Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

Yes, we have done so, and continue to do so. I will be visiting South Africa in the very near future, and this will be on the agenda. We are also working with the African Union to place pressure on Zimbabwe.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

2. What representations he has made to the Israeli Government on that country’s ban on visitors who have advocated boycotts of Israeli settlement goods.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

The British deputy ambassador met Israel’s Europe director on 13 March to discuss the new immigration rules, and we continue to push for clarification from Israel on the impact on UK nationals. We have updated our travel advice for Israel.

[Andy Slaughter]

UK citizens such as Hugh Lanning, the chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, have already been refused entry because of this ban, which has been widely condemned, including within Israel itself. The advice on the Foreign Office’s website says that people should contact the Israeli embassy. Should not the Foreign Secretary be contacting the Israeli embassy to say that people should not be restricted from travel to Israel and Palestine simply because they wish to enforce international law due to the ban on goods from settlements?

[Boris Johnson]

We have of course offered to provide consular assistance to Mr Lanning. He did not in fact request our support, nor did he seem to need it. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Israel’s immigration policy is a matter for Israel. We firmly oppose boycotts—the boycott, divestment and sanctions approach—against Israel, as I am sure he does too, although clearly it is a two-way street.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

First, I want to pay tribute to the diasporas based in the UK that provide us with an understanding of what is going on in their countries. I also pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend is doing, and I absolutely agree with the concerns that she has raised about Cameroon. She is right to point to the conflict, stability and security fund as a way for us to provide funds to achieve that security, and we will be doing just that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

A few moments ago, the Secretary of State confirmed as Government policy something that this House resolved without a Division on 9 February—that there should be a halt to the planning and construction of residential settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Given that that is the case, why is the UK permitted to trade specifically with those illegal settlements?

[Boris Johnson]

It is the policy of the UK, and I think of many of our friends and partners, to continue to trade on the grounds that that is the best way to support the economy of the region. Many workers in the region come from populations within the occupied Palestinian territories, and their livelihoods depend on that industry. That policy is widely understood and supported, and we will continue with it.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I had no doubt that today would be an impassioned debate, and we have got off to a good start, hearing quite clear views from both sides of the issue.

As other hon. Members have mentioned, Israeli settlements are not the main obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians by a long stretch. A No. 10 spokesman said in December that settlements are

“far from the only problem in this conflict…the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long”.

The narrative seems to be that the conflict we see today started in 1967, when Israel gained control of the west bank and Gaza, but I ask hon. Members to consider why violence in the region pre-dates the existence of the settlements? It is worth recalling that the west bank and Gaza were occupied before 1967 not by Israel, but by Jordan and Egypt respectively. During those occupations, they refused to grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees, nor did they surrender the territory to be used for a Palestinian state. Where is the condemnation of Jordan and Egypt? The international outcry was deferred until Israel occupied the disputed lands, at which point it became unacceptable for an occupation to take place. From that point onwards, it was unacceptable; before that, no condemnation.

Legality is not subjective. It is often said that Israeli settlements are illegal, but stating that repeatedly does not make it true—[Interruption.] I would like to reply to any inflammatory comments, but I ask hon. Members to bear with me for a moment. The west bank and Gaza remain, as they have always been, disputed territories under international law. There has never been a Palestinian state, so the territory remains ownerless. That is a strong argument for some, although it is not one to which I necessary subscribe.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It sounds like it.

[Mike Freer]

The whole point of the Chamber—for those chuntering from a sedentary position—is to expose and discuss those arguments, not to merely rehearse entrenched positions. What, otherwise, is the point of a debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I visited the west bank last year as a guest of Medical Aid for Palestinians. I disagree with Members who have criticised the motion because it does not deal with issues other than settlements. A motion on settlements is perfectly appropriate. I believe that they are not the only issue, but they are the most important one.

As the mover of the motion, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), said, it is a relatively anodyne motion in that sense, so I hope everyone can support it. I say that for two reasons. First, the tragedy of Palestine is the occupation. The length of the occupation and the fact that it has happened are what distinguishes this from many other conflicts around the world. The settlements are the embodiment of occupation. Everything else that is wrong in the occupied territories flows from those settlements; 85% of the barrier, which is there to protect the settlements, is in occupied territory. It has been said that settlements occupy only 1.5% of the land, but they control 42.7% of the land. Palestinians in the west bank are not allowed to build on 60% of the land. There are checkpoints, detention often without trial, and appalling settler violence, with more attacks by settlers on Palestinians than there are attacks by Palestinian settlers in the west bank. We have heard about all the types of petty apartheid, separate legal systems and a military law for Palestinians controlled by the Defence Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, a settler himself, who is on record as having said that Palestinian citizens of Israel who are disloyal to Israel should have their heads chopped off. He is in charge of the west bank.

Secondly, we are at a crucial point, with 6,000 new settler units having been declared since Donald Trump went into the White House. As we have heard, there is the burglary law, as it has been described by a member of Likud, with 4,000 illegal outposts now legitimised.

In the short time I have left, let me make one point to the Minister. Despite the alternative facts we have heard this afternoon, we know that settlements are illegal. What are the Government going to do about them? Why can we not stop trading with illegal settlements? It would not be a boycott—let us not confuse one for the other. Why can we not ensure clearer guidelines for businesses to stop them doing that? Why can we not prevent financial transactions, as was done with Crimea, and why can we not have a database, as the UN asked for, in respect to all those issues? I would be grateful for specific answers from the Minister. Of course we are looking for a condemnation, but we are also looking for action from the British Government.

[Mrs Ellman]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise. When I spoke, I omitted to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests concerning my recent visit to Israel as part of a Labour Friends of Israel delegation. I would like to correct the record.

UK Nationals Imprisoned Abroad

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the case of Andy Tsege and other UK nationals imprisoned abroad.

It is a pleasure to see so many hon. Members here today. I will try to limit my remarks to 20 minutes. I was informed yesterday that only three Members had put their names in to speak, so I do not know how many Members present intend to do so. Clearly, I welcome the opportunity for the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for it.

During this festive period, hundreds of thousands of British citizens will be travelling home to their families or going on holiday for a break. People would expect such a trip to be uneventful. Why would anything go wrong? However, for some British citizens, what happened while they were travelling abroad has turned their lives upside down in a way that many of us could not begin to comprehend.

Two prominent examples of that are Andy Tsege and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Both are British—Nazanin is a dual national—and were arrested by foreign authorities and imprisoned without access to a fair trial. Andy was kidnapped by Ethiopian agents at Sana’a International airport in Yemen, with the Yemeni authorities stating that his detention had not occurred pursuant to any judicial process. Nazanin, whose two-year-old daughter was with her, was arrested while leaving Iran. The ordeal that both Andy and Nazanin have since faced is truly shocking, and on top of the injustice of their detention, their daily lives have been subjected to gross human rights violations.

In the time permitted, I will concentrate on the cases of Andy and Nazanin. A longer debate would of course have allowed the cases of prisoners of conscience of all nationalities, held around the world, to be raised, and many organisations have contacted me since this debate was allowed in order to draw attention to such cases. For instance, Ali al-Nimr is spending his 22nd birthday in prison in Saudi Arabia. His crimes were participating in a demonstration,

“explaining how to give first aid to protestors”

and using his BlackBerry to invite others to join him at the protest.

There is also the case of Nabeel Rajab, whose trial has been delayed for the fifth time and who is expected now to be sentenced on 28th December. That is perhaps a diversionary tactic because there may be less attention on his case as festive celebrations get under way. He is a Bahraini human rights activist and opposition leader. That case is of particular interest to the UK, because of the funding from the UK that is going into training and supporting the security and justice systems in Bahrain.

There is also the case, drawn to my attention just yesterday, of a dual UK-Lebanese citizen detained in Israel. The release of Mr Faiz Mahmoud Ahmed Sherari has been ordered by a military court in Israel, but as far as I am aware he has not been released.

I would also like to use this opportunity to raise the case of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. I know that many hon. Members here today have raised concerns about the pressures that that community are under in different countries around the world—perhaps most prominently in Pakistan, but also, I understand, in Algeria.

Today, however, I will concentrate on Andy and Nazanin. This will be the third Christmas that Andy has spent alone in a prison—he is now in a prison notorious for being Ethiopia’s gulag. He has not been able to speak to his partner and children in London for two years and has had no private access to British consular officials, leaving him unable to describe freely the treatment that he has received at the hands of his jailers.

Nazanin has been held, mostly in solitary confinement, for more than nine months. Her husband has campaigned tirelessly back in London for the UK Government to call for her release. It is still unclear whether the Government have done that. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to clarify that. Have the Government actually called for her release? Her husband says that she has been at breaking point. She is currently allowed to see her daughter only for one hour each week in prison. Her daughter remains trapped in Iran, unable to see her father. Furthermore, representatives of both Andy and Nazanin have repeatedly raised serious concerns about their health.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. He raises the point about what our Government have done. In the case of Andy Tsege, I do not think it is in dispute that he was rendered unlawfully and was tried in absentia, and we would not recognise those processes. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it extraordinary, therefore, that the Government have not even requested his release?

[Tom Brake]

I do indeed. What the Government are trying to initiate, which I will come on to shortly, is providing Andy Tsege with a lawyer, but as I understand it, he has no right of appeal in Ethiopia, and therefore providing him with a lawyer does not seem to be of great use.

The mistreatment of British citizens imprisoned abroad is unacceptable in all cases, regardless of what crime has been committed, yet in these cases the astounding truth is that it is clear that Andy and Nazanin are being held unlawfully. Attached to Andy’s name was a conviction and death sentence, after a trial in absentia, which was condemned throughout the world. Although Andy was previously prominent in Ethiopian politics, no country other than Ethiopia had found evidence, at the time of his kidnapping, that the political organisation with which he was involved had conspired to commit acts of terrorism.

Nazanin was recently sentenced on charges that remain secret, despite her previous employment in Iran as an aid worker. The simple fact is that if these British citizens are not going to be charged with an offence recognised internationally, they should be released immediately so that they can spend Christmas at home, safe with their families, who want nothing more than for them to be at home and for their lives to return to normality.

Yesterday, a representative of Reprieve and I met the Ethiopian ambassador about Andy’s case. We are grateful to His Excellency and the Minister responsible for public diplomacy for their time. We are aware that last Thursday—15 December—Andy received a consular visit. However, like all the other consular visits, that visit was supervised by the prison authorities. As I stated, Andy has never met consular officials in private. We understand that during the visit the UK ambassador told Andy that the UK may have found a lawyer to help him to

“assess his options under the Ethiopian legal system.”

Unfortunately, that does not, in my view, demonstrate progress on his case. First, the UK Government’s approach to this case appears to ignore the fact that Andy is the victim of a series of crimes and is not a criminal. The UK Government’s failure to condemn the series of abuses that Andy has suffered and continues to suffer at the hands of the Ethiopian regime signals that foreign Governments can ignore international law and kidnap British citizens at will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank Reprieve for its outstanding research and advocacy on the case of Andy Tsege and many others in which I have been involved. I say to the Minister, as have others, that the Government have intervened before. They intervened in the case of Karl Andree, and of my constituent Ghoncheh Ghavami, the young woman imprisoned in Iran for trying to go and see a volleyball game. She was released; her case was raised by the former Foreign Secretary with his Iranian counterpart. The former Prime Minister intervened in the case of Shaker Aamer, as did others.

I am delighted to see here the Leader of the Opposition, who is Andy Tsege’s MP, as well as the shadow Foreign Secretary. The Leader of the Opposition has worked on many such cases over the years. I went with him to Washington as part of the attempt to get Shaker Aamer released; the British Government were active in that case as well. The Minister himself has raised the case of the three young Saudis still on death row: Ali al-Nimr, Dawood al-Marhoon and Abdullah al-Zaher.

However, there are other cases in which the Government pull their punches, such as the case of Nabeel Rajab, the president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, who has been in and out of prison for five years, and is currently there on a charge of spreading false news by tweeting in a bid to discredit Bahrain. Believe me, that regime needs no help discrediting itself. There is often a suspicion that where our Government have trade or military links, they pull their punches on such matters. They are doing so in relation to Andy Tsege, who is a British citizen. Many of the people in the other cases that I have mentioned were not British citizens, or had dual citizenship. Undoubtedly we should intervene.

I know that time is extremely short. There appears to be no doubt—again, I am grateful for the briefing from Reprieve—that Andy Tsege’s case involves unlawful rendition. The Ethiopians do not appear to deny that; the Yemenis appear to accept it. That in itself should result in his release being immediately called for. There has been no due process. There is precedent for Government intervention, so I urge the Minister to give us some hope and confidence, particularly as we approach Christmas, that Andy Tsege can return home to spend time with his family in Britain.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Ansell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My understanding is that that challenge has been made, but was refuted strongly by Churchill back in the day.

This landmark letter, comprising just three paragraphs and the subject of our debate today, sets out that aspiration for a Jewish homeland. I am proud that our country supported the establishment of that national home, and I am also proud of the strength of the UK-Israeli relationship. Our partnership in trade, technology, medicine and academia, and our shared values, have flourished in the 68 years of Israel’s young life.

In his letter, Foreign Secretary Balfour pledged to Lord Rothschild, a leading member of British Jewry, that he would “view with favour”, and that His Majesty’s Government endorsed,

“the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am glad that the hon. Lady read the letter through. Does she agree that the first part of that equation has been dealt with, which is the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine—not, obviously, the whole of Palestine—and that perhaps concentration for the next immediate period should be on the second part, the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities, which clearly has not been achieved? That should be our priority.

[Caroline Ansell]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. Where we might disagree is on reasons why that second aspiration has not come to pass. What is really important about the letter, which has been contested, is that this non-binding Balfour declaration was swiftly endorsed and enshrined in binding agreements ratified by the international community in the San Remo resolution and the Sèvres peace treaty, and was then ratified by all 51 countries of the League of Nations when the British mandate for Palestine was approved in 1922.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Ansell]

Indeed it does; I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Although the UK’s relationship and ties with Israel are strong and we see Israel’s contribution to our economy, its contribution to the world should also be recognised at this landmark moment. Israel has defied the challenges posed by an arid climate, a small population and security threats to make significant contributions to the advancement of the world. Israeli inventions have transformed the way we live our lives. The algorithm for sending emails, mobile phone technology, technology for anti-virus software, instant messaging and the USB flash drive were all developed in Israel. It is little surprise that so many multinational tech giants have established R and D facilities in Israel. Apple, Windows, Intel, HP, Google and many more all have a presence in a country that is the size of Wales.

From helping refugees in Lesbos to fighting Ebola in west Africa, Israeli aid teams are a common and welcome sight for countries in their time of need. On my visit to Israel last year, I had the great pleasure of visiting Save a Child’s Heart, which is an extraordinary project that provides life-saving surgery for children with cognitive heart defects. The lives of children throughout the developing world have been saved by Israeli doctors. There is much to recognise, value and celebrate.

[Andy Slaughter]

Did the hon. Lady speak to Palestinians and see what is happening in the west bank? Next year is also the 50th anniversary of a brutal military occupation of someone else’s territory. Until that key point is resolved, we will not have two peoples living together in peace.

[Caroline Ansell]

I had the opportunity during that visit to meet Palestinians, business leaders and property developers. I saw a development at Rawabi, the likes of which I have never seen before in its scale, scope, vision and ambition. A whole city is rising out of the ground. I have never seen anything so truly astonishing. That place, being built by Palestinians for Palestinians, with 40,000 homes looking to be delivered, is a really positive vision for what the future could look like.

Events to mark the declaration’s centenary began earlier this month and will continue until the 100th anniversary in November 2017. Jewish communal and Israel advocacy organisations have launched an official Balfour 100 campaign, providing helpful educational resources, and will be hosting a series of events. The Prime Minister has expressed her desire to mark the occasion, as has the Minister, and I thank him for his remarks.

However, Israel does not live in peace and security and the Palestinians have not acceded to their own recognised state. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said earlier, how different things might have been if the Arab leadership, back in 1947, had adopted that UN partition plan. The region could look very different today, with two prosperous states—one Arab, one Jewish—working together and more faithfully reflecting the Balfour aspiration that the civil and religious rights of all be safeguarded.

Over the years, proposals have been rejected for a two-state solution, including, in recent decades, at Camp David at the turn of the century, and more recently, in 2008. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in an effort to bring more momentum to the peace process. Gifted with a highly educated population and a very beautiful Mediterranean coastline, it has been said that Gaza had the potential to be the Singapore of the east, but rather than being able to seize that opportunity, the Islamist terror group, Hamas, has committed Gazan civilians to ongoing rounds of violence.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend makes some excellent points, which I will cover. She is right that we need to highlight the negative health issues connected with eating dog meat. Of course, we should also encourage those who are working hard in many of these jurisdictions to change attitudes and culture. I will talk about what is happening in a positive way in some of these countries, particularly in South Korea.

Given our discussion, I would like to raise three particular aspects. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and many others raised the cultural aspect of the consumption of dog meat. Secondly, there is the issue of welfare and the conditions in which the dogs are reared before they are subsequently killed for their meat. Specifically, I will address what we, the British Government, are doing to influence change. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) just pointed out, I will cover the potential health risks of eating dog meat. I will also discuss the enormous amount of work that the UK Government are leading on antimicrobial resistance.

As hon. Members have noted, eating dog meat has been part of the culture of certain countries—sometimes going back hundreds of years and sometimes, as has been pointed out, slightly more recent. However distressing we may find the consumption of dog meat, we need to recognise that there are cultural differences across the globe. We need to respect that in some countries the sale and consumption of dog meat is legal.

Dogs are not an internationally protected species, and there are no international norms, laws or agreements covering the trade and consumption of dog meat. As a Government we aim to influence changes in attitudes and behaviour. No one would be happier than me if the consumption of dog meat ended tomorrow, but dictating to people in South Korea or anywhere else that they should not eat dog meat would be akin to another country telling us that we should not eat beef or pork. We need to win hearts and minds as a way of effecting change in attitudes to dog meat consumption. I will outline the specific support that the British Government are providing in that respect.

It is encouraging that in countries where dog meat is consumed—a number of hon. Members alluded to this—there are already signs that the culture and tradition are beginning to fade among the younger generation and the emerging middle classes, who view dogs as pets and companions rather than as a food source. In a recent survey 60% of under 30-year-olds in South Korea said that they regarded dogs as pets, and we would all expect that trend to continue.

In May 2016, 300,000 Koreans signed a petition calling on their Government to improve the country’s animal welfare Act. The petition was started by the Korean Animal Welfare Association, and it garnered those 300,000 signatures in five days on the back of Korean TV broadcasting a programme called “Animal Farm”, which highlighted abuses at puppy farms in the country. We should take heart from those trends and celebrate that many people in countries with a history of dog meat consumption share British attitudes towards dogs.

Although we need to be culturally sensitive, it is right that we speak up loudly on animal welfare matters. The UK Government take seriously all reports of animal cruelty wherever it takes place, whether in Britain or elsewhere. We are committed to raising standards of animal welfare and to phasing out cruel and inhumane practices both in the UK and overseas. Members have noted some of the cruel practices to which dogs reared for meat are subjected, and they have pointed out that in recent days a number of national newspapers have graphically highlighted some of the awful suffering and pain to which dogs are subjected in captivity and as they are killed. I was absolutely shocked by those images. There can be no excuse for barbarity against animals, wherever it takes place.

[Phil Wilson in the Chair]

The British Government are at the forefront of efforts to protect the welfare of animals. In Britain, all owners and keepers must provide for the welfare needs of their animals. Failure to do so is an offence. I acknowledge the important work done by organisations such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and, of course, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to improve standards of animal welfare both in the UK and in other countries. More widely, the United Kingdom hosted the first high-level conference on the illegal wildlife trade in 2014, in which more than 40 countries participated.

The dog meat trade was last debated in this House in November 2015. In that debate, the former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), gave an account of the work that we are doing in the Asia-Pacific region. As this petition relates primarily to South Korea, I will outline our work on this issue in that country specifically, although of course we are working with a range of countries, as the Government outlined last year.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I apologise for not having been here earlier. The Minister mentioned the debate a year ago; I was there. Little progress seems to have been made since that time, but there has been a change in view among some politicians in South Korea and elsewhere. What specifically are the Government doing to work with those progressive forces, if I can put it that way, on this serious issue?

[Alok Sharma]

I will come to what we are doing, and what I personally have done, in terms of dialogue with representatives of the South Korean Government. We must acknowledge that there has been some change. I mentioned the changes in South Korea itself, and the fact that people in that country are recognising the need for change. We must give credit where it is due. With respect, I would say that progress is being made. It might not be fast enough for all of us in this room, but it is being made. As I said, I will come to what the Government and I are doing specifically in terms of dialogue with the South Korean Government.

Before I explain what action we are taking specifically on the dog meat trade, I will outline our broader bilateral relationship with South Korea, which a number of Members mentioned. The state visit by President Park in 2013 and our annual Foreign Secretary-level strategic dialogue are testament to the strength of our growing strategic partnership. Our bilateral discussions range widely, from the situation in North Korea to security in the wider region, climate change and terrorism.

Numerous Members, including the shadow Minister, alluded to the situation in North Korea. I can confirm that this afternoon I summoned the North Korean ambassador to the Foreign Office and explained to him in strong terms that the British Government do not believe that what the North Koreans are doing in terms of nuclear testing is acceptable.

However, we share similar views with South Korea on many international issues; our voting records in the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council are closely aligned. We supported and welcomed South Korea’s decision to deploy personnel to the UK-led effort to tackle Ebola in Sierra Leone. It was the only non-western country to do so, and the fact that South Korea chose to partner with the UK is further evidence of our strong relationship. We welcome increasing bilateral trade and investment ties between our two nations. It is the strength of our bilateral relationship and growing friendship that allows us the space to speak frankly on so many matters, including the dog meat trade.

Indeed, this morning, before this debate, I spoke to the South Korean ambassador, Ambassador Hwang, on the subject and explained the strength of feeling here in the UK. His view, as he expressed it, was that the South Korean Government are trying to address this issue by raising awareness around pet ownership and educating the Korean public about animal welfare issues. As he pointed out to me, the number of restaurants in South Korea serving dog meat is decreasing, while the number of pet owners is increasing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend will know that trade policy is with UK Trade & Investment, but I will repeat what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier. We are aware that we need to recruit and retain more trade negotiators. We are still a member of the EU until the last of the negotiations have taken place, but there is absolutely no reason not to start having exploratory talks, and we are beginning to do that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

8. What steps the Government are taking to support the French initiative to start peace talks between Israel and Palestine. [R]

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

12. What steps the Government are taking to support the French initiative to start peace talks between Israel and Palestine.

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

As I mentioned earlier, I attended the French ministerial conference on the middle east peace process in Paris on 3 June. We are in close contact with the French Government and will consider how the UK might contribute as their plans develop.

[Andy Slaughter]

It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary could not attend that conference. Will he be attending or advising his successor to attend the main conference later this year, and will he join France and other European countries in recognising Palestine if Israel refuses to co-operate with the French initiative and continues building settlements?

[Mr Ellwood]

To make it clear, the summit was moved at short notice to accommodate the US Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Africa at the time, which was why I was able to attend. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not feel short-changed by the fact that I was there instead of the Foreign Secretary. It was an important meeting, as it registered the need for the international community to play its part and we look forward to moving ahead with the process. Discussions will take place in the next few months to bring the parties together.

Human Rights and Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mrs Gillan, for calling me. Given the time constraint, I shall limit myself to one matter and try to bring us back to the topic of the debate: human rights and Saudi Arabia. The front page of The Times today has the headline, “British police accused of helping Saudi torturers”. I should say that the story is based on research by the BBC’s Chris Vallance and a report broadcast on “The World at One” yesterday, and, admirable though the article is, I wish he had been credited. Mr Vallance is admirable because he has done far better than I have in getting information released under freedom of information rules on the College of Policing’s relationship with the Saudi justice system.

As Members will remember—I am pleased to see almost 30 of them present, because it shows the level of interest in the subject—this matter began with the Justice Secretary’s withdrawal from the Saudi prison contract last October. Will the Minister encourage some consistency among Government Departments in their relations to Saudi Arabia? I know consistency is difficult when there is an in or out Minister in almost every Department, but on this issue we should have some. In response to an urgent question I asked last October, the Justice Secretary said to me, quite rightly, that

“the whole focus of the Ministry of Justice will be on maintaining the rule of law, upholding human rights and making sure that our citizens are protected effectively with a justice system in which all can take pride and have confidence.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 182.]

However, within a couple of weeks of his saying that, the Foreign Secretary was in the Gulf saying that it was business as usual with Saudi Arabia.

Following the withdrawal from that contract, I attempted, unsuccessfully, through parliamentary questions and FOI requests, to find out what the College of Policing’s relationship with Saudi Arabia was. Mr Vallance was successful in his FOI request and obtained a referral by the College of Policing to the International Police Assistance Board. It is a very candid application to supply sophisticated forensic aid to the Saudis. It warns that

“the skills being trained are used to identify individuals who later go on to be tortured or subjected to other human rights abuses”.

It also says that the application is motivated by

“achieving ‘value-added’ for the College through providing an income generating business opportunity”.

The sophisticated de-encryption techniques referred to would easily allow the Saudi security forces to trace down exactly the sort of young people we have heard about who are now on death row in Saudi Arabia.

Will the Minister explain what is going on with the assistance that the Government are giving to the Saudi regime? Do the Government intend to continue it, and will they publish the memorandum of understanding with the College of Policing so that we can see exactly what is happening?

The Gulf

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Leslie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that good point. We often forget that the messenger is frequently more important than the message itself, because the message is fundamentally defined by who gives it. He makes a point that I will touch on later.

A third insight, which I found striking and relevant to our relations with the Gulf, was offered by His Excellency Dr Anwar Gargash, the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. He talks of the dangers of a digital world, where

“my opinion has become my religion”.

That observation speaks not only to the role of the internet in spreading Daesh’s message—the mass communication that Tim Rice’s Judas so lamented the lack of—but to fundamental changes in digital technology that appear to have an effect on people’s thoughts. I have called that a change from cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, to sentio ergo sum, I feel therefore I am—or even to sentio ergo est, I feel therefore it is. In that, a person’s feeling dictates absolute truth.

As MPs, we have all seen—on social media in particular—that dangerous trend and false premise that says, “I am human. I think this. You do not think what I think. Therefore you are not human.” That is a seed of genocide and the beginning of a takfiri mentality that extends its blind intolerance way beyond the scope of Islam. We are beginning to see that in the hate diatribes of UK far-left groups who are sympathetic to Hamas, Hezbollah and other extremist terrorist groups. That is a slippery slope.

All those insights are from the hard end of battling extremism in the Gulf. It is easy for the west to forget that the majority of Daesh’s casualties are Muslim and that Daesh wants to punish nations such as the UAE for “poisoning” the sacred Arab peninsular with pluralism. It is also easy to forget that Sunni Gulf states are concerned about the rise of an emboldened Shi’a militia as Iran re-enters the global economy.

The response of the Gulf to extremism may provide a learning opportunity for Britain. What assessment has the Minister made of the UAE’s clampdown on extremist teaching in schools and of its policy towards registering imams in Mosques? Are there lessons to be learnt from that? More specifically, will he keep an open mind on Britain’s classification of the Muslim Brotherhood? That would be an extremely good way of working out whether they are moderate friends who can be engaged with on political terms and whether they will renounce the writings, teachings and celebrated martyrdom of Sayyid Qutb. If they refuse to do so, we may need to reassess urgently what we think of them in our political context. We cannot afford to be squeamish.

I have talked only about what Britain might learn from its relationship with the Gulf.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I have listened intently to the hon. Lady. Will she join me in asking the Minister to look at the human rights abuses in the UAE, where 27 Britons are currently detained? Some of them have complained of torture and, indeed, I think that in the past five years 37 British nationals have made allegations of torture or mistreatment there.

[Charlotte Leslie]

I absolutely would ask the Minister that. I was going to say that—rather unusually—I have talked about what Britain can learn from the Gulf, because I know that Members such as the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak powerfully on other areas that we must look at.

It is easy to carp morally from the sidelines on issues such as human rights, which are a huge concern to us all, but that is not always the best way—it is seldom good at all—to achieve the practical change we want. I argue strongly that, if we want Gulf nations to improve their human rights and their freedom of speech, which essentially will improve their security far more effectively, the way to do that is to engage.

His Excellency Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak al-Nahyan commented on how the UAE has achieved such pluralism while maintaining the Emiratis’ confident identity as rather conservative Muslims. This applies well to international relations and to the hon. Gentleman’s comments:

“Pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity…Pluralism is not simply tolerance, but the active quest for understanding along lines of difference...Pluralism demands dialogue...Dialogue does not mean everyone at the table will agree with one another”.

There is much on which we can engage with the UAE—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on human rights—and much to work with from our history with Bahrain. I know that we will hear some fascinating first-hand observations from colleagues who have visited Saudi and other Gulf states.

I will finish by repeating a point that was made to me by the exceptional Minister of State for International Co-operation, her excellency Reem al-Hashimy, one of the incredibly impressive women Ministers in the highly conservative Muslim society of the UAE. She emphasised that the UAE could not “export” its pluralism to neighbours simply by preaching. It could demonstrate the possibility of such a pluralism within a conservative Muslim state only by doing. I hope the debate will be in some way instrumental in Britain’s continuing to meet the challenge that it shares with the Gulf states across our differences, by listening, talking, understanding and doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Nuttall, to morally carp on the sidelines about human rights, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) put it. None the less, I congratulate her on securing the debate, because the topic is important and is perhaps not debated often enough.

I will not use my position as the only Labour Member in the debate to speak at length, but I want to make one or two points that I hope the Minister will have time to respond to. Last night I read again the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report “Human Rights and Democracy”, which was published last month. Although it is a slimmed down volume and in many respects weakens the Government’s commitments on human rights—at least in relation to the death penalty—it does include three Gulf countries among the countries of concern: Saudi, Bahrain and Yemen. It does not include the United Arab Emirates, which I think is a significant omission. The Minister may want to mention human rights in the UAE when he responds.

I am glad that the countries in question are what are now, I believe, called priority countries—another slightly euphemistic term. However, I am afraid the language that is used, particularly in relation to the Gulf states, does not match the seriousness of the human rights issue or the task that needs to be done. The Bahrain section of the report says

“there was progress on human rights”,

and mentions that the UK is providing “technical assistance”—which in some cases it is being paid for. We have just established a naval base in the country for the first time in decades. The report mentions that

“allegations of ill-treatment in detention continue”

and that there are concerns regarding

“freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly”.

However, little more is said than that.

As I mentioned, the report is entirely silent about the UAE, and that is regrettable. It is slightly more candid in relation to Saudi, particularly on the serious issue of executions, reminding us that 158 people were executed in 2015, which is a more than 15% increase on the previous year. On 2 January this year, 47 people were executed on one day, including three minors. There remain three minors on death row. They are Ali al-Nimr, Dawood al-Marhoon and Abdullah al-Zaher. Again, I ask the Minister, as I often do in written and oral questions, whether their cases have been raised again. I know that the Foreign Secretary has said he believes they will not now be executed, but in the light of what happened on 2 January and their continued detention, I cannot feel quite as assured as he does. Perhaps the Minister will respond on whether further representations have been made or whether there is further news.

Reports from Human Rights Watch, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International show a rather more serious situation in Bahrain than the impression given by the Foreign Office. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has spoken of a clear realisation that

“little has been done in the fields of accountability and ending impunity, particularly in relation to violations committed against protesters and detainees, including alleged acts of torture”.

That has been going on since the Arab spring, five years ago, and there is continued oppression of the mainly Shi’a majority in Bahrain. There have been a number of deaths at the hands of the security forces. There was of course the notorious incident when medics who had treated those injured in protests were themselves tortured and prosecuted. Generally speaking, what the Bahrain Government have been best at is whitewashing what has happened by setting up commissions whose recommendations are not implemented, and mounting an effective PR offensive.

I pay particular tribute to The Independent and The Guardian, which have sought to expose what happens in Bahrain. Headlines from the last couple of months include “Britain lobbied UN to whitewash Bahrain police abuses” and “British arms sales to Bahrain total £45m since Arab Spring—while claims of torture and oppression continue”. There is a lot more I could say about that, but I think the Minister gets the impression. I do not say, and have never said, that Gulf countries are, in either scale or degree, the worst offenders, but I do say that the Government operate a soft touch in dealing with such countries. We have just heard from the hon. Member for Bristol North West that it is often better to comment on such things in private, which I think is what the Foreign Office says about Saudi. I think it is right to raise them in private, but it is also right to speak out, and the Government have a moral obligation as an upholder of international human rights to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is concentrating on human rights, but does he not attach any importance to the key role that the nations in question play in the battle against tyranny, and the long-standing support that they have given us and we have given them, historically? They are important allies of the United Kingdom and the hon. Gentleman is sending out the message that stability counts for nothing and that the only thing he is interested in is abuses by the authorities. I remind him that we have our own history. We took out 14 people on the streets of Northern Ireland. Does he regard that as a human rights abuse as well?

[Andy Slaughter]

I think you will forgive me, Mr Nuttall, if I do not stray into talking about Bloody Sunday this morning. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his points in his own way. I am simply setting out these matters, perhaps as a correction to others that will be raised this morning, and I think that is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. Of course we must have a relationship with countries overseas whose human rights records do not match our own, and of which we perhaps do not expect exactly the same standards. However, if the hon. Gentleman is saying we should not raise the issues, I cannot entirely agree with him.

To deal briefly with the UAE, the recent case of David Haigh, the former Leeds United managing director—[Interruption.] I am being heckled because I am taking some time. I will take a little more time. I said I would not speak for a long time, Mr Nuttall, but if I continue to be interrupted, perhaps I shall speak for rather longer. We will see where that goes. I think, particularly given that the Foreign Office did not address the matter in its human rights report, that it is worth putting it on record. Again, I will simply read some headlines. The first is from The Law Society Gazette: “Solicitor claims he was tortured in Dubai jail”. Another headline reads: “Businessmen held in UAE were tortured into confessions, says UN report”. I have mentioned the number of British nationals—37 in the last five years—who have made allegations of torture or mistreatment in detention in the UAE and the fact that there are 27 such detainees there at the moment.

I recently asked the Minister the following questions. Will the Prime Minister review the UK’s special relationship with the UAE in the light of the report by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention calling on the UAE to release several foreign nationals, including from Canada and the US, who it says have been detained arbitrarily, tortured and forced to sign confessions? Will the Government confirm that no further Arab Partnership Participation Fund moneys will be allocated to the UAE by the Foreign Office until a review has been conducted in the light of the recent statement by UN special rapporteur on torture, Professor Juan E. Méndez? His office has received credible information that detainees were tortured and forced to sign confessions, and his request for a country visit to the UAE is outstanding.

I mentioned David Haigh, a former managing director of Leeds United who I think is a member of the Conservative party. He was recently released from a UAE prison and, on returning to the UK, said that he had suffered ill treatment and abuse:

“I was punched around, I was hit, I was tasered. People attempted to sexually abuse me. I now have a problem with my eyes. You are constantly kept in the dark…it damages your eyes.”

He was imprisoned, incidentally, under the cybercrimes law—a particularly Orwellian statute that criminalises electronic abuse. There are well-documented incidents of human rights violations in the UAE.

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

indicated dissent.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister is shaking his head. Will he respond to those incidents?

[Mr Ellwood]

The reason I am shaking my head is that many other Members want to speak. They want to hear what the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition Front-Bench Members have to say on these matters. Your guidance was very clear, Mr Nuttall, on speeches being four minutes. I was shaking my head not about the substance of anything the hon. Gentleman is saying, but because he has now been speaking for 10 minutes.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

I hear what the Minister has to say about the time limit. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) is about to draw his remarks to a swift conclusion. I am loth to impose a formal time limit but, reluctantly, that is what I will have to do. I look forward to hearing the final sentences of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution very shortly.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will speak for half a minute on Yemen and then sit down, Mr Nuttall. I will just say, however, that I have been in Westminster Hall when Conservative Members have filibustered for an hour in order to prevent debates from taking place on issues of great importance to me. I do not intend to do that here. I do not think that a 10-minute speech for an Opposition Member is unreasonable, given the number of Government Members present.

Let me end by saying this. The Minister will be aware of the Select Committee on International Development report published today in relation to the need for an independent inquiry into what is happening in Yemen. UAE and Saudi forces are engaged, with British advice and support, in the civil war in Yemen. It is clear to anybody who reads what is written by those reporting from inside that troubled country that war crimes are being committed and that there are breaches of international humanitarian law. Will the Minister agree to the Committee’s recommendation of an independent investigation into what is happening in Yemen?

It is my view that we should have a suspension of arms sales to the countries engaged in that civil war, until it is demonstrated that breaches of international law are not happening. This country should not be complicit in matters of that kind and should certainly be asking for transparency in relation to what is happening in Yemen and, in particular, the involvement of other Gulf states in that country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Yemen

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton]

If I had had a little more time, I would have responded to the main point that was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who wondered how we could even consider sending vulnerable people who have been here—in the case of her constituent for more than six years—back to a conflict zone that we will not allow our own citizens to go anywhere near. That seems to me to be totally inhumane. I know that it is not strictly the Minister’s responsibility, but I hope that he will at least shed some light on whether the Government will reconsider the position of those vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers from Yemen, as well as that of the Syrians whom we are already taking in. I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important point.

Many Members have referred to the humanitarian crisis, and that is the issue that really upsets and depresses so many of us when we hear statistic after statistic about the effect of conflict and war on our fellow human beings. As would be expected, the Opposition are deeply concerned about it. A number of Members cited statistics showing that 14 million people currently rely on food aid, and that more than 2.3 million—four times the number of people who were displaced at the beginning of 2015—have fled their homes in Yemen in search of safety. Peter Maurer, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross—whom I was privileged to meet, along with Members who are present today, when I was a member of the International Development Committee, as I was until last month—has said that the situation in Yemen is

“nothing short of catastrophic.”

That sentiment was echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East when he spoke about the humanitarian effects of the conflict.

The hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) praised DFID’s efforts in Yemen but said that we needed a coalition of aid givers to ensure that sufficient aid was received. However, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) pointed out, aid cannot resolve the problem. The economy has to be rebuilt and that can happen only if there is peace. That peace agreement has to be negotiated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said in his passionate contribution that Yemen was a catastrophe, with 21 million people in need of aid. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is no longer in his place, emphasised the effect that the conflict is having on children, as did many other hon. Members. The children in Yemen are in a worse position than the children in Syria at the moment. To echo something that my right hon. Friend said, Yemen is bleeding to death.

The Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), pointed out that terrible atrocities were being committed by both sides. He said that evidence had been given to the Committee that DFID’s humanitarian effort was being undermined. He also told the House that hugely respected non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International had provided overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses.

Let me turn now to the role of Saudi Arabia. I want to mention cluster munitions, because widespread reports from NGOs state that such munitions have been used in this terrible conflict. The response to a written parliamentary question from the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), suggests that the Government might be conceding that that is true. The reply from the Foreign Secretary stated:

“We are aware of reports of the alleged abuse of cluster munitions by the coalition in Yemen and we have raised this with the Saudi Arabian authorities. The UK does not supply cluster munitions to any members of the coalition in Yemen. In line with our obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions we will continue to encourage Saudi Arabia, as a non-party to the Convention, to accede to it.”

I hope that the Minister will give us further information on that terrible situation.

The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North quoted Philippe Sands, and I should like to quote something equally relevant from his important opinion given on 11 December 2015. Philippe Sands is not only a professor of law but a Queen’s Counsel. In his concluding paragraph he said this of the UK’s trade in weapons with Saudi Arabia:

“In the current circumstances we can be clear in concluding what the UK is required to do to bring itself into full compliance with its legal obligations: it should halt with immediate effect all authorisations and transfers of relevant weapons and items to Saudi Arabia”—

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I have been struck by the recent words of the international president of Médecins sans Frontières, Joanne Liu, who said:

“Is this the new normal: an MSF hospital bombed every month?”

We do not know that these are British munitions, but we do not know that they are not. Until we know the answer, should we not be stopping these arms sales completely?