Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I can tell my hon. Friend that only yesterday, at breakfast, I met Vladimir Kara-Murza, a distinguished leader of the Russian Opposition and a journalist, who paid tribute to this country for being one of the few European countries to implement what is, to all intents and purposes, a Magnitsky Act. People on this side of the House can be very proud of the role they have played—in fact, people on both sides of the House can.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

7. What recent steps his Department has taken to support implementation of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy overseas.

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

Broadly speaking, there are two, mutually contaminating ecosystems of terror that we face, one is at home and one is abroad. What the UK is doing overseas is to drive out the terrorists from the spaces they currently occupy, be that in Iraq, Syria, Libya or Nigeria. We are having a great deal of success in that. The ungoverned space occupied by terrorists has been greatly reduced in the past year. In addition, we are working to increase aviation security around the world and, above all, at the UN, with the resolution agreed last month, to bring Daesh fighters to justice.

[Mr Cunningham]

Following last year’s decision to strip the Foreign Office of its responsibilities for co-ordinating the UK’s diplomatic counter-terrorism relationships, what reassurances can the Foreign Secretary provide that his Department’s unique expertise in this area is not being lost?

[Boris Johnson]

I believe the hon. Gentleman is referring to the JICTU—Joint International Counter Terrorism Unit—arrangement we have across government. I think he would accept that in view of what I have said about the mutually contaminating ecosystems of terror that we face, where people are being radicalised online here at home and people are in the ungoverned spaces, be it in Iraq, Syria or wherever, a one-Government approach has to be taken to all this by Her Majesty’s Government. It is right therefore that we co-ordinate with the Home Office to tackle this, but we are also tackling it overseas. One aspect of international diplomacy which the Prime Minister has been leading is countering online radicalisation and taking more than 270,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material off the internet.

British Prisoners in Iran

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am going to make some progress before taking interventions. I know that a lot of hon. Members want to come in and I will take interventions. Before I do that, I want to outline the plight of my constituent Nazanin.

Gabriella’s short life has already been spent in exile. After they were unlawfully detained at the airport, what followed was a shambolic process of secretive courts, secretive trials and secretive convictions. Nazanin was placed in solitary confinement, in a room one and a half metres square, with no window and no natural light, and with no access to lawyers or to her family. Before Nazanin went to prison, she was in perfectly good health. We then found out that she had suffered from arthritis in her neck and body. There were times when her limbs stopped working and she could not move for periods of time. She suffered from weight loss and hair loss. She was often denied access to medical treatment. The one time she did have access to a specialist, he said that Nazanin needed urgent hospitalisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for coming with me to deliver a petition to the Foreign Secretary. I agree that the toll taken on the families of those who are held in Iran, who have no contact with their families other than monitored calls, is really shown when speaking to and meeting members of the families. That is, if people bother to meet with them.

Thousands of people in the world have spoken out because of the sheer level of injustice in Nazanin’s case. Led by Richard Ratcliffe, organisations such as Amnesty International, Redress and Change.org have galvanised thousands of people to campaign for the release of Nazanin. At this time, almost a million people have signed a petition saying that Nazanin should be released. Six UN rapporteurs have also said that Nazanin should be released, and the European Parliament has adopted a resolution to say that Nazanin and other EU citizens with dual nationalities should be released.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this issue to the House of Commons and asking the Government to do something about it. Last November, an article in The Sunday Times suggested that these political prisoners were being tortured and, more importantly, that Iran seeks a ransom from the British Government of £400 million. What does my hon. Friend make of that? Surely it is diabolical, to say the least.

[Tulip Siddiq]

That is very worrying. The problem is that, when the families speak to prisoners of conscience in Iran, the calls are heavily monitored and there is no freedom to express exactly what is happening. It is all shrouded in secrecy, so there is no real evidence of what is going on behind closed doors. It is no surprise that the UN working group on arbitrary detention said that the detention was unlawful, arbitrary and against international law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I am very concerned about that prospect. In recent years, in any part of the political environment in the Maldives, no one’s hands have been entirely clean—it has not been a happy situation across the board. The Government’s biggest regret is that the Maldives unilaterally left the Commonwealth in 2016, and I very much hope that a new regime will bring them back into the international regime.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of proposed reductions to US financial contributions to the UN budget on the delivery of UN peacekeeping operations.

[The Minister for Africa (Rory Stewart)]

We should pay tribute to what the United States has done with its peacekeeping budget. It provides well over a quarter of the global peacekeeping budget: over $2 billion a year, which is largely not “odable”. We need to pay tribute to the US and to encourage it to continue to play a role, as it is a central part of peacekeeping worldwide. Its sticking to the congressional limit of 25% is vital for UN peacekeeping operations.

[Mr Cunningham]

Does the Minister agree that the loss of financial support from the US will be devastating for UN agencies such as the World Food Programme and the UN Refugee Agency? Will he therefore urge the Trump Administration to reconsider their planned cuts?

[Rory Stewart]

It is absolutely right, of course, that in the current global situation UN peacekeeping operations are vital, but reforms can be introduced. The move in Cote d’Ivoire to close down the peacekeeping operation and the changes in Darfur are welcome. We can reduce peacekeeping costs, but it is vital that the United States and others continue to play a strong role. American financial support has been vital for the past 50 years, and we hope that it will continue to be over the next 50.

Israel and Palestinian Talks

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

There are many blockages on the way to peace, and a number of them will come up during the course of this debate. Hamas’s inability to accept the existence of the state of Israel is plainly one of them, and there are plenty more. As my hon. Friend said, it is a long-standing tragedy that the broad outlines of what many of us consider to be a deal are available and known, but the steps needed to convert that into action have not yet been taken.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What discussions have the Government had with the Israeli Government about the extension of the settlements in Jerusalem? More importantly, what discussions have our Government had about sanctions?

[Alistair Burt]

If I am able to pursue my original course of action of putting a few things on record and then dealing with subsequent questions, settlements will inevitably come up. I would like to deal with that issue then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

If the hon. Gentleman will take his seat, relax and listen to the rest of my speech, I will get to that at a later stage.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Only about two or three years ago, when we had the coalition Government—this might explain the reason why it was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto—the then Foreign Secretary said that the window of opportunity for a settlement was slowly vanishing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this possibly is the reason why the Government party has possibly never really given up? When I asked the Minister concerned about discussions with the Israeli Government, sanctions and settlements, he responded in a way that did not completely answer the question. More importantly, as my right hon. Friend has said, 2 million people are suffering in Palestine, so what are the Government going to do to alleviate the suffering resulting from sanctions?

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I see that the Minister is making a note of it, so hopefully he will deal with it at the end of the debate, because these questions are important.

We seek some clarity from the Minister today on where the Government stand and what they will do to promote peace in any of the specific areas that the Opposition set out in our manifesto. First, on the issue of security, it states:

“There can be no military solution to this conflict and all sides must avoid taking action that would make peace harder to achieve.”

That was what we wrote in May, and surely no party in this House would disagree. We all know that there can be no progress towards peace between Israel and Palestine unless both sides are sure of their security. Sadly, at present the opposite is true. Peace and security are becoming ever harder to achieve because of the climate of increasing aggression and extremism, which the Minister referred to.

Whether it is the horrific phenomenon of Palestinians randomly attacking Israeli civilians and security staff with knives, or ramming them with vehicles, leaving dozens dead or injured, and creating a dread that we in this country well understand, particularly after the attack on London Bridge; or whether it is the acts of indiscriminate terror, or the record number of Palestinians who last year, without process or explanation, were forcibly evicted from their homes in the occupied territories, in many cases to make way for new and illegal Israeli settlements—whatever the actions taken, no matter which is objectively worse, no matter who started it and no matter what ludicrous justifications anyone can offer—the truth is that all these actions are simply contributing to and worsening the same vicious cycle of violence and extremism, a vicious cycle that can never lead us towards peace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there is to be a White Paper very soon, presaging a Bill on how we will continue to take part in sanctions jointly with our friends and partners across the channel.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Sudan and South Sudan.

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

Despite some improvements, the security situation in Sudan remains concerning, particularly in Darfur and the Two Areas. In South Sudan the security situation is much worse as fighting continues across the country and the humanitarian situation becomes increasingly desperate.

[Mr Cunningham]

Sudan was recently appointed vice-chair of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, at a time when the organisation is considering investigating Sudan’s alleged use of such weapons. Does that not constitute a conflict of interests?

[Mr Ellwood]

There are a number of concerns about Sudan, one of which is the use of chemical weapons. The United Nations has looked into the issue in detail, and to date there is no firm evidence that that is taking place, but we will continue to investigate.

Yemen

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the other officers of the all-party group on Yemen on organising a timely debate, as we have just marked the third anniversary of the crisis in Yemen.

It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the former Secretary of State for International Development, who kindly gave evidence to the International Development Committee recently, following his visit to Yemen. Today, he has again provided a thoughtful and important contribution.

This coming Saturday, in Liverpool, we will hold the monthly vigil for peace in Yemen, which is arranged by Liverpool Friends of Yemen, drawing on the large Yemeni community in Liverpool and on other friends. In advance of this afternoon’s debate, I contacted members of Liverpool Friends of Yemen to ask what they would like me to address if I were called to speak, and the major focus was the one reflected in the motion before the House: the sheer scale of the humanitarian crisis the people of Yemen face and the need for peace in that country.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who moved the motion, forcefully said, the United Nations decisions tomorrow will be very important, given what previous speakers have said about a ceasefire, and perhaps the blockade will be lifted as well.

[Stephen Twigg]

I agree absolutely, and let us all hope for progress as a consequence of the United Nations Security Council discussions tomorrow.

The scale of this crisis has been documented by the previous speakers and in previous debates. UNICEF tells us that more than 1,500 children have been killed since the fighting began, with a similar number being recruited to fight by both sides of the conflict. As my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, the conflict has claimed the lives of at least 10,000 people, and some have put the level of civilian deaths alone as high as 5,000.

The United Nations has given the crisis level 3 status, putting it on a par with similar crises in Syria, Iraq and South Sudan. The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross has said that the intensity and severity of the fighting have left Yemen looking like Syria did after five years of conflict. Some 19 million people are in need of immediate humanitarian assistance—that is 80%, or four in five, of the population. Half a million children are suffering from severe malnutrition. Saleh Saeed, the chief executive of the Disasters Emergency Committee, who is originally from Yemen, has said that families are having to make the “unbearable” decision between buying medicine or food. This simply cannot be allowed to continue.

President Trump: State Visit

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

It is not an easy job to be Prime Minister and to deal with Governments. The nature and difficulties of diplomacy mean that we often have to have contact, for wider national and global interests, with people with whom we fundamentally disagree, but herein lies the fundamental point. This is not about whether Donald Trump should be banned from coming to this country or whether our Government should have contact with him—indeed, it is absolutely right that the Prime Minister meets the President to discuss matters of mutual interest. We choose whom we honour, the way in which we honour them and the way in which we negotiate. I note the comments of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond): we choose how we engage. Prime Minister Trudeau has shown a very different way of dealing with President Trump and has maintained his integrity while retaining contact.

The fundamental issue is that we have rushed into offering the Palace, the Mall, the razzmatazz, the champagne and the red carpet. Even if one were the ultimate pragmatist for whom the matters of equality or of standing against torture, racism and sexism do not matter, giving it all up in week 1 on a plate with no questions asked would not be a sensible negotiating strategy. How can that make sense to anybody—even those who argue that we should have a strong relationship with the United States?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Obama was invited here—people should not forget that he was the first Afro-American President—but he stood for something totally different. Donald Trump so far does not seem to share our values, so we should have waited at least two years to see how his presidency pans out before we came to a judgment.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed. That is why I have spoken out so strongly on using the Palace of Westminster, and particularly Westminster Hall, given that that is where President Mandela and President Obama addressed us, where Pope Benedict came and where Churchill lay in state. It is a rare and special honour, and I am absolutely delighted that this is the most signed petition of this Session and that it has support from all parts of the House.

We need to look at the issue of state visits again. Many people have rightly pointed out whom we have offered state visits to in the past and asked whether that was right. There were protests when President Xi was here, and I strongly disagree with much of the way we have fawned over some of the monarchies in the Gulf. That does not mean we should not have diplomatic relations and strong relationships with them, but I am concerned about the way we seem to have turned a blind eye to a whole series of issues. We need to look very carefully at how we choose to use what ultimately is a significant amount of taxpayers’ money, and at the categories and types of visits we offer and how we offer them. Many of us question whether Aung San Suu Kyi should have addressed us, given some of the concerns we have about the Burmese Government’s policies at present. We can have great hindsight, but just because we have got things wrong in the past does not mean we should not get things right in the future.

We have a special responsibility when it comes to the special relationship with our greatest ally and friend. We cannot accept the denigration of the free press, the judiciary, women and religious minorities, the banning of refugees and the advocacy of torture as the new normal. It would not be acceptable from any country, and it is certainly not acceptable from our greatest ally and one of the countries that has frequently stood up for the values of liberty, equality, democracy and the rights and equality of all before the law. That is why we have a special responsibility in this House to speak out.

Ultimately, I have great faith in the way the American constitution was set up. In 1788, James Madison said:

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one…in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

We, too, should check and balance our ally, but offering up a state visit and all these honours in week 1 of Donald Trump’s already turbulent presidency is not the way to do it.

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a whole series of unanswered questions about what happens not just in the case of dual nationals or UK citizens, but EU citizens and other nationals who may be resident in the United Kingdom and want to travel to the United States.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon described his personal experiences. I know that everyone in the House would want to stand with him against any sense of discrimination that he feels and wrongly faces. I think he would agree that, as he said powerfully, this is not simply about the rights of British citizens—it goes so much further and wider. It is about the shared values that have underpinned generations of co-operation between this country and one of our closest allies. Under our democracy and our common humanity, we have both built into our written and unwritten constitutions a condemnation of discrimination. We have worked together, over very many years, against prejudice and hatred, so it is deeply immoral for this ban to target Muslims in this way, and we should not be afraid to say so.

We have also worked together on international policy on refugees—to support the Geneva convention and the UN’s work, and to resettle refugees, including Syrian refugees from all over the world. The US has always played a historic role in resettling those refugees. For the United States to, in effect, pull out of the Geneva convention and that international co-operation is deeply damaging to a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees programme that all of us should want to champion. We should be prepared to speak out about that.

The ban also threatens our security. It is immediately counterproductive to prevent from entering the US those Iraqi citizens in the Iraqi Government and armed forces with whom the US may need to work in the fight against IS. Inevitably, the Iraqi Parliament has responded by saying that American citizens will be prevented from entering Iraq. We need these countries to work closely together, and with us, in order to defeat terrorist extremists. We should be fighting against them together, and not be divided.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Obviously, most people in this country are appalled by the actions of the President of the United States in relation to the Muslim community. Having said that, on immigration, only about 15,000 refugees have been taken by the United States, so it is not as though it has been swamped.

[Yvette Cooper]

It is true that, as a proportion of the United States population, the number of Syrian refugees who have gone there is relatively small. However, as a proportion of those who need support and resettlement, that contribution has been important, so it is very damaging to our international support for refugees for the United States to pull out of that co-operation. That is why the United Kingdom Government have a responsibility, not to just say a few words under pressure in this House, but to raise concerns directly with the US Administration, and why so many Members are concerned and frustrated. The Government delayed making any response or criticism. We hear now that the Prime Minister was told about the ban before it happened on Friday, yet she did not speak out about it, even when the Turkish President, standing alongside her, was prepared to do so. The British Government were prepared, rightly, to raise the issue of human rights with Turkey, but they did not raise concerns about what President Trump was doing.

There are limits to what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are prepared to say, even now. When I asked the Foreign Secretary directly whether he had urged the US Administration to drop the ban, he refused to say. Frankly, from everything he did say, we can only conclude that the UK Government still refuse to ask the US Administration to drop this ban, abandon this targeting of Muslims and do their bit again to help refugees. I hope that the Minister will put me right and say that we have got it wrong, and that Ministers have, privately behind the scenes, been urging the US Administration to change their policy. It is crucial that they do so. That is the point of having a special relationship and a good friendship: being able to speak the truth to power and say the difficult things. If Ministers are not prepared to do that, what does that say to British Muslims and others around the world who feel targeted? And what does it say to those whom President Trump may target next? This could be only the start—we do not know. This is what President Trump has done within just a few days of taking office. Where will he go next? What will it take for us to be prepared to speak out, if our Government are not prepared to speak out yet?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

May I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) on securing this timely and important debate? It is with a degree of sadness that we have to have it in the first place.

America has a proud tradition of being a nation of immigrants. People fleeing torture and persecution from around the world have sought refuge on the shores of the United States and, metaphorically, I suspect that Miss Liberty is holding her head in shame because of the events of last Friday. The Executive order is shameful and immoral, but, as I said in my intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, it should not come as a surprise to any of us. Throughout the campaign last year, President Trump made it plain that, as well as building a wall, he was going to ban all Muslims—not security threats, but a religious grouping. It was rather frightening, if one looked at the audiences to which he made that pledge throughout the United States—north, south, east and west—to see the reaction of the crowds. That shows us that not only is he honouring his election pledge, but he is playing to a gallery of people who are prejudiced in favour of this sort of action. That is very sad, because it will not achieve what I assume he wants it to achieve, apart from gaining a potential narrow party political electoral advantage with a core base.

America should be stronger together, and it should be building bridges, not walls. The Executive order will alienate moderate Arabs and radicalise further those on the radical wing of the Arab world, at a time when we should be building bridges to enable us to expose the evil and violence of some of the terrorists who come out of the middle east, and working with moderate Arabs to end the evil threat not only to us, but to moderate Arab opinion in the middle east.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Simon Burns]

No; I do not have time. The Executive order will result in further radicalisation. It will do the exact opposite of what some people think it will do. It will not make the United States any safer; it will make it a more dangerous place. That is an irony, and it is unacceptable.

I take issue with some of the comments I have heard during this debate and during the statement, in that I think it is absolutely right that the British Government continue the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to build bridges with President Trump so that we can, through engagement, seek to persuade him and to minimise or reduce the danger of his more outrageous policies. We can do that only by being a candid friend, but we have to be a candid friend.

I believe that very little would be achieved by cancelling a state visit to which the invitation has already been extended and accepted. It is part of a process of seeking to engage, encourage and persuade. There is, however, one area at which we should look very carefully. Some will remember that in 1982 or 1983, President Ronald Reagan had a state visit to this country, but it was decided by the then Thatcher Government that there should not be an address to the joint Houses of Parliament.

Similarly, I remember, as a Member of this House, the state visit of President George W. Bush. Apart from a sojourn in Durham at Trimdon Labour club, I believe, for lunch with the then Prime Minister, all President Bush did was to travel in the Beast from Buckingham Palace to No. 10 and back again. There was no address to the joint Houses of Parliament. In the circumstances, I think that that was rather wise. We and the Government —and you, Mr Speaker—should think very carefully before considering such an address as part of the programme for a state visit by President Trump, because it might not go as well as everyone would naturally expect.

In conclusion, this ban is nasty, it is immoral and it will not succeed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his deputy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), as well as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have a key role to play because the ban will last for 90 days, which in theory means that it is part time and transitory. I am not convinced that that will be the case in reality. The challenge for the Government is to do all they can to influence President Trump about its counterproductive nature and the danger that it will pose in radicalising rather than pacifying those who espouse radical extremist thinking; and to persuade him that there are better ways than this very blunt weapon to pursue a policy of reconciliation. The best way to do so is to communicate and negotiate with the reasonable elements in the middle east and work together to overcome the threat to this country, the United States and elsewhere.

Red Wednesday Campaign

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ellwood]

Before we were interrupted by the Divisions, I was explaining that in this House we often ask ourselves what is the value of international aid. We can contextualise the support we give and the trade we do with other countries in terms of the influence we derive when we have questions about their democratic values, concerns about how they follow the rules-based international system or, indeed, worries about whether they are following human rights. I make it clear that, where we can, our support and financial assistance go to non-governmental organisations, rather than directly to Governments. When we provide support to Governments directly, we try to ensure that they abide by our shared commitments and standards.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

When the Minister has discussions about international trade and aid in relation to human rights, for example, what sort of response does he get? More importantly, what is the role of the United Nations? Does it make much progress?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman speaks of the United Nations as if it were another organisation. We are part of the United Nations. We affect the approach of the United Nations on such matters. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we are concerned not only about security matters but about improving standards of life, democratic values, the rule of law and humanitarian rights across the world. We want to use the UN as a vehicle through which we can leverage change.

Let us look at our own history. Without going into detail, it took us time before monarchs did not have their head removed, before people were not sent up chimneys and before the slave trade was abolished. I am not making an excuse for not pushing such things but, ultimately, we have to effect cultural change at a pace that works, rather than galvanising the opposite message from the one we want to push.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I would be delighted to do so. I simply make the case that the Foreign Secretary is extremely passionate about the issue. Indeed, it came from the voices in the Chamber saying, “What is Britain doing to hold these perpetrators to account?” We must work with the Iraqi Government, UN organisations and other members of the international community to deliver justice and promote the rights of all minorities, as well as to hold perpetrators to account.

It is also worth mentioning that we are working further afield than the middle east, as well. In Pakistan, we regularly raise concerns about the freedom of religion or belief. In March 2016, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the then Foreign Secretary, raised the importance of safeguarding the rights of all minorities, including religious minorities. In Nigeria, we are providing a substantial package of intelligence, military development and humanitarian support in the fight against Boko Haram, including training and advice on counter-insurgency, and £5 million in support for a regional military taskforce.

Promoting religious tolerance is critical to reconciliation and securing a lasting peace in any combat area, but particularly in Syria and Iraq. That is why we developed the Magna Carta fund, which is being used to support several projects to promote freedom of religion or belief. In Iraq, we have funded a series of grassroots meetings between religious leaders of all faiths to promote religious tolerance. Over the past year, we have supported a project promoting legal and social protection for freedom of religion or belief in Iraq. The project aims to prevent intolerance and violence towards religious communities by inspiring key leaders in Iraqi society to become defenders of freedom of religion or belief.

Our commitment to promoting freedom of religion or belief is not confined to the middle east but extends right across the piece. It is integral to our diplomatic network in promoting fundamental human rights around the globe through our conversations with host Governments and other influential actors such as faith leaders, and through our project work and organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Is the promotion of religious tolerance in Iraq being done from primary school age? I have seen some documentaries in which certain charities run schools to promote better understanding between different religions. Has there been much success with that?

[Mr Ellwood]

Yes. I can write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail, but he is absolutely right that that is the age at which messages about understanding, reconciliation and recognition of the various pressures and influences are most received. Our work involves primary and secondary schools as well.

The foreign and commonwealth conference on this matter, which took place last month, was a ground-breaking conference on how protecting freedom of religion or belief can help combat violent extremism by helping make societies more inclusive and respectful of religious diversity. The conference brought together a range of experts and high-profile speakers. All participants, including many Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, shared and benefited from practical and innovative ideas to advance the cause. We have also updated and reprinted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s “Freedom of Religion or Belief” toolkit, which provides officers with guidelines on how to identify violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief and what to do about them, and with further sources of information for those who wish to examine the subject in more depth.

In conclusion, the Government will continue to fight for the freedom of religion or belief internationally. We do so not only because it is right and is enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights and in article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights but because extending freedom of religion or belief to more countries and more societies helps to make the world safer and more prosperous, which is in all our interests. We recognise that progress requires a response from the whole of society, so we welcome the opportunity to work with this Parliament and other Parliaments, with religious groups and with civil society partners such as Aid to the Church in Need, Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. We believe that freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right and we will continue towards the ambitious goal of ensuring that it is enjoyed by everyone everywhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Gentleman is right on that point. There are two specific concerns: there are gaps in the supply chain that extend to the United Kingdom. That applies to meat coming into the UK, but it has also been suggested that greyhounds from Ireland may be raced in east Asia and enter the food chain in that way. There is also the general health concern about the consumption of dog meat. That brings me on to the three specific concerns that we need to consider in the debate.

The first concern is the welfare of the dogs as they are reared. The trade is completely unregulated. The farms—if one can call them that—are pretty horrific places. Dogs are usually kept in very small cages without any form of environmental enrichment, in many cases on solid floors where they cannot even stand. The evidence gathered by charities regularly includes a huge range of injuries, including untreated eye infections, skin diseases, prolapsed bowels and painfully swollen feet. Of course, when animals have absolutely no form of stimulation there is the problem of self-mutilation, whether that is cage pacing or head tilting, or other features of poorly looked after animals.

Allied to that is the method of slaughter, once they have been reared. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire mentioned, there is a terribly misheld belief—this does not apply in all cases, but there is a lot of evidence for it—that somehow, if the animal has a lot of adrenalin pumping through it at the time of slaughter, that will add to the power of the meat or tenderise it before slaughter. That has in some cases encouraged terribly barbaric methods of slaughter. Examples include hanging, beating or in some cases even boiling the poor animals alive, all in the ridiculous belief that somehow that improves the quality. Surely anyone can agree that that is completely unacceptable.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting the debate. In an article last week—I think it was in the Daily Mirror—it was reported that, particularly in China, animals were being treated very badly and shoved in big pots to be boiled alive. That is utterly cruel, and surely the Government should be making representations on that.

[Oliver Dowden]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is exactly why I am raising that in the debate. I hope the Minister will take note of that point and relay the strength of feeling in the United Kingdom, including from readers of the Daily Mirror, about those appalling practices.

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend raises an important point that goes back to what I was saying earlier. I do not think those methods of slaughter are being in any way actively encouraged by the South Korean Government or other Governments. Indeed, they are contrary to all the evidence, but the fact is that this is being conducted on the basis not of evidence, but of prejudices and long-standing traditions, which are difficult to counter with an analytical approach.

My second big concern around this trade is that it does not just extend to animals that are purposely bred for it. Not only are stray animals being brought into the supply chain, but there is considerable evidence that pet dogs and cats brought up for domestic purposes are being stolen and finding themselves in the supply chain. We can all only imagine what it would be like if our own domestic animals found themselves in that state.

Equally, there are suggestions—although I must say the evidence on this is still being gathered—in relation to the greyhound racing industry, for example. It is alleged that when greyhounds are past their time in the United Kingdom, or particularly in Ireland, they go out to compete in east Asia, fail a couple of races and are then pushed off into the dog meat supply chain. Again, that needs to be urgently investigated, both by our Government and by those in the countries where it is alleged to have happened. South Korea is taking some steps on that but it remains a legal grey area. Without going into detail about the legislative proposals in this area, I should say that there is more that can be done to bring greater clarity that such practice is not acceptable.

My third concern is in relation to human health. We have already discussed the danger of dog meat entering the general supply chain, which is something the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should be very much aware of. Because it is an unregulated industry, there are no official guidelines, let alone oversight, to ensure that those meat products do not harm the health of consumers. The lack of evidence is worrying, particularly when the conditions on many dog farms are exceedingly unsanitary. There is a real danger of high levels of antimicrobial resistance because of excessive use of antibiotics and drugs on the dogs, often to counter the way in which they are kept in densely-filled areas with high levels of stress and high mortality rates. Equally, because the manner of slaughter is unregulated, there is a danger that disease enters the food chain from that.

What I am seeking from the Minister in his response is, first, an assurance that the Government take the issue seriously. It is easy for us to dismiss it as a problem in another country but, as members of the international community, we should be highlighting the concern and be encouraging the Government to press the case with the South Korean Government. I know we have very good bilateral relations with the South Korean Government—indeed, we have good bilateral relations with other countries, such as the Philippines. In a spirit of constructive engagement with friends, allies and partners, we can reasonably raise our concerns and ask those countries to address them. That can be done both in the United Kingdom, through our relationship with the ambassadors of South Korea and other countries, and through the various international organisations of which we are a member, including the European Union.

[Mr Cunningham]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to include China in that list, because it was highlighted in the Daily Mirror.

[Oliver Dowden]

Forgive me; I was not seeking to make a particular political point about China or, indeed, Thailand, Vietnam or any of the other countries I have mentioned.

Furthermore, through our strong relations with other countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, I think the United Kingdom could have a role in highlighting this matter. As I said, this is a question not of accusing other countries, but of highlighting those concerns. I also think we can play a role domestically in the United Kingdom. We have a tremendous body of expertise and opinion in the form of the chief veterinary officer and his offices.

The United Kingdom could act as a lead advocate for building a global strategy. For example, we can use our contacts in the World Health Organisation and other organisations to fully research, quantify and publicise the concerns around the dog meat industry, in relation to antimicrobial resistance, for example, and to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire about dispelling some of the myths around some of the supposed virtues of the meat.