Shaker Aamer

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

It may say two things. The first—it saddens me to say this—is that President Obama may not be in complete control of his own country. After all, he promised to close down Guantanamo early on but then did not do so, at great political cost to himself and, indeed, to his moral standing. Secondly, when it comes down to it, America puts its own interests far ahead of those of any other country. That is the doctrine of American exceptionalism, which in one sense is understandable because it is based on freedom, but in another sense it leads to the almost colonial treatment of its allies. If that is the case, it is deplorable. As America’s longest-standing and strongest ally, we should expect special treatment, but we have clearly not been given it in this case.

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

Looking at the morality of this case, and bearing in mind the fact that America—and Britain, for that matter—have lectured the world on democracy and justice, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not a very good example of American justice to have a person spend 13 years in prison without ever being charged with anything and being tortured? What does that say about the west, given the way in which we look at the rest of the world, and particularly the middle east?

[Mr Davis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which goes to the heart of what I was about to say in conclusion.

One of the great dimensions of our soft power in the world, which I used to come across all the time as a British Foreign Minister, was the expectation that we would behave differently from others and that we would not fall to the standards of the Soviet Union or of other totalitarian states. We were paid more attention as a result of that. It was less true of America, but it was true none the less. This whole exercise—involving Shaker Aamer, Binyam Mohamed and a whole series of others—shows that we have dropped from those high standards. We have fallen from the grace in which public opinion held us. Indeed, by behaving like the guy in the black hat rather than the guy in the white hat, we have essentially done what al-Qaeda would have liked us to do.

That is why I say that we have a duty to our own citizens in this matter just as much as we have a duty to Shaker Aamer. We are letting our citizens down as well as letting him down. We are betraying the standards that millions died to protect in two world wars over the past century, and we are increasing the risk of terrorism because this situation legitimises the kind of barbarous behaviour that we have seen too much of in the past few years. I shall finish by joining the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in asking the Minister to give an undertaking that we will redouble our efforts and not give up until Shaker Aamer is returned to his family.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

We do not have plans to take that step at this stage, but I assure my hon. Friend that we raise the matter regularly—indeed, the Minister for Europe raised it with the Russian ambassador only last week. I am going to Kiev later this week, and we will continue to work with the Ukrainians to try to secure the release of those two Ukrainians, as well as the Estonian border guard who was captured by the Russians six months ago.

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

7. What reports he has received on displacement of Bedouin in southern Israel.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

9. What representations he has made on the potential demolition of the village of Umm al-Hiran in Negev.

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

We are deeply concerned about proposals to demolish Bedouin villages. We are monitoring the situation closely, including talking regularly to organisations that work with those communities.

[Mr Cunningham]

In an earlier answer to an Opposition Member, the Foreign Secretary said that we were talking only about buildings in relation to the peace process. He forgot to say that in order to facilitate the peace process, we have to get people out of those buildings, and that is the big issue. May I push the Minister a little further? There are a number of impending demolitions of villages to make way for Israeli settlements. Will the Minister discuss that issue with the Israeli Government, urge them to reconsider the upcoming evictions and demolitions due for next month, and instead consider villages co-existing side by side in the spirit of peace?

[Mr Ellwood]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the displacement issues in southern Israel, and the potential demolition of the Umm al-Hiran villages, are not in the occupied Palestinian territories but in green line Israel. That is a slightly separate debate or concern—if I can put it that way—to the illegal settlements that have been put forward, but nevertheless we are concerned and are having a dialogue with Israel about that.

Tamil People in Sri Lanka

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. May I ask everyone’s forgiveness as, perhaps to a lot of people’s delight, I am losing my voice, so I might not speak for as long as I would normally?

The timing of the debate is opportune, because the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), is in Sri Lanka as we speak. He arrived this morning and is staying until Friday. Perhaps some of what we discuss will be relayed to the new Sri Lankan Government.

On behalf of everyone, whatever our political party, we should offer an apology to the Tamil community of Sri Lanka for what has happened over the years. Many people, including Government and Opposition Members, said that atrocities were taking place. Sadly, however well meaning people were and however much they wanted to act, those words were not listened to, and many thousands of innocent lives were lost, which should never have happened. The House of Commons as a whole—although I can speak only for myself, not the whole House—should say sorry for that, although we cannot replace the lives that have been lost.

Following the recent elections in Sri Lanka, we have seen a change from President Rajapaksa to President Sirisena. I am concerned, however, that the new Government of Sri Lanka have stated that they will not change the policy towards the Tamil community in Sri Lanka or demilitarise the areas in which Tamil people live.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point because the new President was a member of the previous Government. We have not yet seen any indications of what the new President intends to do, or whether he intends to end harassment and torture. Will the hon. Gentleman comment about that?

[Mr Scott]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The new President was a member of the same party as his predecessor. He then changed parties and stood against the previous President, and some of the things that have happened early in his presidency are of concern. For example, General Sarath Fonseka, who is named as an alleged war criminal by the United Nations panel of experts—it is the UN saying that, not us—is now an important senior member of the new Government, so I have grave concerns that the names are changing, but the policies are staying the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Scott]

The Minister needs to say, “Please honour what the UN, the Prime Minister of Britain on his visit to Sri Lanka, the President of America and various other Heads of State have asked for.”

There is only one way in which there can be justice. I emphasise, as I have in many previous debates, that my role is not to say who is guilty or innocent, but we need answers about those people who lost their lives and who disappeared, and someone needs to be held accountable. The only ones who can help that to happen are the Government of Sri Lanka, in co-operation with an international independent inquiry and the UN.

Another important factor is that a report is due out shortly. My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), as well as many others, have said to me that they do not want to see any delay in the report that is due before the UN in the coming weeks. It is quite possible that the new Government of Sri Lanka will ask for such a delay and, on the surface, it might appear unreasonable for people such as me and my colleagues to ask for that report not to be delayed, because a delay would give the new Government a chance to co-operate. Unless they are going to co-operate fully and abide by every single rule asked of them, however, I cannot see the point of any delay. The report should be published in Geneva on schedule.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The new Government will be aware of that report anyway, so there is no need for a delay. They would have been aware of the report even before they took power.

[Mr Scott]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct that the new Government would have been aware of the report.

Only a political solution that recognises the rights of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, including that to self-determination, can address the root cause of the conflict. The Sri Lankan constitution already provides for an autonomous assembly, much as Scotland or Wales has in the United Kingdom. That assembly should be given to the Tamils. People should have power over their own destinies. I am calling not for changes to the existing constitution, but for people to honour the existing constitution.

The change in Sri Lanka’s political leadership should create a chance for the accountability process to work and help those who need justice. It should not be used as an excuse to delay that justice further and kick it into the long grass. I am fairly sure that with everything else going on in the world, the Sri Lankan Government hope that the issue will quietly go away and that people will forget about it. However, I assure the Sri Lankan Government that many Members of this House—look at the numbers present for the debate—will not forget and allow the matter to disappear. We are seeking justice for those people who no longer have a voice.

Yesterday morning, I stood in silence at the holocaust memorial, where we recognised the victims of not only Nazi persecution, but other genocides that have taken place throughout the world since the end of the second world war. I am afraid to say—it gives me no pleasure to say this—that genocide has happened. We cannot pretend that it has not happened. We are not talking about a war in which a regime tried to stop terrorism—I am the first to condemn terrorism in any shape or form by anyone—but about the women and children who disappeared, and the people who were in camps for year after year. Were they terrorists? No sane-minded person would say that they were.

The justice that is deserved and needed can be achieved only through pressure from the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, France and every country—I could go on and on. Sri Lanka must heed the call of our Prime Minister and co-operate fully with the UN investigation on Sri Lanka by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Sri Lanka must also sign the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court, to which 123 states are party, including the United Kingdom, to demonstrate its intent to be a good global citizen.

Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate, which no doubt will be watched closely here in London, in Beijing and in Hong Kong. The fact that this is only the fifth debate under Standing Order No. 24 to be granted in this Parliament shows the seriousness with which the House takes this issue and demonstrates a clear and strongly held concern that stretches right across party lines.

I share that concern. The decision to refuse the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee—all of whom, bar one, have been present this afternoon—entry into Hong Kong as part of their inquiry is wholly unjustified, counter-productive and, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) and others reminded us, unprecedented. It is also not consistent with the positive trend in UK-China relations over the past year and does not reflect the fact that the UK and China have considerable shared interests in respect of Hong Kong. Nor is it in the spirit of the Sino-British joint declaration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), the Chair of the FAC, said, the declaration was signed in good faith in 1984 by the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the then Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang. It is lodged at the United Nations and still remains central to Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms.

The Chinese Government have made clear their opposition to the FAC inquiry on the basis of what they say is “interference” in China’s internal affairs. I am aware of the efforts of the FAC to establish a constructive dialogue with the Chinese embassy and the Hong Kong Trade Office, and the British Government have repeatedly explained to the Chinese authorities that Parliament is completely independent of the Government. As the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) rightly reminded us, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, as a Committee of this House, is also rightly completely independent of Government. The FAC inquiry scrutinised UK Government policy towards Hong Kong. Indeed, that is clear from its title: “The UK’s relations with Hong Kong: 30 years after the Joint Declaration”. It is the Committee’s role in our democracy to hold the Government to account.

I have made clear to the Chinese ambassador on more than one occasion that the Government would not and could not try to prevent the Committee’s inquiry or its visit to Hong Kong. There are numerous precedents for the FAC visiting Hong Kong—in 1998, 2000 and 2006, each time engaging with the broad range of society in a wholly constructive spirit. When I met Guo Yezhou, Vice-Minister of the Communist party international liaison department yesterday morning, I repeated my concerns. I pointed out again that barring the Committee from Hong Kong is unjustified and, as the Prime Minister has said, “counter-productive”. What is more, it runs counter to the positive trajectory in our bilateral relations over the past year, which have witnessed a welcome increase in dialogue, mutual respect and understanding.

It is perfectly reasonable for Members of Parliament to want to visit Hong Kong as they scrutinise the British Government’s policy and quite properly hold us to account over it. Barring them from going simply makes it more difficult for them to hear from all sides in order to make an accurate and fair assessment—a point well made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), a former Foreign Secretary.

In a little over two weeks, we will mark the 30th anniversary of the Sino-British joint declaration on the question of Hong Kong, which set out arrangements for the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong to China under the “one country, two systems” principle. It is, as its name implies, a joint declaration to which both parties made a solemn commitment. As a co-signatory, the United Kingdom has both a legal interest and a moral obligation in the monitoring and implementation of that treaty—a treaty that enshrined a high degree of autonomy and basic rights and freedoms for the people of Hong Kong. These are at the heart of Hong Kong’s way of life, and it is vital that they are fully upheld.

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

One thing the Minister might like to mention to the Chinese ambassador, or for that matter to any Chinese delegation on Hong Kong, is that in the early ’70s when China was not popular with the Nixon Administration, Coventry city council made visits to China and started to link up with the country, which resulted in trade deals.

[Mr Swire]

Indeed, and there are many Members who have dedicated their parliamentary careers to furthering relations with China.

EU Reform

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir William Cash]

I understand that point and my hon. Friend has made it to me before. All I can say is that it depends on the structure being created and the irreversibility established by the treaties themselves as put into legislation. As I shall explain in a moment, the consequence of the existing structure is to create an imbalance in favour of Germany and a disadvantage for the United Kingdom in several areas. That is what we must evaluate because we want a peaceful and stable Europe; unfortunately, however, what is happening now is creating instability, and I believe the European Union as it was conceived will ultimately be undermined. Our parliamentary system is the bulwark of the liberty and democracy that saved us and Europe. That is no anachronism today.

The problem we now face in an increasingly assertive German Europe is one increasingly at odds with British national interests. For me, that was one of the mainsprings of the Maastricht rebellion and it has been exacerbated by successive treaties, including Lisbon—against which, notably, the Conservative party was united.

The situation is getting worse. For example, we are told that the single market is the prime reason, or certainly one of the prime reasons, for our engagement in the European project. Although more than 40% of our trade is with Europe, our trade deficit with the other 27 member states is £56 billion, whereas the German surplus with the same member states is £51.8 billion. At the same time, we have a substantial surplus with the rest of the world with the same goods and services. I fundamentally disagree with the CBI’s analysis.

A host of individual problems give rise to concern—for example, the regulatory system in the City of London. I wrote about that in the Financial Times, warning the City against the consequences, and we have lost case after case in the European Court of Justice. There is the ports regulation, opposed by port employers and the trade unions. There is the change in the patent courts system. There is the lack of a reciprocal policy of liberalisation in relation to energy, professional services and other matters. There is over-regulation, particularly of small businesses, on which no substantial progress is ever made, and which is calculated to cost about 4% of EU GDP.

The effect on our economy is deep. Our growth is being dragged down by the sclerotic eurozone, whose problems in many countries, such as Italy and Greece, are blamed on German currency and export manipulation.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the single market. Logic says that anyone signing up to a single market gets a central bank and a single currency. Surely the horse has bolted. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Labour party that gave the British people a referendum and the five economic tests.

[Sir William Cash]

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s second point about the referendum; I have never disputed that. Far from it—it was an extremely good thing, although back then it was about a kind of Europe different from the one we are now experiencing.

I voted for the Single European Act, but I tabled an amendment to preserve the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. If that amendment had been allowed for debate, which it was not, it would have changed the whole nature of the matter. I was strongly supported by Enoch Powell, who understood that if we were to have a single market that did not work, the only way to retrieve the situation would be through some form of “notwithstanding” formula of the sort I have returned to over and again in subsequent years.

German economic policy is obsessed with fiscal discipline and large current account surpluses. Without the euro, currency adjustments would control Germany’s ability to export cheaply. German economic efficiency, combined with the single currency, allows for artificially cheap German exports at the expense of Mediterranean countries, which can deflate their currencies to offset cheap German goods, drawing money and jobs north and leaving the southern Governments unable to finance their deficits through economic growth.

German insistence on fiscal discipline is, as Wolfgang Munchau made clear in yesterday’s Financial Times, ideological and a deeply held response to the crisis of the 1930s. The result will be the destruction of the Mediterranean export economies while simultaneously deepening the damage through austerity on a massive scale. An attempt to impose German-style labour laws and fiscal discipline on those countries will fail and will not bring the required efficiency to compete with Germany.

The eurozone, which is dominated by Germany, is a disaster, as is increasingly recognised publicly by some of my Labour colleagues, and it seriously damages our economy. Furthermore, although we are told that consensus is the norm, the political consequences of the present treaties mean that, as of 1 November this year, the majority voting system in the EU Council of Ministers has been profoundly changed, subject only to a compromise transitional arrangement called the Ioannina compromise.

Germany and France with two small states can now effectively determine European decision making. The consensus is insufficiently transparent and is achieved primarily because the member states know the outcome of a given vote, which in any case does not sufficiently correspond to our concerns. In my European Scrutiny Committee, we have been very critical of how Coreper functions and the manner in which we are unable to achieve our objectives. We also have some critical things to say about UKRep.

Indeed, VoteWatch Europe has demonstrated that when the UK has voted between 2009 and 2012, it has done so in favour with the majority of member states in 90% of all votes. That strongly suggests that most European Commission proposals go through in practice. Therefore, the change in the voting system will tend to affect British interests increasingly adversely.

Professor Roland Vaubel of Mannheim university has examined the voting system and argued that the outcome is one of regulatory collusion, favouring Germany in particular. One must recognise that Germany makes a very substantial net contribution—£13 billion in 2013 compared with our £8.6 billion, although our contribution is rising. In return, Germany now acquires disproportionate advantages under the voting system and through its economic influence in Mitteleuropa.

In his speech in Berlin on 13 November, John Major reinvoked the concept of subsidiarity and he did so again on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday. He said that subsidiarity is the answer and that we must

“nail it down as a matter of European law”.

I do not know which planet John Major has been living on since Maastricht, but that is already a matter of EU law. When he promoted subsidiarity in the Maastricht treaty, I described it as a con trick. In my 30 years on the European Scrutiny Committee, I have never come across a single example of the direct application of subsidiarity. Even John Major now reports its failure, and his speech in Berlin was a catalogue of the failures of his European policy at Maastricht.

The European Union is not an abstract concept. It is about the daily lives of our voters, to whom we are directly accountable, across a vast range of matters. The list of chapters in the consolidated treaties sets out the immense impact that the European Union now has on us all.

The European Scrutiny Committee, of which I was elected Chairman in 2010, argued strongly and unanimously in November 2013 that the Government should reintroduce the veto. We were promised that the veto would never be abandoned when the White Paper was issued in 1971; that was the basis of our voluntary acceptance of the treaties by our Parliament in the passing of the European Communities Act 1972, yet so many other additional competences have been added since. That paper described the veto as being in our vital national interest, and stated that to abandon it would even endanger “the very fabric” of the European Community itself. Somebody out there understood where all this could lead, as it has.

The Prime Minister, to his credit, did veto the fiscal compact, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) will remember a conversation that we had with him shortly beforehand. My Committee proposed the application of the formula

“notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”

to our Westminster legislation when it is in our national interest to do so. We could thereby override European laws and the European Court of Justice when necessary, as we can and should, under our own flexible constitutional arrangements unique to the United Kingdom among the 28 member states, thus regaining our right to govern ourselves in matters of vital national interest.

Those proposals were rejected by the Government, which shows how weak our negotiating stance really is in relation to the need to change fundamentally our relationship with the EU in the interests of our parliamentary democracy and the needs of our voters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

That is completely right. We need a different relationship with the EU as a whole that also includes the eurozone, because the eurozone, which is causing so much of the dislocation in Europe, is dominated by Germany, and the German financial and fiscal policies, which I have described already, have that enormous impact in destabilising the eurozone.

This is where I really part company with statements made by some members—senior members—of our Government. I am referring to the consequences of the eurozone. We were told at the time when it was evolving, with the banking union and all the rest of it, that it was, in effect, a natural course of events that we could not prevent. Actually, it has created the very instability that is most likely to lead to the destruction of the European Union itself. That is the problem. It is not just a negative view that I am trying to put across; it is the fact that it is destabilising Europe. It is creating problems of a kind that can get completely out of control, with catastrophic consequences not only for this country but for Europe as a whole. That is why the argument that I am seeking to advance is that actually this is a real problem for Europe as a whole. It is not anti-European to be pro-democracy.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

It was remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on acquiring the debate. I know the views that he has held over many years. My point is this. During the last economic downturn, the Germans, for example, did not dictate British economic policy; it may be argued that British economic policy was dictated to Europe. I do not see the hon. Gentleman’s logic. If he feels that the European market as it is constructed now is causing major problems in Europe, why should we pull out of that situation, rather than rebalancing Europe? That is what I do not understand about the argument that he is making.

[Sir William Cash]

The short answer to that is that we do not need to be in the European Union to trade with Europe, because it needs us—for example, in relation to Germany’s export of cars—on a monumental scale. I have already given the figures for the surplus that Germany runs with the other 27 member states. Furthermore, we have a global economy to which we can address our economic and trading concerns, and we are achieving a substantial surplus with the rest of the world, selling the same goods and services. What I am arguing is on the balance of judgment as to whether it is in our interest to subordinate our parliamentary system of government and the democracy that goes with it in order to achieve a trading relationship that at best is extremely debatable and, in certain instances, is positively disadvantageous.

Let me turn to the issue of defence, which is so fundamental to our national interest. Unlike John Cleese’s immortal words in “Fawlty Towers”, “Don’t mention the war”, we must never forget the reasons why we were confronted in two successive world wars by unprovoked aggression from Germany. We must look to the greater historic landscape in our mutual interests and we must look to resolve our real differences about the structure as well as individual issues within the EU.

Ten days ago, at a formal conference in Rome under the Lisbon treaty, comprising chairmen of national parliamentary committees for all 28 member states and the European Parliament, the German delegation formally proposed a defence Commissioner and a defence Council of Ministers and reinvoked the idea of an EU military headquarters. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I argued passionately against that, as did the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The British delegation defeated the proposal, but the German delegation insisted that

“it will have to be put back on the agenda at the next conference”

and added ominously that

“Great Britain will simply not be able to maintain their line”.

That harks back to previous German attempts to establish a European defence policy with majority voting and must be repudiated once and for all.

Palestine and Israel

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention. As a friend of Palestine, I earnestly believe that recognition of the state of Palestine is the only way forward, and that it should be the choice of all true friends of Israel. All parties should come together on that basis. Given our commitment to a two-state solution and the fact that an overwhelming majority of 134 nations voted in favour of Palestinian statehood, I was hugely disappointed by our decision to abstain on the issue at the UN General Assembly. We should regret that decision.

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

There were no boundaries when the state of Israel was created, so there should be no prerequisite for the recognition of a Palestinian state.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to make some progress, so that all Members who have expressed a wish to speak have the opportunity to make their own specific points.

The decision that was taken at the UN General Assembly placed Britain not only at odds with the international consensus, but on the wrong side of history. Although this is a cross-party debate—I want to pay tribute to all colleagues from all parts of the House who have supported the motion—I have to say that, as a Labour MP, I was proud when my party opposed the Government's decision and said that the British Government should be willing to support the recognition of Palestinian statehood. I am proud, too, that Labour is supporting today's call to recognise Palestine.

Israeli Teenagers (Abduction and Murder)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend feels that way. Let me be absolutely clear about this: it is utterly unacceptable that people in the Gaza strip fire missiles at Israeli citizens. As he knows, I attended a funeral in January on the edge of the Negev. Precautions had to be taken because we were under threat from missile attacks, which is utterly unacceptable in any way, shape or form. The correct response to the kidnapping and murder of three teenagers is to find the perpetrators and to bring them to justice. We expect exactly the same response in that part of the world as we would find here—no more and no less.

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

Like everyone else, we must condemn the terrible murder of these three teenagers, and the same must apply to Palestinian teenagers as well. I ask the Minister to urge restraint on the Israeli Government, because we have a volatile situation throughout the middle east, and we do not want to give to these terrorist organisations any cause to use the Palestinian-Israeli situation as an excuse for further violence.

[Hugh Robertson]

Absolutely, yes. Everything that we and leaders right the way across the world have done is about ensuring that the reaction to this is properly targeted and—to use that slightly woolly term—proportionate. The key thing is that all the resources are targeted at finding those responsible, but that will clearly not be the case if people are pursuing other agendas. Such a targeted campaign will, I have no doubt, be carried out by the Israeli Government. The Palestinian Authority must play a full part in helping them to achieve that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that was clearly the case when I was there 10 days ago.

Human Rights (North Korea)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to make a contribution to this debate. I commend the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for his introductory remarks, which set the scene clearly. I also commend the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), in anticipation of her speech; I know she will make a vast contribution.

It is always good to come along to debates such as this, because we can remember those in other parts of the world who do not have the freedom that we have in this country. North Korea is certainly a country where freedom is in very short supply and life is cheap. Human rights in North Korea simply do not exist: freedom of association, of worship, of movement and even of thought are all denied. Everything in North Korea is controlled and monitored, and life is not at all the same there as it is in our country. Often in my office we make jokes about dictators, but when we think about the dictator in North Korea we are increasingly aware of how blessed we are to live where we live and have the freedom that we have.

As Jong-un was educated in the west there was a brief hope that he would bring a more modern approach to running North Korea, but that hope has been dashed. A US intelligence assessment published in The Wall Street Journal depicted Jong-un as

“a volatile youth with a sadistic streak who may be even more unpredictable than his late father”.

We thought his late father was bad, but when we look at the suffering now it is manifestly even worse. When we discuss North Korea we have an opportunity to remember those who do not have human rights or even the very basics for life—we must be mindful of those people.

In North Korea now, there is to be no modernisation of thought, but simply of warfare, and with the dictator firmly established there are to be no kind of human rights. It is home to the world’s fifth largest army, of 1.2 million soldiers and 8.3 million reservists, and there is a monopoly of state-run media—TV, radio, and the press—that indoctrinates the population with the party’s propaganda. We know of the existence of 14 concentration camps, some of which hold as many as 50,000 prisoners. Some of those people do not even know the crime for which they have been imprisoned, but others know exactly why they are there—it is because of their faith and the fact that they want to tell others of that faith.

The precise number of Christians in North Korea is unknown, but it is estimated that there could be as many as 100,000 or more. Before the communists came to power, numbers were higher but during the Korean war of 1950-53 many fled to South Korea or were martyred in North Korea. Those who remain are forced to hide their faith or face terrible consequences. That is why it is important to make our point today on behalf of those in North Korea.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate. This is about our third discussion in recent months about North Korea and, more broadly, human rights. I would have thought that one of the ways in which the United Nations could exert pressure is through China, which has a big influence on North Korea.

Does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that the images and films of prisoners in North Korea and how they are tortured put us in mind of Bosnia when the Muslims were being persecuted? It amazes me that there is not the same publicity and momentum—I am not talking about invading North Korea—that the west exercised at the time of the Bosnian conflict. That seems to be absent in this case. I wonder why. It is very strange.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is hard to understand what is happening in North Korea. We have seen films about the worst happenings in Germany and the atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda, which we discussed earlier today, and many other parts of the world, but nothing in the world adds up to what happens in North Korea. That is curious.

I attended an eye-opening event with Hae Woo—given my Northern Irish accent, I am not sure whether my pronunciation is correct; we would say “hay” as a matter of terminology back home, but this is someone’s name. The lady’s name was Hae Woo and she made a valuable contribution. We all had the opportunity to hear her testimony about what it is like to live in North Korea and how important it is to have the freedom she now has in South Korea. She has told the rest of the world.

I was interested in what the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire said about the Radio Free Asia programme. I did a couple of interviews on it. I am not sure how my Northern Ireland accent went down in North Korea. I am sure it was challenging for most of them; it is a challenge for people here.

Hae Woo spoke candidly about her horrific experience in a North Korean concentration camp. I spoke to some of the staff in my office and gave them some of the books we had been given on the day. They were illuminating, but hard to read. They told the lady’s story, as well as that of thousands of others who had been beaten, tortured and abused. Those people had had their possessions taken, their children removed and their homes ransacked, all because they had a page from the Bible and were suspected of meeting other Christians.

Sometimes it is hard to understand, given how blessed we are here, what it is like for someone to have no job, no house, no clothes, no family and to be thrown into prison when no one knows where they are and they have no friends. That is reality for those in North Korea.

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

This is a timely debate. I have been contacted by several constituents who are concerned about the oppression of Christians and those of other religions around the world. I am sure that other Members will raise those concerns today. During the recess, I was privileged to attend a speech given by our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, which Al-Arabiya News described as

“a call to save besieged, moderate Islam”.

I very much recommend the speech and hope that it will be read without preconceptions. It was a call to show tolerance towards those of other faiths and none, but not to tolerate those who distort religion and show no tolerance themselves.

I wanted to take part in this debate because it is a timely reminder that this year is the 30th anniversary of an act of religious intolerance that deserves greater attention. I chair the all-party group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The community’s headquarters are in south London and its spiritual head, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, lives in the UK. One of the world’s biggest Ahmadiyya mosques, with a capacity of 10,000, is in Morden, so I have many Ahmadi constituents. They contribute greatly to this country and are well integrated. They live by the motto, “Love for all; hatred for none.” Indeed, their belief in peace and religious tolerance should be an inspiration to us all.

However, in 1984 they were essentially outlawed when Pakistan passed the notorious Ordinance XX, which introduced the anti-Ahmadi laws. For many Britons, this example of religious persecution is simply not on the radar. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community is little known, despite having more than 15,000 mosques and a membership of tens of millions.

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

Representatives of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Coventry visited about six months ago. They do a tremendous amount of charity work. Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Nations could do a lot more to lift this matter up the agenda, because these people, along with Christians, are being persecuted in certain countries around the world?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I entirely agree.

The religion was founded in 1889. It arose out of the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian that he was the long-awaited messiah whose advent was foretold by Mohammed. That puts it at odds with other Muslims who believe that Mohammed was the last prophet. However, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community believes that there are parallels between Ahmad and Jesus, as God sent both to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and bring peace. Indeed, Ahmad taught that “jihad by the sword” has no place in Islam. Instead, he proposed a bloodless, intellectual “jihad of the pen” to defend Islam. Ahmad also warned his followers not to engage in irrational interpretations of the Koran or to misapply Islamic law.

Ahmadis claim to be the only Islamic organisation that endorses a separation of mosque and state and champions the empowerment and education of women. In today’s Britain, we might regard such attitudes as modern, tolerant and secular. However, they are not shared by fundamentalist Muslims, who regard belief in a false prophet as heresy.

Consequently, Ahmadis have long faced persecution, notably in Pakistan, where there have been repeated conflicts since the country’s creation in 1947. By 1974, riots, killings, attacks on mosques, arson and looting had become widespread, and Prime Minister Bhutto amended the constitution to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims. But it was Zia-ul-Haq’s Government in the 1980s that really sought to Islamicise Pakistan’s laws. Thirty years ago this week, his Ordinance XX was introduced to restrict Ahmadi freedom of religion. It means that Ahmadis cannot call themselves Muslim or the place in which they worship a mosque. If they do, they face up to three years in jail. Ahmadis cannot hold public meetings and are unable even to register to vote, because doing so would require them to deny their faith.

Over the last 30 years, thousands of Ahmadis have been arrested, including the entire population of Rabwah—50,000 people—which was charged with practising Islamic worship. The consequence of the persecution is there for all to see. Since 1984, more than 230 Ahmadis have been killed, and nobody has ever been prosecuted for such murders and attacks. Their graveyards are routinely attacked and there are mass rallies calling for them to be killed. Children are harassed in schools and universities, and hit lists against Ahmadis are distributed. The police erase the kalima—the Islamic declaration of faith—from Ahmadi mosques, and have torn down minarets and sealed Ahmadi mosques. These affronts culminated in the Lahore attack four years ago this month, when nearly 100 Ahmadiyya Muslim worshippers were brutally murdered while they were at prayer.

Persecution is an everyday reality for Ahmadis in Pakistan. According to Pakistan’s human rights commission, Ahmadis face the worst treatment of anyone in Pakistan. The media in Pakistan is often horribly anti-Ahmadi, broadcasting phrases like “Ahmadis deserve to die.” In particular, the Khatme Nabuwwat movement carries out regular activities to oppose Ahmadiyya Muslims, incites attacks against them in speeches and broadcasts, and coined the widely used phrase, “wajibul qatl”, which means, “those who deserve to be killed”.

I want to take this opportunity of the 30th anniversary of Ordinance XX to urge the British Government to raise with Pakistan, as a matter of priority, the issue of religious intolerance against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. I am concerned about this because the discrimination against Ahmadis that is embedded in Pakistan’s constitution emboldens militants by giving legitimacy to their intolerance. As the former Foreign Secretary David Miliband said:

“It is when the international community has taken its eye off the ball in Pakistan that instability has increased...Internally, Pakistan has a duty to protect minority groups and needs the support of its allies to do so.”

As Tony Blair argued last week, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to extremism, because any increase in Islamist activities elsewhere only strengthens those with a virulent strain of religious intolerance—and that affects us here in the UK. It is, therefore, in our interests for Britain to work with Pakistan’s Government to persuade them to show more tolerance to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. There have already been reports of intimidation against British Ahmadiyya Muslims. For their sake, and for the sake of freedom of thought, conscience and religion here, we need to support the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan. This is a timely debate. For 30 years, a legitimate religion has been targeted by one of the most populous countries in the world—one that has access to nuclear weapons. It is in none of our interests to stay silent.

Of course, Pakistan is not the only country in which the Ahmadi people are persecuted. In the short time I have available, I should like to refer to Saudi Arabia. Even though this is the most holy country for Muslims, Ahmadis are not permitted to visit Mecca. In fact, they are not allowed to practise their faith at all. I am especially concerned about the treatment of two Ahmadiyya worshippers who, for the past two years, have been held in prison there, without charge, for apostasy. In reality, they are prisoners of conscience who have committed no crime other than religious belief. There is no information about their welfare or status, and the Ahmadiyya community is obviously very concerned about their condition. It also believes that the international community, including Britain, should be doing more to apply pressure to the Saudi Government to cease such breaches of human rights.

This debate has shown that there is a widespread belief that freedom of conscience matters. I hope that Britain will want to lead the way. For the sake of everyone in this country, including the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, that is the right thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I think it is true that the opportunity for a trade deal with a market of more than 500 million people in Europe as a whole is more attractive to United States negotiators than a trade deal with any single European country. Moreover, as my hon. Friend says, any member state that left the European Union would, unless alternative arrangements were negotiated, be abandoning the free trade agreements that the Union had negotiated with other countries around the world.

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

Will the Minister ensure in the negotiations that the multinationals pay their proper tax in this country, notwithstanding some of the things that have happened in the past?

[Mr Lidington]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to applaud vigorously the initiative taken by our Prime Minister through the G8 to try to secure an international agreement on a system whereby all multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, but I am also sure he will accept that that can be realised effectively only on a global basis.