BARONESS WARSI ON BBC Today Saturday August 9th on why she resigned:

I HOPE MY RESIGNATION BRINGS TOGETHER A
BROAD COALITION OF SUPPORT TO START
TACKLING THE ISSUES THAT I RESIGNED FOR

“There was no clear language from the government in relation to the condemnation of what had happened. There was no clear commitment that we would lead the international effort on accountability on both sides for what had happened over the weeks before.

“I think it was the lack of support for international justice and accountability for the crimes that have been committed on both sides. I’ve been very clear that those who are alleged to have committed war crimes should be held accountable on both sides because that is the only way that you will start to tackle the culture of impunity.

“It cannot be right that we find ourselves every two or three years with a conflict like this were innocent people lose their lives children lose their lives and then we go back to business as usual.

“This crisis is not a crisis between two religions. It has therefore got nothing to do with whether someone is a Christian or a Muslim or indeed Jewish. I have a very long and proud history of speaking out on the issue of anti-semitism against the persecution of Christians worldwide. I led the government effort on freedom of religion and belief.

“Hamas is a terrorist organisation and I have no doubt that they have in no way acted in the best interest of the Palestinian people. But I also made it clear that Israel as an occupying power has a responsibility not just to the Israelis but also to the people that it occupies.

“I have always believed in the right of Israel to exist, not just exist but to exist in a secure way, but I do not believe that the actions that Israel has taken in the last few weeks are either in Israel’s interest. I do not believe that they in the interests of long-term secure stability or security for Israel and I do not believe that this was the way in which Israelis needed to conduct themselves to be able to achieve their ends.

“Our policy is morally unjustifiable. We need to be much more front-footed in dealing with the sending of arms into the region. We need to suspend all arms export licenses immediately. We need to work with countries that have influence with those countries who supply arms into Gaza and to Hamas to also step up their efforts to ensure that we stop weapons getting into an area where children are being killed.

“My departure clearly says that the Government’s policy on Gaza is morally indefensible. My departure clearly says that it is a policy that I could no longer support and put my name to. Long after politics has come and gone I want to be able to live with myself and by resigning and stepping down I can live with myself.

“I hope that my resignation, if it does anything in any political party or indeed people who are not involved in politics, I hope what it does is it brings together the support of a broad coalition to start tackling the issues that I resigned for.

“While we are still turning on our television screens and seeing innocent people being killed, what we need to do right now is to put all our efforts into making sure that we move the Government’s position, that they suspend the arms export licenses immediately that they start to lead the international effort on accountability on both sides and that they move towards a Middle East policy which is in the long term sustainable. There is no point in us talking about a two-state solution if we don’t do the simple things like recognising Palestine in the way the majority of the world has at the United Nations.

“I will now continue the work in relation to finding a way forward through this crisis and do what I can to support the broad coalition of support that there is out there both in politics and outside.”

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Hugh Robertson:  There is no reason, belief or cause that can justify the abduction and killing of innocent civilians. We send our deepest condolences to the families of Gilad Shaar, Naftali Frenkel and Eyal Yifrach.

I welcome President Abbas’s condemnations of the abduction. We are encouraging Israel and the Palestinian Authority to continue to work together to find the perpetrators. It is also vital that all parties avoid action that could escalate the situation further. All security operations must be handled with due care, restraint and a proportionate use of force.

It is too early to be clear about the full implications for the Middle East peace process, but we will do our utmost, with our allies and partners, to keep open the prospects for a return to negotiations on a two-state solution.

Peter Bone (Con): May I press my Friend on a few issues? It is true, I believe, that overseas aid to the Palestinian Authority has been used to provide salaries for the families of convicted Palestinian terrorists. Given the propaganda celebrating the abduction of the Israeli teenagers, should we review that? Will the Government support the Israeli Government not only in their actions to track down the perpetrators of this evil crime, but in dismantling the infrastructure of the Hamas organisation?

Does my Friend share my concern that part of the Palestinian Fatah-Hamas unity Government is a terrorist organisation that carries out such dreadful crimes? It seems completely illogical that it can be thought of as part of a democratic process.

Hugh Robertson: On the question of salaries this is not true; it is an old rumour. The money is paid through a World Bank trust fund to vetted people, who are nominated civil servants. 

As for the actions of the Israeli Government, it is crucial that any actions that the Israeli Government take are precisely targeted to find the perpetrators and that, in doing that, they avoid a more general escalation.

On the question of Fatah and Hamas, the technocratic Government are signed up to the Quartet principles. If anybody in that Government were an active member of Hamas, which remains a terrorist organisation, that would absolutely be the end of this Government’s dealing with them.

As to the effect on the peace process, it is an absolutely pivotal part of British Government policy at the moment to try to create the conditions under which the peace process can be restarted. If this situation goes on, with further settlement building on the one hand and applications to international organisations on the other, there will not be another chance.

Ian Lucas (Lab): I hope the Minister will assure us that the British Government will now seek to work with international allies to call for calm, to encourage dialogue and work towards peace.

Hugh Robertson: We absolutely agree with him that this is a moment for exercising maximum restraint.

As for who is responsible, it is too early to say. The Israeli Government are very clear about the fact that Hamas was responsible. When I was in Israel 10 days ago, there was some indication on the Palestinian side that that might be correct, but we have no hard evidence in London to back that up.

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Lab): I commend the Minister for his balanced response. May I ask him to send the heartfelt sympathy of, I am sure, every Member in the House—very much including myself—to the grief-stricken families of these abducted and murdered youths? What has been done to them has no conceivable justification of any kind.

Will the Minister also send our sympathy to the families of the five Palestinians whom Israeli troops murdered during their search for the missing youths in a collective punishment which has involved hundreds of arrests and the looting and ransacking of houses? Nothing whatsoever can justify the murder of these Israeli youths, but it is very important indeed to see it in the context of a conflict that will go on until there is a fair settlement.

Hugh Robertson: It has often struck me, in the context of the Middle East, that there cannot really be a hierarchy of victimhood, and our sympathy must be with all who have lost their lives.

Mrs Louise Ellman (Lab/Co-op):  What does the Minister think should be done to address the unremitting messages of hate that come from Palestinian media? They are partly responsible for this situation and are a grave impediment to peace.

Hugh Robertson: I was a soldier for 10 years, and took part in campaigns against terrorism, and when we lose people—civilians or soldiers—in these situations, that is precisely the time when we need to show leadership and show restraint. Absolutely all efforts should be directed at finding the perpetrators but it is very important that all those actions are directed at doing that, and nothing wider.

Richard Burden (Lab): It was an appalling crime and it is a tragedy for their families and friends. Does the Minister agree that Palestinian teenagers and children who also die, in Israeli strikes and military operations, have names, faces and families, for whom their deaths are equal tragedies? Will he say to the House, in the appalling situation we are in at the moment, what he thinks are the responsibilities under international law of the Palestinian Authority and what are the responsibilities of the Israeli Government as an occupying power in the West Bank, and will he confirm that collective punishment of the Palestinian people is a crime under international law?

Hugh Robertson: The role of the technocratic Government is very clear. These youths were not abducted in an area that is inside their security control, but it is perfectly possible—but not yet confirmed—that the perpetrators of this crime did come from an area that was controlled by them. It is absolutely their job and responsibility to co-operate with the Israeli Government in bringing the perpetrators to justice, and it is absolutely the responsibility of the Israeli Government to ensure the action they take is precisely targeted at the perpetrators and no wider.

Robert Halfon (Con): Hamas is Hamas is Hamas: it is a terrorist organisation whether it is part of the so-called unity Government or not, and Hamas has celebrated the kidnapping of these children and their murder. Surely it is now time to cut off relations with the Government given that they are co-opted with a terrorist organisation. Does my Friend agree that, far from showing restraint, the British Government should give Israel every possible assistance to take out the Hamas terrorist network.

Hugh Robertson: Hamas is a terrorist organisation and remains a terrorist organisation, and one that is proscribed by the British Government. The key thing about the technocratic Government was that they signed up to the Quartet principles and renounced violence and no member of Hamas is a member of that Government.

Crispin Blunt (Con): The anger and outrage of the people of Israel at the appalling murder of these three teenagers are wholly understandable and shared here because of our special links to Israel, but equally understandable are the anger and outrage of Palestinians at the death of 1,406 children in the conflict since 2000, including 270 in Gaza under air and ground attack in 2009 alone. Would adding to this awful toll by the threatened Israeli reaction be either legal or wise?

Hugh Robertson: The death toll on both sides throughout this conflict is appalling. This is merely the latest in a long line of incidents that has tried to derail the peace process, and it proves once and for all that there is no future in violence.

Andy Slaughter (Lab): Does the Minister agree that we should send our condolences to Israeli and Palestinian dead and their families—and we should stress to all sides that retaliation and escalation are not the way forward?

Hugh Robertson: It is crucial that any reaction is targeted very precisely at the perpetrators, and further bloodshed is not the way to resolve this situation.

Michael McCann (Lab): 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.

Hugh Robertson: 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 Member has made, that would be a very serious matter.

Mark Durkan (SDLP): Does the Minister recognise that in any conflict there comes a point where both sides have to recognise that they cannot be secure against each other and that they can be truly secure only with each other?

Hugh Robertson: It has often struck me when dealing with the politics of this region—this is not something that is confined to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories—that it is always easier for people to return to violence than it is to make the difficult compromises and decisions necessary to move the peace process forward.

Mike Freer (Con): Many of my constituents will be disappointed to hear from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the rather well used and tired phrase “proportionate response”. Perhaps the Minister, who I know is a decent man, could advise me on what I say to my constituents about what the FCO regards as a proportionate response to three teenagers being murdered and missiles being fired at Israel on a daily basis.

Hugh Robertson: The correct response to the kidnapping and murder of three teenagers is to find the perpetrators and to bring them to justice. We expect exactly the same response in that part of the world as we would find here—no more and no less.

Philip Hollobone (Con): These murders take place against the background of the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners by the Israelis as a signal of good intent for the peace process, and of a constant stream of hate and abuse from state-sponsored TV and media in the Palestinian Authority. Surely this House and The Government need to make it clear to the Palestinian Authority that this background of hate and contempt for Israel must stop if we are to have a meaningful peace process.

Hugh Robertson: As I have already said, I did not realise that there was any truth in these allegations. I have been specifically reassured that there is not. If the International Development Committee has evidence that that is not the case, we will be keen to see it.

Mark Harper (Con): If it turns out that there is persuasive evidence that Hamas was indeed behind these evil murders, will the Minister return to the Dispatch Box to set out what implications that has for the British Government’s recognition of that Palestinian unity Government?

Hugh Robertson: The Israelis are very clear about who they think is responsible. The Palestinian Authority have indicated that that view may be sensible. We need to find out who the perpetrators were, and then we need to find out what, if any, association they may have with the technocratic Government. At the moment, the technocratic Government are absolutely clear that they are fully signed up to the Quartet principles and that they are a non-violent Government and have no contact with Hamas. Indeed, talking to members of Fatah, it is clear that their relationship with Hamas has been desperate. They hate Hamas and regard it as being responsible for the splits that have occurred, so there is some small reason for hope.

David Burrowes (Con): When Hamas and terrorists are throwing rockets over the border and on to innocent civilians and when Hamas itself sees Israeli teenagers as legitimate targets for terrorist attacks, how can we draw any equivalence when it comes to the response?

Hugh Robertson: The correct response as regards the war on terror, which we have faced in this country for many years through the threat from Irish republicans, is to target what we do very precisely, to avoid escalation and to abide by the rule of law. That is precisely how we relieve the underlying causes of conflict. If one goes further than that, the lessons of history show that that inevitably stokes the conflict and makes things worse.

This is a link to some related web page……

Roger Godsiff MP: What representations has Foreign Secretary made to his Israeli counterpart on the recent destruction of fruit trees at the Tent of Nations farm?

Lord Judd: What representations have HMG made to G4S about the legal implications of its remaining involvement with the Israeli Prison Service until 2017, in the light of Article 76 of the 4th Geneva Convention and its application to the detention of Palestinians?

Baroness Tonge: What discussions have HMG had with the new President of Egypt concerning the opening of Rafah crossing to Gaza, in order to facilitate travel and the transfer of medical supplies?

Baroness Tonge: What is HMG’s most recent assessment of the level of medical supplies in Gazan hospitals? Baroness Northover: (extract) “The World Health Organisation (WHO) has estimated that in Gaza at 29% of drugs are at zero stock (less than 1 month’s supply).”

Baroness Tonge: What discussions have the Government held with their European partners with regard to listing Israeli settler groups such as Hilltop Youth as terrorist groups, following the US State Department’s description of recent settler acts of violence as terrorist incidents?

Baroness Tonge: What action do HMG plan to take to promote the education of UK citizens about the events of 1948 in Palestine?

Lord Hylton: What representations have the Government made to the government of Israel about its holding children detained in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in immediate solitary confinement; whether they have any plans to work within the European Union to end the practice; whether they know when the proposed system of summons will start; and whether they will take steps to ensure access by parents to their children in custody?

Baroness Warsi: The system of summons started in February 2014. It has already shown initial success in decreasing the number of children arrested at night. We intend to carry out further analysis on this system over the coming months. As a recent progress report by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicates, Israel has taken some positive steps towards addressing the recommendations in UNICEF’s Children in Israeli Military Detention report. These include: the introduction of legal obligations to inform the child’s parents of an arrest and grant them legal status to be represented in court, as well as to notify minors of their legal rights; and standard operating procedures on methods of restraint. The Government will continue to work, both through bilateral engagement and through the EU, to encourage Israel to take further positive steps.

Baroness Tonge: What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office-sponsored report, Children in Military Custody, on Israeli interrogation methods of Palestinian children; and what follow-up to the report they intend to undertake.

Baroness Warsi: The Minister wrote to the Israeli Attorney General on 31 March 2014 to welcome the steps taken to date and to call for further measures, including the mandatory use of audio-visual recording of interrogations, investigation into continued reports of single hand ties being used, and an end to solitary confinement for children. These were key UK recommendations at Israel’s Universal Periodic Review session at the UN Human Rights Council on 29 October 2013.

A progress report published in October 2013 by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicates that Israel has taken some positive steps towards addressing the recommendations in the report. These include: the introduction of legal obligations to inform the child’s parents of an arrest and grant them legal status to be represented in court, as well as to notify minors of their legal rights; and standard operating procedures on methods of restraint. The Israeli military are also piloting a new procedure across the West Bank, whereby children are issued a summons to attend a police station in the morning, rather than being arrested at night, in their homes. The UK believes that the report “Children in Military Custody” has helped contribute to these changes in practice.

EDM 183 – PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL

Tabled by Sir Bob Russell MP

“That this House congratulates the Presbyterian Church of the United States on its vote to divest from Hewlett-Packard, Motorola Solutions and Caterpillar, all companies with well-documented ties to the Israeli illegal occupation of the West Bank in defiance of international law, the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions; notes that this is the biggest move yet by any institution in the US to take non-violent action to end Israel’s occupation; and calls on the Government to urge British companies with interests in the West Bank, such as G4S, to terminate their involvement which supports the illegal occupation.” http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/183

Foreign Secretary criticised  for ‘softly-softly’ approach

Is this the right time for action? No, says Hague

Talks ‘paused’, not failed

Having pinned his entire strategy on US-sponsored peace talks for the last four years, and having seen them end in abject failure, the Foreign Secretary stood at the despatch box like a man in total denial – the talks were only ‘paused’, there was no need to do anything except sit and hope ‘to see them revived’.

When Labour MP Ben Bradshaw put it to him that the Israelis had deliberately scuppered the talks with a surge in settlement building and asked “is now not the time for a recalibration of our policy towards Israel, beginning with the illegal settlements?“, Wiliam Hague’s answer put paid to any hopes of a more robust policy or of a UK-led initiative.

“Is the time right now for such a recalibration? I think the honest answer to that is ‘no’…. Secretary Kerry has said that there is a pause in the negotiations; we would like to see them revived. I think everything we do has to be consistent with supporting that.”

Liberal Democrat MP David Ward said if the talks were ‘paused’, there was certainly no pause in Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements which had continued apace throughout the negotiations:

“What is the point of something being illegal under international law if the international community is not willing to deal with the criminal breaking the law? Is not this softly-softly approach towards Israel failing to bring about peace and justice for the Palestinians?”

The Foreign Secretary affected not to notice when one of his own senior backbenchers tossed him a well-crafted question pointing to the double standards at the heart of Britain’s policy towards Israel and Palestine.

Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire): “The Foreign Secretary has said that the UK’s continuing support for the new Palestinian government depends on its commitment to the principles of non-violence and accepting Israel’s legitimate right to exist. Does the UK’s continuing support for Israel also rest on a commitment to non-violence and the Palestinians’ right to a home of their own?”

William Hague was obviously unprepared for this shaft of sunlight on an embarrassing inconsistency in his foreign policy and decided that the best policy was to give the question what his predecessor George Brown once called ‘a total ignoral’:

“We have in this country,” he intoned, “a long-standing recognition of Israel and support for Israel’s right to exist.” 

What he was ignoring was the debate within the  Foreign Office over the best way to revive the peace talks.  Is it just to sit and wait? Or is it to exert gentle economic pressure on the Israelis – for instance, by discouraging UK firms from trading with illegal settlements in the West Bank?

The Foreign Secretary has recently taken the first small step in the latter direction by issuing business guidance on the Government website. It was never announced and this was the first time Mr Hague had referred to the new policy, though he presented it as ‘long-standing’ when it actually dates from December 3:

“The UK’s position on this is long-standing: settlements are illegal—we neither support nor encourage trade, we make clear the risks to business.”

However small, this was significant because it was the first time that the Foreign Secretary has taken action on the settlements, as opposed to verbal protests which he makes regularly and repeated at question time:

“I deplore the recent decisions taken by the Israeli authorities to expand the number of illegal settlements.”

“We are very clear about where we stand on settlements.” 

“We have made our views about recent settlements announcements abundantly clear.”

He was also asked by Conservative MP Rob Wilson and Labour MP Grahame Morris what steps he was taking to ensure that residents of East Jerusalem are permitted to vote in the Palestinian elections – despite threats to stop them from Israel’s prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

“It will be of paramount importance that those elections, which are scheduled to take place within six months of the formation of the new government, are free and democratic and that Palestinians throughout the occupied territories are able to take part in them. We will of course make representations to the Israelis and to the Palestinians about that.”

Grahame Morris and SDLP MP Mark Durkan also pressed the Foreign Secretary to protest about the Israeli refusal to allow ministers in the new technocratic government from travelling from Gaza to the West Bank, forcing the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to conduct the swearing-in ceremony earlier this month by video-link.

Netanyahu has also arrested and jailed 24 members of the present Palestinian parliament – mainly without charge or trial – making it impossible for them to meet or function or even vote to approve the new government and the holding of elections.

The Foreign Secretary agreed with Mark Durkan that it was important to lift travel restrictions on Palestinian ministers so that the new government is able to function.

Questions to Foreign Secretary

Tuesday June 17th

Middle East

3. Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con):What discussions he has had with the Israeli Government on the new Palestinian Government.[904245]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague):The Minister for the Middle East last discussed the matter with Israel’s chief negotiator on the Middle East peace process, Tzipi Livni, on 12 June. We have been clear that reuniting Gaza and the west bank under a Government committed to peace is a necessary condition for resolving the conflict.

Andrew Selous:The Foreign Secretary has said that the United Kingdom’s continued support for the new Palestinian Government depends on their commitment to the principle of non-violence and acceptance of Israel’s legitimate right to exist. Does the UK’s continuing support for Israel also rest on the commitment to non-violence and the Palestinians’ right to a home of their own?

Mr Hague:We have in this country a long-standing recognition of Israel and support for its right to exist is evident in this country, but we want to see all sides in the Middle East come together to agree a two-state solution that brings lasting security and peace to Israel and a sovereign, viable state for Palestinians. We will continue to press both sides to resume the negotiations, which are going through a pause at the moment, because time is running out to bring about that solution.

Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Does the Foreign Secretary believe that Hamas can currently be peace negotiators when only a month ago its Prime Minister called for the bombing of Tel Aviv?

Mr Hague: Of course, our policy on Hamas is what it has been for a long time. We look to Hamas to renounce violence, to recognise Israel and to accept previously signed agreements. We call on all those in the region with influence over Hamas to encourage it to take these steps. It has not done so; it should do so. The new Government of the Palestinian Authority do not contain Hamas members. They have signed up to the Quartet principles, which we welcome.

Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con): The all-party group on Egypt was in Cairo over the weekend. We heard from the Foreign Minister the reassurance of Egypt maintaining its support for the long-standing peace agreement with Israel. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that is an essential pillar for going forward? Does he also agree with the view that, with all that is going on in the region, both the Israelis and the Palestinians would be unwise to miss the opportunity they have now? Unless they seek a proper negotiation and solution, the outlook for both is bleak if we cannot rekindle the Middle East peace process.

Mr Hague: My friend is absolutely right. As I said a moment ago, time is running out. Secretary Kerry, through his tireless work in the past year and a half, has created an opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to succeed in negotiations on final status issues and on arriving at a two-state solution. Unless that opportunity, which is still open, is seized by both sides, the outlook will be very, very bleak within the next few years.

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate on discussions he has had with the Israeli Government on the kidnapping of Israeli civilians?

Mr Hague: We deplore the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers. I discussed this on Sunday with the Israeli security Minister, Mr Steinitz. I will be talking to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr Lieberman, later today. We again appeal for the safe return of the three teenagers.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I welcome the EU Foreign Minister’s statement, which condemned all extremism and all violence against civilians but welcomed Palestinian reconciliation. Is there any way in which the considerable economic ties between the EU and both Palestine and Israel can be used to encourage both parties back to the negotiating table?

Mr Hague: For Israelis and Palestinians, the outlook for economic ties with the whole of the European Union would be very bright indeed if a two-state solution could be agreed. We have been clear that an unprecedented offer of close economic ties is available for Israelis and Palestinians. That is part of the great prize of settling these issues and a further incentive to do so. Illegal Settlements: West Bank

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): What his policy is on trade with illegal settlements in the West Bank.[904253]

William Hague: I deplore the recent decisions taken by the Israeli authorities to expand the number of illegal settlements. The UK’s position on this is long standing: settlements are illegal—we neither support nor encourage trade, we make clear the risks to business, and we ensure all consumers can make their own choice through the labelling of goods.

Mr Bradshaw: In February, the Foreign Secretary said that the recent talks were the last chance for a two-state solution. Given the Netanyahu Government’s relentless expansion of the illegal settlements, which scuppered those talks, and the warning from Senator Kerry that Israel risks becoming an apartheid state, is now not the time for a recalibration of our policy towards Israel, beginning with the illegal settlements?

Mr Hague: As the Member knows and as I have just said, we are very clear about where we stand on settlements. But is the time right now for such a recalibration? I think the honest answer to that is no, because our efforts are geared towards a resumption of negotiations if it is at all possible. Secretary Kerry has said that there is a pause in the negotiations; we would like to see them revived. I think everything we do has to be consistent with supporting that, but we have made our views about recent settlements announcements abundantly clear.

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of how we can change the situation whereby Palestinian Arabs living in the west bank continue to be tried under martial law in the Ofer military court, whereas Israelis living there are subject to civil law?

Mr Hague: Of course, this is a further continuing difficulty and it reinforces the case for these issues to be fully resolved, and for a final status settlement of these issues that brings about a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. Otherwise, there will constantly be the great variety of extremely troubling issues that are raised in this House.

Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): Is not Britain’s role to get Israelis and Palestinians who believe in peace and a two-state solution working together and trading with each other, instead of campaigning for boycotts, disinvestment and sanctions, which just drive people further apart? The Palestinians working at SodaStream are paid three times more than the average Palestinian, so boycotting such companies would actually hurt the very people they claim to be trying to help.

Mr Hague:As the Member knows, we do not encourage boycotts in any way. The British Government do not support boycotts or a de-legitimisation of Israel, but we do support, as did the last Government, labelling of products from illegal settlements in the west bank, and I think that is the right thing to do. But the Member is quite right that our emphasis is on bringing Israelis and Palestinians together, and this is a more important time than ever to try to do that.

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD):It is certainly urgent. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the public can have confidence in the labelling of goods from illegal settlements, or can the supply chain be sufficiently complex to ensure that the public do not have the information they may seek?

Mr Hague: The evidence I have seen is that the guidelines on this are well observed, and work is going on on EU-wide guidelines. But of course, where there are serious problems with them, if my Friend or others would like to bring that to our attention, I will investigate.25.[904267]

Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, to achieve a democratic solution, residents of East Jerusalem must be permitted to vote in the Palestinian elections—and that includes releasing Palestinian MPs who are held in administrative detention, and the free passage of movement?

Mr Hague: It is very important that Palestinians are able to vote freely in the elections, which are envisaged within six months, for the new technocratic Government being created. Of course, we will make that point to the Israelis and to the Palestinians themselves. Middle East 17.[904259]

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con):  It was good to hear the Foreign Secretary condemn the abduction of three Israelis. Unfortunately though, Hamas, which is now part of the unity Government, declared the abduction to be a success. Will he further condemn the Hamas Prime Minister who, in April 2014, said:“Abducting Israeli soldiers is a top priority on the agenda of Hamas and Palestinian resistance.”We will not get peace with a unity Government who include people with such views.

Mr Hague: Let me say again that the new Government of the Palestinian Authority contain no Hamas members and have signed up to the Quartet principles, but I absolutely condemn any encouragement to foment further tensions, including the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. That is exactly the sort of thing that obstructs a successful peace process and is presumably designed to do so. It is important that Hamas or anyone else desists from it.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Last year, the Palestinian Authority paid more than £60 million to Palestinians convicted of terror offences. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of that policy of financially rewarding terrorism? Is he aware of recent reports that the Palestine Liberation Organisation has been mandated by the Palestinian Authority to continue that awful practice on its behalf?

Mr Hague: The Palestinian Authority is working very hard, as we want it to do, in its new incarnation and with its new members. It is committed to the Quartet principle of bringing about a lasting and peaceful two-state solution with Israel, and we look to it to do that. We expect all its actions to be consistent with doing that. We give considerable financial aid to the Palestinian Authority, and I know that the Department for International Development takes great care over the allocation and use of that aid. Topical questions

Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that the upcoming Palestinian elections in places such as East Jerusalem will be free and democratic?

Mr Hague: As I mentioned earlier, it will be of paramount importance that those elections, which are scheduled to take place within six months of the formation of the new Government, are free and democratic and that Palestinians throughout the occupied territories are able to take part in them. We will of course make representations to the Israelis and to the Palestinians about that.

Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): The Foreign Secretary referred to the pause in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but there has been no pause in the expansion of what he himself has described as illegal settlements. What is the point of something being illegal under international law if the international community is not willing to deal with the criminal breaking the law? Is not this softly, softly approach towards Israel failing to bring about peace and justice for the Palestinians?

Mr Hague: No one has succeeded in bringing about lasting peace so far, but we have to continue to try to do so. The only way in which Palestinians will be able to enjoy what I think we all believe in here—a viable and sovereign state of their own—is through successful negotiations arriving at a two-state solution. All our actions are therefore consistent with promoting that.

Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP):Has the Secretary of State emphasised to the Israeli Government that travel restrictions or other constraints that would prevent Ministers in the technocratic Government from meeting will mean only that they are unable to meet their responsibilities not just to all Palestinians but to the peace process?

Mr Hague:Of course we want the technocratic Government of the Palestinian Authority to be able to function. They have committed themselves to the Quartet principles—that, to us, is a very important test—and so we want them to be able to function and to make decisions. Questions on International DevelopmentWednesday June 18th 2014

Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): Given that the unity Government of Palestine have unequivocally endorsed the Quartet principles, will the Secretary of State confirm that she will robustly continue DFID’s financial support to them, or even increase it?

Justine Greening:We will continue to provide support to the Palestinian people. The UK has welcomed the formation of the new interim technocratic Government. We have also made it clear that our continued support for that new Government will rest on their commitment to the principles of non-violence and their acceptance of all previous agreements and obligations, including Israel’s legitimate right to exist.

Statement by Foreign Secretary William Hague on June 3rd:

“We welcome yesterday’s announcement on the formation of a new interim technocratic government for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Reuniting Gaza and the West Bank under a government committed to peace is a necessary condition for resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. We have made clear that our continued support to the new government will rest on its commitment to the principle of non-violence, and an acceptance of all previous agreements and obligations, including Israel’s legitimate right to exist. We now look to the new government to demonstrate these commitments through its actions as well as its words.”

ON RADIO 4 FRIDAY 19 JUNE 2014 AT 9 AMKirsty Young’s castaway this week is the Palestinian author and human rights activist, Raja Shehadeh.

TUESDAY 23 JUNE Mother of one of the Hares boys Umm Fady speaking about the treatment of Palestinian teenagers at the Britain-Palestine All-Party Parliamentary Group.  Passholders only.

EDM 49: 49 MPs have signed EDM 49 on the treatment of Palestinian children: “That this House notes that Israeli forces continue to use excessive force including live ammunition and rubber coated metal bullets on unarmed protestors, including children and that 1,400 children have been killed in this way since 2000; further notes the lack of transparency in the investigation of such incidents; acknowledges the excellent work that Defence for Children International Palestine do in increasing awareness of these deaths; further notes that since January 2008, 129 children have been affected by settler violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including four fatalities with each of the cases occurring near Palestinian neighbourhoods, villages or roads located close to Israeli settlements and the nature of the violence includes being shot at, beaten, pelted with stones and sprayed with gas; and calls on the Government to press the Israeli government to respect the right to peaceful protest and prioritise the safety of all children who come under such attack on a routine basis.”

Read Harriet Sherwood’s article about children growing up in occupied Palestine

“Around four million Palestinians have known nothing but an existence defined by checkpoints, demands for identity papers, night raids, detentions, house demolitions, displacement, verbal abuse, intimidation, physical attacks, imprisonment and violent death. It is a cruel mosaic: countless seemingly unrelated fragments that, when put together, build a picture of power and powerlessness.”

Read article>

The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition led the tributes to Del Singh during Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s questions:

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in paying tribute to Del Singh and to Simon Chase who were tragically killed in Kabul on Sunday in a cowardly terrorist attack. Both were there to support the Afghan Government and to improve the lives of the Afghan people. Del Singh was a friend to many in the House and had given so much time and dedication to troubled regions across the world. Our thoughts should be with their families and friends at this very difficult time.

Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): I want to start by paying tribute to the two British nationals, Simon Chase and Del Singh, who were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Afghanistan. Simon Chase had served Britain in the Army, and my condolences go to all his family and friends. Del Singh was one of Labour’s European candidates, and one of the most decent people one could ever hope to meet. He was an international development worker who dedicated his life to helping people across the world, and we all grieve with his family.

Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): May I also thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their kind words about my friend Del Singh, who devoted his too-short life to working for peace and justice, not least in Palestine and Afghanistan?

Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab): Del Singh was an extraordinary person: a warm and generous friend, and a passionate campaigner for peace and justice. He dedicated his life to working for those in need in areas of conflict, including in Afghanistan. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that, after the drawdown of troops this year, the work of people such as Del Singh will continue to be supported by this Government?

The Prime Minister: I very much share what she said about Del Singh. It reminds us of the risks that aid workers take on our behalf to deliver vital assistance around the world. I can give her the assurance she seeks. It is very important for everyone to recognise that, while our troops are coming home at the end of 2014, our commitment to Afghanistan will continue: not just our commitment to its armed forces but, with more than $100 million a year, our commitment to its aid and future development. We will need many more brave people such as Del Singh to go on working with the Afghan Government to deliver for the Afghan people.

As it appeared in Hansard

Foreign Office questions 3 Dec 2013

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): What assessment he has made of the effect of recent announcements of settlement building on the Middle East peace negotiations.

Hugh Robertson: Recent settlement announcements have had a detrimental impact on trust between the two parties. During my recent visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, I made clear our serious concerns about the announcements and our strong opposition to settlements.

Duncan Hames: Last week, the United Nations Secretary-General described Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a cause of great concern, saying that it risked the continuation of negotiations and must cease. I am glad that our Minister shares those concerns. Will he use his influence to shape European trade policies in a manner that is consistent with our Government’s view on the illegal settlements?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, we will. As I suspect the Member knows, we welcome the EU guidelines on the eligibility of Israel entities for EU funding and the agreement reached last week that, on the other side, allows Israel to participate in Horizon 2020. We will absolutely make those representations.

Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Announcements of new settlement building must be unhelpful, but does the Minister recognise Israel’s good will in continuing its programme of releasing more than 100 convicted prisoners, many of them terrorists who carried out horrendous crimes, at the same time as the Palestinian national broadcasting authority perpetuates calls for violence against Israelis and Jews?

Hugh Robertson: Yes. If the Palestinian broadcasting authority is perpetuating calls for violence, that is totally unacceptable, and I would have no hesitation in condemning it. It is fair to say that it was made clear to me a couple of weeks ago that the Palestinians believe that the original agreement was that there would be no push towards representation in international bodies in exchange for prisoner release and that the settlements issue should be renegotiated at a later stage.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): As the Middle East peace negotiations continue, are the Palestinians speaking with one voice? What is my Friend’s assessment of the relationship between Fatah and Hamas?

Hugh Robertson: It is absolutely clear that those Palestinian entities involved in the peace process are indeed speaking with one voice. It is clear, however—I suspect that this is what lies behind my Friend’s question—that there is a very considerable difference between the Palestinian authorities engaged in those processes and the authorities in Gaza. I would call on those authorities in Gaza to make it clear that they deplore terrorist activities of all sorts.

Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): When Members raise the issue of, say, trade with illegal settlements, the Government say that they do not want to upset the peace talks, but 4,000 settlements have been announced—800 last week—and those are destabilising the peace talks. What are the Government going to do about that in order to support the peace talks?

Hugh Robertson: I am not sure that I understand the distinction that the Member makes, because the Government have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcements about expanded settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are illegal under international law and, as I have said, they undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. We are quite clear about that.

Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): A year ago, 13-year old Mahmoud Khousa was targeted and killed by a drone-fired missile in the streets of Gaza as he walked to the shops to buy a pencil for his sister. According to Amnesty International, it would have been clear to the Israeli military that Mahmoud was a child. Does the Minister agree that it is a travesty that, 12 months later, nobody has been held to account for Mahmoud’s death? Will the Minister use his influence to achieve justice for Mahmoud and his family and to send a strong message that nobody should be allowed to target innocent 13-year-old children?

Hugh Robertson: I am sure there is total agreement right across the House that there is absolutely no excuse for the targeting of children in any form of military strike. I am not entirely sure how a drone could be that precisely targeted, but the Lady absolutely has my undertaking that we regard this as a matter of the utmost seriousness, and we will take it up in no uncertain terms with the Israeli authorities.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Amnesty International is warning that Gaza’s 1.7 million residents are facing a public health catastrophe, with chronic fuel and power shortages. The Foreign Secretary often says that he is repeatedly urging the Israeli authorities to ease their restrictions on Gaza, but nothing ever happens on the ground. Will he now at least call for a formal assessment of whether the human rights conditions in article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement are being met?

Hugh Robertson: The British Government have made their views on this matter abundantly clear; I draw the Lady’s attention to the statement that we released recently on the situation in Gaza. She has suggested that the situation is dire, but she will also be aware that part of the problem was the creation of the tunnels, which have now been blocked up. We are urging the Israeli authorities to facilitate free trade and to alleviate the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): May I take the Foreign Secretary back to his favourite subject, a nuclear weapons-free Middle East? That has now become a greater possibility with an interim agreement with Iran. Will he update us on progress on a conference that would include Israel, which of course is the only country in the region that has declared nuclear weapons?

Mr Hague: I do not have an update beyond the one I gave a couple of weeks ago, but I will keep in touch with him as he is extremely assiduous on this matter. I agree with his assessment that the interim deal achieved with Iran on the nuclear issue reinforces the case for, and brings closer, a conference for which he has long campaigned and which the United Kingdom would like to see.

DfID questions 04-12 2013

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State agree that it is very difficult to have economic development if it is not possible to import and to export? In Gaza, that has left more than 1 million people on food aid, while fuel shortages mean that 3,000 people are affected by raw sewage running into the streets. What is Britain going to do in practice to end the blockade of Gaza?

Justine Greening: We are deeply concerned about the constraints that have been placed on the Gazan economy that prevent it from creating the wealth and prosperity that would put it in a position to support public services without foreign assistance. The Gentleman will be aware that there will be a debate on this matter tomorrow evening. I am sure that he will want to debate it more fully with the Minister of State.

Written questions

Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to meet the humanitarian needs of Bedouin who are forcibly removed from their traditional lands. [901432]

Mr Duncan: The UK Government has raised concerns about forced relocation of Bedouin with the Israeli authorities, with a view to agreeing a satisfactory solution to this complex issue. DFID supports vulnerable communities including the Bedouin in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to reduce their risk of displacement.

Occupied Palestinian Territories (Water Shortages) 5 Dec 2013

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the acute water shortages in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The average Palestinian uses some 50 litres of water daily, which is just half the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation. The average Israeli uses at least four times that amount and sometimes uses more. Nearly 10% of Palestinian communities in the West Bank—about 200,000 people—have no connection to any drinking water system at all.

Because of restrictions on movement, travelling to buy water is far from easy. Indeed in some circumstances, Palestinians pay up to 40% of their total income on water alone.

The Joint Water Committee was established to administer the water arrangements under the Oslo accords. It is true that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have representation on that committee, but there is one snag: Israel has a veto. That veto has been used on new water drilling for Palestinians.

That veto is frequently used when it comes to Palestinian water development, but it does not apply to the settlers or to those who are given every encouragement to live on land occupied by Israel, which is illegal under international law. Again, that is a matter that should concern us.

Palestinians are frequently prevented from developing water infrastructure, particularly in Area C in the Occupied Territories and that is where Israel maintains exclusive control. The Emergency Water, Sanitation and Hygiene group—EWASH—is made up of some 30 humanitarian agencies and it has involved itself in every possible way in trying to assist Palestinians over the water situation. It does a first-class job and should be supported in every way.

In its report, EWASH stated that between 1995 and 2011, Palestinians submitted 30 waste water treatment plant projects to the Joint Water Committee. How many were accepted? Was it 20, 15 or 10? No, it was four. In 2011, the Palestinian Water Authority submitted 38 projects to the Joint Water Committee, and out of that 38, how many were approved? Was it 30, 15, or 10? No, it was just three. As EWASH said, that is an approval rate of under 8%. Something is wrong and unacceptable. Pressure should be put on the Israelis over that situation.

Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): The Member is making a powerful case. Does he agree that there is a legal and moral responsibility on every Government, particularly when they claim to be civilised and democratic, to treat all their citizens equally and fairly and, under international law, that also applies to civilians whose country has been occupied in defiance of the Geneva convention and UN resolutions. Even in apartheid South Africa, I do not recall the Government depriving anyone of water in the way that the Government of Israel have done against the Palestinians.

Mr Winnick: An Amnesty report said that Israeli settlers in the occupied areas use up to 20 times more water than Palestinian villages. What of the Gaza strip where Israel gave up control and prided itself that it no longer controlled the area? It says that things were now up to the people of Gaza. Now – this is a terrible statistic and it should shame us that we allow it to occur without constant pressure – some 90% of the water in Gaza is unfit for consumption. That figure comes from an Amnesty report. The continued Israeli military action prevents much of the equipment needed to maintain water treatment facilities from being imported.

During the operation in which Israel was involved, which is well known, water pipes were destroyed as a result of military action. In a debate in the Lords on 3 July last year, much concern was expressed over the situation in Gaza and rightly so. Lord Warner had been twice to Gaza and confirmed that 90% of Gaza’s water is not drinkable. What about the population of that area? Half of the population are under 18.

I have come back to this point time and again in this brief speech: there must be the utmost pressure on Israel. It is simply not good enough for western Governments to refuse to raise the issue at every opportunity. I hope that will change and that western Governments—certainly ours—will raise the issue at the United Nations and do everything possible to bring a change.

Let me conclude by quoting a Palestinian whose words are in the Amnesty report, “Thirsting for Justice.” These are his words. He is an ordinary Palestinian, not someone in politics or in national life in any way. He said: “Water is life. Without water we cannot live…it’s very difficult and expensive” to “bring water from far away…They make our life very difficult, to make us leave.”

Minister of State Alan Duncan:  I thank the Member for Walsall North for calling this debate and want to say at the outset that I agree with pretty much every word he said.

We take access to clean water for granted in the UK. We rarely question where the water in our taps and sanitation systems comes from and we assume it will be there again the next day. We take it for granted that it has been treated effectively to make it safe for us to use. The same cannot be said of those living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories today. Water resources there are limited. A lack of rainfall in recent years, inadequate infrastructure and the inequitable distribution of water resources with Israel combine to make life very difficult.

We cannot do anything about the naturally arid environment, but we can address the binding human and political constraints that perpetuate this problem. It is an injustice that in the 21st century Palestinians should still lack for something as basic as clean water and sanitation. Let me reassure the House that the UK and others are working to right this wrong.

In the West Bank, the story begins with the unfair and unequal allocation of resources. Palestinians, as the Member said, are limited to withdrawing 20% of the water from the aquifers underneath the West Bank. Domestic usage, understandably, is prioritised, leaving little left over for the vital irrigation of agricultural land. Palestinians have to buy water from the Israeli national water company to make up any shortfall. In 2012, this cost about $37million. Illegal Israeli settlers, on the other hand, do not have to worry—they are free to consume, on average, four times as much water per capita as Palestinians in the West Bank.

Around 200,000 Palestinians in the West Bank have no access to piped water at all. Half of Palestinian wells have dried up over the past 20 years. The only option, as the Member said, is to travel to buy tankered water—an option made all the more difficult by Israeli movement and access restrictions in place across much of the West Bank. As a result, communities depending on tankered water pay up to 400% more for every single litre than those connected to the water network; and, of course, there is no guarantee of its quality.

That is no minor inconvenience. The Member mentioned the Emergency Water, Sanitation and Hygiene group, which co-ordinates efforts by around 30 donors and agencies to improve water and sanitation in the West Bank and Gaza. It estimates that in isolated communities in the West Bank, water consumption can be as low as 20 litres per person per day. Even worse than the Member’s description of that is the fact that that is the minimum amount recommended by the World Health Organisation in emergencies to sustain life.

We are perhaps more accustomed to hearing about such precarious situations in Gaza. While the situation there has indeed been precarious for a long time, in recent months things have only got worse. Today, only 15% of Gaza’s population receive clean running water daily. The Gaza aquifer is set to become too polluted for use by 2016, and will be irreversibly damaged by 2020. Just two weeks ago, the failure of the main sewage pumping station in Gaza City led to 35,000 cubic metres of raw sewage flooding into the streets.

There the problem is not so much access to water, but the ability to treat and distribute it effectively. Why? In part, it is because Israel continues to limit the import of construction and dual-use materials into Gaza that are necessary for building pipelines and pumping stations. The Gazan economy remains stifled, so there is no way in which it could pay for the infrastructure anyway. Recent actions by Egypt to close the smuggling tunnels have cut off a lifeline and served to make the situation even more difficult.

In fact, water shortages in the West Bank and Gaza are part of a much bigger problem. Even while the US-led Middle East peace talks continue, life for ordinary Palestinians is getting worse. We have seen a spike in settlement announcements and demolition orders. Violence has erupted in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and unemployment is on the rise.

To make the case for peace, which this Government firmly believe in, we need to bring about real and tangible change on the ground, and to do so before it is too late. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made clear, there is no more urgent global priority in 2013 than the search for Middle East peace. We see a two-state solution as the best way to meet the national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

So, first, we will continue to support efforts to achieve a negotiated peace. Working with our EU partners and with the US, we will encourage both Israelis and Palestinians to take the bold steps needed to reach an agreement. Hard work and difficult choices lie ahead, but we are ready to provide support in any way we can. In part, that will include support to the Kerry-led economic package to foster private sector led, sustainable economic growth in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Mr Winnick: We all want to see a satisfactory settlement to the negotiations—but a settlement that would mean a sovereign Palestine, no less sovereign than Israel, and not some kind of statelet. But how can it be said that the Israelis are really genuinely committed when they are continuing to build settlements on land where, as we know, it is illegal under international law?

Mr Duncan: It is very clear in the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that we totally condemn the illegal construction of settlements. They are an impediment to peace, and of course are an essential component of the discussions which we hope will lead to a successful conclusion next year. In the meantime, to assist those discussions, we in the Department for International Development and the Government, working with the EU, are doing our best to underpin some economic progress. For instance, our plan aims to generate investment of $4 billion, increase Palestinian gross domestic product over the next three years, and reduce unemployment to single digits. Water is one of the sectors set to receive private and public sector support in this plan, and we will get behind that.

We will continue to lobby Israel to make good on its promises made in September to improve access to water for Palestinians. This includes doubling the amount of water sold to the Gaza strip, and reviving the Joint Water Committee to adopt a truly co-operative approach to shared water resources. We know that Israel has made excellent progress in water technology in recent years. From drip-irrigation to desalination, perhaps no other country has contributed more breakthroughs in the area of water and food security than Israel. What an opportunity there is now to share this advance with its neighbours.

Finally, we will do what DFID does best, which is to provide practical support for those most in need. We recently agreed to provide a further £10 million of support to the International Committee of the Red Cross to further its important work on human rights and humanitarian assistance. As part of this support, over 60,000 people in Gaza and the West Bank will have improved access to clean water in 2013 alone.

Mr Winnick: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene a second time. Ambassadors are sometimes called in when we feel that some injustice is taking place and it would be appropriate for the Minister or the Foreign Secretary to speak to the ambassador as a result. Could not the Israeli ambassador be called in to discuss some of what the Minister has said or what I have said? The Minister said that he agreed with every word I said. He is not likely to repeat that on any future parliamentary occasion, I imagine, but could not the ambassador be brought in and told of the concern felt by so many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House?

Mr Duncan: I and the House, I sense, share the Member’s sense of injustice, but I hope he will allow me to stay within the remit of DFID and not stray into the areas of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by making a judgment on the call that he has just made.

I am pleased to be able to tell the House this evening that the UK is also embarking on a new programme of support to help provide water to irrigate agricultural land in Area C of the West Bank—a critical area to which the Member referred. The World Bank recently estimated that better irrigation in Area C could boost the Palestinian economy by more than $700 million. To that end, as the DFID Minister, I have just agreed £1.8 million to restore agricultural wells serving nearly 1,000 farming families. We will be helping farmers to work more productively. For each £1 invested in rehabilitating groundwater wells, we can expect an additional 16 kg or 17 kg of vegetables to be produced annually.

Sir Bob Russell: Does the Minister think it right that British taxpayers’ money should be used to do work made necessary by the behaviour of the Israeli Government?

Mr Duncan: I detect in the Member’s question the suggestion, which I think is slightly warped logic, that somehow our support for the Palestinian Authority subsidises the occupation. That is not the logic that we adopt. We believe that our support for the Palestinian Authority is underpinning an organisation that is a putative Government for a Palestinian state that we hope will be the result of the negotiations that are under way.

It is our wish to build a viable Palestinian state and to protect those who are most vulnerable. On the specific topic of this debate, water shortages are a stark reminder of the harshness of Palestinian daily life. From the farmer in the West Bank who cannot grow the same produce as his settler neighbour, to the family in Gaza having to wade through sewage to get home, the situation is unfair and untenable. Indeed, it is unjust. It is essential that peace negotiations on a two-state solution include discussions on shared water resources as part of a final status agreement, and it is essential that Israel makes good on its promises to improve access to water. In the meantime, Her Majesty’s Government and DFID will continue to support those who most need our help in any way we can.