---

Adjournment (Summer Recess)

I wish to speak on a subject of great concern to me and my constituents: the unfolding tragedy in Lebanon. It is worth reminding the House how the crisis began. It started two weeks ago, when Palestinians in Gaza captured an Israeli soldier with the intention of negotiating the release of some of the 9,000 Palestinian prisoners of war in Israel. Gaza took a pounding. There were attacks on electricity and water supplies and thousands of people suffered, but the rest of the world did nothing, including the Arab states. Hezbollah decided to do something about the situation and to pose as the champion of the Palestinian cause. It responded by capturing two more Israeli servicemen and, eventually, by firing rockets into Israel—most, if not all, of which were aimed at civilian targets. Of course, Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself and respond to the missile threats, but the issue for me, my constituents and most of the Governments in the world, with the exception of those of America and Britain, is Israel’s excessive use of force. Jan Egeland, the United Nations Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, has described the Israeli response as a violation of humanitarian law. Earlier in the debate hon. Members spoke of the need to strengthen the Lebanese state. Of course that is important, but I am not clear how killing 370 Lebanese civilians, forcing 500,000 people to flee, smashing the bridges and roads, blockading the port and smashing the capital, Beirut, will strengthen the Lebanese state and make Lebanon more stable. Of course, Israel has a right to self-defence, but as matters stand, casualties on the Israeli side and casualties on the Palestinian and Lebanese side are running at about 1:10 in favour of the Israelis. Israel insists that it is hitting only targets related to Hezbollah, but we can all see on our television screens the hundreds of civilians who are being hit, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Only yesterday television pictures were transmitted of two Red Cross vehicles clearly marked as Red Cross vehicles, lit as Red Cross vehicles, with Red Cross flags on top, which were deliberately bombed by the Israelis. Not only the patients inside the ambulances, but the Red Cross personnel were put in hospital. We have heard terrible reports of some of the Israeli activity, which may yet be seen to verge on war crimes. There are several instances of the Israeli military ordering civilians to leave their homes and then firing rockets into the evacuation fleet, blasting women and children refugees inside. The rockets that killed them are believed to be Hellfire missiles made by Lockheed Martin in Florida. The Israeli Government have not chosen the route of de-escalation and negotiation. Instead, they have chosen war. Britain and America are standing back and, as it is described, letting Israel deal with Hezbollah. What historical precedent is there for such military action successfully dealing with insurgent guerrillas, which is what Hezbollah is? Did it succeed in Malaysia, Cyprus or Kenya? How can it succeed in Lebanon? The action that Israel is taking in Lebanon looks increasingly less like an attack on a terrorist organisation and more like an attack on a nation. It looks increasingly like the collective punishment of the Lebanese people for failing, in Israeli eyes, to do more to contain Hezbollah. That cannot be right or fair, it is contrary to the laws of natural justice, and it cannot work, because for every Lebanese civilian who dies as a result of the current Israeli action, there will be many more recruits for the Hezbollah extremists, so even in its own terms, neither militarily nor politically can the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon achieve the professed aims. It is noticeable that even the strong middle east allies of Britain and America, such as the Iraqi Prime Minister yesterday, have clearly condemned what is happening. It is difficult for Britain and America to pose as people who wish to fight for human rights and national sovereignty across the world, when the Arab world sees what is happening to Lebanon. There is the never ending war in Afghanistan, the increasing devastation of Iraq, where thousands of people are dying, the continuing death and destruction in Gaza and the bombing of Beirut. How does that look on the Arab street? How does that make the world a safer place? The problem is much more intractable than my hon. Friend suggests, although I hope that those people who hope to make some sustainable arrangements will take his points into account. I also wish to raise a domestic terrorist issue, which is that of the animal rights terrorist movement. Unusually, I wish to congratulate the Government on what they have done to try to curb the activities of a few, very aggressive people. I was pleased that we were able to send down those appalling people who behaved so badly in the guinea pig farm case. I was pleased to note that the Companies Bill contains provisions to make it more difficult for such organisations, although they are unfortunately fairly shrewd and clever, to gain access to shareholders’ names and addresses from the registers of companies. Because Wellcome used to be based in Beckenham, I have a disproportionate number of constituents who hold shares in some pharmaceutical companies, and they have suffered not only from the latest outrage but from the phone calls at 4 am and the posters stuck on their gates and their neighbours’ gates calling them murderers. That is not the sort of treatment that should be suffered by retired, older people. I urge the Minister to ensure that all the reorganisation in the Home Office does not cause the Government to take their eye off this particular ball. We have to maintain a high level of policing against animal terrorists, and make sure that the animal terrorist unit is able to continue its work. We must also use all possible legislative means to curb the terrorists’ activities. The people who are involved in animal terrorism believe that direct action works, and they have set out to train a younger generation to continue what is an outrageous attack on one of this country’s key industries. Everyone in this Chamber has benefited from its work, and I suspect that the same is true of the animal terrorists. If they are allowed to continue to take action against the industry, investors will make their decisions accordingly and facilities will close. That will happen quietly and gradually—there will be no announcement that it is due to the industry being targeted by the animal terrorists, but investors will decide that they can invest more profitably elsewhere. As a result, one of our leading industries will simply trickle away to countries that offer a more supportive environment. Finally, I turn to a matter raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). The question of back gardens being treated as brownfield sites is of great importance to people in London’s outer suburbs, and throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman gave various reasons why blocks of flats should no longer be built in back gardens, a problem that affects my constituency as much as his, but he slightly glossed over the way that a suburb’s character can change because of increased population density. People move to a new location as a positive choice. They come to my Beckenham constituency because they want its open spaces, large gardens and wide roads, with all the biodiversity that that implies. They want to bring up their children in leafy areas and they do not want to discover that they are faced with inner-city population densities. I raised this matter in a Westminster Hall debate, but the Minister who responded seemed to be proud that housing in the outer suburbs was approaching inner-city densities. I hope that the Government can be persuaded to look again—and hard—at the question of population density, and at the way that the planning function is becoming increasingly centralised. That centralisation is evident in the proposed transfer of power to the London Mayor, and in the planning guidance announced in a written statement yesterday. That guidance, which is being consulted on, will make it much easier for central Government to dictate how many houses, and of what type, should go where. I have long believed that the people who know best what should happen in a locality are the ones who live there. They know that their children need houses, and that older people need different accommodation as they grow older and are no longer able to manage so easily. Local people should be able to decide that their environment will remain as they like it. It is not up to central Government to dictate what should happen.