Persecution and Detention of LGBT Citizens: Chechnya

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The way the hon. Gentleman is going he will be here in another 50 years’ time. He makes a very valid point about the importance of promulgating the truth. When we hear absolute, blatant propaganda, we should not shy away from robustly countering such lies. For instance, Kadyrov’s spokesman has called reports of persecution and murder absolute lies themselves. Indeed, as we heard earlier, he added that “there are no gay men in Chechnya” and that

“You cannot detain and persecute people who simply do not exist”.

Even worse, he went on to say that if they did exist, their own relatives

“would send them somewhere from which there is no returning.”

It is the use of language like that that appears to condone the outright murder of someone simply because of their sexual orientation. That is utterly unacceptable and condemns them in the eyes of the decent world.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am delighted to be called to speak. My concern is not just as a member of the LGBTI community, but in the broader sense of the profound impact of social, economic and political impoverishment on all Chechen society. Whether we like it or not, Kadyrov has in some terms the fundamental support of his nation, as a region of the Russian Federation. How we undermine that is through investment in foreign aid to tackle human rights abuses across the world. Will the Minister commit now, on the Floor of the House, that in fighting for LGBTI rights and other human rights in places like Chechnya, his foreign aid budget will not change after the general election?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We should all commit to fighting prejudice wherever we find it. I hope that, in the election on 8 June, that will be one of the views we all hold as we present ourselves to the electorate. The hon. Gentleman raises a deeper point, which is that the House needs to understand foreign affairs, to take an interest and to debate countries such as Chechnya. I hope that early in the next Parliament the opportunity will present itself, so that the arguments we are beginning to hear today can be made even more loudly after 8 June.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I undertake to convey the comments of the hon. Gentleman, and indeed this entire exchange, to the Home Secretary.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Points of order should really be raised after the business question. Does it relate to the urgent question? No. The hon. Gentleman is such a patient fellow. We can always hear from him later. In fact, there will be a great sense of anticipation in the House as to what he is planning to raise.

US Immigration Policy

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I am delighted that 100 of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have been waiting with bated breath for him finally to get that question—I cannot remember what it was—off his chest. I hope he will forgive me. The views of his constituents are important, and they clearly disapprove of the prospect of a visit by the President of the United States. I must humbly and respectfully say to them that I think it is in the interests of this country that, as with every other President of the United States, Donald Trump should come to the UK.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the Floor of the House this afternoon. Does he agree that it is striking that supposedly the largest democracy on earth has excluded from this Executive order the four nations whose citizens have killed the most American citizens in the American homeland over the past 40 years? If this was a decision of defence, it is clearly lacking because there is not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there is not Egypt, there is not Turkey and nowhere is there the United Arab Emirates. Is the United States making a big mistake?

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening when I pointed out—I think I am now pointing it out for the third time—that the list of the seven countries in question was drawn up not by the Trump Administration but by the Obama Administration when they applied their own thoroughly restrictive measures on people travelling from those countries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I think the Foreign Secretary touched on this, and it was very much the focus of my attention when I visited the country last week. The way the liberation will move is that the east side of the city, on the right-hand side of the Tigris, will be liberated first, and there are plans for ward breakdowns to make sure the necessary leaders come in to provide that security, improvised explosive devices are removed, the water supplies are working and the place itself safe. It will take time, and this needs to be an Iraqi-led process, but the international community, through the United Nations Development Programme, is working very hard to make sure it is a success.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

8. What recent representations he has made to his Israeli counterpart on the announcement by the Prime Minister of Israel of a new settlement at Shiloh in the west bank in October 2016.

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

On 5 October, I issued a press statement condemning the announcement of the proposed settlement in Shiloh. In September, I met Defence Minister Lieberman and raised our concerns about settlements, and made it clear that unless they form part of a land swap anyone living there must live with the knowledge that they will one day have to move. That was accepted by Defence Minister Lieberman, who is living in one of the settlements himself.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does the Minister not therefore agree with me that a pillar of liberal democracy and the peace it brings is the rule of law, and that by reactively legalising illegal settlements on Palestinian land the Government of Benjamin Netanyahu continue to undermine democracy and progress to a lasting peace in the middle east?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman touches on a process in which these illegal settlements become legal, and we have raised concerns about this.

The settlement of Shiloh is significant because it allows an extension of the settlement area east of Ariel, which essentially, between Nablus and Ramallah, cuts off or breaks the west bank from the River Jordan all the way to green-line Israel. That means effectively ruling out the possibility of a two-state solution.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Nuttall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) on securing the debate, which has generated considerable interest in my constituency, especially from constituents who are rightly concerned about the mistreatment of animals not only in the UK but across the globe. I am grateful to my constituents for contacting me.

I am pleased to speak in the debate, as this issue is of interest to many people in my community and is close to my heart, given that I am buddy and best pal to two whippets. The hon. Gentleman mentioned greyhounds. Along with greyhounds, whippets and lurchers are most likely to end up in the food chain in later life, given that they are involved in careers such as dog racing, official and unofficial, and coursing, and once they are at the end of their careers, they are seen as surplus to requirements.

Like most people across the UK and in the Chamber, I find that the idea of any harm coming to or cruelty being done to my dogs, or animals in general, fills me with dismay. However, it would be naive of us to think that animal cruelty does not take place. We must acknowledge that there are people out there who seek pleasure from inflicting pain on defenceless animals. Sadly, stories of animal mistreatment are widespread across the news outlets. In most cases, they are highlighted by charities and volunteers, especially those based in places such as South Korea but also in other nations across the world, to bring the issue to the attention of the wider public—something that they are very successful at doing and must be thanked for and congratulated on.

I welcome the action taken by the UK Government and the Scottish Government to combat animal cruelty within these borders, which sadly needs to be constantly acted on, although I believe that we are winning this particular battle by educating the population on the complete unacceptability and illegality of animal cruelty. Like so many issues, animal cruelty and mistreatment crosses national borders, sometimes literally with the transportation of animals that are travelling in terrible conditions between countries, which brings me on to the dog meat trade—specifically, for this debate, in South Korea.

For most people, especially in the UK, the idea of dog meat being eaten by humans goes against the grain, as dogs are very much part of family life and have been for millennia. However, the practice of eating dog meat is culturally acceptable in a number of countries across the world and therefore, as many hon. Members have said, we must be very cautious and sensitive when dealing with the matter in order to achieve a positive outcome.

I will enter a caveat, though. It is worth stating that all cultures change and evolve. We do not seek to force our cultural perceptions of eating dog meat on the people of South Korea and other nations, as that would potentially make matters worse and undo the important work that has been carried out by animal charities in South Korea. That work has led to the South Korean Government introducing legislation and regulation in relation to the methods used by those involved in the dog meat trade, in an attempt to counter the bad practices associated with it.

The actions of the South Korean Government, specifically in relation to this debate, are a step in the right direction, but animal rights groups argue that the regulations have had very little impact in terms of stopping the trade altogether, so great challenges still lie ahead in bringing about comprehensive change. It must be noted, however, that the practice is falling out of favour with the younger generation. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, it did not really come to prevalence until the Korean war, so the link between conflict and poverty and the need to eat meat is clear.

The UK Government have an important and vital role to play, particularly through the education of people on the arguments about human health and animal welfare, as those are the best ways to get communities and societies to change. Only by working together with the Government, people and animal rights charities in South Korea can any change be brought about. We cannot and must not force them to follow our path, but we can certainly offer them our full support and encouragement.

The dog meat trade is an extremely important animal welfare issue, and I am proud that the Scottish National party and our Government in Edinburgh are committed to supporting charities working with international counterparts to promote and protect animal rights globally. I am sure that the UK Government will take this issue seriously and, as highlighted by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), work with all devolved Governments in promoting animal welfare with our global partners.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I will not take any more interventions, I am afraid.

There is a very simple reason for that failure. We are not able to spend the aid on what we need to in Cornwall. How we should spend it is dictated, Big Brother fashion, by the EU. The requirements are designed for a Europe-wide programme that does not fit the Cornish economy. I will give an example. The current round of funding is targeted only at supporting and providing facilities for small and medium-sized enterprises. But Cornwall does not need another load of SMEs. We need big companies to come and invest in Cornwall, to create better-paid jobs and provide career opportunities for our young people. That is what Cornwall desperately needs.

Just this week, business leaders told me that there were two projects on the table and ready to go. One was from a large company that wants to invest in Cornwall and create jobs, and the other was from a manufacturing company in Cornwall that is ready to expand, producing lots more jobs. Both need European regional development fund support but do not qualify for the current round because they are not SMEs. The EU is giving us back our own money but telling us we cannot spend it on what we need and want to spend it on in Cornwall.

I do not know whether any other Members recognise this situation, but I get quite wound up when I see that wonderful blue plaque saying, “Funded by the European Union”. Every time I see one, I think, “No, that was funded by British taxpayers’ money that you have recycled and given back to us then told us how to spend.”

We are often told we should vote remain because of all the economic support we get from the EU. Well, from a Cornish point of view, it is not working. Our own money is recycled, but how it can be spent is dictated to us. I contend that we would be far better off keeping that money ourselves in the first place and having the British Government decide how we can support our regional economies.

The theme of this debate has been the risk of leaving against the certainty of remaining. I say that there are quite clearly risks in remaining. No one knows what the future of the EU will be. The eurozone crisis has not gone away, but has just been kicked into the long grass, and the migration crisis will continue to be a major issue in the EU. There is no certainty. The vote is not between the status quo and leaving. We are voting on whether to remain, and there are many, many risks in a remain vote. Let us be honest with the people of this country that there are risks on both sides. I will certainly be voting next week to leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Sometimes in this Chamber we say that we have heard it all, but talk about turkeys voting for an early Christmas! The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) wants to give back £600 million that has been given to Cornwall by the EU. What twisted logic. Over the past two days, the world has woken up to the risks of Brexit. The hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) said that the markets bounced by £17 billion today, but she ignored the fact that the FTSE index has fallen by £100 billion over the past week—a net £80 billion has been wiped off the FTSE as investors around the world begin to recognise the threat to our prosperity. Every renowned economist in the land has talked about the risk that we face from Brexit, not just in this country, but the risk of instability in Europe as well.

Not long ago we faced the financial crisis of 2007 to 2008, from which we have barely recovered. We have seen the markets react and sterling fall; the euro has fallen as investors flee towards the door. That is the risk that the Brexiteers are putting in front of the people of the United Kingdom. When we consider the fall in the value of the stock market, we are talking about people whose future pensions are being cut. That is what the Brexiteers are threatening for pensioners around the country, and we must all wake up and ensure that we vote for prosperity, security and sustainability by remaining in the EU.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the argument made outside this House, and critically in English communities, is about policies such as housing? The problem of England’s housing shortage lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the British Government, and with successive Governments who have undermined social housing for the working class since the times of Margaret Thatcher.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We hear scare stories about constraints on housing, health and education, but it is the Government’s responsibility to plan for the increase from immigration. We must also consider the opportunity for all our people to live and work throughout Europe, from which we have benefited. In Scotland, 42% of exports go to the European Union and have a value of £11 billion, with 300,000 jobs directly connected to them. We must not play with fire and risk prosperity and jobs in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

There is a complete fallacy about immigration. Mark my words: we will end up back in the single market, and as a consequence we will have to accept free movement of people. The idea that we will fix the so-called problem of immigration with an exit from the EU is simply flawed and a lie. In Scotland, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has often said, we are not full up. We need migration, and for young people to come with families and deliver prosperity for Scotland. We need families such as the Brains, who live in Dingwall in my constituency and who this Government want to throw out.

Let me turn to Europe’s potential, and how trade and investment have benefited us. Let me mention opportunities for jobs, and workers’ rights that have been protected through Europe. The Minister for Employment is not in her place, but she said that she wants to deal with some of the rights for workers that come from the European Union. We must say to those on the left and those who voted for Labour, the SNP, the Green party and Plaid Cymru: “For goodness’ sake, don’t risk your employment rights with a vote for Brexit next week.”

There is a real danger to this country that if the UK votes for Brexit, the keys to Downing Street will be taken by the likes of the ex-Mayor of London and his cronies on the right of the Tory party. We face the risk of a right-wing Tory Government that will affect people throughout the country. Scotland’s future is in Europe, and if we end up next week with the UK voting out but Scotland voting in, the SNP will stand up for the rights of Scottish people and ensure that this House does not pull us out of Europe against our will.

Human Rights and Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing today’s debate. This is an important subject and a timely debate. Her opening remarks ranged widely over domestic and international human rights issues.

There is much to be said about Saudi Arabia’s domestic human rights record, but because of time constraints I will, as many other hon. Members have done, concentrate my remarks on Yemen. It is clear that human rights are not being upheld in the conflict there. A leaked report in January found “widespread and systematic” targeting of civilians in the Saudi-led strikes and identified 2,682 civilians killed in such strikes.

I am particularly concerned about the position of children, which was highlighted by the excellent report on Yemen by the Select Committee on International Development, released earlier this year, and by last week’s release of the UN Secretary-General’s 2016 report on children in conflict, which particularly focused on Yemen, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned in an intervention. The report found that children represent one third of civilian casualties in Yemen. According to UNICEF, child casualty rates have increased sevenfold from 2014. Both the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis are listed for the killing and maiming of children and attacks on schools and hospitals.

There is no doubt that the Houthis have committed egregious breaches of international law, which the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) referred to. I am aware of his background as the envoy to Yemen on behalf of the Government, and he obviously speaks with great knowledge of the area. However, the position of the Saudi-led coalition also poses particular problems for us in Britain. Saudi Arabia is a friend and ally and we should expect higher standards of our friends, particularly when we have sold them £2.8 billion-worth of arms since the start of their action in Yemen.

The groups listed in the report for grave violations against children include the Syrian, Sudanese, South Sudanese and Somali Governments, as well as ISIL/Daesh and Boko Haram. Although the Saudis appear to have got themselves removed from that list, their inclusion on it in the first place should cause the Government to think again. We would never sanction arms sales to any of the other groups or Governments on that list, or to the Houthi militia. So the question we must ask ourselves is why we are sanctioning arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Last year, the Justice Secretary took the decision that human rights standards in the Saudi justice system were so low that it could not be considered a proper partner for the British Government, and he withdrew the UK from the Saudi prisons contract. Today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has mentioned, the front page of The Times refers to work being done through British police and forensic support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Home Secretary, has called for that contract to be ended, in the light of concerns about human rights abuses that have been raised. There is therefore a similar question for the Foreign Secretary to answer. Is a country that the UN listed, albeit temporarily, alongside Daesh a proper partner for the UK?

That is not just a moral question for the Foreign Office, but a legal one. Arms sales must not be sanctioned when

“there is a clear risk that they may be used in violation of International Humanitarian Law.”

It is the view of the Opposition, and has been since last year, that the evidence is sufficient to constitute a serious risk that UK-provided arms may be used in violations of international humanitarian law.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

UN Peacekeeping Week 2016

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UN Peacekeeping Week 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard, and it is a privilege to have secured a debate on United Nations peacekeeping in a week when British troops have arrived in South Sudan as part of a UN peacekeeping mission.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

UN peacekeeping began in 1948, when the Security Council authorised the deployment of UN military observers to the middle east. The mission’s role was to monitor the armistice agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Since then the UN has undertaken 69 peacekeeping operations, and at present there are 16 peacekeeping operations under way across the world, with troops deployed in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas and the middle east. In the years since 1948, hundreds of thousands of military personnel, along with tens of thousands of UN police and civilian support workers, from more than 120 countries, have taken part in UN peacekeeping operations.

The International Day of UN Peacekeepers was on 29 May, and last week was UN Peacekeeping Week. Those events were established to honour the memory of UN peacekeepers who have lost their lives in the cause of peace and to pay tribute to all those who have served, and who continue to serve, in UN peacekeeping operations for their high level of professionalism, dedication and courage.

I was at the Cenotaph on 25 May, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) and other Members of this House, to attend the UN peacekeepers memorial ceremony and commemorate more than 3,400 peacekeepers from some 120 countries who have died from acts of violence, accidents or disease while serving under the UN flag. It was striking to see the variety of nations represented at the ceremony; it was a clear illustration of the global nature of peacekeeping and of the danger facing those who enter challenging situations to support peace and a better future.

The group at the Cenotaph commemorating the lives of those who had died was diverse in many ways, which reflects the profile of the peacekeepers themselves. Six women lead peacekeeping missions across the world. In Cyprus, Kristin Lund is the first woman to be a force commander. It was positive to hear about the recent proposals by the UN for Scotland to provide support for the training of female Syrian peacekeepers, which illustrates the importance of engaging as widely as possible in the name of peace.

Peacekeeping is truly a global concern. Many of the 193 member states of the UN have contributed personnel, equipment or funds in support of the common goal of peace. In March 2015, 128 nations were contributing troops, police or civilian support personnel to the UN. The 2015 leaders summit heard about the 125,000 peacekeepers who are deployed across the globe.

The principles that underpin the operation of UN peacekeeping require the deployment of UN peacekeepers to happen only with the consent of the main parties involved in a conflict. Those parties must commit to a political process, and that consent and commitment give the UN the freedom to act politically and physically to undertake a peacekeeping operation in a situation where there may be significant instability.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the brave members of the armed forces who get involved in the UN peacekeeping forces do so out of a commitment to world peace and stability, and that they are truly an inspiration to all of us?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes an important point that we must reflect on, namely that the people who go and serve in dangerous situations in pursuit of peace are very brave and deserve our admiration.

The idea that UN peacekeepers are impartial is also vital for them to continue to receive support from the parties involved in a conflict, which cannot be underestimated. A study by the RAND Corporation found that deploying peacekeepers reduces the risk of a country sliding back into all-out war by 50%. Of course, there can be genuine difficulty in maintaining impartiality when the peacekeepers are called upon to act in one direction or another. Often, UN peacekeeping missions have to perform a dual role, providing the agreed impartiality but also the robustness required to stand up for what is right for agreements, international law and human rights. That is highly challenging, but UN peacekeepers deal with such situations every day.

Libya

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, the assurance that I gave to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) extends, of course, to the WPC Yvonne Fletcher case.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Last week, on the Floor of the House, with a note of urgent caution, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) reminded us of how missions change and about the impact on our armed services, who might have to make decisions on the hoof. I urge the Secretary of State to reflect on that debate and the participation in it.

We are consistently told in this Parliament that NATO is our primary model of defence, yet all we heard about in the statement was the European Union and Europe’s role. I am grateful for the European Union naval deployment and other initiatives by our European partners, who are doing a great job, but if the Libyan Government of national accord makes a request, what role will NATO play in that, given the myriad other organisations and nations involved, from Jordan to Hungary?

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman submits his academic treatise to his PhD adviser?

European Affairs

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd]

I would not take such an absolutist view. The British people may or may not be right—that is a matter for a higher judgment—but, as a democrat, I believe that, whatever they vote for, it is incumbent on the Government and Parliament to abide by it. If in later years we discover that it was all a great mistake, well, c’est la vie. I cannot help feeling that the calculations of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip have more to do with the succession to the Tory leadership than with the best interests of this country or of Europe.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Dowd]

No, I am in my own time now.

I do not think that the deal that the Prime Minister came back with will be the key determinant of this argument. Rather, it is going to be about people’s overall impression of the EU and of Britain’s place in Europe and its family of nations. It will also be about the merits of the rival advocates, as well as of their arguments, as we attempt to clear the fog of claim and counterclaim. We currently have the strange spectacle of the Secretary of State for Justice being in open dispute with the Attorney General over the legal status of the agreement that the Prime Minister brought back over the weekend. That argument has been rehearsed again this afternoon, and I am sure it will complicate the issue for the next four months. Incidentally, I think the British people, rightly or wrongly, will be heartily sick of the whole discussion by the time we get to 23 June.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley said that this is the first chance he has had in his life to vote on this issue. This will be my second chance, if I survive to 23 June, which I sincerely hope I do, although I am sure that view is not universally held. It is such a critical issue for the future of this nation, and for our neighbours and friends, that we have to take it seriously. We cannot let it degenerate into an argument between two groups of zealots—the loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists on the one hand, and the self-satisfied political elite of the status quo in Europe on the other.

Finally, as others have said, we should have regard to the impact that the vote will have on the whole of these islands. If there is a negative vote, it will have an impact on parts of the UK and a direct impact—I am certain it would be a negative impact—on relations with the Republic of Ireland. There are various complicated and practical reasons for that. Given all the progress we have made in recent years, that is not a risk worth taking.

Daesh: Syria/Iraq

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman has asked a specific and detailed question. I would be chancing my arm to give him a precise answer. If I may, I will write to him and place a copy of my letter in the Library. I will want to talk to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the International Development Secretary before answering.

[Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

This week the Financial Times reported that even in Daesh-controlled Syria and Iraq two certainties of life exist: death and taxes. Given that the collection of the zakat is now reported to equal the sale of oil revenue, what impact are our airstrikes having on Daesh’s continued worrying economic growth, which has been built on the backs of the rural poor of Iraq and Syria?

[Mr Hammond]

I suspect that those two eternal inevitabilities, death and taxes, are rather more immediately unavoidable in Daesh-controlled territory than they are in most other places. There are some signals—this was set out in the debate two weeks ago—that Daesh is facing some financial stress. Stipends paid to fighters have been cut. There are many reports of fighters being unpaid and payments to fighters being delayed. This is still a very well-funded organisation, but the huge one-off bonanza that it acquired in the early days of its surge into Iraq, where it was capturing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash in banks and simply taking it away, has ended. I think it is facing a little more pressure financially than it was then, and we intend to keep tightening the screw.