Balfour Declaration

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I believe that it is disappointing. The vast majority of Members on both sides of the House have said this afternoon that this occasion is of huge importance to the world, because it marks an event in which our country played an enormous part—and, indeed, we still have a large part to play. One would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would at least be interested in trying to achieve a solution to a problem that has bedevilled the world for so long, and would not, by his absence, be so blatantly appearing to side with one party and not the other. I must say that I find that unfortunate.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary’s refusal to treat Palestinians and Israelis equally, as shown by his refusal to recognise Palestine as a state alongside Israel, is exactly the reason the Israelis are building in Hebron and, last week, annexed further settlements in the Jerusalem municipality. What will the Government actually do to honour Balfour’s assurance to non-Jewish communities? So far, apart from warm words, all I have heard is that the Foreign Secretary seems to support trade with illegal settlements, that he is setting new conditions for the Palestinians, and that he is blaming the Palestinian leaders for their own occupation.

[Boris Johnson]

It is wholly untrue to say that we have offered the Palestinians nothing but warm words. The hon. Gentleman should consider the huge sums that the UK gives to the Palestinian authorities, the massive efforts that we make to help them with their security concerns, and the intimate co-operation that takes place between the UK and the Palestinian Authority. We are doing everything in our power to ready the Palestinians for statehood, but we do not consider that they are ready for recognition yet. This is obviously not the moment, given the problems that Mahmoud Abbas is experiencing. We think that a much more productive approach would be getting both sides together and beginning the process of negotiation on the basis of the programme that I have outlined today, leading to a two-state solution. That is what we need.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he supports trade with settlements that are illegal under international law, which is discouraged by his own Government. To fulfil the second part of the Balfour Declaration, regarding non-Jewish communities, do we not need to follow international law and end the occupation?

[Dr Offord]

We will certainly follow international law, but we do not want to negotiate and work with people who wish to see the destruction of Israel. Hamas is a leading proponent of that—part of its foundation is that it does not want the state of Israel to exist. I would not agree with negotiating or working with Hamas. We will work with the Palestinian authorities and others who are actually seeking the best for their people, rather than murdering their own people, as Hamas has done in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to those that have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing this timely opportunity to debate the beginnings of one of modern history’s most remarkable stories: the rebirth of the state of Israel, the Jewish state.

The Balfour Declaration was described by Winston Churchill in 1921 as “manifestly right”, and we can wholeheartedly endorse that view today. It is manifestly right that we mark its centenary with pride—and that the Government do so too. Israel’s achievements since its establishment speak for themselves. It has one of the world’s most diverse societies, and its economic successes and commitment to the same values that we hold so dear in this country make it a close and vital ally. Israel’s commitment to liberalism and tolerance shine brightly in a region where, sadly, persecution and a denial of basic human rights are all too common. To celebrate the Balfour Declaration, therefore, is to celebrate everything that our nations have achieved together, and serves as a reminder of what two countries can accomplish if they embrace the shared principles of freedom and liberalism.

As we celebrate how far Israel has come, however, it is important to remember that today, in 2017, more than 30 members of the United Nations still refuse to recognise or maintain diplomatic relations with the state of Israel, including 19 of the 21 Arab League states. I believe that that is an absurdity and a stain upon the international community. Let us be clear: Israel’s existence is not up for debate. Indeed, few states have such legitimacy in law as Israel. Let us consider, for one moment, the fact that the content of Foreign Secretary Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild in 1917 became international law after being incorporated into the San Remo resolution in 1920, and was further unanimously endorsed by the League of Nations in its mandate for Palestine in 1922.

[Andy Slaughter]

All states should recognise Israel, as Britain did in 1950, but does the right hon. Gentleman think, also, that all states, including this one, should recognise the state of Palestine?

[Stephen Crabb]

All states in the international system should, I believe, work together for the realisation of the two-state solution. That should be the objective of our foreign policy.

If anything, the lack of recognition by so many UN member states and the resurgence of a vile anti-Semitic ideology around the world underscores again the need for the Jewish homeland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

The point I am making is that I entirely respect the right of any nation to use targeted and appropriate military action to defend itself against an aggressor. All too often, the military action from Israel has not been targeted, and arguably it has not been proportionate. The number of civilians who have been killed is far too high for it just to be an accident.

Let me also make it clear that it is completely unacceptable for anyone to use legitimate criticism of the actions of the state of Israel to defend or justify any form of anti-Semitic racism against Jewish people in Israel or anywhere else. People should never blame an individual for the disagreeable actions of the Government of the country in which they live.

I said I would come back to my reasons for saying that I did not think the Balfour Declaration was something to be celebrated without at least some sense of regret. The first part of the declaration has been mentioned, but a huge principle of it has been completely ignored in the past 70 years. The rights of the Palestinian people, certainly in the parts of Palestine that are illegally occupied by Israel, have been violated time and again. Until that stops, we cannot celebrate the Balfour Declaration. We cannot celebrate it while one of the main parties to that declaration is deliberately and repeatedly violating some of its most important principles.

We also need to look at the background of the declaration, and I am surprised that no one has picked up on this point. The declaration was not the act of a Foreign Minister who was a friend of Israel or who cared particularly about the welfare or plight of Jewish refugees. A few years earlier, when he was Prime Minister, the same Arthur Balfour had talked about

“the undoubted evils which had fallen upon portions of the country”—

this country—

“from an alien immigration which was largely Jewish”.—[Official Report, 10 July 1905; Vol. 149, c. 155.]

Those are not the words of a friend of the Jewish people; those are the words of a racist and an anti-Semite. I believe that that was part of the attitude behind the whole Balfour Declaration and all the manoeuvring and double-dealing that went into it. It was not primarily about the welfare of the Jewish people; it was primarily about ensuring that the desperate problem of Jewish refugees was kept away from the shores of Great Britain. The parallels with the plight of Syrian refugees today are far too obvious to have to be made explicit.

As far as the wider foreign policy agenda was concerned, many of the actions of Balfour and his successors were more about looking about the narrow, selfish, colonial interests of the United Kingdom than about caring for the people of Israel or Palestine.

[Andy Slaughter]

rose—

[Ian Austin]

rose—

Saudi Arabia: Anticipated Executions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

It is impossible to give a simple answer to the question of how much influence one state exerts on another. Let me point to a long-standing relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is a long-standing relationship on security and intelligence matters, which has acted in our interests and for the safety of our citizens. We have a common approach to dealing with not only terror and extremism, but changes in Saudi society over a period of time. As I say, it is not for those outside to take credit for internal changes. This is a continued dialogue with a state that we have known for a long time, but one that is still relatively new and coming to terms with the modern world. I think the relationship is the right one, but we will continue to press for the best values.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that executing individuals who were under 18 at the time of the commission of the alleged offence is in violation of not only international law, but Saudi domestic law? He is therefore on very strong ground in raising this matter. Will he do so in terms, because, whatever the longer term relationship, minors have been executed in the past year and many are now on death row there? Will he say exactly what representation he is making today or tomorrow? If he is in doubt about who is at risk, will he talk to Reprieve about that?

[Alistair Burt]

I reiterate the point that the UK makes about the death penalty, particularly in relation to minors. Where cases involving minors are brought to our attention, we reference them specifically, as we have done in several of the cases raised by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I am gaining more information about the matters referred to in the newspaper report today, and if they do involve minors, specific representations will indeed be made.

Israel and Palestinian Talks

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), which I am sure was heard by the Minister. We are all happy to see the Minister back, although I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary that it is a shame the Foreign Secretary could not turn up to a debate in Government time on this important issue. However, we are all very grateful to have listened to the Minister’s views on this subject, rather than the Foreign Secretary’s, as I suspect the Minister is rather better informed.

This is a year of anniversaries, as we have heard from many hon. Members. It is 10 years since the beginning of the blockade of Gaza, 100 years since the Balfour declaration and 50 years since the occupation. One anniversary would be significant; I hope that three are concentrating our minds. The key is occupation. If we truly want to fulfil the unfulfilled part of Balfour,

“that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”—

and those rights certainly have been prejudiced in the west bank and Gaza over the past 50 years—we need to end the occupation.

We have heard the humanitarian situation in Gaza described graphically. As was said, there have been three attacks by the IDF, one of the most powerful armies in the world, on the civilian population of Gaza, with thousands of people killed. I condemn all atrocities on either side—deaths and injuries on either side are appalling—but I wish we could have some recognition from the Members who have spoken in graphic terms about individual acts of terrorism of the thousands of people who have been killed in Gaza over the past 10 years, many of them children.

In discussing the need to end the occupation, let me contrast two things. The first is the abject failure of talks over the past 25 years since Oslo. It is not a coincidence that the talks have failed in that way. Many realistic proposals were made by Rabin before his unfortunate murder. The Arab peace initiative, which has been mentioned, is 15 years old and presents an easy and straightforward blueprint for peace: recognition by the states of the Arab League of Israel on pre-1967 borders and east Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. That is a real basis for peace that the Israelis have never been able to approach thus far, or have never been persuaded by the international community to approach.

On the other hand, there is the remorseless growth of settlements. In the last year or so, we have seen a change in the type and intensity of settlement growth. The 1,800 units in east Jerusalem, including around Sheikh Jarrah in the heart of east Jerusalem, that have been announced in the last couple of days are a fundamental game-changer, as are E1 and the new settlements between Bethlehem and east Jerusalem. All of those will make a viable Palestinian state impossible. There has been a 70% increase in settlement building on the west bank in the last year. These are continuing breaches of international humanitarian law and the fourth Geneva convention.

John Kerry has said that

“the status quo is leading towards one state and perpetual occupation”.

Just last week, the Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres, said that

“the only way to achieve the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people”

is by ending the occupation. That is the issue at the heart of this and unless it is addressed, we will get nowhere. That is what I look to the Minister to address in his concluding comments.

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.