a two-state solution, the inevitable undercurrent of different views in this place and in the middle east prevents us from getting to that destination of peace?

[Alistair Burt]

It is hard to get away from the history. We need to know the history, but it is a burden as well as an intelligence. If this matter is to be settled, some people have to rise above the history to get through the despair. It is an appropriate time—the events of the summer have given rise to yet another spike in extremist action on either side of the divide. Those actions threaten to make life yet worse and more ominous for all, as if it could be.

What could help the process? First, we need unequivocal condemnation of violence and murder from both sides—from the President of the Palestinian Authority and from the Prime Minister of Israel. In light of the fear that the increasing numbers of sectarian murders will add yet another element to the tragedy, which culminated, for now, in the abhorrent synagogue attack, it would be a good time for them to meet. They should physically stand together and say, “No more.”

Secondly, while there can be neither equivocation on nor justification of such murders, it would be a good time for each side to examine what can be done in their name to scale back all the elements that have contributed to a rise in tension and assisted in the failure of the Kerry talks. Those elements include the Palestinian Authority taking seriously the incitement against Israelis and stopping it; unequivocal condemnation of the reaction of Hamas and others to the synagogue and other Jerusalem killings; and no new actions on international recognition and activity, to which Israeli and US reaction would be obvious and unproductive. On the Israeli side, there needs to be a swift end to the threats on the Temple Mount and the holy mosque and a restoration of the status quo there. There needs to be an end to new settlement announcements and to the thoughts of new legislation on comparative rights for Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel, which was condemned here and by many voices in Israel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

There are people in this Chamber who know far more than I do about the history of the part of the world we are debating, but I have read a few books and listened carefully to what everyone says, and I can guarantee one thing: the history of that conflicted part of the world does not mean that we can blame one side for all the ills that have taken place there over the years. There will be a lot of pain for both sides in moving towards a two-state solution, but almost everyone who has contributed to today’s debate recognises that that is what is required.

There are those who argue for a one-state solution. Let us be honest: there are those who argue for a greater Israel, but there are also those who argue for a greater Palestine. I have heard people who are in the Chamber today say, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” We know what that means, as well. A single state cannot bring peace, as it would ultimately undermine the national goals of one of the two competing national movements. Two states for two peoples is the only realistic hope.

The deadlock and the conditions that have existed for years are not the only obstacles to peace, but they guarantee that with each passing year the problem becomes more difficult to resolve, with more settlements, more refugees, more people drawn to terror, more victims, more resentment and more hate. Hon. Members should be assured that I condemn Israeli settlements in the west bank and the blockade of Gaza, and I believe the Israelis should end the occupation. The lurch to the right in Israeli politics makes that aim more difficult to achieve, but does not make it impossible.

I do not need to be prompted to say that, with the same vigour, passion and determination, I condemn Hamas, whose unrevoked 1988 charter rejects peace and promotes the killing of Jews. I condemn the use of Palestinians as cannon fodder every time Hamas decides to use innocent people as a means of achieving its political ends. I condemn the politicians who condemn terrorism publicly but then send letters of praise to the families of those who have died in the pursuit of terrorism, and I despair about the lack of political courage on the Palestinian side that prevents the final mile to peace being walked.

[Dr Offord]

Will the hon. Gentleman also condemn the accusations that the Palestinian Authority is paying salaries to convicted terrorists? [Interruption.]

[Mr McCann]

Somebody said from a sedentary position, “No, it’s not,” but actually, it is. I am a member of the International Development Committee, and the Palestinian Authority Finance Minister confirmed that to us at a meeting, at which other Members were present. He wants to stop it because he cannot afford it and wants to spend the money on doing things that are constructive, rather than on paying high-scale salaries to those who have committed the most heinous of crimes and are in prison. I condemn all those actions.

My next point is the crucial one for those who would take umbrage at me for questioning the courage of the Palestinian leadership in moving forward. Arguably, the closest we have got to peace was the 2000 Camp David summit. Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak brokered a deal that covered all of the problems: security, borders, refugees, the right of return and, most crucially, Jerusalem. Once again, it was an Israeli Labour politician, Ehud Barak, who put his head above the parapet for peace. The deal was rejected—this is widely accepted—by Yasser Arafat, and that was the precursor to the second intifada. In March this year, when I was visiting the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the IDC, we met the PLO negotiation team. After talking about the desire for peace, which I accept was absolutely sincere, I said to the PLO negotiator in private, “If the Clinton deal was put back on the table with 2014 prices, would you accept it?” Answer came there none. That is a very interesting position for someone who is supposed to desire peace.

Since 1987, there have been 410 early-day motions, 157 debates and 13,348 contributions by Members.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Does the hon. Gentleman have any breakdown of the statistics on whether those early-day motions were from Labour or Conservative Members?

[Mr McCann]

I am afraid that my fascination with statistics did not take me quite that far, but I am grateful for the injury time as it allows me to finish the point, which I hope is one that everyone can rally round. Since 1987, as I say, there have been 410 early-day motions, 157 debates, 13,348 contributions from Members, 63 business questions and 2,539 oral questions. If we all back a two-state solution, as we say we do, and are not speaking with forked tongue, why do we not all get together after this debate—whether the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign or Labour Friends of Israel—and truly pursue peace together? If we are united and can show that we can unify around that point, perhaps those in Israel and Palestine who want a two-state solution can unite around it as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and, indeed, the 124,000 petitioners on securing this debate. If they had any fears that interest was subsiding after the October vote in the House of Commons, today’s attendance here will reassure them.

The Israel-Palestine situation is obviously grim and we are right to keep on condemning each new low in the cycle of violence, whether it is the deliberate murder of civilians, even rabbis at prayer, or the disproportionate response by Governments to the murder of civilians, as we saw in the summer in Gaza, with 500 children among 1,500 Palestinian civilians killed.

There is a some sense of movement. There is certainly a sense of political movement outside Israel and that has been reflected in all our political parties, including the Liberal Democrat conference this year voting for recognition of Palestinian statehood, followed by the historic House of Commons vote. The French Assemblée Nationale will probably do exactly the same thing tomorrow. We have votes coming forward in the Australian Parliament and, at some stage, in the European Parliament.

There is a sense that people in the west have realised that we need some kind of direction to the Netanyahu Government. A corner was turned when President Obama told the Iraqi Government of Nouri al-Maliki that it was not enough to be elected: even in a tough neighbourhood and even when their country faces an existential threat, people also have to work for an inclusive, peaceful solution. I am afraid that the Netanyahu Government are not demonstrating that. We have to pursue a consistent path in the region.

I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that we should still work towards the two-state solution. The only alternative is perpetual conflict. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) that the peace process is poppycock. It certainly needs kick-starting—frankly, it needs bringing back from the dead—but that does have to be done, and the pressure needs to be exerted on the more powerful party, which in this case is the Government of Israel. The Palestinian Authority may have committed diplomatic, political and negotiating mistakes, and I am sure it would be the first to admit that.

[Mr McCann]

On the point about Netanyahu’s Government, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather ironic that Bibi Netanyahu is not actually as far to the right as some of his colleagues in the Government? The problem he has to face up to, just as the Palestinians do, is that he has to have the courage of his convictions to take his country forward to a peaceful solution. He must face down those on the right of him in his Government and tell them that that is the way forward.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will come back to the dynamics of the coalition. Some of us in the Chamber are becoming increasingly expert as regards the dynamics of coalitions.

The contrast I was drawing was between the negotiating mistakes the Palestinians may have made over time and the Israeli Government’s unfortunate practice of physically undermining the peace process, particularly through the settlement programme, which is a much more serious step. What do we do in response? First, the Government must recognise Palestinian statehood. The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly for that. Secondly, the European Union must look at the Israel association agreement, article 1 of which commits the parties to

“the consolidation of peaceful coexistence”.

Neither the settlement programme nor the new nationality Bill in the Knesset seems to reinforce the consolidation of peaceful co-existence. Article 2 of the agreement commits Israel to “respect for human rights”, and there are also questions in that respect. A formal review of the association agreement, with all the possible economic implications for Israel, must therefore be looked at. Thirdly, arms sales: Israel is a country of concern on the Foreign Office’s human rights list, and the Liberal Democrat party’s policy is that that should earn it the presumption of denial of arms sales.

The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is right that we must not fall into the trap of polarisation. It is right to highlight and celebrate the opinions of Jewish and Israeli moderates who are challenging the Netanyahu Government. It is right to highlight the range of opinion in Israel itself. That now includes Ministers such as Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni, who just this year talked about the settlement enterprise as

“a security, economic and moral burden”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am sure that everyone in the Chamber today wants to see a prosperous Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel. I am certainly a supporter of the two-state solution and I voted for the recognition of Palestine in the recent parliamentary debate. I hope it worries all of us greatly that the situation in the region is once again at risk of spiralling out of control. Renewed efforts must be made to coax both Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table to secure the two-state solution, which I hope we all want.

We have heard much today about Israel’s actions and responsibilities. I am sure that all of us, whatever side of the argument we might be on, would agree that Israel is far from perfect. Some of its actions are undoubtedly counter-productive, especially and most visibly in its settlements policy, but in securing a final peace agreement the onus cannot simply be on Israel. Negotiations, as has been said, are a two-way process. It requires strong leadership from both sides and give and take, and the Palestinians have obligations to meet and fulfil as well. I suggest that what the Palestinians need and have never had is a Nelson Mandela-type figure who can unify the Palestinian cause behind a non-violent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The recent violence in Jerusalem cannot be seen in a vacuum. It has been fomented, I am afraid to say, by repeated, inflammatory and false allegations from the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas, accusing Israel of planning to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque and other Muslim holy sites. There has been no word at all about the fact that Jews were completely forbidden to worship at the western wall between 1948 and 1967, and a slight restriction on access to Haram al-Sharif has been inflamed out of all proportion.

President Abbas fanned those flames when he wrote a condolence letter to the family of a Palestinian terrorist, saluting him as a martyr. Palestinian Authority television opened a recent news broadcast by saying: “Good morning to you, good morning…to your hands preparing to throw stones and ignite the gasoline in the Molotov cocktails.” No peace can hope to be achieved with inflammatory statements such as that, from what is effectively a state broadcaster.

[Mr McCann]

I also want to place a point about Judaism on the record. Jewish people are particularly prohibited from taking their holy books to the original site of the holy temple for the Jews, where Jesus overturned the tables and the Prophet Mohammed rose up to heaven. The state of Israel is allowing people to go into that site and praise whatever religion they follow, but it prohibits its own people from taking their holy books there.

[Mr Hollobone]

That is in complete contrast to the Jordanian rulers between 1948 and 1967. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. How can it help the peace process when President Abbas says that Israeli Jews should be barred from the Temple Mount complex “using any means”? How can it help the peace process when President Abbas says that the Israeli moves on the Haram al-Sharif compound amount to a “declaration of war”, and when he calls for a “day of rage”? What is required in these circumstances is leadership and moderation.

In his fluent address opening the debate, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said that the purpose of the debate is to identify some of the obstacles to moving the peace process forward. I would contend that that incitement from the Palestinian Authority at the very highest level is not helping the peace process. Her Majesty’s Government need to tackle the Palestinian Authority so that these words of incitement and inflammation are stopped.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael McCann Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We need to speed up. Progress is very slow and there are a lot of questions to get through.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

7. If he will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to participate in projects which bring them together and build a new generation of leaders committed to peace and dialogue.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to support projects that foster co-operation and co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

Despite the tragic events during the summer, we remain committed to supporting efforts for peace. Our embassy in Tel Aviv and the British consulate general in Jerusalem work closely with all sectors of society, including the ultra-Orthodox communities, Israeli Arabs and Palestinian communities affected by the occupation, to build constituencies for peace.

[Mr McCann]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but on an International Development Committee visit to the middle east earlier this year, it was noted that the conflict fund had insufficient funding to support groups that were promoting peace from both sides. I urge the Minister to expand the conflict fund pool and look again at organisations such as Cherish, Parents Circle and Middle East Education Through Technology, which are trying to get peace in the region.

[Mr Ellwood]

Certainly, the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence are keen to receive strong applications for the conflict, stability and security fund—as the conflict fund is now called—for joint projects that bring Palestinians and Israelis together to achieve peace. This is the first time I have heard that there are issues to do with the funding. I will certainly look at it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Israeli Teenagers (Abduction and Murder)

Michael McCann Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. It is difficult at a time like this, when tensions are high on both sides and there is obviously the prospect of a further conflagration. Getting the middle east peace process back on track is more difficult now than it has been for a while, as everybody would admit if they were being honest, but the situation also demonstrates why that is so important. The two-state solution, within the parameters of which everybody is aware, remains the best basis to do that. It will require a very particular formulation of land swaps, which will be difficult, as everybody is aware, but the events of the past two weeks show just why it is so important.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

May I place on the record my condolences to the families involved in this tragedy? Having returned from a middle east investigation by the Select Committee on International Development, I have to say that I disagree profoundly with the Minister’s statement on DFID funding to the Palestinian Authority. We do provide funding to the PA and it is absurd to suggest that that money can be ring-fenced; the Palestinian Finance Minister confirmed to me that they do pay Palestinian prisoners in jail, depending on how long their sentences are. Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will support and assist the Israeli and Palestinian authorities in their search for the murderers of these three young boys?

[Hugh Robertson]

Let me deal with the easier part of that first. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s second question is yes, we will do everything we can to assist both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities in the search for the murderers. I have followed the progress of the International Development Committee carefully across the region. I have not yet seen the report, but, clearly, if the Committee has evidence to support the allegations the hon. Gentleman has made, that would be a very serious matter, which I am sure the International Development Secretary will wish to take up.

Hezbollah

Michael McCann Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

First, in the interests of transparency, I place on record the fact that I am one of the vice-chairs of Labour Friends of Israel.

I am pleased that we are having this important debate today; it presents a timely opportunity to discuss the nefarious role of Hezbollah in the middle east and beyond. This organisation is aggravating the current situation in Syria, creating instability in Lebanon and threatening not only Israel but nations across the globe. The heartbreaking news coming to us from Syria every day reminds us how complex and fragile is the situation all over the middle east. One large cloud lurking over all these difficult situations is the presence of Hezbollah, and it is that presence that led me to seek this debate.

Before turning to the current political situation in Syria, Lebanon and the wider region, I would like to say a little about the true nature of Hezbollah, its structure and its objectives. Hezbollah is an organisation with a strong paramilitary force, independent of the Lebanese state. It was established in the early 1980s, and its fighters were organised and trained by a contingent of the Iranian revolutionary guards. Iran and Syria are its main sponsors, providing financial, political and military support to the organisation. The deputy leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Naim Qassem, stated in April 2007 that

“all our policies including firing missiles into Israeli territories could not have been done without the consent of the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has to agree to all Hezbollah’s activities in advance.”

Hezbollah is Iran’s proxy and is used by Tehran to exert its sphere of influence over Lebanon and the wider region. It has also been used by Iran to help prop up through military means the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

The Hezbollah manifesto document produced in 1985, entitled “An Open Letter: The Hezbollah Programme”, declares that the organisation operates under one command structure and shares the same goals. It states:

“No one can imagine the importance of our military potential as our military apparatus is not separate from our overall social fabric. Each of us is a fighting soldier.”

Hezbollah does not have separate streams for its military and non-military work. The jihad council, the political council, the executive council and the judicial council all report to the Shura council, and there is again no operational or ideological distinction between those who pursue terror and those who do not. The deputy leader, Sheikh Naim Qassem, said of Hezbollah’s structure:

“Hezbollah has a single leadership. All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership. The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions.”

Today, Hezbollah continues to maintain its military capacity in contravention of UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701, and in defiance of a UN military mission that was mandated to oversee the implementation of these resolutions. Hezbollah leaders continue to maintain that they are not only re-arming, but acquiring more sophisticated military technology.

Let me now focus on Syria and Lebanon. Historically, representations made in this place and beyond regarding Hezbollah have focused on the organisation’s impact on the state of Israel. I will talk about that in a moment, but I first want to say a few words about the organisation’s appalling activities in Syria and Lebanon.

As a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I have witnessed first hand the awful effects of war on innocent civilians, and few recent conflicts have been as brutal and bloody as the current Syrian civil war, set off by the violent suppression by Bashar al-Assad of his own people. Iran and Iranian-backed Hezbollah are supporting President Assad’s crackdown, and are supplying military and intelligence assistance to the regime and shipping weapons to Syria that have been deployed in violence against civilians. The elite Iranian Quds force has provided extensive logistical support and advice on how to suppress protests, following Iran’s successful crackdown on pro-democracy protests in 2009. The Free Syrian army claims to have captured several Iranian and Hezbollah fighters, and many reports suggest that Hezbollah’s military assistance is invaluable to Assad in certain regions of the country.

It is to the eternal credit of the state of Israel that it alone has sought to intervene in the crisis in Syria, and its intervention was purely intended to prevent weapons transfers designed to allow Hezbollah to increase its military threat throughout the region. Syria is a febrile place and activities there are fast-moving, but one thing that is clear is the destabilising influence of Hezbollah on the situation.

Lebanon, too, has suffered at the hands of Hezbollah. Hezbollah triggered the collapse of the last Lebanese Government in January 2011, after its Ministers resigned over then Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s refusal to withdraw support from the United Nations-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The tribunal is investigating the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, widely assumed to have been perpetrated by Hezbollah. The head of the tribunal urged four Hezbollah members wanted in the case to appear before the court. The tribunal’s president, Judge Antonio Cassese, made the appeal in an open letter two days after he was told by Lebanese authorities that none of the four men identified by the tribunal in June as suspects had been arrested.

In March 2013, the Lebanese Cabinet, which was dominated by Hezbollah, resigned after failing to agree on a commission to oversee elections. The Hezbollah members also objected to extending the mandate of Lebanese internal security chief Ashraf Rifi. Their cynical destabilisation of the Lebanese political situation is intended purely to benefit their own interests, while prolonging uncertainty and fear for millions of innocent Lebanese citizens.

Also, of course, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah remains a clear and present danger to the people of Israel. While Israel faces the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran committed to the destruction of the Jewish state, the Iranian regime’s clients lurk just over the border. Make no mistake about it: Hezbollah is committed to continued war against Israel. The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, is on the record as saying:

“I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called ‘Israel.’ I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.”

I have been to northern Israel and stared over our ally’s northern border, acutely conscious of the 60,000 rockets that are pointed at Israeli civilians.

Even by middle east standards, Hezbollah is a particularly destabilising military actor. Israel’s actions last weekend in Syria were intended purely to prevent Hezbollah from transporting even longer-range missiles, supplied by Iran, thus putting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem under ever greater direct threat. In this context, Israel’s reported actions are entirely understandable and, I would suggest, commendable. The House should unequivocally condemn that Hezbollah threat and support the state of Israel.

Now is the time for the EU also to take the threat from Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah seriously. Speaking in Cyprus in September, the Foreign Secretary said that he wants to see the EU

“designate and sanction the military wing of Hezbollah”.

A month later, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary called for the EU to proscribe Hezbollah’s military wing. I am proud of the Labour party’s commitment to the proscription of Hezbollah, and the Government should use this cross-party consensus to push for firm EU action.

The reason for the new impetus was the acceptance that Hezbollah is not merely a Lebanese-based militant and political organisation, but a growing international terror network, working in tandem with Iran. Anyone in any doubt about the need for European action need only look at the number of international plots allegedly initiated by Hezbollah in recent months, one of which tragically succeeded when a bomb killed five Israeli tourists and their Bulgarian driver outside Bulgaria’s Burgas airport in July last year. Two weeks prior to that deadly attack, the Cypriot authorities arrested dual Swedish-Lebanese citizen Hossam Taleb Yaacoub, a self-confessed Hezbollah member, for plotting to murder Israeli tourists in Cyprus. In court, the suspect said that Hezbollah had spies around the world monitoring locations that Jews and Israelis frequented, in order to plan attacks.

This debate is about Hezbollah and other Iranian-supported terrorist organisations. According to Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, what we are seeing is the result of new, heightened co-operation between Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds force, itself under EU sanctions for its operatives’ role in supporting Bashar al-Assad’s violence against Syrian civilians. In addition to the bombing in Bulgaria and the foiled attack in Cyprus, there have been recent foiled attacks linked to Iran and Hezbollah in Bangkok, Baku, Tbilisi and Mombasa, as well as a bombing in New Delhi, in India, which caused severe injury. Since the bombing in Bulgaria and the emergence of clear evidence of Hezbollah’s role in Syria, there has been greater pressure on the EU to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, something that a number of European countries are resisting.

Why is there resistance? Although the previous Government proscribed Hezbollah’s military wing, Hezbollah’s significant role in Lebanese politics is often cited as the reason why the UK has not gone further and proscribed the whole organisation, which even its leader says operates under a single command structure. The misplaced belief that Hezbollah’s politicians are legitimate and independent from its deadly terrorism is also behind the EU’s inaction. However, with Hezbollah politicians recently being responsible for causing the collapse of the Lebanese Government—a Government they have long dominated through military strength rather than votes—now is the time to expose Hezbollah’s supposed role in supporting Lebanese stability for the fallacy that it is. Hezbollah’s evil role in perpetuating the brutal military crackdown by Bashar al-Assad against his own people—again, as much a political as a military operation—further demonstrates that any attempts to draw some military/political distinction are naive at best.

Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on the Government’s view on proscribing the whole of Hezbollah, as recent developments in Lebanon and Syria appear to have undermined the Government’s argument that has sought to separate out Hezbollah’s military wing from its political operations. I urge the Government to extend the UK’s proscription of Hezbollah’s military wing to the whole organisation, and I would go further. With cracks beginning to show in French and German opposition to proscription, now is the time for the Government to use the cross-party consensus and make the case for tough EU action.

I accept that a full ban on Hezbollah may be difficult to achieve, but even an EU ban on the military wing of Hezbollah would send a powerful message that we do not tolerate Hezbollah’s and Iran’s terrorism, and that we will work hard to curtail terrorist fundraising and recruitment across Europe.

It is beyond doubt that Hezbollah does Iran’s bidding in upholding the bloody regime of President Bashar al-Assad, and that it perpetuates the misery of millions of Syrian civilians. Hezbollah has sought to destabilise the politics and social fabric of Lebanon for many years, most recently by undermining the Lebanese Government through a joint political and military effort. It also remains a clear and present military danger to millions of Israeli men, women and children, with tens of thousands of missiles pointed at major population centres that could be launched with one word from Hezbollah’s venal, anti-Semitic paymasters in Tehran.

It is clear that Hezbollah in its entirety should be proscribed by both the UK Government and the European Union. I urge the Minister to take decisive action to show that this country stands against terrorism in all its forms.

Middle East

Michael McCann Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we do need that, but we need a ceasefire that works, a ceasefire on both sides—that means an end to rocket attacks on Israel, as well as an end to Israeli military operations—and, of course, the proper humanitarian access of which we have all spoken.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

The pictures on last night’s television of Palestinian children being put in graves is an abomination, but does the Secretary of State concede that the firing of rockets from Gaza means that the lives of innocent Palestinians have been used as pawns on the jihadist and Hamas chessboard, and that the only game in town must be an intensified effort for peace talks?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman puts it very well and places responsibility quite broadly for those tragic deaths. He is right to do that.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Michael McCann Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

We have probably gone through that in as much detail as is required or necessary on this occasion. My point is that it is not the case, as the Foreign Secretary and the papers to which he is religiously sticking state, that article 122 arrangements for the EFSM are no longer needed. That is not only disingenuous, but verging on something much worse. It is not just a question of them not being needed, but I will leave it at that for the time being.

The real question is on the problems that will emerge in practice from the continuous stream of payments and bailouts, putting heads in the sand and the complete abnegation of reality. It is clear—the most recent edition of The Economist indicates as much—that the euro will turn into a soft currency with high inflation. The general secretary of the CSU, the Bavarian party that makes up part of the coalition in Germany, accuses the European Central Bank—this is a far worse accusation than any regarding the EFSM—of becoming

“the currency forger of Europe”.

There are profound reasons for that accusation, which is made by one of the most senior members of the German coalition. I could spend a fair amount of time going through technical and legal points on the European Act 2011, the exemption conditions and the opinion of the Foreign Secretary, but the issue is much more serious than treading through the maze of legalities created by the Act. This is about the substance of the manner in which the European Union functions and fails.

I shall come to the attitudes of German voters later, but it is important that people throughout Europe recall, as Germans do, what happened in the 1930s and subsequently. The economy’s implosion and high inflation—evidence that the economy was completely out of kilter with reality—ultimately led to disaster and the emergence of Hitler from the Weimar republic. Those things are brought to mind by the CSU general secretary’s accusation that the ECB is becoming

“the currency forger of Europe”

to provide the scale of bailouts contemplated under the Bill and the treaty. Massively high inflation is caused by printing money when a country does not have it on the basis of how it runs its economy. No wonder only 24% of more than 1,000 German voters polled had confidence in the short-termism that such measures represent.

Angela Merkel is certainly bidding for a new European treaty—it has not been received with enthusiasm, but the treaty issue has not gone away. In December, there is a fair chance that she will come back for a new treaty that will effectively create yet another step towards political union. We know perfectly well—it is no longer taboo, although I have been saying it for the best part of 25 years and it is now reality—that Germany is now moving further and further towards political union, which it will largely dominate, although more and more Germans are against the bail-outs, even to the point at which, as The Economist suggested last week, Mr Weidmann is now seen increasingly as Angela Merkel’s Thomas à Becket, having been one of her most loyal supporters. This is a very serious matter, but the shadow Foreign Secretary simply does not see it. I asked him whether he agrees with Angela Merkel or with Mr Weidmann because that is what is at the heart of this Bill.

The worst of it is that in fact it is not going to work anyway. Mrs Angela Merkel knows that Mr Weidmann is right on economics, but she has her own agenda of political union as the centrepiece for the destiny of Germany, as she has repeatedly argued. It is not just Germany. Spain is rapidly following Greece over the euro cliff, with Italy not far behind, not to mention the continuing problems in Portugal, Ireland, Cyprus and a stack of other countries. It is even now becoming a problem in respect of the individual provinces in Spain—Catalonia, Valencia, Murcia and other regions are lining up while Spain dives into a double-dip recession. There simply is not the money to pay for the catastrophe that the European economic system has created.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it odd that we should lecture the eurozone about double-dip recessions when we are in one ourselves, created by the Government whom he purports to support?

[Mr Cash]

That is a very nice little intervention, because the reason we are in a double-dip recession—in so far as we are—is, first, the massive deficit that the hon. Gentleman’s Government left us with. Secondly, for reasons that I will explain, it is because of the massive deficit—as I said to both the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary—that the European Union has with us. We are in such incredible deficit with the other 26 member states that it will be impossible for us to gain out of the 50% of our trade with them the growth that is needed to enable us to come out of recession and grow our economy.

I was disappointed, to say the least, that the problems with the eurozone were not even touched on in the exchanges between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Andrew Marr yesterday, when everybody knows that the failure of the UK economy is partly because of the deficit we inherited, but also because we cannot grow with a bankrupt European Union, with the exception of Germany. Indeed, half of our deficit with the other 26 member states is our deficit with Germany alone. So we have to be conscious that this is a real problem that needs to be resolved, and this Bill will do almost nothing except damage our economy.

Greece is currently in the throes of an EU-IMF economic investigation. One can almost hear the words of endorsement from the EU and the IMF before they have reported. I will be very surprised if they do not try to find some way to muddle through. As with the Bill and, I am afraid to say, the Government’s policy on Europe, real EU reform is off the agenda, as is a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is a case that we still have not depreciated our currency enough, but demand for our exports is falling because there is deflation elsewhere, particularly elsewhere in the EU. We should consider the history of devaluations; the proper ones have invariably been very beneficial. After the escape from the exchange rate mechanism in 1992, the economy bounced back strongly and many Conservative Members would agree that, had they managed to stay in office for three or four more years, people might have realised that that big devaluation was driving economic growth and falling unemployment. We reaped the benefit of the collapse and what happened in the ERM, particularly in my constituency, which was the epicentre of housing repossessions and negative equity, which led to my having one of the largest swings to Labour in the country, simply because of the ERM.

I was one of the few people who wrote about economics in 1990 who were saying that the ERM would be a disaster. I predicted—I surprised myself, indeed—the precise course of that experience and said what would happen in the end: interest rates would go through the roof and eventually we would come out of the ERM and devalue, which we did. However, that is not the point that I am making tonight.

I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on many things, but I do not agree with him on economic policy. I doubt that many Conservative Members read the New Statesman, but in the last week or two it has featured a series of economists who initially signed a letter of support for the Government, but are now recanting, saying that they made a mistake and should not have called for deflation and cuts. They are implying that that situation ought to be reversed. I agree with them, and I was one of the few in the House who absolutely and profoundly disagreed with the Government from the beginning, quoting Paul Krugman and others, who said that they were going in precisely the wrong direction, towards the savage deflation that led to the 1930s’ depression.

We are in danger of going in that direction now. Countries have to find a way to expand their economies, and they will not do that when they are stuck in stupid arrangements such as the euro. We must have a deconstruction of the euro. There is much talk of an uncontrolled crash, but currency zones can be deconstructed rationally. When the Soviet Union collapsed, all the countries of the ex-Soviet Union created their own currencies. That was done fairly straightforwardly. When Slovakia and the Czech Republic separated as Czechoslovakia broke up, they created their own separate currencies. That worked. It can be done in a controlled and not-too-difficult way. I shall not say that it will be that easy, but it is not impossible and there are examples of such a thing happening. I suggest that, initially, Greece, and perhaps one or two other countries, ought to quit the euro and recreate their own currencies. That might mean freezing banks for a few days and so on.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I am following the argument closely, but can my hon. Friend explain himself? He is talking about countries that came from an impoverished state, so the only way was up. Surely the problem with the eurozone is that we are talking about countries that have experienced high standards of living. Ultimately, any break up would mean that those would go down.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Standards of living ultimately depend on productivity. If a country produces wealth it can consume wealth. If those countries get into a position whereby they can start to rebuild their economies and expand growth—have more people going on holiday to Greece, for example—they will bounce back and become better off again. I have said many times, in writing and in the House, that strong currencies derive from strong economies, not the other way round. If a strong currency is imposed on a weak economy, it will drive that economy down.

Finding a way to get that economy to grow, which might initially mean a devaluation, means that the currency will ultimately strengthen. Indeed, the 1944 Bretton Woods conference made arrangements that allowed for countries to depreciate or devalue their currencies as necessary. Indeed, if Keynes had had his way, he would have had countries required to appreciate their currencies. I suggest that Germany ought to be appreciating its currency and not be allowed to get away with what it has done for decades, which is to undervalue its currency. That has meant that it has had a competitive advantage against every other nation in the EU, and indeed in Europe.

If the euro were to be deconstructed, a major consequence would be the new deutschmark appreciating quite substantially. There are now worries even in countries such as Denmark and Finland. Finland, which is in the euro, would be forced upwards to a currency valuation that it found uncomfortable. The Danes have chosen to peg their currency to the euro. They might think again about devaluing, but Germany has, effectively, an undervalued currency relative to all the other countries of Europe, which is a fundamental component of its economic success. That is an unfair way to operate and we ought to address it.

I am pessimistic about the future of the eurozone. At the moment, there is a kind of “quietism”. People in the EU are trying not to talk about all the terrible things that are going on, but as I understand it from my friends on the continent, what is effectively a giant building society in France was last week on the verge of having a run—going bankrupt and people taking their money out. The French Government effectively nationalised it and pushed €90 billion into it to save it. That has just happened to President Hollande, but people do not want to talk about it too much because they know that there are many other problems of that kind. There is a Franco-Belgian bank into which €50 billion has been pumped to keep it alive. Indeed, even German banks have lots of supposed assets that are not really assets; they are IOUs that will never be repaid. If I claimed that people owed me £100,000, but I knew that they were all poor people and would never be able to pay me, that would not be an asset of £100,000, but a worthless IOU. A lot of banks are stuffed full of worthless IOUs; that is the reality. It is only when countries start to manage their economies effectively on a national basis, with an appropriate currency value and appropriate interest rates, that they will start to recover. Many of the poorer countries will never be able to compete within the euro, and ought to get out fairly soon and re-establish their own currency.

Take the case of Ireland; I have many Irish constituents. The reality is that Ireland is part of the British economy more than anything else. It should be part of the sterling area, but it is overvalued relative to sterling. If it recreated the punt, devalued and came into line with sterling, Ireland would benefit enormously, because we are its major trading partner. I hope that will happen, because it will benefit many of my Irish constituents and their relatives in Ireland. I look forward to common sense ultimately prevailing, but I have a feeling that we will go through an awful lot of pain before that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be delighted to know that I do not intend to quote any legislation, which the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has just gone into in some detail. I support the Bill and I believe the European stability mechanism is necessary.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) that the need for action is beyond doubt, but I certainly do not delude myself that the two clauses in the Bill will paper over the massive crack or the massive problem that we have in Europe. If I may misquote Groucho Marx, there is no sanity clause, which is sorely needed. Yes, we need stability for Europe’s banks. We need to correct the balance between austerity and growth, and we need a bigger firewall to protect Europe from the economic problems that it faces.

One aspect that has not been touched on, or has been touched on but not in the way that I would put it, is the north-south European disconnect. For part of my previous life, I was a trade union official and negotiated with colleagues in various parts of the European Union. There was always a disconnect between those in the north and those in the south. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) put that in a different way, but there was always a necessity for members attending meetings from the north to get to a solution, agree a way forward, and move on that solution and that way forward, whereas the tendency for our southern neighbours in Europe was always to try and put off the day for a decision to be made, circumnavigating the need to make a decision. It may have taken several meetings to get there, but we eventually reached a conclusion. That north-south disconnect in Europe has not been properly addressed by leaders across Europe. It is something that we have to look at very carefully.

I also think that Germany needs to step up to the plate in a significant way. We have heard from more than one Member this evening that Germany gets all the benefits of the euro, with regard to how its currency is valued, but does not seem to want to make its contribution to the solution, so that debate must be resolved, first in Germany and then at the eurozone level.

Another element that must be looked at carefully is the balance between austerity and growth. When I intervened earlier on the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) he replied—surprise, surprise—by putting his hand in his back pocket and pulling out, “Well, it’s all your fault because the Opposition gave us this massive deficit.” I do not want to go into all that again, other than to say that I am sure that he was not suggesting that when the previous Government bailed out the banks, which prevented us moving from a recession into a depression, the hon. Members now on the Government side of the Chamber did not support that necessary action. If I may paraphrase a gentleman I heard speak last week, the former Governor of Florida, the Republican Jeb Bush: “Don’t blame us for mistakes made on your watch.” That was a Republican talking to the Democrats in America. The coalition Government must recognise that since they took over our borrowing has increased by over £150 billion and that, therefore, there is at least an arguable case that their balance between austerity and growth might be wrong and might need to be recalibrated.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) asked the hon. Member for Stone and the Eurosceptics how we will solve this problem if not in this way, but answer came there none. I do not agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Stone of how Germany got into its problems in the 1930s because my recollection, as a former student of history, is that it was the reparations imposed at the treaty of Versailles that created Germany’s inflationary problems and that they were not connected in a wider way to Europe, aside from the fact that it was the allies, of course, who forced the treaty on a defeated Germany after the first world war.

I will put the question again: what do those who do not support this proposal think will happen if the eurozone is unceremoniously collapsed? People have predicted—I feel that it is a proper prediction—chaos, carnage and colossal damage on our streets. What would the streets of Europe look like? Much more has to be done in the euro area to resolve the crisis. There will be no painless solution but, just as the bank bailout prevented our country moving from recession into depression, the support of the ESM can and must be a starting point for a more permanent solution to the problems of the euro area.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Michael McCann Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I want to focus on two issues: the Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of our gross national income on international development, and the continuing threat to world security that is emanating from the middle east. I serve on the International Development Select Committee, along with five Conservative colleagues and four other Labour Members. The Committee is chaired by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). Each of us has seen at first hand the despair resulting from poverty in the developing world. We have also seen the acclaimed work of the Department for International Development, and we are all committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid, as is each of our political parties.

However, it says a lot about the Government’s priorities that the issue of House of Lords reform has been placed ahead of the commitment to legislating for that 0.7% expenditure. What puzzles me most about the decision is that the commitment was in all of the main three parties’ manifesto commitments to the electorate at the last general election. One would have thought that, after undertaking an independent analysis of those manifestos, the Government would pick one policy that would unite this Chamber rather than any of the myriad issues on which we choose to disagree. Alas, they did not.

There is one reason not to give aid: the philosophy of looking after our own interests first. That is a reasonable position to take if someone has amnesia and is willing to forget the wealth Britain has extracted from across the globe. Everyone, however, can point to a reason to give aid: it is the right thing to do and will make the world a more secure place for our country, as the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said. International development aid will also save lives and put more children into school, while creating new markets for the future.

We can point to the fact that in the 1950s, Korea was a war-torn aid recipient. It is now the 13th largest economy in the world, the second-fastest growing economy in the OECD and an aid donor. That single statement confirms that, despite the complexities of aid, despite multiple cultures and despite the challenges ranging from clean water to conflict and corruption, aid does work. Any remaining doubting Thomases out there should consider that Korean investment and exports are worth £8 billion a year to the UK and are set to increase by £500 million year on year as a result of the South Korea-European Union free trade agreement.

[Kate Hoey]

My hon. Friend talks about doubting Thomases. What would he say to people who ask why we give aid to a country like India when it has nuclear weapons?

[Mr McCann]

I am happy to answer that. The International Development Select Committee was in India last year, so it knows that, as the Secretary of State for International Development would confirm, 800 million people who live there are surviving on less than $2 a day, which is an important point. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position why it has nuclear capability. Well, any country faced with threats on both sides of its borders is likely to think that nuclear weapons are a necessary safeguard. I saw some of the poorest people on the planet when we visited India, and I do not believe that we should resile from giving money to that nation.

I was saying that we generate £8 billion a year from South Korea and that this will grow by £500 million every year, and I was making the point that the UK aid budget currently sits at £7.8 billion a year. Some might legitimately argue that legislation is irrelevant because the money will be spent anyway. Some might say that the manifesto commitment was ducked by coalition parties because of the fear of a backlash from some of those sitting on the blue side of the Government Benches. That commitment should not have been ducked. Not only did all three main parties make that commitment in their manifestos but, even more importantly, our commitment sent a message around the world—that the UK was prepared to be bold, which could encourage others to be equally bold and to walk in our footsteps to reach the 0.7% figure. As the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, we have been trying to reach that commitment for the last 40 years.

“A single event can shape our lives or change the course of history.”

Those are the words of the award-winning author, Deepak Chopra. We should heed those words rather than those of my e-mail friend, Mr Ronald Hunter, who Members will know sends us regular e-mail correspondence.

Just as we face the challenge of tackling poverty across the globe, so we still face unresolved tensions in the middle east. There is no other subject that can lead to such a swift loss of perspective in debate. It has the ability to unite those who do not normally see eye to eye, while simultaneously disuniting those who normally do so. I should register the fact that I am the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel. Holding that title, however, does not make me oblivious or ignorant of, or unsympathetic to, the Palestinian cause. On the contrary, I support it. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Glenamara who, sadly, passed away recently. As the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I and all those we work with owe a great debt of gratitude to Edward Short. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his steadfast support for both Israel and LFI over many years. I never had the pleasure of meeting Edward Short, but from talking to colleagues it was clear he made a big and impressive impact and will leave a long legacy. As Chief Whip under Harold Wilson, he fought hard to marshal a majority of just five, commanding respect; and now that we are, regrettably, in opposition, we rely heavily on Short money, which Lord Glenamara first proposed—a vital innovation for allowing Oppositions to hold Governments to account.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Slightly earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to the figure of 0.7% of GDP going on international aid. Does he agree that it is important that we as parliamentarians keep reiterating that figure to our constituents? When people complain to me about our spending on international aid and I tell them it is only 0.7% of our overall GDP, they realise it is a very modest amount.

[Mr McCann]

I entirely agree: that is a modest amount for a developed country to pay to ensure starving people across the world can expect to receive food and drugs. Only a few weeks ago, I and some other Members visited Zambia and Malawi, and saw the difference malaria and AIDS drugs were making to families.

Returning to the question of the middle east, the Israelis and Palestinians have in both recent and distant history been subjected to vicious attacks and calumnies, but while attending a Westminster Hall debate on Israel and the middle east peace process just a few weeks ago, I was struck by the awesome futility of it all. LFI promotes and supports a two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Let me turn to the next part of the LFI mission statement. I support the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, and I also support Israel being recognised and secure within its own borders. We all know that there are issues that have to be tackled, such as the definition of the borders and the questions of illegal settlements, returnees, Jerusalem and Temple Mount, and it is more imperative than ever that we tackle them.

Welcome though the Arab spring was, and is, for democracy in the region, it has thrown up more questions than answers. The barbaric treatment of Syrians at the hands of their own Government continues and, of course, there is Iran. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its support for Hamas and terror in general, its refusal to accept the will of the UN, its holocaust denial and its anti-Semitism, means it is a spark that could ignite the powder keg of the middle east. Therefore, has there ever been a more important time to solve the conundrum of Israel and Palestine? Yes, we should remain resolutely focused on challenging Iran and its illegal nuclear programme, using sanctions and taking no options off the table, but we must also be clear that, given the ongoing turmoil in the middle east, Israelis and Palestinians need more than ever the security that only they can give to each other. Has there ever been a more important time for the UK, the colonial architect of many of the problems that exist, to take bold steps to help the parties reach a solution?

Many have tried and failed: Carter, Clinton, Begin, Sadat, Arafat. There has been partial success at best, close calls, nascent steps, but never a final settlement. Yet perhaps we now have an opportunity to make progress, with Netanyahu’s coalition holding 94 of the 120 Knesset seats. Reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians must be first and foremost on the Israeli national agenda. If he succeeds, Netanyahu will be hailed as a leader who delivered his people true liberty. If he squanders the opportunity, he could be remembered as a Prime Minister who took his people to the brink of disaster. However, just as we played our part in the middle east in our colonial years—drawing lines on maps that have created so many problems—so we must play our part in the pursuit of peace.

If we analyse the positions of parliamentarians, we can see that we are as guilty as the main protagonists of reverting to type, trying to trump each other with accusations of which side committed the worst atrocity. All I know is that by continuing to participate in such futile arguments, we only guarantee that there will be more such arguments in the future. We can choose to pore over the history of this part of the world, from the early Israelites to the Ottoman-Turkish rule, but where will that get us? Perhaps yesterday’s deal to end Palestinian hunger strikes in Israeli jails offers us hope that the new Israeli coalition knows what it takes to get deals done.

[Mrs Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McCann]

I will not, as I want to make progress in order to enable others to speak.

The Israeli press are reporting that this deal came on the back of a letter from Netanyahu to Abbas saying that the formation of the unity Government in Israel presented a new opportunity to rejuvenate the peace process in the context of a two-state solution. That is a promising development, following Abbas’s letter seeking to engage Netanyahu last month. If we are going to help the parties to reach a deal, amid all the major and fundamental changes occurring in the region, we must be clear that we are here to build confidence between them, not to be proxies for the old argument. Netanyahu, Mofaz, Perez, Fayyad and Abbas must look to the UK as being on their side to encourage necessary compromises and to understand their concerns. There are major challenges to be overcome. They are real, they are painful and they are a source of much anger, but we should ensure that we do not amplify that anger. Instead, we must amplify the voices of those who want to get around the table and reach a peace deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lewis]

I meant to say retire—although, knowing Dave Fish, now that we have a Tory Government, he might be about to resign. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, that was not a serious suggestion. He has served both Governments with great distinction, as I think the Secretary of State would acknowledge. He has been one of the wisest voices and has a great understanding of the many political dilemmas in Africa. So, seriously, I think that Members on both sides of the House would like to pay tribute to him.

[Mr McCann]

I should like to ask the whole House to pay tribute to Dave Fish. He was my first boss in the Overseas Development Administration, now DFID, in East Kilbride. He has done marvellous work in every single job he has been given by the Government, irrespective of which political party has been in power, and it is important that we recognise his contribution to international development across the globe.

[Mr Lewis]

I agree entirely. Dave Fish embodies the best of the British civil service, and it is important to place that on the record here this evening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) was absolutely right to point out the dangers of the austerity programme being pursued by this Government and others. It is clear that, economically, it has been a failure, and what we desperately need in this country and across Europe is a set of serious policies for jobs and growth.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) raised the question of Israel/Palestine. There is absolutely no doubt that in that part of the middle east we urgently need security and normalisation for the state of Israel, and dignity and statehood for the Palestinians. A lack of progress on the two-state solution is creating instability in the middle east as a whole, and we need rapid political progress.

I shall turn now specifically to development. Rooted in my party’s DNA is a commitment to social justice, not only in our country but across the world. For Labour, ensuring that the United Kingdom plays a leading role in aid and development is not political positioning or the detoxification of our brand; it is the application of our core values. I am immensely proud of our legacy. Through the political leadership of Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), we led and changed the world. Labour’s international leadership achieved great results by cancelling debt, increasing aid, improving trading opportunities, leading on climate change, creating DFID as a Cabinet-level Department and championing the millennium development goals.

In these difficult, austere times, we—and enlightened right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—recognise our duty to make the case to the British people that we should continue to honour our commitments to the world’s poorest. We should do so because levels of poverty and inequality remain an affront to humanity, but also because it is in our national interest. Poverty is frequently the breeding ground for the terrorists who threaten our national security, and yesterday’s poor nations are our trading partners of today and tomorrow.

The idea that spending 0.7% of our gross national income on aid is excessive simply does not stand up to scrutiny, even in the context of difficult times and difficult choices. There are those who argue that aid does not reach the people who really need it and that it is invariably misused by corrupt agencies or Governments. That is a sweeping generalisation and it is not supported by the facts. There is of course a need to focus on global aid effectiveness and transparency. That formed a central part of the agreement at the 2008 Accra conference, which was brokered by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. He asked me to include that point in my speech.

Aid has made, and does make, a tremendous difference. The UK’s support to developing counties under the Labour Government was life changing. Over 10 years, we enabled the distribution of 70 million bed nets, provided more than 1.4 million people with antiretroviral therapy in Africa through bilateral aid, assisted more than 12 million people through food security programmes, trained 165,000 teachers and provided loans for 450,000 entrepreneurs in Helmand and ensured that 19,000 women could get a proper education in Pakistan.

I have made it clear that we will support the Government when they do the right thing. If they honour Labour’s commitment to achieve 0.7% by 2013, we will support them. I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s personal commitment to development. However, when the Government are wrong or break their promises, we will not hesitate to hold them to account.

The Government’s failure to include the 0.7% aid commitment in legislation in the first Queen’s Speech breached a clear Tory manifesto commitment and a key element of the coalition agreement. Their failure to include it in this second Queen’s Speech is not only a broken promise, but represents something far more significant—a Prime Minister weakened by the omnishambles of recent months with no authority to change his party and a Chancellor pandering to the right, always with an eye to the succession. Development policy should not be used as a dividing line for internal ideological battles in the Tory party; it is too important for that. Will the Secretary of State now confirm when the Government will bring forward the legislation and whether there will be full Government support and co-operation for any private Member’s Bill that seeks to enshrine the 0.7% commitment in law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I had an opportunity to make those points during a recent visit to Bangladesh, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been directly pursuing the case.

On the results that we will achieve with taxpayer funding, it is interesting to reflect on what the polling shows in Britain. When people are asked how much public expenditure goes on international development, they believe it to be 17.9%. When they are asked what they think the right level of public expenditure on international development should be, they give a figure of 7.9%. What is the actual figure? It is 1.1%, which means that we are achieving these transformational results with one seventeenth of the funding that the public think we are spending and with one seventh of the funding they believe we should be spending. All of us have constituents who would be interested in understanding and hearing those figures.

[Mr McCann]

If the figures are so low, why is the Secretary of State not legislating for 0.7%?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will deal directly with that in a moment. The point I seek to make is that we have made changes through the bilateral aid review, which determined that bilateral aid to 16 of the countries supported by Labour under the programme should be wound up, and through the multilateral aid reviews, where we found that 10% of the multilateral agencies that Britain was funding were not delivering value for money. We have made these tough decisions and we have, therefore, been able to refocus the programme and make it far more effective.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, we have made sure that girls and women are at the heart of British development policy; we have set up the independent evaluation of British aid, so that the public can judge for themselves what we are achieving; we have emphasised the building blocks of wealth creation—trade, a vibrant private sector, property rights and a low-carbon climate-resilient economy; we have completely overhauled CDC; and we sold our remaining 40% share in Actis to rectify the shameful deal done by the previous Government, from which the British taxpayer has not seen a single penny.

DFID now plays a full part in the National Security Council and has brought much greater focus to fragile and conflict-affected areas; we have ensured that the British public have a say in how part of the aid budget is spent; and our new UK aid match funding scheme has already made commitments that will directly benefit more than 2.7 million people in some of the world’s poorest countries—we have provided match funding for Sightsavers, Sport Relief, WaterAid and Save the Children.

We have also introduced a wholly new system of support for Britain’s brilliant international charities, which means that we will be able to help smaller non-governmental organisations to reach more people by launching fresh rounds of the global poverty action fund, which in its first year supported 56 charities and organisations that will help nearly 6 million people.

Over the course of this Session, we will host a major global summit this summer, with Melinda Gates, which will bring a renewed international emphasis and much-needed action on family planning. The aim will be to halve the number of women in the poorest parts of the world who want access to contraception but cannot get it.

The Prime Minister has been asked by the United Nations Secretary-General to co-chair, along with the Presidents of Liberia and Indonesia, the high-level panel that will consider what framework might succeed the millennium development goals in 2015. This will be a major issue for the international community over the coming years, and the UK will ensure that it helps to steer an open and consultative process, on which I look forward to engaging with colleagues.

We will continue to work with the rest of Whitehall and the international community to tackle the urgent and long-term issues in Somalia. We are championing the case for more effective resilience and humanitarian reform, especially in the light of the recent crisis in the horn of Africa, about which many colleagues have spoken.

Israel and the Peace Process

Michael McCann Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this debate. Given the number of hon. Members who want to speak, there will inevitably be a shortage of time, so although we might disagree on some things today, perhaps we can all agree that it might be appropriate to approach the Backbench Business Committee to request a full debate in the main Chamber on Israel and Palestine.

I had a sneak preview of what my hon. Friend was going to say, because it appeared on epolitix.com earlier today. He called for people to avoid black and white analyses and to recognise the hidden complexities of this part of the world. I agree with him about that. He said:

“But most importantly, the international pressure that is needed for both the Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table needs to be applied to both sides alike.”

I struggled to understand, or to hear from him, exactly what pressure he felt should be applied to Israel, but perhaps he can clarify that in due course.

My hon. Friend went on to say that this is not year zero and that

“at key points in the past, it has been Israel that has been prepared to offer up a great amount for peace and has found the Palestinian leadership unwilling or unable to reciprocate.”

That is not my understanding, and an awful lot of people around the world would dispute it. He mentioned Camp David, but not Taba, which came afterwards, when the Palestinians did not walk away. What ended those negotiations was the change of Government in Israel. Surprisingly, he did not mention the Arab peace initiative either. It is the 10th anniversary of that initiative, which offered full recognition of Israel and full peace in return for full withdrawal and a just and agreed solution to the refugee problem on the basis of UN resolution 194. This week, Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper, described that as Israel’s worst missed opportunity, and that is the view of many around the world.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend support the Palestine Solidarity Campaign? If so, can he tell us why there is no mention of a two-state solution in the campaign’s objectives and why its logo shows a land without the state of Israel?

[Richard Burden]

I like my hon. Friend a great deal, but that is nonsense. It would be a bit like my standing up and asking whether he would condemn the Israeli tourist board, which was done over by the Advertising Standards Authority only last week because it published a map of what it described as northern Israel, but which included part of the west bank. We should have a better level of debate than that.

More recently, Israel has called for talks without preconditions. Let us remember what provoked the current round of stalled talks: the Palestinians applied for membership of the United Nations, which Israel claims for itself not as something negotiable but as a matter of right. If anybody questions Israel’s right to membership of the United Nations, they are regarded as delegitimising Israel, which is one stage short of anti-Semitism. I fully accept that Israel should be a member of the United Nations and should be recognised within its internationally recognised borders, which are not difficult; they are the pre-1967 borders laid down in numerous UN resolutions. However, if Palestine applies to the United Nations, that is seen as provocative. It is sometimes called a unilateral act. I cannot think of much that is more multilateral than going to the United Nations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness says that there are complexities, but

“viewing from a distance often gives the impression that the principal blockage to lasting justice for both Palestinians and Israelis has been the intransigence of a dominant state, secure in its borders and willing to let every opportunity for peace limp by.”

He is right that it is important that we do not view the issue from a distance, but that we all go to see what is happening on the ground. I do not mean just visiting offices in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or even Ramallah; I mean going to Sderot and talking to people there about how they live in fear of rockets. It is important to do so, and we do. It is also important to go to Gaza, where 38% of people live in poverty, 85% of schools must run on double shifts and 80 million litres of sewage are dumped into the sea every single day.

It is important to go to the west bank, and not simply to say that settlements are bad without working out the results or to talk to people like me about it. We should talk to Israelis themselves: people in Peace Now who talk about how continuing to build settlements is torpedoing the two-state solution, as its website says. It is important to look at Jerusalem. People talk about the settlement freeze offered and maintained by Netanyahu a few years ago. It is important to understand that it was not a settlement freeze; it was a freeze of some settlements, and it did not apply to Jerusalem.

If hon. Members do not believe me, they should talk to Israeli organisations such as Ir Amim, which says:

“Since the Six-Day War and the change in the boundaries of Jerusalem, Israel’s Governments have tried to maintain the Jewish demographic advantage in Jerusalem. They have done this by controlling the physical space of the east part of the city and increasing attempts to ‘Judaize’ East Jerusalem.”

Ir Amim says that the continuation of settlement building and the restriction of residency rights in East Jerusalem is destroying the two-state solution.

Hon. Members should go to see what is happening in the Jordan valley and Area C. They should not take my word for it; they should talk to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or go there with the Israeli organisation B’Tselem and see what it says about the dispossession of Palestinians, including the Bedouin, in Area C.

Perhaps we should ask a reputable body to investigate, such as the United Nations. It is doing so. It has declared an investigation of settlement building in the west bank, to see what should be made of it. As a result, Israel has cut off contact with the United Nations Human Rights Council and threatened sanctions against the Palestinian Authority. About the initiative to investigate settlements, this was said not by some strange marginal figure but by Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman:

“We are dealing with al-Qaeda terror on the one hand and diplomatic terror by Abu Mazen on the other”.

So now referring something to the UN Human Rights Council is regarded as diplomatic terror.

Freezing settlements is not about imposing unreasonable preconditions. Without it, I do not see how the peace process can go forward. A Palestinian by the name of Husam Zomlot, who is known to many of us—he used to work over here—gave a good analogy: “It’s a bit like saying you should negotiate who gets which bit of the pizza, but while that’s going on, one of the parties is eating the pizza anyway.” That is what is going on at the moment.

In conclusion, I have deliberately used sources that are not Palestinian. Some of them are United Nations sources; in the main, they are Israeli sources, including the newspaper Ha’aretz and groups such as Peace Now, Ir Amim and B’Tselem. Those organisations are not looking at things from afar; they are there, and they are Israeli. Most of their members would say that they are Zionist. They, too, would like friends of Israel abroad, but what they know and say to us is that true friends are not simply cheerleaders. True friends tell home truths every now and again, and they might like friends of Israel groups in the outside world to do a little more of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I will be brief, Mr Walker, so that the Front-Bench representatives have time to respond. I am grateful for this debate and hope that it will lead to a full day’s debate on the Floor of the main Chamber, because enormous issues are involved.

I have visited Palestine and Israel on many occasions and would characterise Palestinians as under occupation, under siege or in exile. Having visited many Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere, I have felt the sense of anger, hopelessness and depression that people who, along with their grandparents, parents and now their own children—great-great grandchildren—have spent 60 years in refugee camps thirsting for the right to go home. They have been living in poverty, under oppression and with a sense that, for many generations, whole lives have been lived in limbo.

I recall meeting those who were removed from Palestine in 1948 and who went to the Gulf states and Iraq. They were eventually moved out of Iraq into Syria, and I met them languishing on the border between Iraq and Syria. Have a thought for how they feel, think and look at the world. Have a thought for the plight of the 1.5 million people in Gaza who are effectively in imprisonment and cannot travel to the west bank or Jerusalem. Some are elected parliamentarians who cannot go anywhere. Have a think about them and about what the situation does to the psyche of young people growing up in imprisonment, unable to do anything other than watch the world on TV and computer screens. That is the reality for many Palestinians.

Some talk blithely about the need for negotiations and for promoting a two-state solution, which is fine, but look at the criss-cross roads all over the west bank, and look at the settlements and at the water that has gone. I applaud what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has said about the need for an ecological approach to the River Jordan. We could start by not abstracting all the water from it, a practice that is leading to the Dead sea disappearing, literally, before our very eyes.

The march for Jerusalem will take place this month. The campaign is calling on the British Government to do a number of things and I would be grateful if the Minister said what support they can give it. The campaign wants to stop the systematic demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem; stop the building of illegal settlements and their structures; stop the granting of discriminatory and insecure residency rights to Palestinians and their arbitrary expulsion from that city; and stop the expulsion of many from Jerusalem. Homes in Silwan have been destroyed to make way for the city of David.

[Mr McCann]

Will my hon. Friend ask for those who are firing missiles into southern Israel to stop? His list will be incomplete if he does not put that part of the picture in place.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have never supported anybody who fires rockets at someone, but I ask my hon. Friend to get a sense of reality and to compare rockets with the 1,500 people who were killed during Operation Cast Lead, when F16 jets using phosphorous bombs killed innocent women and children. I am not in favour of rockets or bombing. We will achieve peace only if there is real recognition of the rights of and injustices suffered by the Palestinian people. That includes ending the settlement policy, ending the occupation of East Jerusalem, and ending the whole policy of the expulsion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem.

Israel is a very rich and very powerful nuclear-armed state situated in a region where it is in a position to threaten any of its neighbours at any time. I suggest that the way forward in the region is to end the injustice suffered by the Palestinian people, end the occupation of the west bank and the imprisonment of the people of Gaza, and allow those who have been stuck in refugee camps for so long to return home.

Iran

Michael McCann Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I welcome the procurement of the debate by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), but I fear that many of the Members who contribute to it will not support the position that he outlined. I will support the amendment.

I should start by declaring that my sister is married to an Iranian and that I have strong links with the Iranian community in the west of Scotland. I have taken the community’s temperature on this issue.

We know that every Government face challenges, foreign and domestic, during their period in office. The longer the Government are in power, the more likely that challenges will come along and that their frequency will increase. The foreign challenges that we face focus public attention, at times, on making decisions or considering military options that will put our people in harm’s way. Sadly, over the past decade or so, we have seen many challenges in foreign lands—Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. Most recently, the coalition Government deployed UK forces in Libya.

On each occasion each Member of the House has had to come to a view on where they stand on the issues. Some will always adopt a pacifist approach. Others will weigh up other factors. The pacifists among us will always have respect and legitimacy for the principled position that they hold, but they must also recognise that their position lacks remedies in the harsh territory—

[Mr Baron]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McCann]

I shall make progress. The hon. Gentleman has just had the opportunity to move the motion. He should not try to come in again so swiftly.

The pacifists among us do not always recognise that their position lacks remedies in the harsh territory of international conflict and that at times it can be seen as a white flag in the face of tyranny. What is more difficult to absorb are those non-pacifists who disagree with a particular decision and then seek to stand astride the moral high ground after the event and lecture us about how they did not support the action in the first place.

Iraq is the most obvious recent controversy. I have often mused about what would have happened in March 2003 had the French and Russians put their vested interests aside and supported a united final UN resolution. Would Saddam have capitulated? We will never know. I have no issue with those who seek to post-rationalise events, but I do have an issue with those who seek to do so in a manner which neglects to mention that they did not have a feasible proposition to resolve the original problem—in the Iraq context, Saddam’s refusal to abide by the will of the international community. Now we look to Iran.

I do not support the motion; I support the amendment. In reaching that decision I have examined the actions of the Iranians thus far, and in particular the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the issues. What actions have the Iranians taken thus far? The International Atomic Energy Agency stated on 8 November 2011 that Iran had sought to design a nuclear warhead, that Iran was continuing its atomic weapons programme research, that it could have a nuclear bomb in months and that preparations to install a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile were taking place.

To this I add the Iranians’ rhetoric that the holocaust did not take place and President Ahmadinejad’s declaration that Israel should be wiped off the map; I refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay. If that declaration was somehow misinterpreted, were the Iranians also misinterpreted when they said that the holocaust did not take place? We must also question the Iranians’ close relationship with Syria.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

It appears that President Ahmadinejad likes to cherry-pick his arguments. Clearly, he is an anti-Semite who is intent on getting rid of the Jewish people by denying the holocaust. He also talks about getting rid of the occupation of Jerusalem, but that is just looking at the past hour’s news. Look at the years before that, when the Jews were there before the Muslims. When President Ahmadinejad makes such statements, his intent towards the Jewish people is clear.

[Mr McCann]

Absolutely. The question is the degree to which President Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite rather than whether he is an anti-Semite in the first place.

The close relationship with Syria is headline news at the moment, and there is also state sponsorship of terrorism.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McCann]

I will make some progress and then I will be happy to give way.

At home in Iran—this is important for Iranian communities throughout the United Kingdom—there is the suppression of Iranian citizens, with 650 people executed in 2010 alone, and the violent suppression of democracy protests across the region that we in this House have championed.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend add to the list of crimes committed by the Iranian regime the horrific way in which the Ahwazi Arabs have been treated for many years? Many of them have been tortured to death and many have been prevented from taking part in all the ordinary political discourse that we would expect in any other country. Does he agree that that is consistent with the anti-Semitism that we have seen in many of the public pronouncements of the regime?

[Mr McCann]

Sadly, it is a consistency that runs through the regime, like lettering through a stick of rock, alongside all the actions of the Iranian Government and the Iranian leadership. What it tells me about the leadership that we are dealing with is that we must consider all possible measures to determine how to move forward.

Do I believe, as the motion suggests, that the use of force against Iran would be wholly counter-productive? I do not know the precise answer to that question, but what I do know is that ruling it out would be counter-productive. It would say to an extreme set of people that their tactics have paid off, and the willingness of the Iranian regime to ignore the international community and six UN Security Council resolutions, and to repress the Iranian people’s rights, tells me that diplomacy and sanctions should not be our only options. The Foreign Secretary pointed out on television yesterday, quite properly, the complex nature of the threat, and for those reasons, nothing should be ruled out.

I appreciate that many wish to speak, so I will finish on this point. Two weeks ago at a local high school in my constituency, I listened to a gentleman named Harry Bibring, who, as a 12-year-old in March 1938, witnessed Nazi troops march into Vienna. Days later, the persecution of the Jews started in that city. In that same year, the Peace Pledge Union, a British pacifist organisation, asked people to make this pledge:

“I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war.”

I am sure that all would agree that those are laudable aims and that all of us would be prepared to sign up to that pledge to remove all causes of war. But I am also acutely aware of Edmund Burke’s quote:

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

That is why I oppose the motion and will support the amendment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your self-restraint. I am sure that Sir Malcolm will do likewise.