Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

I have been clear in response to earlier questions on the IRGC and the range of sanctions to constrain its destabilising activity. I will not comment further on the possibility of proscription of this group.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

It is a mistake for the west to regard Iran’s sponsorship of proxies as somehow being a non-strategic irritant, as there is a continuous thread that links its sponsorship of terror with its ballistics programme and its march towards acquiring nuclear weapons capability. So does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not repeat the mistakes of the past and that any revised nuclear deal with Iran should be accompanied by very strong measures to discourage it from being the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism?

[Amanda Milling]

We have real concerns about the instability that Iran causes in the region. Its nuclear programme is today more advanced than ever. There is an offer on the table and Iran should take it urgently—time is running out and there will not be a better one. If this deal is not struck, and soon, the joint comprehensive plan of action will collapse. In that scenario, we will have to consider carefully the options with partners and allies.

Recognition of the State of Palestine

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK Government position on the recognition of the State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel.

It is a real honour to speak about such a critical issue. I wish first to declare an interest as chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East and co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group. Let me also welcome the Minister to her new role.

The time for recognising the state of Palestine was many years ago. With every year that has passed, the actions of the Israeli Government in creating facts on the ground, building and expanding illegal settlements and taking land and resources from Palestinians have only made it harder to bring this about: a viable, independent, sovereign state of Palestine, based on the 1967 lines, with a capital in Jerusalem.

The UK should make it clear that any future state must include both the west bank and the Gaza Strip. We do not at this stage have to specify precise borders; there may be agreed equal land swaps. Let us remember that when Britain recognised Israel in 1950, it did so without defining borders or its capital. For too long, in fact for over 40 years, successive British Governments of all parties have claimed to support a two-state solution. This claim for Palestinians rings hollow. We recognise only one state, Israel, and refuse to recognise the other. The Government’s position remains “not now”, but I ask the Government, “If not now, when?”

Palestinian statehood is a right to be recognised, not a gift to be given. It is in the power of the UK Government to do this, and do it we should. We have acknowledged that Palestine has obtained the hallmarks of statehood. The refusal to recognise its statehood sends a dangerous message: it reinforces the view that we support and uphold rights for one people—we rightly recognise the state of Israel—but do not recognise the rights of the other, the Palestinians. It shows that we are not at all serious in our claims to back a two-state solution.

Some argue that Palestinian statehood should be the outcome of negotiations. This allows successive Israeli Governments who reject Palestinian statehood to have a permanent veto. If that is the case, why did we recognise Israel? We recognise Israeli national rights, but not Palestinian national rights. We all want a proper negotiating process to start to bring lasting peace to both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people, but it would be preferable for Palestine to enter that process as a recognised sovereign state. It is essential that Israel knows that statehood for Palestinians is not something to be bartered over, but something that has to happen. Israelis are citizens of a state They have fully fledged passports. They have a vote at the UN. Palestinians are stateless. At best, they have travel documents. They can travel only with the permission of the occupier, Israel. In fact, they can leave one Palestinian city to go to another Palestinian city only with the permission of the occupier. An Israeli soldier at a checkpoint can prevent President Mahmoud Abbas from leaving Ramallah. Palestinians have no say in the control of their land, water, maritime area or airspace, or even their population registry.

Let me address the points that anti-Palestinian groups make. Recognising a state of Palestine is not about endorsing a particular Government or authority. We recognise many states while having massive disagreements with their Governments—Iran and Syria are examples. As it is, our diplomats meet and work with the Palestinian Authority. There are those who will inevitably say, “Well, what about Hamas?” Hamas wants a one-state solution, something we all disagree with. The longer we dither about recognising Palestine, the more potent Hamas’s argument that there will be no two-state solution becomes. By failing to recognise Palestine, we undermine the Palestinian national movement that agrees to two states in favour of the likes of Hamas. We would be recognising a state under occupation, but there is a precedent for doing that. In 1939, Stalin illegally incorporated Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the USSR. In 1990, the long Soviet occupation ended and they ceased to be states under occupation.

On the ground, which I have visited, it is hard to see where this second state is going to be. The moment anyone enters occupied Palestinian territory, they are confronted with the terrifying infrastructure of military occupation, defined by walls, barriers, checkpoints, earth mounds, firing zones and military zones. These are all designed to control Palestinian civilians who live under Israeli military law, as they have done for the past 54 years. In a parallel universe, they now have over 650,000 Israeli settler neighbours living in illegal settlements. This is a violation of the fourth Geneva convention and UN Security Council resolutions. These settlers live under Israeli civilian law. Two peoples living under two different legal systems in the same territory.

Settlers have subsidised housing and fast transport access into Israel, and they do not have to go through the checkpoints and barriers that Palestinians do. The settlers, with the collaboration of the Israeli military, harass and intimidate Palestinians to push them off Palestinian land. The levels of settler violence have gone up massively in the last few years. Violence and the dispossession of Palestinians from their homes are systemic across the occupied Palestinian territory. Israeli soldiers act with impunity and settler violence worsens, particularly in the areas around Nablus and in the south Hebron hills. These are not isolated incidents but day in, day out realities for Palestinians, whose lives and livelihoods are targeted by Israeli settlers, backed up by the Israeli state. To make way for the settlements, Palestinian homes and property are liable to demolition. Whole families—men, women and children—are forced from their homes and land, even in the midst of winter storms.

In Jerusalem, the situation is extremely tense, with a repeat of last year’s conflagration all too possible. Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah and other areas of occupied East Jerusalem continue to face the horrendous threat of forced dispossession and eviction from their homes. Only the other day, the Salem family in Sheikh Jarrah were given a temporary reprieve from being forcibly evicted from their home in favour of Israeli settlers backed by the Israeli state. Political pressure needs to increase, and our solidarity needs to match up with the realities faced by such Palestinian families. It is not enough for our consulate in Jerusalem simply to bear witness as its neighbours literally across the road, the Salhiya family, were forcibly evicted from their home, which was then demolished.

We have all seen the scenes of Israeli police violence towards those protesting against the forced evictions and dispossessions. We have all seen the far right sit-ins and the incitement from far right politicians in Sheikh Jarrah designed to abuse, intimidate and ultimately force Palestinians from their homes. The “death to Arabs” slogans and chants from far-right Israelis, which we heard in abundance last year, are as much part of the lived reality of Palestinians as the threat of forced dispossession. Such is the level of systematic discrimination, is it any wonder that there is mounting consensus among Palestinians and the human rights community that it amounts to the crime of apartheid? Who are we, as British politicians, to dismiss and gaslight the lived experience of Palestinians who speak of apartheid and systematic discrimination?

Why are we shocked when international human rights organisation such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch come to the same or similar conclusions as many Palestinians long before, that their situation amounts to apartheid? What are the Government doing to end such widespread and systematic discrimination and oppression? The Government may dislike the terminology, but the level of discrimination cannot and must not be ignored.

We watch today as a European country faces war and occupation, and we stand with Ukraine in opposing Russian aggression. My heart goes out to the Ukrainian people. We rightly talk about international law, and I listened to the Minister for Asia and the Middle East speak only a few minutes ago about the vital importance of the sovereignty of states, but how must Palestinians feel when they hear that? They have endured 54 years of occupation, which in itself is an aggression.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech. I respectfully say to her that conflating today’s invasion of Ukraine by Russia with the very difficult and sensitive situation we are supposed to be debating with regard to Israel and the people of Palestine is historically, factually and morally wrong. I think it does a huge disservice not just to the people of Ukraine but to the people of Palestine and the people of Israel who face a unique situation and set of challenges.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, I was talking about upholding international law, which the Minister for Asia and the Middle East talked about a few minutes ago, and it is as relevant to Ukraine as it is to Palestine.

The Palestinians are looking to us to speak and act in the same terms. We sanctioned Russia over Crimea, and we are now likely to impose more sanctions, with which I wholeheartedly agree, yet Palestinians ask why we do nothing to end Israel’s occupation. Recognising Palestine is now the bare minimum of what we should be doing. In the light of what is happening on the ground, I make it clear that recognising Palestine must be the first of many steps to roll back the inequalities of Israeli occupation and the systematic discrimination that oppresses Palestine. This should include a complete ban on illegal Israeli settlements.

The international community has to hold Israel accountable, as it has held Palestinian groups accountable. If the settlements are illegal and the UK Government say they are illegal, the logical consequence is that we should not be trading with, or supporting in any way, enterprises that are in clear violation of international law and that the Government say are an obstacle to peace.

For any state, the strength of its civil society is crucial. We can also support Palestine by defending its civil society and human rights groups from systematic attacks by the occupying power. It is crucial that our Government support and encourage a healthy, prosperous and uninhibited Palestinian civil society that is free from interference by the occupying power, Israel, and from the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. If we are unable to fully pledge our support to Palestinian civil society, what message does this send about our attitude to human rights as a country? We rightly pledge our support for human rights defenders elsewhere, but throw those in Palestine to the wolves. As parliamentarians, many of us would have met and been briefed by organisations such as Al Haq, Defence for Children International – Palestine, and Addameer, three of the six Palestinian civil society and human rights organisations designated, without evidence, by Israel as terrorist organisations. They are one of our most valuable routes into knowing what is happening on the ground. We must support them as parliamentarians, and so must our Government, explicitly and publicly, and defend their right to do their vital work without any interference. In European capitals, we must hear from them, and we must amplify their voices and those of Palestinians living under occupation and under systematic discrimination and oppression.

Logic, the rule of law, fairness and history all tell us that Britain should have recognised a Palestinian state long ago. It is time to correct this and we can do that now. The alternative to a two-state solution is clear, and I shall cite none other than the Prime Minister on this. Five years ago, he said that

“you have to have a two-state solution or else you have a kind of apartheid system.”

Sadly, five years on, we are far closer to the latter than the former. I ask the Government to recognise the state of Palestine now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing this debate. She spoke very powerfully. There was a lot with which I did not agree. I fundamentally disagreed with the occupation narrative that she sought to outline, but there were parts of her speech that I did agree with, including when she talked about the challenges and poverty that Palestinians live with and the imposition created by the security measures. I can recognise that.

I chair the Conservative Friends of Israel here in the House of Commons. I have been to Israel numerous times and most of those times I have taken the opportunity to spend time on the west bank. I have met many Palestinians over the years, most regularly with the late Dr Saeb Erekat, who, until his death in November 2020, still held the position of chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organisation. On each of those visits to the west bank, I came away having learnt and understood more about the Palestinian perspective and the situation that they face.

There is a real challenge there. I hope there is a cross-party desire in this House—I hope there is unity—on the aspiration of seeing a Palestinian state. That two-state solution is the official UK Government policy and the official policy of the Opposition. It is the mainstream peace agenda that the international community wants to support. But it is 22 years now since Bill Clinton tried to bring the different parties together at Camp David and it is almost 30 years since the Oslo accords were outlined that set the framework for peace.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central framed her argument around the question of, “If not now, when?” She was speaking to that long-term yearning and the length of time that it is taking to see a Palestinian state. I recognise that, but I believe that it is premature to put recognition of statehood ahead of a peace process. There is still a peace process that the parties have to sit down and grind their way through. We know what the issues are. In fact, we have a very good idea of what the final outcome will look like. It has been known for decades now. It may involve some land swaps. It involves some compromises on some difficult issues. All that is contained in the Oslo accords, but it requires a commitment from both parties to sit down and work it out.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) outlined, it is complicated on the Palestinian side because who would the Israeli Government be talking to? Is it the Palestinian Authority, the old men in Ramallah, or is it the young extremists of Hamas in Gaza, who will claim to be the legitimate voice of the Palestinians? We are not talking about a simple situation.

[Dr Offord]

That sums up the crux of the problem. I pay tribute to those Opposition Members who are seeking a solution to the problem, but the big issue is the conflict between Fatah and Hamas, who do not agree with Israel’s right to exist. Until we can get past that and until they stop inciting hatred and violence, we cannot get to the peace table.

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. I will be very brief and wrap up my comments in a few moments, but I want to focus on what the nature of peace is. Peace is not just the absence of violence and hostility; it implies engagement, warmth and co-operation.

I believe I have had a glimpse of the future. One Opposition Member said earlier that peace in the region seems a long way off, but peace is happening in the region. I recently visited the United Arab Emirates with the cross-party UK Abraham Accords Group—I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There I met Arabs who spoke about the need for peace: not only a high-level agreement between Government leaders, but the peace that comes through people-to-people contact, the peace and prosperity that come through trading together and building those close links.

If the United Arab Emirates can do it, if Bahrain can do it and if Morocco and other nations in the region are on a journey, surely that is the future. As one Arab leader said to me recently, “We have spent 40 years saying exactly the same things about the region, repeating the same things over and over and doing the same things over and over, and it achieved nothing—nothing for our own peoples, nothing for the Palestinians and nothing for the people of Israel.”

There has to be a different approach, and I believe the Abraham accords set out that different approach. My appeal to the Palestinians would be to look at the opportunities for their own people that would come about through peace, co-operation, trade and people-to-people contact, and to pursue those. That surely has to be the future. To my colleagues on the Front Bench, I say there is a role for the UK Government in supporting that, and I hope they will lend every effort to peace in the wider region and to seeing how in the Israel-Palestine context we can learn the lessons of the Abraham accords.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

1. What recent discussions she has held with (a) the Government of Israel and (b) representatives of the Palestinian Authority on supporting the peace-building process.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions she has held with counterparts in the middle east on the Abraham Accords.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

13. If she will take diplomatic steps to support the creation of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The UK enjoys a close and important relationship with Israel, and that enables us to raise important issues such as settlement demolitions directly with the Israeli Government, which we do. The UK’s long-standing policy is to pursue actions that support the creation of a viable two-state solution, and that will remain the focus of our engagement with both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

[Stephen Crabb]

If anybody wants to see something genuinely positive and uplifting in foreign affairs, they should look at the Abraham accords and the fruit stemming from them in the remarkable growth in trade, investment and people-to-people contact between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and other Arab states. Given the UK’s excellent relations throughout the Gulf region and our bilateral ties with Israel, does my right hon. Friend agree that we are well placed to help foster the growth of the Abraham accords’ fruit? Will he look at how he can encourage other states to embark on the same journey of peace and friendship with Israel?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK enjoys excellent relations with all the signatory nations to the Abraham accords. Indeed, I was in Bahrain when the first ever Bahraini ambassador to the state of Israel was announced, and it was genuinely a joyous occasion. The UK will continue to support the Abraham accords and greater joint working between the states in the region. Ultimately, that is the best way to pursue peace, prosperity and freedom for all.

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action: Iran

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage hon. Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes? I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful for having secured the time for this important debate, which is timely given Iran’s escalating nuclear violations and the continuing uncertainty around negotiations on the JCPOA nuclear deal. This is one of the most serious and most pressing foreign policy challenges of our time.

Before I get into those arguments I would like to take a moment to recognise the contribution to this Chamber made by our dear friend Sir David Amess. As we heard yesterday, Sir David never missed an opportunity to use whatever debating opportunities were available to press Ministers on the causes and issues that were close to his heart. He certainly used Westminster Hall to its fullest. As a member of the Panel of Speakers, he chaired many of the debates that took place here. I know that colleagues will miss seeing him in the chair, masterfully overseeing proceedings in a way that one can only do with 40 years of service under their belt.

There is every chance that Sir David would have sought to speak today. Last December, I had the pleasure of following him in a debate on this very subject. As ever, he spoke with great authority about Iran, his hopes for real, positive change in that country, and its need for true democratic revival. In his own words,

“I am now, unfortunately, in my fourth decade of saying negative things about the Iranian regime; it would be good to still be here in Parliament when I can say something positive about it.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 431WH.]

How sad and how tragic that he is not here to contribute today, and that he will not be able to say something positive about the country that he knew very well and loved. As a man of faith and strong conviction, a man who loved history, he had a deep interest in and affection for the wider middle east. He demonstrated that being a friend of Israel is no barrier to being a friend of Arab nations, too. In many ways, he was an embodiment of the Abraham accords long before they were signed.

Just a few weeks ago, Sir David tried to bend my arm into joining his delegation to Qatar. He knew of my interest in and desire to visit that country, and we both spoke in a debate on UK-Qatar relations a year ago. Unfortunately, constituency activities meant that I could not go, but I knew that travelling with Sir David would have been a very enjoyable experience. He was on the delegation on my first visit to Israel with the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I can say from first-hand knowledge just what a wonderful, funny, kind and generous travelling companion he could be.

Sir David was clear-sighted about the true nature of the Iranian regime and its malign influence throughout the middle east. In his speech last year, he spoke about Iranian terror activities in the region and here in Europe, and he warned of Iran’s ballistic missile programme and uranium enrichment activity. When it came to Iran, Sir David was simply someone who got it. Yes, he was hopeful, and almost romantically he longed for positive change for the Iranian people, but make no mistake: he was hard-head and clear-sighted about the immediate threats and challenges posed by Iran, and the need for strong countermeasures. That is very much my theme for this afternoon as we return to the subject of Iran’s compliance with JCPOA.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on sponsoring this important debate. Does he agree with me that if our colleague’s concerns were correct then—they certainly were—they would be even greater now, since a difficult Government in Tehran have been replaced by a Government who are simply beyond the pale in their principlist agenda, and in their view, as articulated by President Raisi, that sanctions are an opportunity for Iran, rather than something to be feared? Does my right hon. Friend fear, as I do, that dealing with a man who deservedly has the title of the “Butcher of Tehran” is going to be murderously difficult, notwithstanding the fact that the Biden Administration are far more positive than their predecessors when it comes to advancing the JCPOA?

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is entirely correct. The truth is that the situation has moved on at some pace in the 10 months since we last debated this subject, which is why it is so timely to bring it back to the House this afternoon. It is an uncomfortable truth that Iran can now be described as a threshold nuclear weapons state. The regime is enriching uranium to greater purities than ever before; it is in retention of ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear and conventional payloads; and it continues to impede the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to sites, personnel, and even monitoring equipment and data. The director general of the IAEA has spoken about this very subject today. That has far-reaching and serious consequences for UK foreign policy, for our national interests and for international peace and security. Given Iran’s well-documented systematic non-compliance with JCPOA, it is unsurprising that there is widespread apprehension about the future of the nuclear deal. Make no mistake, the reason that talks have stalled is that Tehran prefers to build more leverage through its nuclear violations.

While much of the focus of commentators on the JCPOA talks in Vienna has been on the intentions of the Biden Administration and the actions of Tehran, questions need to be asked now about whether the JCPOA is even capable of addressing the realities of Iran’s nuclear programme in 2021. Accordingly, I believe it is essential that the UK works with international partners to utilise the remaining diplomatic levers available to curtail Tehran’s nuclear belligerence before the situation deteriorates even further.

Aside from Iran’s continuing nuclear violations over the past year, it is worth pointing out that Iran has also engaged in a shadow bombing campaign against oil tankers navigating international waters, with one such attack involving the killing of a British national. Iran and its network of Shi’ite ally militia groups have routinely attacked military personnel in Iraq with dozens of drone and missile strikes, again killing a UK serviceperson. Iran has plotted the kidnap of foreign nationals and continues to hold British citizens and dual nationals hostage. An Iranian diplomat was sentenced in February for his involvement in a bomb plot against an Iranian opposition rally in Paris, which was attended by a number of our colleagues from this place, including Sir David Amess. Mercifully, that attack was foiled just in time.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the original purpose of the nuclear agreement that the west made with Iran was that it would reduce Iranian terrorism around the world and ensure that Iran moved towards becoming a democratic state? We were told at the time that those would be the beneficial effects of the agreement, but none of those things has happened. In fact, terrorism, particularly around the middle east, has got worse, funded and sponsored by Iran.

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend is correct. The JCPOA has done nothing to dissuade the Iranian regime from conducting those wider activities in the middle east, undermining democratic states and the social and economic order of countries in the region, and sponsoring proxies. Last week, the scenes of street battles that we saw in Beirut raised the distressing possibility of a much-feared civil war in Lebanon. That should serve as a reminder of revolutionary Iran’s legacy. Wherever Iran exerts influence, it destroys the viability of the fragile but sovereign nation states that it preys on by fanning the flames of ethnic, sectarian and political division within each society for its own gain.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. When we talk about destabilising nations, we always think of China and Russia, but Iran, especially in the middle east, plays a fundamental part in failing the peace process, whether through Hezbollah or Hamas. We should proscribe every single group linked with the revolutionary guard, including the political wing of Hamas.

[Stephen Crabb]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Wherever Iran seeks to operate and influence, it creates roadblocks to peace and long-term prosperity for peoples throughout the middle east.

Against that backdrop, Tehran has also spent the last year systematically and aggressively advancing its nuclear activities. Iran’s nuclear programme is now deep into uncharted territory, and its new hard-line Government have thus far shown no inclination or intention to stop. That represents a comprehensive breach not only of the JCPOA but of safeguards obligations, as well as the non-proliferation treaty. Iran is openly enriching uranium to 60% purity for the first time ever, meaning that it is just a short jump to the level required for a nuclear weapon and a world away from the 3.67% permitted under the JCPOA.

Iran has installed advanced centrifuges, capable of enriching uranium at greater purity levels and in greater quantities, including at its controversial underground nuclear facilities. Iran now has stockpiles of enriched uranium far in excess of the limited amount permitted by JCPOA. The IAEA has confirmed that Iran has produced hundreds of grams of uranium metal, which is a significant component of nuclear weapons and has no credible civilian application. Iran has also repeatedly stonewalled the efforts of the IAEA to monitor its nuclear activities and investigate worrying discoveries of nuclear materials at previously undeclared sites. Many of those advancements are irreversible. The international community may yet—I believe it is unlikely—reach agreement with Iran to remove some stockpiles of enriched uranium out of the country. However, the technical knowledge, the know-how and the advancements cannot be rolled back and those are the very building blocks of a weaponised nuclear programme.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous and is right to say that technical understanding and knowledge cannot be unpicked. That, in a sense, is more important than the quantum of enriched uranium. Does he agree with me that Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid are right to be deeply concerned about what is going on? I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees with me that the state of Israel has to be protected against an existential threat from what is happening in Iran.

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the position of Israel and the fears and concerns within Israel. However, it is not just Israel; numerous other countries throughout the region live in fear of an Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons.

It is a view widely held in security and academic circles that Iran’s breakout time—the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon—may now be as little as several months. Some analysts are even talking in terms of a matter of weeks. That is an alarming decrease from the estimated 12 months’ breakout time that was at the heart of the JCPOA in 2015. By extension, a return to the JCPOA would not represent a return to the JCPOA of 2015. The situation has fundamentally changed for the worse and there is a new baseline.

I recognise that the ongoing negotiations will make it difficult for the Minister to touch upon specifics, but I encourage him to ensure that the UK considers the implementation of supplementary nuclear restrictions by the UK, our E3 partners and the US to compensate for the reduction in Iran’s nuclear breakout time. I particularly hope that restrictions such as the destruction of advanced centrifuges or components and a moratorium on centrifuge R&D and production are under consideration. The IAEA still has an essential role to play in the enforcement of the restrictions. Accordingly, I urge the Minister to ensure that the IAEA continues to have the UK’s full support and that it is empowered to finally verify the full extent of Iranian activities, both declared and otherwise.

I feel the international community keeps missing opportunities to hold Iran accountable. I believe that the Biden Administration have miscalculated by choosing to ease political and economic pressure on the Iranian regime, and that the expectation that doing so will lead to Iran renegotiating a stronger and longer JCPOA is misguided. I understand Iranian officials have already flatly rejected the idea. Conversely, the deliberate failure to meaningfully respond to Iranian non-compliance has led the country to commit ever greater acts of defiance and escalation. It seems that the collective failure to reprimand Iran for each acceleration of its nuclear programme simply underwrites its next transgression.

I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments this month about working

“night and day with our friends and allies across the world to stop”

Iran from becoming a nuclear power. That is unmistakably an important commitment. I have said that the UK needs to be clear-sighted about its policy towards Iran. I have also reflected that the belief shared by some in Government back in 2015 that the JCPOA and our re-establishment of diplomatic ties with Iran would lead to rapprochement was not well founded. The regime has long since stopped warranting the benefit of the doubt. The Iranian Government have a consistent track record of banking any concessions they are given and using whatever means are at their disposal to push for more concessions, while never really altering the fundamental trajectory of their foreign policy and military goals.

I have heard it said—in fact, I read it in an article just last month by a former UK diplomat—that Iran is effectively posturing to secure maximum economic and diplomatic concessions, and that actually it has limited interest in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. I regard such views as dangerously naïve, reflecting a long-standing desire on the part of some in western diplomatic circles to keep giving Iran the benefit of the doubt. There is a misguided and dangerous notion that if we keep showing more love and give more concessions to Iran, that will trigger a fundamental change of posture in Tehran, and it will emerge as a responsible member of the international community. I fear that Iran is continuing to play the international community like a fiddle.

As I listened to the Foreign Secretary’s recent remarks about Iran and the need for a network of liberty, I could not help but think that now—[Interruption.]

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Stephen Crabb]

I do not wish to take up too much of the time left for this debate, as I would like other colleagues to have a chance to speak. I have taken a considerable amount of time to set out some of my arguments and concerns around the strategy that Iran appears to be pursuing.

I spoke of my encouragement from comments made by the new Foreign Secretary. I spoke about the importance of being clear-sighted about Iran and my concerns that the international community is at risk of being played by the Iranian regime, who constantly seek further concessions. They bank them and fundamentally do not alter their trajectory in any meaningful way when it comes to their military and foreign policy goals.

I will close my contribution with an appeal to the Minister, who I know has been listening very carefully. He was in the debate that we held in this Chamber 10 months ago on the same subject, and he is intimately knowledgeable of the details of the subject matter. We have a key moment coming up towards the end of next month with the board of governors of the IAEA meeting in Vienna. The option of censuring Iran for its continuing violations of the JCPOA is, I think, an option diplomatically that we need to keep in play. I do not expect the Minister to comment fully on that, but I ask that he listen, because we need to show as an alliance of freedom-loving nations that we continue to consider the full range of options in response to Iran’s strategy—diplomatically, economically and, yes, ultimately militarily, but that is not a subject for this afternoon.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

I can see that a good number of Back Benchers are wishing to contribute, so I will not put you on a formal time limit yet, but please be considerate of fellow speakers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and those clear statements of his understanding of the position regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. I am pleased that there seems to be agreement in the Chamber this afternoon on the facts on the ground. We have independent verification of those facts. I believe there is a strong measure of consensus in the room about just how serious the crossroads is that we have now reached with Iran. There is widespread concern, as expressed this afternoon, about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and the consequences not just for the middle east region but for international stability and the whole world.

I believe there has been a strong message this afternoon to Ministers and the Government on the need to be robust and keep all options on the table—we completely understand why the Minister cannot comment on some of the detailed specifics that have been put to him. I believe that Iran’s regime responds only to strong pressure, and I remain sceptical about moves to give further concessions to the Iranian regime when it has shown so consistently in the past that it banks them and then seeks further concessions.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has reminded us just how sensitive some of the issues around hostage taking are, and of the links between those issues and some of these big, strategic questions that we have discussed this afternoon. I am grateful for a very constructive and interesting debate.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,

That this House has considered Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Palestinian School Textbooks: EU Review

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Ansell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which strikes at the heart of the point I was making: although there is increased coverage and focus on human rights, that does not extend to the Israelis. Actually, the very point that I rested on was that the conclusion rests on a report that offers up, in its body, example after example that contradict those UNESCO values. We need to understand that and challenge it.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point. To underline it, is it not the case that when we read the report—the executive summary, the main body of the report and the conclusions—it appears that there is a disconnect between what the executive summary says and the conclusions and the real evidence, which is contained deep in the body of the report? That is the concern and that is what we should be discussing today.

[Caroline Ansell]

I concur entirely. What is required is a full reading of the body of evidence, because the executive summary does not seem to reflect that evidence. In fact, it must be contested that the textbooks adhere to the UNESCO standards when they simultaneously espouse a narrative of resistance to Israel and display antagonism towards it. How can the report’s conclusion be reconciled with the extensive evidence within the body of the report?

There are other issues with the report. A wider analysis highlights glaring omissions—or apparent omissions. The justification of the Munich Olympics terrorist attack as an attack on Zionist interests abroad is not covered. On the 2020 claims, the report suggests positive editing and improvement in the most recently published textbooks, but are these criticisms put forward? Are these phantom changes? Are they based on books that reportedly are not in the curriculum, or on books that do not appear on the Palestinian Authority’s official Education Ministry online portal? Is the scale and scope of the review sufficiently robust? For example, 15% relates to the coverage of the 2020-21 textbooks.

Notwithstanding the discordant finding of the report, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), last week, following the completion of the EU review, the Foreign Office issued a statement acknowledging that anti-Israel content remains. The UK is not alone in reaching that conclusion. Norway has already cut its funding and the Biden Administration are now making aid conditional on the removal of incitement of antisemitism from educational materials.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on securing this important and timely debate.

For years, Members from both sides of the House have raised concerns about problematic examples of what is being taught in Palestinian schools and how that fosters a culture of hate and violence and works against the aims of many Governments around the world who support a viable two-state solution in the middle east. I remember a debate early last year when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) referred to the fact that she had first started raising concerns about the Palestinian curriculum when she was a Member of the European Parliament 20 years ago. It is not only British parliamentarians; parliamentarians all across Europe, including in Sweden and Germany, and the United States have raised similar concerns. There are serious and real issues to address.

I have sat down with different Ministers and officials over the years to talk about these issues, and at different times the responses have ranged from trying to downplay the seriousness of some of the examples that we raised, to suggesting that the problem was historical and had been fixed, or was in the process of being fixed, to suggesting that, because the UK Government do not fund educational materials directly—we only fund the salaries of Palestinian teachers—it is somehow less of a problem for us to be concerned about. Each time, it felt like we were being put on the back foot.

The review we are debating was supposed to be the critical moment when an objective look could be taken and the UK Government, in partnership with other Governments around the world, could take a strong and unified approach. The contents of the report are problematic, as has been said, and I am pleased that Members with different viewpoints on this subject agree that there are problematic examples.

The Minister is very experienced and knowledgeable and is deeply committed, as I hope we all are, to humanitarian support around the world. I want to hear from him a clear message about what the Government intend to do now. For years, when Palestinian Authority Ministers have reassured us and suggested that we should move along and that there is nothing to see, we have wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. The truth is that there is something to see, and we need a clear and well-defined position from the Government about what we intend to say and do with our friends in the Palestinian Authority.

I support a strong aid budget. Now is not the moment to open up the 0.7% issue. However, I put on the record that, at a time when we are making deep cuts to important humanitarian programmes overseas, we are protecting funding for the Palestinian public sector. If we are going to do that, surely we should demand the highest possible standards, to really foster that culture of tolerance and respect and to work against hate and violence, which risks dragging that region back into old cycles.

Israel and Gaza: Ceasefire

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The outcome of democratic elections in the state of Israel is for the Israeli people. We will continue to work with the Governments elected by the Israeli people. It strikes me, however, that that is an important but fundamentally different issue to the subject of the urgent question. We will work with international partners, the Israelis and the Palestinians to bring peace to the region, both in terms of this specific conflict, which we seek to resolve as quickly as possible, and, ultimately, for a sustainable prosperous two-state solution. That remains the UK Government’s policy.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Iran’s role in this conflict is just one more example of Iranian efforts to undermine peace and stability throughout the middle east via its proxy terror group allies. Given that it was exactly that kind of behaviour that many warned was a blind spot in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give today that the current discussions on resuscitating the agreement will not just repeat that mistake all over again and give a free pass to Iran to continue re-arming its Hamas allies?

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We recognise that in our desire to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon we cannot be blind to its broader regional destabilising activity. That will remain one of the UK’s priorities. It is regularly raised with me by my interlocuters in the region and I can assure him that that will be at the forefront of our minds throughout the forthcoming negotiations.

Violence in Israel and Palestine

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady is right to say that violence against peaceful worshippers of any faith is unacceptable, and as I have said, we condemn the rocket attacks from Gaza. We will continue to be a voice for calm and peace in the region and to work with international partners. At times, that includes having difficult conversations with some of our friends in the region, but we are unafraid of doing so when necessary.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The violence and the loss of life is tragic, and it needs to stop, but is it not the case that, right under the noses of the international community, Hamas has been allowed to build a terrorist city state in Gaza? It has diverted humanitarian resources into stockpiling missiles behind civilian buildings. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to draw some kind of phoney equivalence between the actions and the aggression of terrorists and the sovereign right of a legitimate democratic Government to defend their citizens? I would not expect the Minister at the Dispatch Box, or anybody else in our Government, to do anything other than what the Israeli Government are doing to defend their citizens.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The military wing of Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and we have a policy of no contact with Hamas in its entirety. We completely condemn the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel, and they are the actions of a terrorist organisation. As I said, Israel has the right to defend itself, but we have said—I have said this at the Dispatch Box and directly to representatives of the Israeli Government—that, in doing so, it must abide by international humanitarian law and must do everything it can to minimise civilian casualties.

UN Human Rights Council: UK Voting Record on Israel

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Scott Benton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a proud supporter of Israel, as are all his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party. I have a great deal of sympathy with his remarks.

I believe that the UK has a historic responsibility to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to stand up for our friend, Israel, when it is singled out for such unfair criticism in international forums. The Foreign Secretary recently said that we have

“stood up for Israel when it has faced bias, and frankly, politicised attacks in the UN and other forums.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 111.]

Our voting pattern at the UN now needs to match these warm words.

The subject of today’s debate is the UN Human Rights Council, which is currently meeting for its 46th session. The Council was established in 2006 to promote and protect human rights around the world, a laudable and just cause, which I am sure all of us would completely endorse. It is deeply regrettable that the Council has failed so comprehensively in its noble mission, while gaining a reputation as yet another politically exploited UN body. Consider that in the 15 years since its inception, the Council has passed 171 condemnations, of which more than half have targeted Israel. It is simply unjustifiable that 90 condemnations have been passed against Israel, while a mere 10 have been adopted on the world’s worst human rights abuser, Iran.

Astonishingly, no condemnations have been adopted on China, Russia, Pakistan, Venezuela or other serial human rights abusers. Instead, many of those serial violators are Council members, which of course makes a mockery of the UN’s highest human rights body. As China crushes democracy in Hong Kong, and as Venezuela stands accused of crimes against humanity, both remain members of the Council. For proof of the Council’s inbuilt conscious bias, one need look no further than the existence of the permanent country-specific stand-alone agenda item at every session. I am sure it will come as no surprise which country is targeted.

Permanent agenda item 7 is reserved for criticism of Israel, showing how deeply embedded this anti-Israel obsession has become. Motions adopted under item 7 have accused Israel of serious breaches of international law, while ignoring Palestinian rejectionism and terrorism. It is of course legitimate to highlight the plight of the Palestinian people, just as the national claims of other groups should also be given due attention. But when the blame is solely placed on Israel for the plight of the Palestinian people, with not even a superficial recognition of the numerous security challenges Israel faces, the failure of Palestinian leadership to prepare its people for a future peace agreement, and the countless peace deals rejected by the Palestinian leadership, it is clear that something has gone seriously wrong.

There is no mention of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which terrorise Israeli civilians with rocket fire. Those terror groups use Palestinian civilians as human shields, investing in weaponry rather than welfare. Just last month a Hamas-run court ruled that women required the explicit permission of a male guardian to travel. Where was the international condemnation?

The violations of Palestinian rights in Lebanon are also conveniently forgotten by the Human Rights Council and other UN bodies, despite hundreds of thousands of Palestinians being denied the most basic freedoms, including the right to work. At each and every session of the Council, the likes of the Palestinian Authority, Syria and North Korea accuse Israel of human rights abuses, while escaping scrutiny of their own violations. Frankly, it is a student politics style stunt that is entirely unbecoming of a supposedly distinguished international forum.

It is worth reflecting that such disproportionate singling out of Israel is one of the clearest examples of contemporary antisemitism, according to the world-leading definition. Such blatant bias will not change unless it is tackled head-on and rooted out. The UK’s decision in 2017 to put the Council on notice, stating that

“If things do not change, in future we will adopt a policy of voting against all resolutions concerning Israel’s conduct...”

was a hugely welcome first step.

Our Prime Minister was right, during his time as Foreign Secretary several years ago, to describe the Council’s “disproportionate” focus on Israel as

“damaging to the cause of peace”.

In 2019, the UK said that item 7 amounted to “systemic institutional bias” and voted against all item 7 resolutions. That was another welcome step, but when an anti-Israel resolution previously adopted under item 7 was proposed under item 2 in the same session, the UK abstained rather than voting against it.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an important and timely contribution. He is rightly highlighting the systematic bias that brings the United Nations into disrepute and does nothing to aid the cause of peace and security in the middle east. Does he agree that the key issue right now—he alluded to it a few moments ago—is that the kind of biased text that has traditionally appeared under item 7, and which we as a Government have rightly committed to voting against every time, is now quietly making its way into another agenda item, sometimes with cosmetic changes, and when it appears there, we do not appear to be showing exactly the same level of commitment to voting against it? That is the issue we need to lean into this afternoon, and hopefully hear some positive remarks about from the Minister later on.

[Scott Benton]

I welcome that intervention from my right hon. Friend, and of course he is entirely right. If items that are moved under item 7 are then moved to item 2, but the text is substantially the same, the UK should of course oppose those, just as we would have opposed them under item 7.

The resolution in question referred to the findings of the international commission of inquiry on the 2018 Gaza border protests, which the UK refused to support as it failed to examine Hamas’s role in the violence. Despite stating that Hamas bore responsibility for the violence and recognising Israel’s right to self-defence, the UK did not oppose this one-sided resolution.

As a direct result of growing international opposition to item 7, proponents of these one-sided motions have been working to move them into other agenda items, as my right hon. Friend has just stated. In 2018, instead of challenging this procedural sleight of hand, we undermined our principled stance by abstaining. Surely, if the UK deems resolutions within item 7 to be biased, it is ultimately irrelevant where they end up on the agenda. Biased one-sided motions are biased one-sided motions, irrespective of the agenda item number attached to them. Can the Minister explain this step backwards from the previously stated pledge to vote against all anti-Israel resolutions? Will he confirm that at the current session of the Human Rights Council, with votes expected next week, the UK will call for a vote on item 7? He will know that if no country calls for a vote, the resolution passes uncontested by consensus. Given our principled and outspoken criticism of item 7, we cannot afford to rely on others.

Reports of some of the language that has been considered for inclusion in an item 2 resolution next week are deeply worrying, including language that we would have voted against had it appeared in item 7 resolutions previously. The Government have said that they will support scrutiny of Israel outside of item 7, so long as it is justified and proportionate. Does the Minister believe that a resolution that condemns violence, including acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction, but does not even mention Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, is justified and proportionate? Does he agree that there should never be any implied equivalence between Israel’s defensive actions and indiscriminate attacks by terrorist groups?

The text also reportedly seeks to restrict arms sales to Israel, despite article 51 of the UN charter stating that countries have a right to defend themselves. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the UK will indeed vote against this harmful motion. The Foreign Secretary’s calls earlier this month for the abolition of item 7 should mean not only the end of a permanent agenda item singling out Israel for criticism; it should mean that all one-sided motions are also withdrawn, not simply moved elsewhere. Until then, we must honour our pledge to vote against all anti-Israel resolutions wherever they appear, just as we would have voted against those motions if they targeted our other allies.

Another UN body known for its bias against Israel is the UN General Assembly. While the likes of Iran, North Korea and Syria have only been condemned a handful of times, 112 resolutions condemning Israel have been adopted there since 2005. China has not been condemned once.

It is deeply worrying and regrettable that the UK voted for 12 out of 17 resolutions singling out Israel in December 2020, abstained on four and voted against only one. One of the resolutions we supported only used the term Haram al-Sharif to describe Jerusalem’s Temple Mount—Judaism’s holiest site—ignoring the Jewish connection to the site altogether.

The Abraham Accords present a momentous opportunity to reinvigorate the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians in order to achieve the two-state solution that we all hope to see. We simply must not allow this process to be derailed by allowing attacks on Israel at the UN to go completely unchallenged. At the Human Rights Council next week, we should vote with our feet and send a clear message that Israel must be treated fairly. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that he can confirm that the UK will be calling for a vote on item 7, and voting against all anti-Israel resolutions, including any proposed outside the scope of item 7. It is time that our words were matched with actions.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for securing this debate and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend not just for the words that he has spoken in this debate, but for the hard work that I know he does outside this Chamber to fight against antisemitism. I have listened to, and am grateful for, the contributions and interventions made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and I will try to cover as many points as possible.

First, let me state on the record that the UK is a proud friend of Israel. I think it is fair also to say on the record that prior to my ministerial appointment I was a member of Conservative Friends of Israel. My personal feelings aside, the UK Government’s position is that we are both happy and proud to stand up when we feel that Israel faces bias and unreasonable criticism from international institutions, or indeed from anywhere else. We agree with my hon. Friend that item 7 is an example of that bias. As he said, item 7 is unique; it is the only item on the council’s agenda that singles out an individual country for scrutiny. For many of the reasons that he mentions, we feel that this is wrong; furthermore, we believe it hinders the work of the human rights agenda that the UN seeks to pursue and actually disincentivises full co-operation in pursuit of that agenda. Rather than encouraging Israel to engage with the mechanisms and expertise that the Human Rights Council has to offer, we believe that item 7 alienates Israel.

This is an issue that has been brought up with me directly, and it is clearly one on which a number of Members of the House of Commons agree. We want Israel to engage fully with the human rights machinery. We feel that item 7 dissuades it from doing so. Item 7 damages the efforts to advance dialogue, increase stability, and build mutual trust and understanding between the Israeli and Palestinian people, and therefore damages the prospect of a sustainable, meaningful and peaceful two-state solution. That is why, at the 40th session of the Human Rights Council in March 2019, the UK adopted a principled approach in which we voted against all resolutions tabled under item 7.

Our vote sent a clear signal that the UK stands against the implicit supposition that Israel’s conduct deserves a unique focus and greater scrutiny than that of any other country in the world. The UK will continue to push for the abolition of agenda item 7. Let me make it clear that we will continue to support the scrutiny of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Human Rights Council, as long as that scrutiny is justified, fair and proportionate and is not proposed under agenda item 7, which is why, by definition, agenda item 7 should be abolished.

My hon. Friend spoke about issues moved from agenda item 7 to other agenda items. I touch on that because it is an important distinction. It goes to the point that the UK is happy to support the scrutiny of countries, including Israel, if it is done fairly and proportionately. That is why that when the Palestinian Authority made the decision in 2019 to move resolution items from item 7 to item 2—bearing in mind that item 2 looks at a range of actions of a range of states—the UK engaged with that resolution in good faith and closely with our international partners. We ultimately chose to abstain, in keeping with the position we took in 2018 when we abstained on a resolution to create a commission of inquiry into Gaza protests. In that instance, we could not and did not support an investigation into violence that refused to call explicitly for an investigation into the action of non-state actors such as Hamas—a point that my hon. Friend made. Our expectation is that accountability must be pursued impartially, fairly and in an even-handed manner.

This Government have also chosen not to support resolutions at the Human Rights Council that include provisions that go beyond our broad policies. In 2016 and 2017, alongside other European states, we abstained on a Human Rights Council resolution that called for the creation of databases of companies involved in settlement activities in the Palestinian territories. As we said in our explanation of votes at the time, we did not believe that establishing such a database was a helpful measure or consider it appropriate for the UN Human Rights Council to take on this role. The UK has not co-operated with the process of compiling this database, nor have we encouraged UK companies to do so.

As my hon. Friend says, the 46th session of the Human Rights Council is ongoing. The Government will continue to vote against all resolutions under item 7. The Palestinian delegation has listened to our concerns and has moved some resolutions from item 7 to item 2, meaning there will now be two Palestinian-tabled resolutions under item 7, rather than the four that were under item 7 back in 2018. The Palestinians have also merged or consolidated the two items, reducing the overall number of resolutions focused on the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Negotiations on the resolutions are ongoing. As I said, we have committed to enter in good faith into negotiations on the text of such resolutions. Our blanket opposition is to resolutions under item 7, rather than more broadly to resolutions on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We will therefore decide how we vote based purely on the merits of the resolution and on the final text that is put before the council.

[Stephen Crabb]

I am sorry to cut in just as the Minister is making a very important point, but I want to get some clarity. I understand the argument that he is making about engaging with the text that has moved from a permanent item 7 agenda into item 2, but if we voted against text that singles out Israel for criticism without mentioning Hamas or Islamic Jihad when it appears in item 7, surely it is morally right and logically consistent to vote against it when it appears under item 2 or anywhere else. Will he commit to vote against text exactly like that when it appears under item 2?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister that we have about three minutes left.

UK Relations with Qatar

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this debate. He and I have been together in a few Westminster Hall debates and Qatar has come up on several occasions. It is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), whose constituency town is soon to become a city. I think those two camels he has will come in handy for the camel rides on the beach at Southend. Perhaps that is a new business idea. It is always a pleasure to be in a debate with him, because I can always put my heart into it.

Qatar and the United Kingdom’s diplomatic relations stretch back some 100 years. We have been friends, partners and business partners for a long time. The annual Qatar-UK strategic dialogue is an important mechanism in aiding the development of bilateral relations between Qatar and the UK. It is not all one-way traffic; it is two-way traffic. We gain and they gain, and we can all work better together. The meetings follow up on decisions and projects, support the bilateral track and explore opportunities for further co-operation that benefits both countries, economically, socially and physically. It is the kind of meeting and co-operation that it is great to see. The UK is the single largest destination for Qatari investment in Europe with, as others have said, £40 billion invested to date. Total bilateral trade between Qatar and the UK was £6.7 billion in 2019—an increase of 21% year on year. More growth is expected and hoped for. UK exports to Qatar include industrial machinery and equipment, electrical machinery, vehicles, aircraft engines, luxury goods, textiles and power generation equipment.

Qatari gas supplies now account for 31% of all UK gas demand and 79% of all UK gas imports. I am not being churlish by any means—I realise that the relationship is very important—but I ask the Minister whether it is always good to have all our eggs in one basket. We do not have all our eggs in one basket for gas supplies at this moment in time, but we perhaps do not trade with the USA or Nigeria as we did in the past. I am not saying we should not do it, but I wonder if it is the best idea.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The gas supplies that the hon. Member is talking about come through my constituency in Preseli Pembrokeshire, which I will refer to in my remarks later on. The point about opening up that facility was not about putting all our energy eggs in one basket. It was to give the United Kingdom new sources of energy supply, thereby diversifying our energy supplies into the country, thereby enhancing our energy security. I believe that is the correct way of looking at it.

[Jim Shannon]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but no matter what, we need to have other suppliers and we need to make sure that they are as important. If something were to happen and we had neglected Nigeria and the United States, that would be a very backward step. We just need to make sure that we are doing it right.

There are 1,134 UK companies operating in the Qatari market and some 993 are joint Qatari/British ventures. Defence-wise, Al Udeid airbase is the nerve centre in the fight against terrorism in the middle east and host to the Royal Air Force’s Operation Shader. The RAF’s operational headquarters in the middle east is at that airbase; I was told there were 30 British officers there but, according to the Library pack, there are 160-plus there. Whatever the number may be, it underlines a close relationship, which is critically important.

Qatari and UK forces often participate in joint training exercises, which is a testament to our strong and enduring partnership. Joint training exercises take place regularly between the Qatari Emiri air force and the Royal Air Force, the latest being a joint exercise in early December 2020, in Doha, where the joint UK/Qatari Typhoon squadron participated in an exercise. As part of an ongoing programme of co-operation with the British Royal Navy, Qatari naval forces and the Royal Navy conducted joint exercises in Qatari waters in spring 2019.

In 2018, Qatar signed a letter of intent with the UK for co-operation in the field of combating terrorism, which is so important and vital. I have another question to the Minister. I am not being churlish, but I am asking a question for the record, with the hope that we can clear this up; I am sure the Minister will be more than able to do that.

It has been indicated to me that Qatar has been described as “a big supporter” of Muslim Brotherhood-linked networks in Europe and that the financial vehicle for that is through the Nectar Trust in London. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate who is monitoring the relationship between Qatar’s investment with the Muslim Brotherhood and projects that are happening there, to make sure that we are across all those things, when it comes to co-operating in the field of combating terrorism, so that we are all doing the same thing and working together. There is a physical and outward understanding, and working together, but I ask the question for the record and I hope we can get an answer. The letter outlines commitments on information and intelligence sharing—perhaps intelligence sharing is going on there, and perhaps that is what it is all about—as well as on law enforcement co-operation relating to terrorism activities, co-operation in tackling threats facing the transport sector, especially aviation, and co-operation in combating financial crimes. That is all good, positive stuff and what people like to see.

I am very thankful for these positive relations and for the steps taken by the Qatari Government to address labour issues such as those presented by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about a year to a year and a half ago during a Westminster Hall debate in which I was pleased to participate. Since then, the Qatari Government have introduced several reforms. I cannot say that that was exactly a result of that debate, but I will tell the House one thing: it probably moved people to think about it. The right hon. Gentleman deserves every credit for that.

In 2017, a temporary minimum wage was set, a law for domestic workers was introduced and new dispute resolution committees were set up. In 2018, a workers’ support and insurance fund was established and the requirement for most workers to get their employer’s permission to leave the country, which was a key issue at that time, was ended. In 2019, the establishment of joint labour committees at companies employing more than 30 workers for collective bargaining was mandated and enhanced guidelines on heat stress aimed at employers and workers were disseminated—that was another issue highlighted in the debate. Although they are positive, those reforms have not gone far enough, and their implementation has been called uneven by Human Rights Watch, which we cannot ignore.

Once we solidify our relationship, I believe it will be appropriate to encourage continued improvement in those aspects while acknowledging that there is much more to be done. It is my belief that we in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together—should use our influence and friendships to make a difference throughout the world. I know that we can do that, and that we are doing that, and I know that the Minister will come back on that. It is important that our friends in Qatar take this in the spirit in which it was intended—as a gentle reminder that we do the best we can for our own families, and that we expect them to do the same for theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. It is the second debate this week in which I have come in on the coat-tails of the right hon. Gentleman. It is an important and timely moment in which to secure the debate and I appreciate the way that he talked about it. He said that he is not here just to be an advocate for Qatar. I am not sure whether he used the phrase “critical friend”, but he certainly spoke in that spirit, and that is the spirit in which all right hon. and hon. Members have spoken this afternoon, which is right. The relationship between the UK and Qatar is a deepening and broad one. It is multi-dimensional and fascinating. It is a good thing that we are here this afternoon discussing that and looking in greater detail at it.

Various Members have referred to the energy relationship, the partnership, between the UK and Qatar, which will be the focus of my remarks. First, let me just say that in my time in this place over the past 15 years I have known and engaged with all of the Qatari ambassadors who have been in London, and I have found them and their teams to be excellent to work with. In my discussions with them, the point that hits home most strongly is their desire to see a genuine, deep partnership and friendship flourish between the United Kingdom and Qatar. Yes, we point to the enormous sums of money invested from Qatar into the United Kingdom, but the relationship should not just be about financial investment. It is cultural, educational and all of the other aspects that various Members have pointed to this afternoon.

As I said, I want to focus on the energy partnership. As I already said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the enormously important gas import relationship that we have with Qatar comes through Wales, through my constituency in Preseli Pembrokeshire. One of the first visits that I made as a brand-new Member of Parliament in 2005 was to the construction site in Milford Haven to see the enormous South Hook facility being built. It was one of the largest regassification projects in Europe and a partnership between Qatargas, ExxonMobil and Total, three of the world’s largest and most experienced energy companies.

At that time I also had the opportunity to visit Qatar. Sadly, I was not on the delegation last February, which sounded like a lot of fun, but I have been to Qatar. At the time, I saw the other end of the gas supply chain and the enormous plants at Ras Laffan where the gas is turned into liquefied natural gas. It is a remarkable feat of engineering. That tiny country, Qatar, sits on an enormous energy resource, and engineers and scientists have been able to unlock it and turn it into a tradeable commodity that can be shipped by sea to countries around the world.

I strongly believe that the investment made 15 years ago in the South Hook plant in my constituency has enhanced our energy security. In the same way, the facilities built in Japan to import liquefied natural gas from Qatar, at a time when it had to wind down many of its nuclear plants, have enhanced Japan’s energy security. The Qatar gas fields have enhanced energy security for numerous countries around the world.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) talked about the sheer volume of gas that has been coming into the country through the terminal. Last year, it celebrated its 10th anniversary. Up to that point, it had processed more than 65 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas. If it were supplying London alone, that is enough natural gas to keep the capital going for a decade.

As an operation critical to national infrastructure, the South Hook terminal played an important role in our country’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. During the initial lockdown earlier this year, from the end of March to the end of July, the terminal received 35 vessels and processed just under 3.5 million tonnes of LNG. To put that in context, South Hook provided 85% of the UK’s LNG market and almost 20% of the UK’s entire gas market throughout that first lockdown. On most days from mid-June, 100% of the LNG delivered to the grid came from South Hook. The team at the terminal are looking at projects potentially to increase capacity and further strengthen the resilience of the UK’s energy system.

Thanks to the South Hook terminal, the positive benefits of UK-Qatari relations are felt throughout my constituency in not only the investment, skilled jobs and apprenticeships that the terminal provides, but the company’s support for schools, community activities and numerous charities. The relationship is felt in real terms and greatly appreciated.

Another aspect of the UK-Qatari relationship that I would like to draw attention to relates to Cardiff airport, from which, since May 2018, Qatar Airways has run a direct route between Cardiff and Doha. The route was a moderate success in its first year and carried about 82,000 passengers. Since then, its popularity has grown and matured with steady growth, but then came the pandemic with its severe consequences for the aviation industry. I remain hopeful that we will see the redevelopment of the route and the resumption of growth.

I was delighted and encouraged when, in September, the new British ambassador to Qatar, Jon Wilks, visited Cardiff airport and met the interim CEO, Spencer Birns, and the chair to learn more about the exciting opportunities that lie between Wales and Qatar. I was pleased that, following that meeting, the ambassador said that he will be advocating for Wales in Qatar with extra knowledge and confidence in the months ahead.

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

Several hon. Members have referred to the World cup in 2022. It is not just England that have already qualified—I understand that Scotland still have work to do—but Wales as well. Nothing would fill me with more pleasure and pride than to be on a flight from Cardiff to Doha to watch the Wales team conquer other nations in the World cup in 2022.

We are living in a time of enormous change in the Gulf region. Hon. Members have referred to some of the diplomatic challenges in the region. Of course, the United Kingdom has numerous strategic priorities and objectives there. It is a complicated region, but I hope that the UK-Qatar relationship goes from strength to strength and flourishes. It is a time of change. I sat in on a call with the Israeli ambassador, the Bahraini ambassador and the UAE ambassador a couple of weeks ago. The three of them were talking about their new co-operation and peace agreements, and it was thrilling and really encouraging. My hope is that that change will continue and that the United Kingdom will use its diplomatic strength and networks of relationships in the region to encourage more change; and nothing would fill me with more pleasure than to see Qatar sharing in some of those changes. There is lots of work to be done, but I remain hopeful that better days lie ahead, diplomatically, for all these countries and we will all benefit from the new investments and new co-operation that flow through such relationships.

Government Policy on Iran

Stephen Crabb Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this debate. I will not repeat the points that he made.

At a time when the United Kingdom needs to be really clear-sighted about our strategic priorities and international objectives, our policy on Iran risks appearing—forgive me for saying this—confused and unclear. We are caught between, on the one hand, a desire for rapprochement and normalisation of relations with Iran, and on the other hand, the certain knowledge that Iran’s posture on the international stage is a negative one. Its activities across the middle east are deeply harmful to the region and are a direct threat to global peace, our own interests and those of our closest allies.

The desire for normalisation was enshrined in the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Iran in 2015. The hope at the time was that—we were in government, Mrs Miller—that would herald the beginning of a new, brighter phase of UK-Iran relations, and that the UK would somehow play a role in helping Iran find its way back into the mainstream of the international community. The truth is that the hopes that we had at the time were not well founded. Although it might still say on the gov.uk website that we believe the outlook for UK-Iran trade is positive, and that we want to see greater engagement between UK businesses and Iran, reflecting a desire for normalisation, what is the reality? This year, 2020, has demonstrated what the reality is.

The year started on 11 January in Tehran with the illegal arrest of our ambassador by the Iranian regime, in a complete violation of international law. We said at the time that Iran was at a crossroads moment, and that it faced a choice whether to continue its march towards pariah status. We warned that there would be consequences if it chose that path, and that is exactly what it has chosen. It has spent the year openly, belligerently and defiantly breaching its obligations, breaking international law and breaking its commitments under the JCPOA, and it is not clear to me what the Government’s response has been.

I do not understand, for example, why—I am sorry to say this—we sat on our hands at the United Nations in August and did not support our closest allies, the Americans, in voting for an extension of the arms embargo on Iran. I do not understand why we continue to try to keep the JCPOA on life support when it is clear that there were huge failings in that agreement.

I will finish shortly to allow others to speak. I know the Minister understands these issues thoroughly; we have discussed them previously. I urge him: I want to see the UK Government playing a really strategic role between the EU and the new American Administration and looking towards a new agreement that does not just narrowly focus on nuclear-related obligations, but deals with Iran’s ballistic missile programme, its support for terror, its human rights abuses and its systematic undermining of democracy all across the region. That would be the clear-sighted, positive role that the United Kingdom could play.