18/01/2017 House of Commons

THE SPEAKER: Order. Urgent question, Paul Scully.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, to ask if I can ask the Minster, if he can make

a statement on human rights in Burma. THE SPEAKER: Minster from the

Foreign Office. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I know that you your Sevacare very deeply about the

situation in -- that you yourself care deeply about the situation in

Burma. I'm grateful to my honourable friend for raising this matter in

the House. He knows Burma very well and has close family connections

there. We have been deeply concerned about the flare up of violence since

the attack by unknown assailants, presumed to be militants on 9th

October. Whilst we condemned the attack, and recognise the need for

security forces to carry out security operations to route out the

perpetrators we remain concerned about the conduct of the Army in

response. Although restrictions on media, diplomatic and humanitarian

access make the facts difficult to ascertain, we have been concerned by

numerous reports alleging widespread human rights violations in the

security response. Mr Speaker n response to the escalating violence,

British ministers have directly lobbied Burmese ministers, the

Minister of State for Commonwealth affairs raised the issue with a

Minister of Defence when she visited Burma in November last year.

Specifically she called for the full and immediate resumption of aid and

called for an investigation into allegations of human rights' abuses.

I too, repeated those calls with the minister for construction, when he

visited the UK in November last year. The Government of Burma has

now committed to investigating the 9th October attacks, restoring human

rights' access and investigating allegations of human rights abuses.

However, in practice, much of the aid is still blocked by local

authorities, reporting the military, especially in the area, where

security operations continue. We will continue to monitor the

situation closely. Turning to the conflict in other areas, we are

concerned by the recent escalation of conflict in those two states.

This, too, has led to allegations of civilian casualties, widespread

displacement of civilians and human rights abuses. We also raised

concerns on the violence in north-east Burma directly with

Burmese ministers, as I said, we continue to monitor the situation

closely and I can tell the House that my right honourable friend, the

Foreign Secretary l visit Burma very soon and reiterate our concerns

across these issues Thank you, Mr Speaker and thank you to the

minister for that response. The first question I asked in this House

was about the situation faced by the community there, the Rohinga

community. It is frustrating that I return to the subject, following a

number of worrying reports of the kind. The last two, of which

reportedly involved air strikes and the use of Hovery oar tillry. Since

then, a remarkable election victory has taken place. Does the minister

agree with me, that although she has a difficult it is a income keeping

the Government together, while there is such a huge influence by the

ministry. We friends, such as the UK should continue to raise

humanitarian issues while so many suffer because of their faith?

Tomorrow, foreign ministers of the organisation for Islamic

cooperation, an inter-governmental God body of 57 states will meet to

discuss the situation there. Will the minister join me and more than

40, civil society organisations who have today called for a truly

independent, international investigation in a situation in the

state, where state-sponsored attacks on the Rohinga Muslims have

escalated. It is difficult to get accurate information for what really

is happening in the state. So in order to get to the truth, beyond

false reports, will he call for full access to indobservers and

journalists to villagers and displacement catches? . -- camps.

Elsewhere I'm informed that the United Nations special radioer pore

tour on human rights there who has been on a 12-play monitorer mission

has been denied access to the Government to conflicting areas of

the state. Will the minister agree with me that she should be allowed

to do her job and bring such issues into the open and finally, will the

Foreign Secretary, when he visits Boyer a McThis weekend, raise the

situation -- visits Burma this weekend, raise the situation and

also with Burmese MPs and the Speaker of the House when they

visit, the Burmese delegation visits the UK next week and can he also

raise the issue with Bangladesh Government, as well, to see what

more can be done on the border with Bangladesh, on a humanitarian

response for Rohingas that have been We're deeply concerned at what is

happening, and it is difficult to get access to verify the facts. Like

him, we are extremely concerned by the violations, the human rights

violations reported, and the security response itself. He asked

about UK support for an international commission, I assume a

UN type commission. A UN led commission of enquiry can be in one

of three ways, by the Secretary General, by the Security Council or

the human rights Council. Establishing this would require

broad international support, which we assessed is not exist in the

current international environment. He also asked about the visit, I

very much welcome the visit of the UN special repertoire, I'm aware of

the fact that she is currently in Burma, and for many years we have

supported the annual resolution of the human rights Council that

mandates her role. We very much hope that the authorities in Burma will

give her full and unimpeded access so she can conduct an assessment. I

look forward to reading her report. He has talked about the overall

peace process and the aid that we're particularly providing. I can

confirm that we are providing aid to refugees, not just to those in the

area but also in Bangladesh. I have urged the Bangladeshis meetings I

have had, due to the point that we should not have refugees return to a

situation where they would face harm. Finally, he made in terms of

the Foreign Secretary's visit. The Foreign Secretary will be putting

the case from a UK perspective on humanitarian issues strongly, and as

far as I'm aware, his intention is to meet the chief of the military

and the country's leader. Thank you for granting this urgent question,

and I congratulate the honourable member for securing it. All of us

including many in this house who have campaigned for years for

democracy and an to repression in Myanmar, it is troubling to see

evidence that for the progress that is being made, the suppression of

the majority Myanmar has been replaced in far too many patients

with the -- too many cases with the persecution of minorities. It was

shocking to hear of the recent disappearance of Kachin Baptist

leaders, who have disappeared. It is incumbent on the government and the

international community as a whole, to press the Myanmar authorities to

provide information on their whereabouts and secure their

immediate freedom. Also deeply concerned about the continuing

humanitarian crisis, particularly the recent reports from the United

nations and Human Rights Watch, stating that a raft of human rights

abuses have taken place including torture, rape and sexual assault.

Summary executions and the destruction of mosques and homes.

Upholding human rights should be the driving force of our foreign policy,

and recall on the government to see Britain's stand up for the rights

and freedoms that all human beings are entitled to, and raises concerns

as a matter of urgency for the authorities in Myanmar, including

the persecution that people are suffering, and a needle for

humanitarian access to all areas. I hope the Minister can tell us today

-- the need for. Particularly around the access for the UN reported

reporter, and how he's planning to make sure that the rights of its

people are protected. I think the honourable lady for those comments.

Having discussed the situation here previously, I know she cares very

deeply about the humanitarian issues in Burma, and I think there is

consensus across the house on these matters, Mr Speaker. She raised the

issue of the pastors. Many Christians live in areas where there

is active conflict, notably in that area. We are of course deeply

concerned, specifically by the disappearance of a two pastors,

Dumdaw Nawng Lat and Langjaw Gam Seng. And we do believe that there

is deep concern about their welfare, and as she noted, they disappeared

on Christmas Eve. Allegedly after talking to journalists, taking

journalists to see a recently bombed church. We upstage the urge, as does

she, the government of Burma to investigate the case immediately and

release them. She talked about what the UK Government is doing in terms

of lobbying. I noted that the Foreign Secretary will be in Burma

soon, he will of course make strong representations on behalf of the UK

Government. Apart from representations that I and other

Foreign Office ministers have made, could I also add that our ambassador

has visited in recent months, and lobbied five separate Burmese

ministers on this issue, urging restraint in terms of the security

response. Finally, she talked about humanitarian aid, as she will know

the UK Government is doing an enormous amount in terms of

providing aid in this troubled area. And certainly in terms of a

particular error, since 2012 we have provided over ?23 million in him out

and assistance -- that particular area, including sanitation and

nutrition for several hundred thousand people. When the Foreign

Secretary travels to Burma, he will know doubt wish to discuss with

leaders the role of, whether it is worthwhile as continuing running

some courses for them and the efficacy of those courses, and also

whether or not they're continuing to block aid going into some of these

errors. Can I urge my honourable friend to intern at the Foreign

Secretary that when he does go there, the Foreign Secretary travel

to that area to see for himself that situation on the ground, talk to'

and come back to his house and updaters as to whether there is now

real evidence that there are outside forces stirring up the Rohinga now

part of Burma. I think my honourable friend for those comments, and I

know that he an expert this area, having been Minister for this part

of the world when he is at the Foreign Office. In terms of the

Foreign Secretary's visit, as I said, I have set out the key

individuals that the Foreign Secretary plans to meet, and clearly

we all look forward to his response when he returns to this house. --

this House. He talked about the work we may be doing with the military.

In terms of training. Can I make clear that any training we undertake

has nothing to do with combat training, it is to do with the

humanitarian, English-language, and our assessment is that this is a

worthwhile thing to be doing in terms of building those links. As he

knows full well, the leader is of course in a position in government,

but the Army has a role to play and clearly it is the Army acting in

these areas whether I humanitarian issues. I congratulate the

honourable member for achieving the support and emergency question. The

Minister has expressed concern about the disappearance of the two Baptist

leaders who apparently forcibly disappeared over Christmas, and also

called for unfettered access for the United Nations special envoy. Can he

performance -- confirm that specifically these have already been

raised with the Burmese ambassador in London, and secondly that the

Foreign Secretary will both raise the specific matters in the talks is

having in Burma in the next week? Lastly, the minister rather

sidestepped the question of action in the UN by saying that the

government's opinion wasn't -- was that there wasn't a sufficient

consensus at the present time to take forward action. Can he go

further than that? When the special reporter returns to the UN and

reports, will be undertake on behalf of the government to use every

possible effort to build a consensus that can build an urgent and

independent United Nations enquiry, a commission which will be the

result of the special reporter's visit? Will the government committee

trying to build that consensus is exposed -- as opposed to remarking

that it doesn't exist? Mr Speaker, he talks about representations that

UK Government is and has been making to the Burmese government. As I

noted, we have made representations both at ministerial level and

ambassador level. He talks about the representations at the Foreign

Secretary will make. Clearly, I will ensure and am sure he will be aware

of what is said and this house, but I know that the Foreign Secretary

cares deeply about Burma, and the fact that he's going out there very

soon should give the gentleman a great deal of comfort. He talks

about the UN, of course I stated position in terms of UN. We support

the UN special reporter, and specifically in terms of the human

rights Council, as you know that is again an area where we have been

supported, but this is about building multilateral support for

actions, and that is where we seek to work together with other

partners. Years ago, I organised a debate from Westminster Hall about

the persecution of people, a long-standing very serious

situation. These people gave us loyalty during the Second World War,

and have been repaid with persecution ever since. I wonder

what further steps the government can raise about this persecution and

ensure their human rights are protected? Mr Speaker, we all care

very deeply about human rights wherever they may be affected. And

of course, if my right honourable friend wants to write to me, I'll be

very happy to take up that specific issue. I make the general point that

human rights absolutely happens to -- matters to this house, government

and the British people, and that'll be at the forefront everything this

office does. Undoubtedly there is reason for concern at the military

crackdown on the Rohinga Muslim minority. I understand it has been

made clear that she welcomes the international community's support

and efforts in seeking peace and stability. And building better

relations with communities. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be

focusing on that on his visit and also I wonder what... She's on her

fifth information gathering visit, is the Foreign Secretary intending

to speak with the special reporter? With regard to the Foreign Secretary

speaking to her, I will of course make sure that the Foreign Secretary

is aware of that request that she has made. But in terms of our

ongoing dialogue, she will know that the advisory commission led by Kofi

Anand was put in place last year, and they are due to reduce a report

this year. -- due to produce. I have been in conversation with Kofi

Anand, we have had a number of conversations about the ongoing

work. In terms of what we do, in terms of engaging with the

international community and others in Burma, I hope she will appreciate

that this is a very clear example of an engagement.

Does my honourable friend gentlemen the unwelcome radicalisation of the

Rohingya was only a question of time. That time was short and needs

to be treated appropriately with a sense of urgency.

Mr Speaker, we, of course, bring a sense of urgency to all the work we

try and do, in relation to human rights. At the end of the day,

though, this is a process which has sadly been ongoing for some time, I

think this is a question of continuing to work together with

international partners and engineers and others in Burma itself and

continuing to make those representations. As I said, the

Foreign Secretary hopes to meet with the chief of the army when he is in

Burma and hopefully will have an opportunity to make our points very

clear in that case. I welcome the minister's indication

in respect of the Foreign Secretary's visit. Will the Foreign

Secretary make it clear when he is in Burma that the interests of this

House doesn't just extend to seeing continued transition in rule but to

seeing a real transformation in temples rights and the best way for

that to begin is credible investigation at an international

level, with reliable adherence to any robust recommendations and

findings that that investigation brings. Well, yes, Mr speaker, in

terms of the of the investigation, I noted the Commission that has been

established and led by Kofi Annan will hopefully come forward and set

out very clearly their thoughts, as an independent commission, and it is

one that we support. Can I talk about thetragedy last week, where

4,000 people fled for their lives, particularly women and children who

had been moved on before and need unfetterred access to humanitarian

aid but particularly again draw attention to the two bapist pastors

that surely, they must do all they can, with the UN, to get the

information that family members need and not to accept apparently the

approved response of "enforced disappearance" which is in contrary

to all international human rights. I know my great friend is a great

champion of human rights, particularly those of minorities

around the world and he puts his point eloquently in terms of the

pastors. We'll continue to make representation in terms of specific

aid, I did mention that the UK has provided this ?18 million in

essential humanitarian and health care systems and that, of course has

been in Chachin and northern states as well over the past four years.

Could the minister, confirm what discussions he and his department

have had with other governments regarding getting medical assistance

into the area and if so, could you update on that, please? Mr Speaker,

we seek to work, firstly, in terms of the discussions that we have had,

with other governments, our ambassador, of course has

discussions locally in Burma with our counterparts and in terms of the

support that we are getting, I talked about some of the numbers in

terms of the amount of money we are spending but also in terms of what

that money is being spent on, and of course we seek to work with NGOs and

indeed others, on the ground, to make sure that funds are getting

through, where they are needed, in these troubled areas.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm sure the minister will agree with me that the

gross in seeing improved human rights has been painfully slow in

Burma since the election that we hoped to bring far more,

particularly with the flawed constitution that still expects. I

welcome the Foreign Secretary's visit but can he update House in

terms of what engagement we are having with regional partners to

build the consensus we need fourth action through the UN? With, Mr

Speaker, as I've said on a number of occasions already, we discussed

these matters with a range of actors. Of course, international

partners but as I said, right now, it is the Kofi Annan commission, the

independent Commission which is leading work in this area, and we

will continue to have a dialogue with Mr Annan, and look forward to

his report. Thank you, Mr Speaker, can I join

the minister in paying tribute to your interest and work on behalf of

the Burmese people over many years and we all welcome Burma moving out

of the long dark years of military dictatorship. But we hopped they put

behind them communal and religious conflict as well. So will the

minister make very clear to the Burmese authorities that their

welcome reentry into the international community will not be

helped if they fail to protect minorities and particularly the

Rohingya community? Mr Speaker, the right honourable gentleman, of

course makes a number of very important points. Can I just say to

him that firstly, in terms of the work that is going on, and in terms

of what has happened since the election, he will be aware that the

new Burmese Government released 300 political prisoners and they did

begin the abolition of laws and initiated the peace talks I talked

about and revised the committee led by Kofi Annan. I think we have to

give a huch amount of credit for Aung San Suu Kyi for the work she

has done in he had looking Burma. I agree with him, we need to keep

pressing on humanitarian issues and press so the rights of minorities

are respected but as he will know, the military does remain heavily

involved in Burmese politics and they wrote the 2008 constitution

which grants them 25% of seats in Parliament, unelected.

Thank you Mr Speaker, the minister earlier said with regards to having

an independent UN investigation, into this matter, initially there

needs to be a consensus, then the minister said we will work together

with others for a consensus but account minister go a step further

to the answer he gave to the right how many for Gordon to rather rather

than working with others, the UK will lead the way in building that

consensus as a permanent members of the United Nations Security Council?

Mr Speaker, can I give a specific example in terms of the work we are

doing and supporting in terms. U in. There are a number of UN mechanisms

already in place, including, as I said earlier the human rights

council resolution which we support. This mandates the role of the UN

Special Envoy on Burma who is presenting visiting and we look

forward to her report. And as I have said already, we call for her to

have a full and unfetterred access so she can carry on her work? Given

the range of access issues that UN staff and missions have had in

recent times, can I ask the minister what discussions the foreign and

common wealth office have had with their counterparts in the Security

Council to ensure that UN staff are given full and proper access to

areas of concern, wherever in the world they may be? Mr Speaker, we

discuss these issues in terms of access to humanitarian rights, with

count parts, both of course in the UN but on a more by lateral basis as

well. Can I give her the assurance that when it comes to these issues,

we do keep them at the forefront and we'll continue to make the

representations of the type she's asking for. Mr Speaker, Parliament

was rightly moved by the House arrest of a single exceptional lady,

but as it hasn't been mentioned in this urgent question, the situation

of the Rohingya people, hundreds are being attacked, many are being

murdered. Their villages are being systematically burnt or destroyed.

Many are being sold into slavery with the complicity of Burmese

authorities. The very authorities of which treat the Rohingya as a

non-people. Now, my honourable friend, the minister, has avoided

the challenge from the right honourable member for Gordon and my

honourable friend the member for Gillingham that it is not sufficient

for the Government to cooperate, the Government needs to lead UN support,

if these reports are true. So, for the third time, I ask the minister

-- if these reports are true, if the Foreign Secretary comes back from

Burma, validating all that has been said, will he, will the Government

take leadership of the United Nations to make sure that there is

broad support and a resolution to follow? Minister? Mr Speaker, I pray

forgiveness if I have given the impression I'm dodging the

questions. That has not been my intention at all. The point that I

have been speaking is we have to work together with partners to

achieve an outcome and that's what we speak to do in this particular

case. We continue to do that, I have given that assurance.

Mr Speaker, my honourable friend, the member for West Ham and I have

been approached by constituents who went to provide help directly to are

hingia communities who need it, both in Burma and Bangladesh. He talked

about access for NGOs, what routes are currently open for delivering

help where it is needed and what advice can he give to those who do

want to help people who are suffering such extreme problems at

the moment? Mr Speaker, I thank the right honourable gentleman for that

particular question. It is the case that this is a very troubled area.

And the humanitarian access that has been get through has also been quite

limited in some of these areas, what I would say to him if outside this

house we can have a discussion on specifics I will be happy to see

whether we can take thisser matter forward.

In response for a parliamentary committee, the Foreign Office has

revealed they have pent ?300,000 and more on training the Burmese army.

Wouldn't that be better spent on exposing and verifying human rights'

violations? Mr Speaker, I know this question has come up before, but can

I confirm once again to the honourable gentleman, that the MoD

does not provide combat training, as I said earlier, what we are doing is

providing educational training to the Burmese military in the form of

programmes delivered by the defence academy of the UK on the role of the

military in a democracy, in terms of leadership and English language

training and we really do belief this is a useful thing to do in

terms of engaging the next generation of army in Burma.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like other members, I have been contacted by

constituents who are deeply concerned by the treatment of the ro

hingia community, often described as the world's most persecuted

religious minority. What they struggling to understand is why

having had years of this persecution taking place the brutality

continues. The minister talks about the importance of building consensus

within the United Nations, could he perhaps elaborate on what the

barriers to consensus are and in particular, what our diplomatic

efforts can do, with partners around the world, to break down the

barriers? Mr Speaker, I think it is the case that successive governments

here raised many issues which are long standing across the world when

it comes to humanitarian and other issues. Of course this is another

one we'll continue to do. I go back to the point I made earlier. At the

end of the day this is about engagement, also will Burma,

particularly with the Armed Forces and Armed Forces and I said the

Foreign Secretary will hope to meet the army chiefs. What I think we can

do is provide the humanitarian support, provide support to the

elected Government and continue to have those conversations, in Burma

itself, and also through our multilateral partners to make sure

we keep this at the forefront, not just internationally but also in

Burma. Can I commend you for the interest

in this subject and bring it to the forefront of our man's everyday --

our minds. In the last few months, the Burmese government have images

for new laws for race and religion. Unfortunately, those laws were made

to protect, but instead of protecting they have built

unsurmountable hurdles for convergence and mixed marriages.

Would the Minister agree that the disappearance of the two ministers

is an indication of the daily horrors faced, and can he outline

what representations have made on behalf of Christians? Freighter at

the very name of Jesus? Responded to -- afraid to utter. The honourable

gentleman made some powerful interventions, I know he cares very

deeply about minorities, in particular the Christian community.

We continue to make the case, both to the Burmese government, but also

in an international forum, that these matters are absolutely vital,

and that we need to make sure that there is no persecution of

minorities of Christians, of any type of minorities in that country,

and we'll keep doing that. I think it's important that we have this

kind of debate in this House now, because it shows the international

community that we care very deeply the whole House about this matter.

The Burmese government's commission to investigate human rights

violations against Rohingya found that there was insufficient evidence

of human rights violations, which quite frankly I find given that they

are continue to be one of the most persecuted communities. Can the

Minister macro tell me what direct conversations he has had with the

Burmese government to challenge the accuracy of this ridiculous report?

Mr Speaker, I agree with the honourable gentleman. We've also

noted the interim that has been produced, and as he has intimated,

it indicates that they human rights abuses have taken place. And this is

of course against the weight of testimony from a range of human

rights sources, frankly this is not credible. We call on the commission

to demonstrate the commitment made by the government to an impartial

investigation over the coming weeks. Of course, we wait to see what the

final report says, but I agree with him. The report needs to be credible

for anyone to take it seriously. Could I take this opportunity, I

went been the chamber tomorrow, I know you'll miss me, Mr Speaker. --

I won't. I know it's your birthday, so if I could wish you an early

happy birthday for tomorrow. Since the Bernie 's security forces

started their campaign in October -- the Burmese, it is estimated that

65,000 treble Muslims have fled. According to reports, there have

been subject to arson, rape and murder at the hands of the military

-- Rohingya Moslems. These allegations are incredibly serious,

and it is for that reason I ask the Minister for the fourth time I

believe, if he will continue to call for the establishment of an

independent investigation into these claims. May I also wish you a happy

birthday for tomorrow. I mean that most sincerely. Can I just respond

to the honourable lady. I hope, Mr Speaker, I have made clear today

that there are a huge number of avenues that we in the UK are

pursuing, in terms of getting humanitarian aid, making the case

for minorities, and actually making it very clear that we care very

deeply about these matters. At the end of the day, that is something we

will keep doing. Going back to this point about the approach from a UN

perspective. There are a number of errors that the UN is already

engaged, and will continue to work with those -- number of areas, to

make sure that those resolution in this very troubled area. Mr Speaker,

can he say what discussions he has had or will have with the government

of Bangladesh about the refugee status of the Rohingya people, who

have fled in many cases the most obscene violence in the state? I

have raised the issue of the Rohingya in Bangladesh with the

representatives of the Bangladeshi government before Christmas. As I

said, the point that I particularly made to the government of Bangladesh

was that they should not be seeking to return people who are seeking

refuge back into danger. That is a really important point. In terms of

aid, we're providing, the UK is the largest provider of food aid to the

34,000 Rohingya refugees already living in camps in Bangladesh, and

since 2014, the UK has provided nearly ?80 million -- ?8 million to

the refugees and the communities that support them. I apologise for

not being here in the beginning. I was meant to be in Burma this week

with the mess was -- Westminster foundation. It has been delayed

until May. They indicated 92 different parties other than the two

main parties. With the Minister look at how someone like myself from

Northern Ireland, the difficulties we've had there, we can look at how

we can help some of those parties work together and the military learn

to respect them, so that we find a way forward? Could be a great help

to the Westminster -- if the Westminster foundation for democracy

could have some help. I'm very happy to speak with a gentleman out of

this debate about the work doing with the Westminster foundation. In

terms of the discussions we are having, at the end of the day it is

someone who is effectively leading the government, and we have contact

with her. The Foreign Secretary of meat are soon on his visit to Burma

with all the actors, particularly with our ambassador. -- to meet her

soon. The key thing is engagement with military, at the end of the day

they are the ones who are leading some of the issues, we have

concerns, and I think it was vital that we engage. Order. Ten minute

rule motion, Joan Ryan. I beg to move that leave the given to bring

in a bill to require the Secretary of State to promote the

establishment of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace,

to support coexistence projects and civil society programmes. Recent

weeks has seen a flurry of activity on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The UN Security Council resolution and major speech by the US Secretary

of State John Kerry and a further peace conference in Paris last

weekend. The barriers to add two state solution are well-known. As a

strong friend of Israel, I admit freely but great regret that these

include the expansion of settlements on the West Bank. Settlement

building is wrong. It threatens the viability of a future Palestinian

state. The case for which is an arguable. It does immense damage to

Israel's standing in the world, and over time it will put at risk that

which is most precious about Israel's character, its Jewish and

democratic character. As Secretary Kerry is stated clearly, settlements

are not the whole, or even the primary cause of this conflict. So

too is the incitement tolerated and in many cases perpetrated by the

Palestinian authorities. The payment of salaries to those convicted of

terrorist offences, and the naming of schools, streets and sports

tournament after so-called martyrs, thereby glorifying violence. Then

there is the greatest barrier of all, the rejectionist, anti-Semitic

ideology of high Mass, Hezbollah and Iran, which denies Israel's very

right to exist, and the terrorism which inevitably flows from it -- of

Hamas. I believe it will help to address of the pernicious

consequences arising from them. Instead, my Bill recognises that as

example of Northern Ireland taught us, any peace process needs a

political dimension, and economic dimension and a civil society to

dimension. Coexistence projects that bring together Israelis and

Palestinians to advance the cause of mutual understanding, reconciliation

trust is that civil society dimension. The world has paid too

little attention investing only around ?37 million per year in

people to people projects for Israel and Palestine. That is less than ?4

for each Israeli and Palestinian person each year. Britain

exemplifies this problem. From spending a pitiful ?150,000 on

coexistence projects in 2015 and 2016, the government despite

repeated warm words to the contrary appears to have cut this funding

altogether, in the current financial year. -- 2015-2016. I'm pleased that

the Secretary of State for International Development seems keen

to right this wrong. The absence of strong constituencies for peace in

Israel and Palestine is one of the results. Polling by the Israeli

democracy Institute and Palestinian Centre for policy and survey

research last summer underlined the scale of the problem. While 59% of

Israelis and 51% of Palestinians still support a two state solution,

these already slim majorities are fragile, threatened by fear and

distrust between the two peoples. 89% of Palestinians believe Israeli

dues are untrustworthy, feeling reciprocated by 60% of the latter --

Israeli dues. 45% of Palestinians fear Israeli dues. We should not

place our heads in the optimism of the young. After all, this is the

generation which has no memory of the optimism engendered by the Oslo

accords, but his formative years have instead been marked by suicide

bombings, and perpetual conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

Even where the peace process in better health -- were the peace

process, these would hardly be the most solid foundations upon which to

build a lasting peace. We should recall that those seeds of the Good

Friday agreement were sown at a cinema, inauspicious moment, when

during the height of the Troubles, the International fund for Ireland

was created -- at a similar inauspicious moment. Investment in

grass-roots coexistent work has been spent in Northern Ireland. Over 5000

projects have been supported since it was established to promote

economic and social advance, and to encourage contact, dialogue and

reconciliation between nationalists and unionists throughout Ireland.

That investment helped provide popular support, which has helped

sustain the Good Friday agreement over nearly two decades. With this

example in mind, my Bill requires the government to promote the

establishment of the proposed international fund for

Israeli-Palestinian peace. This has been designed by the Alliance for

middle East peace, a coalition of over 90 organisations building

people to be a book operation, and coexistence. The fund aims to

leveraged and increase public and private contributions worldwide,

funding civil Society projects and joint economic development that

promote coexistence, peace and reconciliation. It is envisaged that

the $200 million per year fund, four times the current level of

international support, for people to people work in Israel Palestine,

would receive contributions of approximately 25% each from the

United States, Europe, the rest of the international community

including the Arab world, and the private sector. The fund is not, I

should emphasise, intended to receive support that otherwise would

be provided directly to either the Palestinian authority, or to Israel.

We know that coexistence projects in Israel Palestine work. After two

decades, there is now a significant body of evidence based on academic

and government evaluations, indicating the impact that

coexistence projects can have. The impact moreover has been achieved in

the face of considerable challenges. According to the USA, those

participating in people to people programmes report higher levels of

trust, co-operation, more conflict Revolution values -- resolution

values and less aggression and loneliness. Evaluation of individual

programmes and alliances impact. A truly inspiring project which brings

together young Israelis and Palestinians to learn about it

technology and entrepreneurship found a 60% increase in the number

of students who valued working with someone from the other side after

just one year on the programme. The parents circle friends for common

organisation of more than 600 Palestinian and Israeli families who

have lost a family member in the conflict found that 70% of all

participants had increased trust and empathy, and 84% were motivated to

participate in peace building activities in their communities. I

would ask if they could point anything in their current funding

that has moved the conflict closer to resolution's if coexistence work

is going to be held to a standard that demand that it demonstrates how

it helps solve the conflict, then surely other strategies that have

not by themselves moved the ball Ford should be held to the same

standard? -- the ball forward. Support is growing and Cros

international boundaries and political parties. The quaur Tote's

quartet's most recent report recommended a focus on civil society

work since the first time since its finding. The Vatican, Jewish

organisations and politicians on both left and right in Israel have

all raised their voices in support. On Capitol Hill, two US Congressman,

have worked across party lines, introducing a bill in support of the

international fund nshgts best traditions of US global leadership.

In this House, 56 of my Labour colleagues, signed an open letter to

the Secretary of State for International Development, last

month, endorsing the fund and I'm delighted today to have the support

of members from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. I'm

particularly pleased to have the right honourable member for

Brentford and Ongar, the Chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel,

listed as one of the support Is of this bill. The late Shimon Peres

once said, "The way it make peace is not through government, it is

through people." He knew even in the most challenging of times, we must

never give up on the search for peace. By supporting my Bill, the

House can underline its support for that search.

Hear, hear. THE SPEAKER: Order, the question is

in fact right honourable member have leave to bring in the Bill? As many

of that opinion say aye. . Aye. To the contrary, no. The ayes have T

who will prepare and bring in the Bill? Mr Speaker, Ian Austin, Right

Honourable Alistair car mikele, Chris Davy, Mrs Lieu weighs he

willman,p Steven kinic. Right Honourable, Sir Eric Pickles, Will,

Quins, Paul Skully, Stephen Twigg and myself, Sir. -- Louise Elman,

Stephen Kinnock. Promotion of Israeli-Palestinian

peace United Kingdom participation Bill. Second reading, what day? 24th

March, Sir. 24th March. Thank you. Order. We now

come to the general debate on exiting the European Union and

security law enforcement and criminal justice.

To move the motion, I call the Minster. Minster of State, Mr

Brandon Lewis. Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I do beg

to move that this House has considered exiting the EU and

security, law enforcement and criminal justice within that. I'm

pleased to introduce today's debate on security, law enforcement and

criminal justice, which is one of a number of debates we'll be having

about our exit from the European Union. It is important that members

of this House have the opportunity to discuss and debate leaving the

EU. The Prime Minister underlined the importance of Parliament's

involvement in exit negotiations in her speech yesterday. This

afternoon, members have the chance to debate an area of our

relationship with the EU that is crucial. Not only to our

negotiations, but to continued safety of both Europe, ourselves and

the citizens across Europe and the United Kingdom. This debate will

focus on how we work with the EU on security, law enforcement and

criminal justice now, and how we will work with our EU partners in

the future. Cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism was one

of the Government's core negotiating objectives. The UK is leaving the EU

but as we have been clear, we are not leaving Europe. We are committed

to strong cooperation on security, law enforcement and criminal justice

now, and after we leave. We will work with our European partners, to

find solutions which promote security across Europe, and beyond.

The decision of the British people to leave the European Union does not

altar the duty that we and all Member States share collectively to

keep our citizens safe and to present our democratic way of life,

and the rule of law. In the face of the common threats we face from

terrorism, cyber attacks and who is Isle foreign actors, maintaining

strong EU-UK security operation is vital to our collective success in

keeping citizens safe. It is difficult to see how it would be in

anyone's interests for exit negotiations to result in a

reduction in the effectiveness of security, law enforcement and

criminal justice cooperation. I give way to the right honourable

gentleman. I'ms grateful to the minister for giving away and I have

nothing to disagree with in respect of what he said so far. On this

issue, we are leaders in Europe, as far as cooperation on security and

justice. But does he awe gree with me, one of the most important

aspects of this is information sharing and access to ECRAS should

be one of the key elements of our negotiations, to be able to to reach

those criminal records of those who committed offences in the rest of

Europe, and to share information of those who commit those offences in

our country. Well, I appreciate the right honourable gentleman's

agreement with my position, so far, in this debate. He makes an

important point. I will come very specifically to that. There is an

issue around my understanding, which we all do in this House, that we

live in a world of global work and people work in cross borders,

particularly in criminality that we need to be well-equipped to do with.

Criminality and terrorism is transnational and international

groups exploit you will have nerments such as inadequate law

enforcement and criminal justice struck you are toos. Threats we are

facing, cybercrime which is moving quickly or online child sexual

exploitation, are by definition, international in a technologically

connected world. The UK's crime agencies, most recent public

estimate suggests there are over 6,000 organised crime groups seeking

to operate in the United king do. I give way. I'm grateful. Could he

give me some reassurance on the issue of the European arrest

warrant. Because, before the last election there was a debate in this

House when the current Prime Minister, then the Home Secretary,

was fighting very hard to get that European arrest warrant through this

House in the face of some Opposition from some members. Could he give me

an independencation that he will zur the powers of that arrest warrant,

post-Brexit? -- that he will secure. I'm sure the right honourable

gentleman will be very awhich are that we are at the start of

negotiations. I can't predict the outcome of where we will end up but

I will come specifically to the European arrest warrant and the

implication it is has for us in a few moments. Criminal networks are

driving migrant struggling. Europol estimate more than 09% of migrants

travelling to the EU use facilitators, in most cases provided

by criminal groups with an estimated turnover of ?3 to 6 billion in 2015.

As I said to the honourable gentleman we are at the beginning of

a complex process to agree a new relationship with the EU. This is

new territory for both sides and it is way too early to say exactly what

that relationship will look like but I'm sure there will be many, varied

views expressed from around the chamber today and in the months

ahead but I am confident that nobody will argue against the importance of

fighting cross-border crime and depending security across Europe. I

am happy to give way. Perhaps to reinforce that point,

will he concede that what we are actually talking about is a system

of European criminal justice cooperation. Much of this is about

practical cooperation and information-sharing and does not

actually largely, touch about the substantive criminal law of the

stants sometimes extends beyond Member States of the European Union?

Doesn't that reinforce the importance of this practical point?

My honourable friend, as ever makes a really important point. He is

absolutely right in what he says. Not least of all that in some of

these organisations such as Europol, there are members and countries who

are involved with Europol who are not part of the European Union,

highlighting how they see the importance of make sure we are

scaring information in an efficient and were active way to fight crime.

It is absolutely right we work to ensure we protect that ability.

Whatever shape our future relationship se. Takes, I hope that

we can all agree it should knot compromise the safety of the people

in the UK or the rest of Europe. I'm most grateful to my honourable

friend for giving way. He will be aware that one of the consequences

of leaving the European Union, as the Prime Minister has indicated, is

that we withdraw from, as she puts it, from the jurisdiction of the

European Court of Justice. But as he will be aware, many of these justice

cooperation functions, ultimately, come under the you jurisdiction of

the European Court. And I have to say that I find it difficult to

understand what arrangement the government has in mind to address

this issue, whether it wishes to have a separate tribunal system set

up in order to apply the rules. Or what it envisages. Because,

otherwise, even for states which are outside the EU, the ECJ is in fact

very important in the rulings it gives on these key areas of security

cooperation. Well, I do appreciate the point that

my right honourable friend makes. And one of the pieces of work we are

doing as we go through the negotiations is to make sure we get

something that is bespoke for the United Kingdom. One of the things we

have to do is look at what other countries have done, and other

countries who work with Europol and the United States, are good example

who are not members of the EU but have found ways to work with us.

These are examples we can look at but we need to develop a bespoke

system for the UK. In her speech yesterday, the Prime Minister set

out what the Government's negotiation objectives are for

Brexit. She explained how this Government plans it make Britain

stronger and fair, restoring self-determination whilst becoming

more global and international in action and spirit. We do have a long

record of playing a leading role within Europe and globally to

support and drive cooperation to help protect sit zences and depend

democratic values and we have been lead programme Popents of

development of a number of law enforcement criminal justice

measures that are now in place across the European Union. Yesterday

the Prime Minister also reiterated that while June's referendum was a

vote to leave the EU, it was not a vote to leave Europe. We want to

continue to be reliable partners, willing Allies and close friends

within the European countries. On a practical level there, has been no

immediate change to how we work with the EU following the referendum. As

a recent decision, just before Christmas, to seek to opt into the

new legislative framework for Europol, the EU policing agency,

demonstrates. The UK will remain a member of the EU, with all rights

and obligations that membership entails, until we leave. The way we

work with the EU, of course, will have to change once we leave. And we

must now plan for what our new relationship will look like. The

views members express here today will be helpful in that regard and

no doubt so will the right honourable gentleman's. I'm grateful

to the minister for giving way. I want to follow up the incredibly

important question posed by the right honourable member for, because

we are the proud authors of human rights in Europe. It's a tradition

that dates back to the McIn a car ta. Will he confirm, when the

Government brings forward its proposals on a British biff rights,

there'll be nothing in that draft for discussion, that will propose us

leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, or the European Court

on human rights? Well, I appreciate that the right honourable gentleman

tempts me to give a running commentary and prejudge the outcome

of the negotiations and work in a couple of years ahead, which I will

resist but I will say to him, while we remain a member of the EU, we do

recognise the jurisdiction obviously of the European Court of Justice,

over the measures we've opted into. It is too early it spk late at this

stage on exactly what our relation with the European Court of Justice

will be after we leave the EU. -- speculate. That is work that will be

done as we go forward. I have spoken to several counts parts in Europe,

as has the Home Secretary and many colleagues across Government and I

have to say in the coveringses I have had with colleagues across

Europe, I have been encouraged by their view that it is essential to

find a way for our shared work on security to continue. But we do have

questions that we need to work through answering about how that

should happen in practice. Will th will be complex and subject to

negotiation. But we are committed to finding a way forward that works

both for the UK and the European Union. And Home Office is working

with departments, such as my honourable friend, who will be

closing the debate today, across Whitehall to analyse a full range of

options for future cooperation. We are also liaising with our

colleagues, closely in a devolved administration. It is crucial to

make sure that we have a way that goes forward, working for all of the

EU. And we are drawning on the

invaluable flooint experience of operational partners such as the

national crime agency and Crown Prosecution Service. I'm grateful to

the ongoing contributions from all those organisations. This work is

being drawn together with the support of our colleague in the

department for exiting the EU and will form part of our wider exit

negotiation strategy. I'll make progress.

A number of legal agreements. Or tools. They provide the framework

for practical cooperation arrangements and information sharing

mechanisms which were mentioned today. As well as supporting

cross-border traditional and more enforcement, they include measures

such as the European West warrant, prisoner transfer arrangements --

European arrest warrant. They are designed to protect the rights of

defendants and vulnerable across borders, facilitated major

cooperation, support, practical processes for fighting cross-border

crime and delivering justice. And yes, we have been leading proponents

of a development of a number of security measures in the EU, backed

by proportion safeguards. Leaving the EU does not mean we are walking

away from this close cooperation with our nearest neighbours. I have

to give waste of your I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way,

because I'm now looking a durable's website, which starts with phrase"

we do this by assisting European union member states in their fight

against serious organised crime" so I would like to know from the

minister, what are the negotiating terms for us to still access to pot

if we are not a member state? If he has a look further into the Europol

website, there are associate member state are ready, such as the United

States. Treble is just one example, but I'll come to it specifically in

a few moments -- Europol is. The toolkit has evolved over many years,

in response to changes both in the nature of the EU and international

security threats and the increased movement of people across borders.

The Justice and home affairs. Decision in 2014 gave us the

opportunity to re-evaluate certain measures to the UK pre-20 14. But

provides a useful reference point, it is important to be clear that the

situation following the outcome of a referendum is now different. We will

no longer be a member of the EU, to state the obvious. Unlike the 2014

decision, the question now is not whether we seek to rejoin certain

measures as a member state. Instead, we have to consider how we should

interact with the EU security law enforcement, criminal justice

toolkit from outside the EU. We are considering a full range of possible

options. We are looking at existing arrangements for third country

cooperation with the EU, which can inform discussions. But it is

important to be very clear as I said a few moments ago that we are not

looking to replicate any other nation's model. We are at a unique

starting point with a strong history of working closely with the member

states as partners and as allies. As mentioned, we will make a key

contribution to security and justice, both in Europe and

globally. We will seek an agreement with the EU that recognises that

unique position that we hold. I thank the Minister for giving way.

Further to an earlier question, further to the Prime Minister's

speech yesterday. She said we will not be hanging on to fits of the EU.

Europol is an EU agency -- on two bits. The European arrest warrant is

in EU crime and safety measure. Isn't the only interpretational of

the Prime Minister's speech about not hanging onto certain bits of the

EU that are no longer participate in either of these? As an example, I

will say that it is worth having a look at the website that his

colleague is looking at. There are members and associate members of

your poll that are not members of European Union -- of Europol.

Europol existed as a non-EU institution before the EU as an

institution was involved. These things are why important. We'll be

looking to develop a unique and bespoke position for this country.

In just a moment I will give way. I just want to make this point. I do

appreciate from comments already made today, it's clear there will be

members pen question -- who will question the benefit. I've had the

chance to see regular, real-life example of what they do and how they

matter -- why they matter, which I'll outline as soon as I have given

way. Although there are several countries that have operational and

strategic partnerships with the Europol, they don't have a say in

the overall direction of Europol and also in many cases don't have access

to all the databases, and it is access to the databases that is

critical. Can he tell us, it hearing out trying to remain a member of

Europol? -- is he ruling out. And will have access to all of

pottable's databases. Are not ruling anything out. We would bespoke deal

right of this country, no not prejudge the outcome of negotiations

over the next couple of years. Europol is a European Union agency

that is based in The Hague, the one that we are a huge contributor to.

The chief executive at the moment, an excellent leader for that

organisation is a British national. Whilst the honourable member doesn't

want to prejudge negotiations, the decision to opt in, in which he laid

out his case are doing so, show the UK is willing to be an active

participant in Europol for many years to come. Has outlined at the

time, he makes a good point in one sense but I want to be very clear.

The opt in was in the context of us being a member of the European

Union. The next couple of years, we are still a full member of the

European Union. It's important that we make sure we take the opportunity

to play a full and strong part here. And we do want to continue to play a

very, very strong part as a partner for our colleagues across Europe and

globally, particularly for law enforcement. The prime objective of

treble is to facilitate information to prevent serious crime and

terrorism -- of Europol. I have yet to meet a senior police officer

across our country who does not value our permission of Europol. By

providing a platform for members to share intelligence and information

and for a strong analysis function, it offers an parallel opportunities

to prevent serious crime and protect EU citizens, including those in the

UK. This means that some 86,629, for example, suspected criminals were

identified on Europol information system in 2015 alone, at 40% even on

the year before. 1500 plus decisions for referrals of terrorist and

extremist online content between July and December of 2016, with 1600

plus removals. Large-scale organised crime and traffic cases, the UK

starts one of the largest national desks in the organisation, where one

of the biggest contributors of information to Europol's systems.

Another mechanism we have at the moment is to Kante. It works troppo

located network -- is Eurojus. Later this year, we will start operating

the EU's system for exchange of DNA, fingerprints and vehicle

registration data. Following this has's overwhelming vote in December

2015 you join it. In 2015, we did conduct a pilot. Exchanging DNA

profiles with other member states, which gave us an impressive number

of hits. Many again suspect or lot of unidentified otherwise, and allow

the police, who are then able to arrest people for a number of

serious offences including burglary and attempted rape. Since a thousand

15, we have taken part in a second generation Schengen information

system, a system for circulating law-enforcement alerts around the EU

at the same time. This ensures that intelligence is shared

internationally to help prevent threats from across the world. We

have arrested and extradited wanted criminals, who we have would not

have otherwise even known about. I have the give way. The National

crime agency has said the team is vitally important to UK, where he

also join the Met police in that Eurojust is usually fallible and

cooperation agreements must be guaranteed as soon as we leave the

EU -- is hugely valuable. Unaware when I talked about the Association

of curb lease -- of police, wear uniform in desire to keep all the

talk is we can actively working. The work we have to do in the years

ahead must reflect the fact we have made very clear that when people

took forward their boat on the 23rd of June last year, they didn't wait

to be any less safe -- their vote. The serving of prison sentences of

existing convictions, we have managed to extradite some 7000

people for the benefit of that. The European information system provides

a secure electronic system, the exchange of information on criminal

record and convictions between authorities are participating

countries. Ensures that UK authorities are made aware when our

own nationals convicted in any EU country. Means we can secure Camilla

information on EU nationals, so when the UK courts -- criminal

information, they can take into account previous cruel behaviour.

Comicstrip -- previous criminal behaviour, I am grateful. The

government's intention is to effectively negotiate a bespoke

deal, to secure all of this into the future and to achieve that within

two years. What happens if we don't get that spoke deal within the next

two years? I say to my right honourable friend but obviously have

been very clear about this, that the country has voted to leave the EU,

and we are leaving the EU. This is in the context of working to get

that spoke deal that she referred to. I have every confidence not just

in the Home Secretary and the team at the Home Office, but also the

Prime Minister and the team across the backs of department as well to

negotiate to get that deal that is right for our country in the years

ahead. I want to touch briefly on the fight against terrorism. We are

and always have been clear in the national security remains the sole

responsibility of EU member states. That was set out in EU law. Would my

honourable friend agree that of course matters relating to the

important questions Hughes raised regarding crime, terrorism, security

-- he has raised, questions of fingerprinting, not by any means

confined to that region called the European Union. Actually apply

internationally, and therefore just as other countries such as the

United States have their arrangements, so we have hours. He

makes an important point in that the work we have done across Europe, we

have been a leading country in getting this work, it is work we are

continuing to do with countries around the world. To make sure able

to do everything we can in every context to keep our country and

citizens say. We do work bilaterally and through the counterterrorism

group for example to combat terrorism in Europe. That includes

working with European partners on information sharing, tackling

foreign fighters, law-enforcement cooperation, tackling

radicalisation. That sits outside the EU, and will continue to be a

member of it. I EU cooperation is just part of a wider landscape.

International counterterrorism work which includes cooperation through

relationships such as Interpol, and bilateral work with individual

countries and of course Nato. Might I just make one point in relation to

the integration by my honourable friend the member. It was very clear

that though there are other means of international cooperation and with

other countries outside the EU, the current mechanisms are much more

efficient than those, which very often have to be conducted on a

bilateral basis, rather than as part of a joined up system. Beverages

desirable -- therefore it is desirable that we do all it can to

stay in them. That is a good point, and there are different agreements

in different parts of the world with different partners. In important

that we work to get the benefits we have seen from some of the work we

have got in agreements across Europe. Actually more widely. There

are key partners in Europe, and they assure us they very are close

corporation in counterterrorism matters as well. We are clear and

effective cooperation with EU member states in order to combat terrorism

will continue to be a top UK priority. EU relationships will have

to change, but our shared goal in ensuring the security of our

citizens will not. It is important we can find a way forward that works

for the UK and the EU jointly, for mutual benefit. We report on

negotiations from the perspective of what's best for the safety of all

our citizens. What is worse for those who seek to cause serious harm

to all innocent people and democratic values. During

negotiations, we will look to continue the excellent levels of

cooperation that currently exist with our European partners. We are

recognising that the nature of the future relationship can only be

decided in negotiations with member states and EU institutions.

We recognise the challenges in negotiating a new relationship. We

are committed to finding new situations to allow us to continue

working together for the security of Europe and all the citizens of the

United Kingdom. The question is, this house has

considered exiting the EU and security, law enforcement and

criminal justice. Lynne Brown. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We

welcome this afternoon's debate. In the run-up to the referendum in June

last year and the months since, we have heard much about how our

decision to leave the European Union will affect Britain's economy. We've

it means for our businesses, trading relationships, the nation's finances

and most importantly the personal finances of individuals and

households throughout our country. All of that is of very deep concern

to me and, I know, to many others in the house. Potentially of even

greater significance is the threats to our national security that could

from leaving the European Union and, in particular, the effect it will

have on the ability of our police to protect our citizens. Today, as we

turn our focus to these issues, the government needs to provide stronger

assurances that our nation's security will not be compromised by

our decision to leave the EU. Madam Deputy Speaker if I say gently to

the honourable gentleman that his speech was strong in analysis, long,

and strong on detail on what these institutions are... But we didn't

really hear anything about how we were going to do the things he wants

us to affect. I know some honourable members in this house lament the

fact that in the 40 years plus since we decided to join the common market

it became far more than simply a trading arrangement. Given the

nature of the threat we face, it's unsurprising that European countries

found it convenient to cooperate in other areas, including the field of

justice and home affairs. Quite simply, it was in our national

interest to do so. Because the security threat we face are not

confined to our national borders, whether it is to fight international

terrorist networks or track down fugitives from justice. Or obtain

crucial information on the activities of suspects abroad or

maintain border controls. It certainly makes more sense to act

together. Madam Deputy Speaker, these issues are of paramount

importance to the security of our citizens. Whatever our personal view

on the EU referendum, we urgently need reassurance from the Minister

that our national security and ability to combat crime within our

borders will not be compromised by the decision to leave. I know many

honourable members will have issues they want to race this afternoon.

Thank you very much for letting me in, would be honourable lady agree

that for us in Northern Ireland it is especially Kiwi keep our

relationships with Ireland and how we are working together there, and

improve the counterterrorism world we've got. Eight out of 110

extraditions allowed the still great work to be done. We've got to build

on it. The honourable gentleman is absolutely right, there are three

main issues that we would like to seek answers on this afternoon.

These are our ability to participate in the common arrest warrant, our

future relationship with Europe and access to a Europe-wide crime

prevention databases including the Schengen information system. I'm

going to come to each of those interned. A general point to be

made, as many in this house will remember, our optimal relationship

with the EU in the field of security and justice was comprehensively

debated in the previous parliament. Indeed we opted out of all

provisions relating to police and criminal justice in order to have a

fresh debate about which foolish proofs we wanted to be part by

opting them again. -- which initiatives. This was negotiated

with other European member states by the previous Labour government and

continued by the subsequent coalition. It consisted of two years

of debate in government and Brussels and culminated in Britain deciding

to opt back in to 35 specific measures that we considered to be in

our national interest. These measures included amongst others the

European arrest warrant, Europol, access to Schengen information

system. Three things I'm concerned with today. I know our current Prime

Minister is concerned about them, too, because it was she as Home

Secretary who put the case to the house on the 7th of April 2014, that

we should put back into them. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's so nice to have

confidence that we will have unanimity in the chamber this

afternoon on this often contentious subject. But I know the opted

inhabitant before the referendum. -- the opt in happened. The government

needs to tell us post-referendum how we ensure we still have access to

these measures we so recently decided we needed to keep our

citizens safe. We don't have time today to rehearse the two years of

debate that led to a decision to cooperate in each of these 35 areas

we decided to opt back into. I'm going to focus on our main concerns.

There is no doubt this is a crucial tool in the fight against crime in

the UK. Introduced 2004, it provides a mechanism for crime suspects who

have left the country, fugitives, to be surrendered to the UK

automatically buy in European member state, meaning suspects who have

fled can be returned in a matter of weeks or days. Crucially it means

suspects can be returned to the UK even if the crime they are suspected

of committing has a different legal basis. To the law that applies in

the country they have fled to. This is because, underpinning the

European arrest warrant, is the principal each European Union

country agreed to respect the decisions of each other's criminal

justice system, even if they differ. I think she's just made the point I

wanted to raise, which is that the principal means we have to accept

that justice systems across the rest of the EU are as good as ours. Does

she have confidence that is the case? I have confidence that the

European arrest warrant is far more powerful than any other extradition

process anywhere else in the world. And we would be so stupid if we let

it go. Since it was introduced in 2004, the UK has used it to bring

2500 individuals from outside the UK to face justice. 2500. Let's not

forget it was the mechanism that enabled Hussain Osman to be brought

to justice after he fled to Italy after a failed suicide bombing in

London in 2005. The problem that we face is that the European arrest

warrant is available exclusively to EU members. There are considerable

hurdles to overcome, were we to attempt to maintain the current

arrangements, if we're not in the European Union. As a recent briefing

from the Centre for European reform think tank states, if, having left

the EU, the UK wanted to get a similar deal, I quote, it would need

to convince some of its partners to change their constitutions. In some

cases this would trigger a referendum, do we really think they

would hold such a referendum because we have decided to leave the EU?

Some other countries from outside the European Union have attempted to

negotiate access to the current arrest warrant system. Norway and

Iceland for example have concluded a surrender agreement with the EU that

attempts to get the same benefits, though it has not yet come into

force. This agreement is weaker in two ways. First, it requires the

alleged offences are the same in both countries, so losing the

flexibility that comes from member states agreeing to respect the

decisions of each other's criminal justice systems. Second, it allows

countries to refuse to surrender their own nationals, making it

tricky, for example, if a national of another EU country commits an

offence on UK soil. On top of that, if that weren't bad enough, it took

15 years to negotiate. That is countries in Schengen and the

European economic area. Whereas, as the Prime Minister made clear

yesterday, there are no plans for us to be members of either. The

alternative is to fall back on previous extradition treaties which

are far more cumbersome and in some cases will require EU countries to

change their own laws in respect of the UK. Madam Deputy Speaker it is

hard to see how any of these options are preferable to the current

arrangement. In particular I'm finding it hard to understand how

this fits with the Prime Minister's pledge yesterday to "Work together

more" in response to threats to our common security. Because while it's

not difficult for an individual who has broken the law in Britain to hop

on a cheap flight to another European country, I fear it will be

very hard indeed without the European arrest warrant for us to

get them back again. For this reason, Labour today calls on the

government to ensure the current arrangements are maintained. I now

turn to Europol. It was only a few weeks ago that this house approved

regulations that confirmed our opt in to Europol. The reason we did

this is because it is vital to our national security. Europol, the

European police office, to give it its proper title, exists to combat

serious international organised crime by means of cooperation

between relevant authorities, member states, including those tasked with

customs, immigration services, borders and financial police. As we

know, Europol is not able to mandate national forces to undertake

investigations. But it provides information and resources that

enables these national investigations to take place. In the

words of the British director of Europe, Rob Wainwright, whose

previous career was in UK security institutions, our decision to opt

into your report is, and I quote, good for Britain's security, great

for police operation in Europe. And indeed the Minister for policing

confirmed on the 16th of December during the debate on the statutory

instrument that you report provides, again I quote, a vital tool in

helping UK law enforcement agencies to coordinate investigations

involving cross-border serious and organised crime. A vital tool. He

also said around 40% of everything Europol does is linked to work that

is either provided or requested by the United Kingdom. But when he was

pushed on whether we can maintain our membership of Europol, the

Secretary of State for exiting the European Union speaking in this

house last year was only able to say the government will seek to, and I

quote "Preserve the relationship with the European Union security

matters as best we can". When the honourable member for Holborn and St

Pancras asked the same question about Europol yesterday we got no

more information about how it could be done. I'm grateful to the

honourable lady for giving way. Is she aware of what Wainwright said

last year, that negotiating security pact from outside the block of your

report in the event of Britain leaving the EU would be a damage

limitation exercise. Does she agree with me that what we need to hear

from the government today is not a eulogy to how great you report is

because we know that already, but an indication of how they will limit

the damage caused by leaving the European Union and agencies such as

Europol. The honourable lady is absolutely right because Madam

Deputy Speaker I agree with her, it simply isn't good enough. While the

rubble has arrangements for third-party access, they raise

serious questions. The government itself, in a policy paper published

last year stated, again, I quote, there are a number of important

differences between what Europol provides to third countries with

which it has agreements. And EU members. They highlight, in

particular, the inability to directly submit data and conduct

searches within the Europol databases. The need to conclude a

separate bilateral arrangement to connect to Europol secure

information exchange network application. And the ability to sit

on Europol's management board, which sets the organisational strategy. It

tells us Mr Wainwright is highly unlikely to be staying in his post.

In summary, to borrow from the words of David Armond, deputy director of

the National crime agency, any alternative arrangement to full

membership would be, and I quote, sub optimal. Not as good as what

we've currently got. And that, frankly, doesn't feel comfortable to

me. Our third concerned is around access

to pan-European databases that are important for the routine work of

our police forces. Access to the European criminal records data is

limited, exclusively to EU member states. The common European asylum

system includes fingerprint database known as Euro duck, that prevents

individuals reapplying for a silent once they have been rejected. We

have -- for asylum. To the Schengen information system, despite not

being a member of Schengen, which contains information on lost

identity documents and importantly, wanted persons. And the Minister's

own permanent secretary in his four to the most recent annual report to

the Home Office has stated that strengthening data ties with our

European allies was central to combating terrorism. I would be

grateful if the minister when he sums up confirms whether we also

have access to these databases outside the European Union. And if

so, will they come at a financial cost? I am most grateful to my

honourable friend, she is making an impressive and powerful speech on

this issue. Some of us may just not need to speak, but I'm sure that

will not stop her speaking! Can I just say to her on the issue, at the

moment someone arrested in London within three minutes, if a German

citizen, we'll be to know exactly what their previous convictions are.

We will want an arrangement that is just as good if we are no longer to

have the access that we have at the moment. The honourable gentleman, my

honourable friend, is absolutely right. But we're not getting any

guarantees from our government that this is what they're going to be

able to provide. There is still a more general problem, or that there

are even negotiating for it. There is even more general problem about

access to the data we need to combat crime and keep us safe. Even if we

have access to European databases outside the EU, we may not have too

-- be able to use them. That is because the European data protection

law is clear that no information can be handed to a third country, which

we will be, that does not Hetty evils of privacy. And while our

government has said -- adhered to EU laws of privacy. By the government

said will adhere at least until the point of Brexit, we did not know

that they intend to do so afterwards. We certainly knows what

happens if our data laws do not adhere to European privacy laws. The

European Court of Justice will simply invalidate any data sharing

agreement, as it has done for the so-called agreement between the EU

and the US. What guarantees will the government put in place to ensure

that information our police and security agencies need from the

European Union databases will not also be turned off when they leave?

In conclusion, we have some very deep concerns that our ability to

protect our citizens will be made harder when they leave the European

Union. And we need reassurance from the government that it intends to

reduce or eliminate this risk through its negotiations on Brexit.

It's one thing to have our prosperity under threat from the

complexities of maintaining access to the single market. And frankly,

that's bad enough. But it's quite another to have our security and

their very lives of our citizens under threat due to the complexities

of maintaining cross-border cooperation between our police and

security forces not been properly considered and worked out before

leaving. I quote again from the Centre for European reform. "Justice

And home affairs is not like trade, which creates winners and losers.

The only losers from increased cooperation in law enforcement are

criminals themselves". So my question to the Minister is simple:

what guarantees will he give that Britain's security will not be

compromised by us leaving the European Union? Order. I have now to

announce the result on the deferred decision, the ayes were 299, the

noes Wessex. In England, the ayes were 280, and of the noes were six

-- the noes 's work six. If I may say so to the honourable lady, whose

speech I listen to, I am for my own part completely content of these

matters should be left should be left in the safe hands of the

Minister of State, who knows exactly what needs to be done. I am most

grateful for this opportunity to say a few brief words following my right

honourable friend the Prime Minister's excellent, bold and

comprehensive speech yesterday. And to set out a few thoughts on wider

security and co-operation after Brexit. In the Brexit negotiations,

it will be necessary for us to set up the basis of our future

relationship as is described in Article 50. I believe that our

national interests in sustaining to the very highest degree and indeed

to carrying forward into the future, the highest possible degree of joint

action on Justice, home affairs, security cooperation and of

scientific research and innovation, and indeed on many other areas of

common and important interest. I congratulate my right honourable

friend the Prime Minister on the clear and concise way in which she

set up the government's position. And whilst I was a staunch Remainer,

I absolutely accept the vote of the referendum, and the need now for the

government to get on with it. As Churchill once said, if there is a

there in your bedroom, it is not a matter for speculation. At the same

time as these are difficult and conduct negotiations on trade and

all the myriad other issues take place, this is an important time for

us to set out, as the Prime Minister did in her speech, a clear case for

a very close partnership and a new relationship of cooperation between

members of the European Union and the UK. Indeed, in my view, it

should be as close as any sovereign country can be. In terms of military

affairs, free trade and security cooperation. In my view, this type

of work with our friends Germany and France and others, and in other

countries, is of the first importance. And our initiatives

which in my view would be widely welcomed in Europe, what running in

parallel with the rather more complex and tricky negotiations of

the Article 50 transaction. Here is something about which Britain can

bring something very positive and very useful and of proved worth to

the table. Thus in my judgment, we should aim to maintain our excellent

cooperation on security as it is now, and indeed to enhance it

further, including during the discussion of the new settlement. On

many of the issues, we will continue to have an important interest in

shaping EU policies after we leave. But clearly, the United Kingdom is

an important influence on European security agenda, and it will remain

considerable given our position as Nato's most capable and willing

European power. The recent deployments of Typhoon aircraft to

Remainiac Army personnel to eastern Poland, -- to Romania. And soon the

deployment of a full battalion of 800 men to Estonia. All served to

underline our profound commitment to the effort. Inevitably once the UK

exits the EU, it will become harder for us to translate this into an

important commitment into political influence. It is thus even more

imperative that our partners and friends understand that it is our

intention to continue the closest possible relationship in these areas

to our mutual interest. As the Prime Minister rightly said yesterday in

her speech, she wants Britain to be the best friend and neighbour of our

European partners. And a country that reaches out beyond the borders

of Europe, too. And my fervent hope that our European friends will

understand that it is our strongest wish that we play from the outside

what role we can in making sure that the UPN union succeeds. Yes, of

course. -- the European Union. Would he agrees me that we need to put all

the pressure we can on President come to make sure that Nato stays in

place and we build on our security -- president Trump. There is a fear

that he may not, in which case the pressures change. I very strongly

agree with the honourable gentleman, and I think it is very important. I

have high hopes that the Prime Minister when she goes to visit

President Trump will of course be making this point very clearly I

hope that he will say something in his inauguration speech which will

clarify what he meant. I'm not offended by that. Discussing with my

honourable friend the chairman of the Defence Select Committee. I

don't think he meant it as an insult. It is true there is much

about nature that is highly unsatisfactory. Not the least that

many of them don't pay their fair whack -- about Nato. Nato is not

equipped or is far advanced as Russia, for example, in the new

asymmetric hybrid versions of warfare that we are going to have to

contend with as is seen in the unbelievably bad behaviour in the

Crimea. Before he gets back to his main oration, I would like to draw

attention to the context in which President Trump was reported, where

he says that Nato, he says, is extremely important to him. When

he's talking about the word obsolete, he seems to be using it in

a sense that he's saying that Nato needs not to be abolished, but to

modernise to face new threats. I think actually, we shouldn't read

too much into the individual nuances of particular words that he speaks,

because nuance does not seem to his style. I think my right honourable

friend is spot on with that, anyway I'm sure that these matters will

play out. I look at the wonderful success of the security architecture

designed by those wise men and women after the last war, the last Great

War, one looks at how well it has served the world in peace, in good

times and bad times. It would seem to me not to be a sensible time to

do anything other than support. Therefore, with the threats to our

common security becoming even more serious, and in many ways in my view

more insidious, our response cannot surely be to cooperate with one

another less, but to work together more. As the Prime Minister said in

her speech yesterday, we are proud of the Royal Britain has prayed, and

we will continue to play in promoting Europe's security -- the

role Britain has played. Whether it is implement in sanctions against

Russia following its action in the Crimea, working for peace and

stability in the Balkans, extraordinary important piece of

work right now, or securing Europe's external borders. We will continue

to work closely with our European allies in foreign and defence

policy, even as the leave the EU itself. To conclude, I hope that the

Minister will agree with me that it is very important that we

demonstrate even during the heat of the negotiations the inevitable heat

of the negotiations, are absolute determination to be good partners

and good friends, allies and friends to Europe, and that we are as my

right honourable friend so rightly said, leaving the European Union but

most emphatically not leaving Europe. It's a pleasure and an

honour to follow the right honourable member for Mid Sussex,

I'm sure we find much about which we disagree, but his experience in

these matters shines through. I would also like to compliment the

honourable member for West Ham on her speech. I think it was a fine

speech and there was much to agree about in it. This debate takes place

against the background of the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, which

was made not to this house but to an invited audience. Although we had an

opportunity to question the minister, the Secretary of State for

exiting the European Union yesterday, this House has yet to

debate the plan for year event Defra for leaving European Union. While it

is of utmost importance we debate the implications on justice, it is

more important that we should soon be involved to debate the overall

plan for Brexit that was finally laid before us yesterday. Scotland

didn't vote for the direction of travel set out in the Prime

Minister's speech yesterday. We don't believe it's in our national

interest, but we also believe that decisions on this topic in relation

to Europe, the European Union, are not being driven by the National --

rational best interests of the whole UK, but rather by the obsessions of

the hard right of the Tory party. We strongly believe that the best way

to build a prosperous and equal, a safe and secure United Kingdom is to

be a full member of the European Union. Which failing, to be a member

of the single market and to cooperate widely on matters such as

security, law enforcement and criminal justice. That's why the

Scottish Government put a plan to the whole of the UK before

Christmas, suggesting a compromise whereby we might the whole of UK