Government Strategy Against IS

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The first step has been to rally as many countries as possible to form a broad-based coalition. What is now happening and will continue at the Paris meeting is detailed consideration of the part that each country can play. We saw in Libya that a number of allies from the Arab world were prepared to play a very active role indeed.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Despite what the Minister has said about not recognising the Assad regime, does he not accept that any intervention in Syria will require the tacit, if not overt, consent of the Syrian armed forces? Can he not think in advance of such matters and of the matters of illegality raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as of the high risk of civilian casualties, before taking any precipitate action? Otherwise, we will be in the same position as we were last summer.

[Mr Lidington]

All these questions to do with the efficacy, the logistical and military challenges and the legal position with regard to any particular military intervention in any part of the world will be considered very carefully. If the Government decide to undertake such military action—I repeat that we are not at that point at the moment and nor have we been asked to make a particular military contribution—they would at that point come and explain their case in full to the House.

Middle East and North Africa

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I have just drawn the short straw. It would be tempting, given the title of the debate, to go on a Baedeker’s tour of the middle east. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has the authority and knowledge to do so, but I will not be tempted down that route. I will talk, as other Members have done, about the immediate crisis in Palestine and Gaza, not least because I—and, I suspect, a number of Members present—have received several hundred letters and e-mails on the subject from constituents during the past week.

First, however, let me say a few sentences about other interests I have. I entirely applaud the right hon. Gentleman for saying that Tunisia continues to give hope, as it has since the beginning of the Arab spring, notwithstanding the difficulties there have been and, indeed, the fact that there has been some violence in that country. I do not disagree with what he said about the Gulf and Egypt, in the sense that we need to maintain good relations with them, but I hope those will also be critical relations. I hope the new Minister, whom we welcome to his place, will be aware that, in relation to Egypt and, in a smaller way, to countries such as Bahrain, the hopes placed in the Arab spring have failed to materialise in many cases.

I sometimes feel that, perhaps for strategic or other reasons, Her Majesty’s Government are not critical enough of the violent deaths that have resulted from the actions of the state in those countries, of the death sentences handed out in Egypt and of the continued oppression of the majority Shi’a population in Bahrain. However, we need to be even-handed when we address such matters. I should add that, notwithstanding the appalling continuing situation in Syria, the events that have taken place since last summer have shown that the House was right to vote the way it did during the recall, and not to be stampeded into supporting military action. That would have been a catastrophic mistake.

My constituency has one of the 10 largest Arab populations in this country—I always suspected it did, but I now know that, thanks to the 2011 census. Many of my Arab constituents—indeed, not just them, but my Muslim constituents and my constituents more generally—would, I hope, think that what was happening in Gaza was truly shocking. I do not mean just the individual incidents, such as the two disabled people who were killed in a care home, the nine young men who were killed while watching the World cup, the 18 members of one family who were slain and the four children who were killed on the beach—I am not quite sure what strategic target there was there yesterday that meant those four young children were brutally and horribly murdered.

The current count is 227 deaths. There have been 2,000 air strikes, 1,400 homes have been destroyed and 18,000 have been displaced. If hon. Members do not regard that as disproportionate action, I do not really know what is. Listening to some hon. Members, I sometimes wonder what Israel would have to do, and what actions the Israeli defence forces would have to take, to earn their condemnation, just in the interests of simple humanity.

What I find more shocking than the individual deaths or the military action generally, however, is the cynical and predictable way in which Israel, on a cyclical basis, goes about its incursions into Gaza. I visited Gaza with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) three weeks after Operation Cast Lead. In that incursion—it was the last major incursion, but there have been smaller ones since—1,400 mainly civilian Palestinians were killed. According to a very good article in The Independent today by Matt Rowland Hill, these incursions are known colloquially in the IDF as “mowing the lawn”, which means going in—with complete disregard, it seems, for civilian casualties—and trying to curtail any military strength Hamas may have built up.

We can all talk about the role Hamas has played in escalating the crisis, and about the effect of rocket fire. However, I would like to dwell on where we are going with the occupation of Gaza and the west bank. I have come to this conclusion reluctantly, but I fear that, whereas the rest of the world—whether we are talking about the attempt to revive the Arab peace initiative or John Kerry’s recent efforts—is still committed to, and still believes in, a two-state solution, the state of Israel no longer believes in one, and the quote my hon. Friend gave from the Prime Minister of Israel says that in terms.

[Bob Stewart]

The problem with the two-state solution is that it looks almost impossible to enact. Given the number of settlements—many of them illegal—in the west bank, I just cannot see how we can carve out a two-state solution. We may well have to have a one-state solution where all are equal.

[Mr Slaughter]

I cannot fault the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, but I would say that what he describes has been the result of deliberate action by the state of Israel over a number of years. It has been brought about partly by the settlement building—that has been the main infraction. There are 500,000 settlers living in East Jerusalem and the west bank, and the pace of settlement building continues. However, Netanyahu said last Friday:

“there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

There is no intention at all in Israel, from the Prime Minister downwards, to allow the creation of a Palestinian state. We therefore have to see what is happening in Gaza and the west bank as the management of the status quo; we can conclude only that Israel wants to put 1.7 million people into a prison. The occupation continues in Gaza and the west bank —under international law and de facto—because the borders are sealed.

The consequence is that Palestinians in Gaza are living in hellish conditions. I have visited Gaza several times, and even when people are not being strafed by jet fighters, fired on from the sea and shelled, 95% of water is still undrinkable, thousands of tonnes of sewage flow into the sea every day, and half the population is dependent on UN handouts. That is the situation to which the Palestinians have been reduced by the deliberate actions of the state of Israel.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Slaughter]

I will not, because I will not get any extra time. I apologise for that.

There can be no other conclusion but that the—I use the word advisedly—apartheid state that exists on the west bank, which treats Palestinians as second or third-class citizens, including, increasingly, in the state of Israel itself, is using the cordoning off of Gaza simply to manage the current situation, because that is the one it finds least unacceptable. That situation will continue, and I see no hope of that being altered from the Israeli side.

Therefore, the situation in Palestine can be improved by only one thing: Palestinian unity, further elections, democracy and a recognition by the Palestinian people, wherever they live in Palestine, of the state of Israel. We can then have a mandate for a two-state solution and a recognition by not only Israel, but the rest of the world, including the UK, of a Palestinian state. That is the only thing that will jump-start this process.

The actions of the international community therefore become imperative. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, said that we should not trade or deal in any way with settlements that are illegal under international law. If the Israelis will not separate out, and make clear the difference between, Israeli and settlement produce, we should not enter into favourable trade agreements.

The view that many people in this country had of Israel over many years—that it was a liberal, democratic country—has been tarnished to such an extent that the overwhelming view here, and across the western world, is that Israel behaves as an occupying state and in a tyrannical way towards people who simply want what people in every country in this world want—the ability to live in peace, and self-determination. That is what the Palestinian people want; that is what the state of Israel will not give them. It will be Israel that loses out, just as the Palestinians have lost out, if they lose that support internationally. The demographic changes in Palestine mean that time is running out, not just for the two-state solution and peace, but for Israel itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that intervention. I heard those issues on my recent visit. They are placed on the record, and I will get back to my hon. Friend with some details on how that might be pursued.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the Minister fulfil our obligation under international law by ending trade with illegal settlements? Will he investigate the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on whether British arms that we supplied are being used in the current conflict by the Israelis? If they are, what will the Minister do about that?

[Mr Ellwood]

Again, that is one of the issues that I would have loved to touch on, had there been time. I made some notes on the case as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield was speaking, and if I may, I will come back on that. I have some detailed notes, and I would be delighted to respond.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for bringing this important debate to the House. I hope that we will return to the issue. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, and I apologise that I cannot reply in detail now, but I will write to each of those who made a contribution today individually and respond to their questions.

Gaza

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Israeli Ministers stress their need to defend themselves against rocket attacks and say any nation in the world facing a barrage of rockets on its major cities would mount a military response. It is, of course, always important to look beyond that, as we are in all our comments across the House today, and to ask how we can break this cycle of violence in the long term, and that means a two-state solution and a viable sovereign state for Palestinians, which is why we have to continue to work for that.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We should not equate the occupied with the occupier. We should not equate a refugee population of 1.7 million imprisoned in a tiny strip of land with the prison guards. We should not equate terrorists firing rockets with a supposedly civilised state systematically killing women and children and elderly and disabled people. Will the Secretary of State accept that if his and other western Governments fail to discriminate between the actions of Hamas and Israel, hundreds of Palestinian civilians will continue to die and the annexation of Palestine by Israel will continue?

[Mr Hague]

I do not see it as a matter of discrimination or failure to discriminate. I think we all agree across the House that there is in the end only one solution to this—not the military solution, but a successful peace process as the shadow Foreign Secretary and others have said. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the responsibilities of occupiers; the responsibilities of all civilised and democratic states. But we do have to point also to the responsibilities, as I did earlier, of anyone who chooses to launch hundreds of rockets from a densely populated area. They have responsibilities, too.

Israeli Teenagers (Abduction and Murder)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

In a sense my hon. Friend makes the case for the reconstitution of the peace process and for everybody in this House doing everything possible to avoid an escalation and to get both parties back to the negotiating table. The death toll on both sides throughout this conflict is appalling. This is merely the latest in a long line of incidents that has tried to derail the peace process, and it proves once and for all that there is no future in violence and underlines the importance of getting both parties back to the table.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Israeli ex-combatants organisation Breaking the Silence responded to these murders by saying:

“We all bow our heads in mourning for the victims from both sides in the past weeks, in the hope for an end to this cycle of bloodshed and occupation.”

Does the Minister agree that that is the right response—that we should send our condolences to Israeli and Palestinian dead and their families—and that, particularly given what the Prime Minister of Israel has said about retaliation, we should stress to all sides that retaliation and escalation are not the way forward?

[Hugh Robertson]

In a sense the hon. Gentleman makes a point that many others have made. As I have said, it is crucial that any reaction is targeted very precisely at the perpetrators, and further bloodshed is not the way to resolve this situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

It is absolutely clear that those Palestinian entities involved in the peace process are indeed speaking with one voice. It is clear, however—I suspect that this is what lies behind my hon. Friend’s question—that there is a very considerable difference between the Palestinian authorities engaged in those processes and the authorities in Gaza. I would call on those authorities in Gaza to make it clear that they deplore terrorist activities of all sorts.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

When hon. Members raise the issue of, say, trade with illegal settlements, the Government say that they do not want to upset the peace talks, but 4,000 settlements have been announced—800 last week—and those are destabilising the peace talks. What are the Government going to do about that in order to support the peace talks?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—it will, of course, be a great pleasure.

As I said in my answer to the previous question, I look forward to my initial visit to the region next week. The concerns that my hon. Friend raises will be a topic of much discussion. The encouraging thing is that, for the first time in many years, we are in a process. I encourage both sides to engage in that peace process for the greater good of the country and the region.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

When the Minister visits the region, will he raise with his Israeli counterparts why Israel is the only country in the world that systematically tries children in military courts, and why about a quarter of the children currently in custody are held in Israel, which is also contrary to international law?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, I will do so. As I have said, the Foreign Office helped to fund Baroness Scotland’s excellent report into many of the issues surrounding child detainees. We not only funded that report, but entirely support it. During my time as a Minister, I will do everything I can to ensure that its recommendations are properly and correctly implemented.

Middle East Peace Process/Syria and Iran

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, it is. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Combating that trade is in the interests of both countries. I hope that it will be one of the issues of mutual concern that we address at an early stage.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I add my appreciation for the work of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? I think that all Members with an interest in the middle east will acknowledge his complete mastery of his brief, even when they disagreed with the policy that he was defending, on which subject, whatever the Secretary of State is saying to the Israeli Government about withdrawal from the occupied territories, they are not listening. Senior Israeli Ministers said over the summer that they will never allow a Palestinian state, so will the Government take the small step of banning the import of goods from settlements, which the Secretary of State himself is clear are illegal under international law?

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the voluntary guidelines on those imports were introduced by the previous Government and we have continued them and support them. All our efforts in the coming months will be directed at trying to make a success of the negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, so I am not proposing to do anything that cuts across that. The Israelis in those discussions are discussing the creation of a Palestinian state. That is what it is all about—a two-state solution, which means a sovereign, viable Palestinian state and the resolution of the final status issues, including refugees and borders. Therefore, we must keep our eyes on that main prize and return to the many other issues if the talks do not succeed.

Shaker Aamer

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) for raising this issue and for her work in supporting Shaker Aamer’s family, which she has done consistently since she was elected. She has done all she can to raise his case, including through conversations with me at the Foreign Office.

I also acknowledge the work of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), whom parliamentary convention prevents from speaking in the debate. He has been an advocate and a concerned Member of Parliament for other parts of the family. We fully appreciate his presence and the reasons why he cannot speak. I also thank colleagues who have made interventions and speeches during the debate.

I will do my best to deal with as many of the questions that have been raised as possible. I would like to put some remarks on the record first and then to deal with some of the issues that have been raised in questions. I will not be able to deal with all the questions. Some refer to confidential discussions we have with the United States, which we cannot go into. Some deal with intelligence matters, which no Government discuss in public. I do not have the answers to one or two of the questions with me, including some of those asked by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I thought I might deal with her list of questions by writing to her and putting a copy of the letter in the Library so that other Members can see it. However, let me deal as best as I can with some of the issues that have been raised.

For absolute clarity, let me say that the Government’s consistent position is no different from that of our predecessor. It is the long-standing policy of the Government that we should seek the release and return of those UK nationals and former legal residents who have been held at Guantanamo Bay and, in so doing, assist the US Administration in their efforts to close the detention facility. There is no change in Government policy; our policy is to support efforts in the United States to close Guantanamo and to seek the return of UK residents and nationals—that now comes down to Mr Shaker Aamer.

As Members will be aware, Shaker Aamer was part of an exceptional request in 2007 by the then Foreign Secretary for the release and return of all former legal UK residents held in Guantanamo Bay. Securing the release and return of Mr Aamer, the last remaining former British legal resident, remains a high priority for the Government. It remains the Government’s understanding that Mr Aamer has only ever been cleared for transfer, and not release. The US authorities have not charged him with any crime, and nor do they intend to prosecute him. It is the Government’s belief that it is Mr Aamer’s wish to return to the United Kingdom to be reunited with his wife and family. We therefore continue to make it clear to the US that seeing Mr Aamer released and returned to the United Kingdom is a priority for us.

Mr Aamer’s case has been repeatedly raised by the Foreign and Defence Secretaries with their US counterparts. That level of engagement has been undertaken on the understanding that the US Secretaries of Defence and State, in consultation with the director of national intelligence, have the authority to affect Mr Aamer’s release and return. It is the Government’s intention to raise Mr Aamer’s case with new office holders as soon as is practical. In support of that ministerial level engagement, I raised Mr Aamer’s case with Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns just a week ago last Monday, at a face-to-face meeting in Washington. In addition, senior officials continue to discuss Mr Aamer’s case with their US counterparts.

Despite the high level of public and parliamentary interest in Mr Aamer’s case, it remains necessary for the Government to keep the details of diplomatic discussions with the United States Administration confidential. Any breach of their expectation of confidentiality would likely hinder UK efforts to secure Mr Aamer’s release and return. Confidentiality aside, we welcome the continued engagement of Members of the House who share our common vision to see Mr Aamer returned to his family in the United Kingdom. We remain committed to offering assistance to those parliamentarians who wish to raise his case directly with figures in the United States. We also welcome the degree of interest from the public and the signing of the petition, which led directly to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea raising this issue today.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister is absolutely sincere in what he is trying to do. I appreciate what he says about confidentiality. A lot of constituents regularly raise this matter with me, and they cannot understand why, given the special relationship with the United States, it is not possible to get a more positive response. Is there anything further the Minister can say about the reasons he is being given by US officials?

[Alistair Burt]

Let me deal with that when I respond to the remarks and questions from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on that subject. There is a limited amount I can say, because, ultimately, it is the United States that is holding Mr Aamer, not us. There is only so much we know about the reasons, but I will say a little more about that later.

I reiterate that the Government continue to support President Obama’s commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. We understand the requirement for detainee transfers and releases to satisfy US legislation. Previous legislation passed by the United States Congress—namely, the 2011 National Defence Authorisation Act—all but precluded transfers out of Guantanamo Bay. That legislation was renewed by the US Government for 2012 in largely the same terms, but it allowed for the US Secretary of Defence to exercise a waiver should stringent conditions be met.

Despite our best endeavours, Mr Aamer was not released in 2012. Indeed, no detainees were released from Guantanamo Bay in 2012. The National Defence Authorisation Act was renewed in January 2013. All Guantanamo Bay detainees cleared for transfer or release now require a waiver under the Act before they can be transferred or released from the detention facility, regardless of their destination country. The Government continue to work with US counterparts to consider the implications of the NDAA 2013 for Mr Aamer’s release. Notwithstanding that, any decision regarding Mr Aamer’s release ultimately remains in the hands of the United States Government. I will have a little more to say about that in a moment.

Let me deal briefly with welfare issues and then return to some of the questions colleagues raised in the debate. We continue to take concerns about Mr Aamer’s welfare very seriously. The US Department of Defence has confirmed to us that Mr Aamer is participating in the current hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay. Notwithstanding that, the US authorities have assured us that he is in a stable condition, that he is not in solitary confinement and that he is being offered medical treatment. In addition, the FCO has asked the US Department of Defence substantively to respond to specific allegations that have been made. We have no reason not to believe the welfare assurances we have been given by United States authorities. I should add that the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to Guantanamo detainees.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I cannot accept the premise of the question that nothing is done in relation to this long-standing and deeply divisive issue. The United Kingdom has been a supporter of the Palestinian Authority and of its work towards statehood. We have condemned the possibility of settlements arising in new areas of East Jerusalem, we have condemned settlement building in East Jerusalem, and we continue to take the view that settlements are illegal and an obstruction to peace. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said during the course of these questions, this year must be definitive in making progress on both sides, so that the context of a secure Israel next to a viable Palestinian state becomes a reality before that window is lost and the situation becomes even more grave.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister rightly condemns illegal settlements, administrative detention and the demolition of Palestinian homes, but it appears that he cannot do very much. What he can do something about is the import of illegal goods from those settlements, which are running at eight times the level of imports from all Palestinians, as a recent report called “Trading Away Peace”, with which I believe he is familiar, by 22 non-governmental organisations, said. Will he now take steps to prevent the import of goods from illegal settlements to the UK?

[Alistair Burt]

We continue to work with European partners on the possibility of extending voluntary labelling so that people can make their choices. We do not believe in a boycott of goods, but we believe in clear labelling so that people can see where goods have come from. We are certainly keen to ensure that no goods from settlement areas find their way into the European Union by being labelled as Israeli, and we are determined to ensure that that does not happen.

Hazara Community (Pakistan)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity to have this debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and a number of others may be able to participate, given the time at which we are starting. I am also grateful that the Minister is in his place to respond on what is obviously a busy day for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, given the visit of President Hamid Karzai and President Asif Ali Zardari. That visit makes this a timely debate—I will return to that point in a few moments.

On the Wednesday before last, I and a number of colleagues from across the House helped to organise a lobby of Parliament by members of the British Hazara community. That was the week in which many right hon. and hon. Members were signing the memorial book for Holocaust memorial day. That event asks us all each year to be aware that genocidal persecution on religious and ethnic grounds is not simply an appalling past event but an ever-present danger that we have to be aware of. The persecution of the Hazara community, in Quetta and other parts of Balochistan, is undoubtedly persecution for religious and ethnic reasons—it bears those strong hallmarks—and that is the issue I want to raise today.

The last time this matter was raised on the Adjournment was in a debate led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) on 1 March last year. The Minister responded to that debate too. I am sure that when he speaks the Minister will agree that things have not improved for the Hazaras in Quetta since that debate last March.

I do not want to pretend that I have long been aware of the history and plight of Hazaras; the truth is that I was not. Beyond some references to the community in novels such as “The Kite Runner” and an awareness of the small—about 150—but distinctive community in Southampton, of whom I had met a few, I had relatively little knowledge of the Hazara community. As a group, the Hazaras are physically quite distinctive, with somewhat Mongolian looks, and that distinctive appearance has helped to contribute to their vulnerability in Pakistan.

I did not know a great deal about the history and the plight of the Hazara community until a group of my constituents came to see me earlier this year. The story they told me truly appalled me. Theirs is a long history, and I will not attempt to rehearse it here tonight. Suffice it to say that the community originated in central Asia, in the Afghan central highlands. The Hazaras converted to Shi’a Islam in the 13th century, and while the majority remain Shi’a, there are now Sunnis, Ismailis and secular members of the community.

Persecution of the Hazara community by Afghan rulers started, I am afraid, under the British Empire, and it has been a consistent problem in Afghanistan ever since. Many Hazaras have left Afghanistan, and over 100 years ago many settled in and around Quetta, which in due course became part of Pakistan. We are all familiar with the recent waves of refugees from Afghanistan to Pakistan, some of whom have eventually made their way here, where they have sought and been granted asylum.

However, the Hazaras that I am talking about today are part of that much longer-established community in Quetta who are not refugees but Pakistani citizens. For a long time, they lived free from persecution in Quetta, thriving educationally and economically. As citizens, they are entitled to full support from the Pakistani state. Since the late 1990s, however, their situation has changed dramatically. The killings started in 1999. Since then, more than 1,000 Hazaras have been killed in Quetta, 3,000 or more have been injured, and 55,000 or so have been forced to flee to Europe or Australia. All of those came from a population of between 500,000 and 600,000.

The perpetrators are a banned Sunni militant al-Qaeda-affiliated group called Lashkar-e-Jhangvi—the LEJ. The Taliban and the LEJ have both issued fatwas against the Hazaras. After the recent violence, an LEJ spokesman was reported as saying that the Hazaras had been warned in 2012 that they should leave Balochistan, the province in which Quetta sits, and that as many had not done so, the LEJ will not allow Shi’as to leave alive in 2013.

That is the background to the dreadful bombing in Quetta on 10 January this year. The death toll was well above 100, and more than 120 people were injured. One of my reasons for seeking this debate is that although that incident was widely reported on television and radio and in the press, the reporting rarely gave any context to the violence, which was generally reported as simply another bomb attack in Pakistan. Some reports alluded to a generalised struggle between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. The few that even mentioned the Hazaras did not explain their history, the background to their situation or the agency of their persecution. One of the reasons for having this debate is to put on public record at least some of that background, and to challenge some of the myths.

One such myth is that the persecution is a manifestation of some generalised Sunni-Shi’a conflict that has manifested itself from time to time in regional tensions in other parts of the middle east. I do not believe that that is the case. It is clear from the targets of the violence and from the death toll that the violence is directed at just one distinctive community within the wider Shi’a community. I understand that the Hazaras of Quetta are 33 times more likely to be killed by political violence than members of the wider Shi’a community in Pakistan. That constitutes a focus on a particular religious and ethnic group.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. As he has said, this constitutes not only religious but ethnic cleansing, and the figures that he has given the House are stark. Is he aware that, despite the 1,000 deaths, the local government in Pakistan—which, fortunately, has now been disbarred by the Pakistani Government—has not brought a single charge against anyone for the offences, and that not one member of that government has ever condemned any of the atrocities?

[Mr Denham]

One of the most serious problems is that there has been no acceptance of responsibility by the Pakistani authorities of the kind that we would expect in a serious situation such as this. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what representations Her Majesty’s Government have been able to make to the Pakistani authorities on this matter.

The problem with the ill-informed, shallow or sweeping reporting that we have seen is that it tends to obscure the real causes of the violence and to obscure the responsibilities. It allows the incidents to be shrugged off as though that is “just the way things are”. Since 1990, the violence has included ride-by and drive-by shootings, personal attacks, suicide bombings, rocket attacks and car bombs, as well as the ambushing of buses and taxis and the subsequent selection of Hazara passengers for execution.

This is not the first time that my constituents have alerted me to what has happened to their relatives. Under the last Government, I took constituents who had family in the Swat valley in Pakistan to meet Lord Malloch-Brown, then a Foreign Office Minister, to alert him to the violence being carried out by the Pakistan Taliban. My constituents had come to me with stark examples of what had happened to members of their families in the recent past. I shall not give the House details of names, as family members might suffer as a result, but I have received clear documentation of constituents who had seen family members—male breadwinners—singled out for murder in three separate incidents over the past three years. The effects of that are devastating for the entire family. In a country with little in the way of a social security system, the loss of a male breadwinner has an impact on every member of the extended family.

There are wider consequences too. The Hazaras in Quetta have to live in isolation from other Pakistani citizens, not least because those other citizens fear being caught up in the violence. They suffer travel restrictions, and virtually all the Hazara students in Quetta have dropped out of university, following attacks on student transport. Hazara people have also faced difficulty in accessing civil service jobs. As has already been pointed out, however, not a single terrorist has yet been prosecuted. On the rare occasions when individuals have been arrested, they have been released. The provincial governor has been replaced, but little action seems to have been taken as yet.

The failure of the Pakistan authorities to safeguard the Hazara community is surely beyond doubt, but concerns remain about a much more sinister involvement. It is alleged that the intelligence services, the Inter-Services Intelligence, sections of which have a history of involvement with extremist forces, have links in some ways to the LEJ. I want to put it on record that I do not know whether such links are documented or what the strength of the evidence is, but the concerns about those potential connections are widely shared among those I have spoken to.

There are complicated provincial politics in Balochistan, involving not only the movements I have mentioned. The province is also tied up in the wider regional conflict, and there have been separatist movements and movements calling for autonomy. Many Hazaras believe that they have been caught up as innocent victims in the wider geo-politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) for allowing me to trespass on his debate for what I hope will be only a couple of moments.

Hazaras do not stand out from the rest of the population of Hammersmith. I was not well acquainted with them until I was introduced to the local Hazara community, and before that I would not have distinguished them from the Afghanistan, Mongolian and south Asian minorities in my constituency. Sadly for them, however, they do stand out in Pakistan, and they have been victimised to an extent that cannot be overemphasised.

I want to make two points to the Minister. First, what is intended by the alliance between the LEJ, sections of the Taliban and, possibly, sections of the security services is nothing short of genocide. A threatening letter issued last year told Hazaras in Quetta:

“Just as our fighters have waged a successful jihad against the Shia-Hazaras in Afghanistan, our mission”

—in Pakistan—

“is the abolition of this impure sect and people”.

Last August, a report from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan stated:

“Hazaras have been…uprooted from Machh, Loralai and Zhob. It seems a campaign has been launched to terrorize the Hazara community so that they leave Quetta by selling their businesses and property at throwaway prices. Pamphlets have been left at their homes telling them to sell their houses and leave.”

That sustained and organised campaign of murder and aggression led to the appalling snooker hall bombings of 10 January—the second bomb was designed to kill those who had come to save the victims of the first—and the harrowing sight, which I think we all saw on the news, of the bodies of the dead remaining unburied, and of relatives waiting with the coffins for three days, in sub-zero temperatures, to make public the plight of the whole community. In the end, it was that, and only that, which embarrassed the Pakistani Government and the Prime Minister enough to make them step in and impose governor’s rule in the province over the—I do not think that this is an exaggeration—gimcrack Government who had behaved in the way I have described.

Yes, there is effective military rule at present, and yes—thank God—there have been no more atrocities; but no one believes that the security situation has been resolved. Military rule is not the solution in the longer term. The Hazaras do not want that any more than anyone else. They simply want to live in peace in their own country, with their neighbours, as they did for so many decades. That is an obligation for the Pakistani Government, and it is an obligation that I hope the Minister will address in his response to my right hon. Friend’s points. I hope the Minister will tell us how the British Government can help the Hazara population—the diaspora in this country and elsewhere, but principally those in Pakistan—to secure what they want, which is simply the ability to live in peace and security in their own homes.