Ukraine

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, have raised important dimensions of the situation, and have drawn attention to problems that need to be gripped. The United Kingdom’s ability to take such action is, of course, very small, and that is another reason why we are exerting pressure for a diplomatic settlement. Unless Russia and Ukraine speak directly about these matters—unless Russia is willing to do so—all these issues will become much worse in the coming days, and will become a growing problem for Russia as well as for Ukraine.

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

What reassurance can the Foreign Secretary give the Ukrainian community in this country who have made such a major contribution over the years, in the pits in some cases? May I also ask whether he thinks that he will be able to secure unity on sanctions, given that Germany, for example, relies on Russia for 30% of its oil and gas?

[Mr Hague]

I think that members of the Ukrainian community in Britain, to whom others have referred, have played a very important role in this country, and this is a moment at which to recognise and applaud that. As the hon. Gentleman will understand from everything that I have said today, they can be assured of the importance that we attach to this issue, and the energy that we will put into assisting the achievement of a peaceful, democratic future for Ukraine.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about sanctions, I have already addressed it several times. It is important for there to be costs and consequences, but it is also important to change, over the long term, the balance of the economic relationship—including the energy relationship—between European nations and Russia, and we will be giving our attention to that.

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I welcome the attitude of many in the Iranian Foreign Ministry to this improvement in the bilateral contact we have been building up over recent months. My hon. Friend understands very well the complex power structure in Iran. At the time that our embassy compounds were invaded in 2011, I doubt very much that this was at the behest of the Iranian Foreign Ministry or with the approval of that ministry. So it is necessary for us to be confident that the Iranian system as a whole is ready to let an embassy fulfil the normal functions of an embassy. Good progress is being made on that, as he has seen for himself. On trade relations, it is very important to uphold existing sanctions, not to send a false signal to Iran that it now need not worry about the economic situation, and the United Kingdom will be careful not to send such a false signal.

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

How does the Foreign Secretary see the implementation of the United Nations resolution on aid to Syria? Surely that will be very difficult to implement.

Sri Harmandir Sahib

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. It has been the culture of the British armed forces for a long time to avoid, wherever possible, civilian loss of life and to minimise casualties in any operations, or anything similar to them, such as those to which he referred. There is therefore a very big distinction between those two operations; he is absolutely right about that. I will not give any information that identifies the officer concerned. My hon. Friend is quite right to refer to the huge contribution of Sikhs—indeed, of Indians, Sikh and non-Sikh—in the world wars. We owe a great deal to them, and we must remember that on many occasions over the coming years, on the centenaries of the main events of the first world war.

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

Given the contribution that the Sikh community has made—not only in Coventry, but nationally and internationally, and, more importantly, economically to this country and in two world wars—at the very least we owe those in that community an inquiry. This investigation is a step in the right direction, but we should have an inquiry. More importantly, will the Foreign Secretary say what the Cabinet knew? Did the Cabinet take the decision to send the adviser? Who consulted the Cabinet?

[Mr Hague]

It is clear from the documents that are published that this was a decision of the Foreign and Defence Secretaries at the time, in consultation with the Prime Minister. That was how the decision was taken. On the subject of inquiries, these are the documents and the facts, as set out in the Cabinet Secretary’s report. There is nothing in that report or in those documents to suggest that some form of inquiry would find any different information or come to any different conclusion.

Elections in Bangladesh

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Shuker]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which has been much debated not just in the House but further afield. The events running up to the election were deeply regrettable. The question whether it was right to press on with the elections will perhaps be left for others to decide—or even for history. Right now, it is vital that the international community takes a lead—as the UK has—in saying that the elections were neither free nor fair and, for that reason, were not right.

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing and leading this debate. Like me, he probably has a large number of people from Bangladesh in his constituency. Obviously, they are extremely concerned about what happens back home, to use an expression, because that can have effects here. The absence of an interim Government to oversee the elections was certainly a major setback in a country that is now moving from third-world status and lifting the living standards of its people. Does he agree with me that the United Nations and other international organisations should put pressure on the Bangladeshi Government to stop harassing and jeering the Opposition?

[Gavin Shuker]

Indeed. In the excellent debate we had in this House a few weeks ago on the political situation in Bangladesh, a recurring theme was concern about human rights abuses and the failure to follow the rule of law adequately in political discussions. It is important to keep that in the forefront of our minds.

Bangladesh

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

People face a daily grind of transport blockades and national strikes, known as hartals, which undermine trade and investment and create fear for those who want to visit family members and relatives, and for those who have trading ties. In recent months, significant numbers of people have lost their lives—we will hear more about that in the debate—and many have been injured. The backdrop of the war crimes tribunal means a great deal of tension and unrest, alongside the unrest in the run-up to the elections. Such turmoil should be of grave concern to the international community. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that there is dialogue and an end to the violence.

Turning to the election, half the seats in the January general election were uncontested. Many have complained that the election process was not, by any standards, free and fair. It is deeply disappointing that a significant proportion of the population did not take part or have confidence in the election. Free and fair elections are an essential component of a functional democracy, and when they do not happen it is a disgrace, not least for Bangladesh, which has such a proud history. According to various reports, some 18 people died as a result of election day violence. According to Human Rights Watch, many innocent civilians, including young children, were caught up in the crossfire of violence in the run-up to the elections and on election day.

The EU High Representative, Baroness Cathy Ashton, said that she

“regrets that the main political forces in Bangladesh have been unable to create the necessary conditions for transparent, inclusive and credible elections, despite many efforts, including most recently under UN auspices…The EU remains nonetheless ready to observe the elections should the political conditions allow for the holding of transparent, inclusive and credible elections.”

It is a source of great regret that that has not happened. We need to move forward and ensure that people have confidence in the electoral process and that change occurs.

It is a source of great frustration that the leaders of the major political parties in Bangladesh were not able to reach a compromise that would have led to free and fair elections. The international community’s efforts, whether by the UK Government or my party’s leadership on successive visits by the current Prime Minister and the main Opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia, or by the UN, the EU and our American allies, have fallen on deaf ears. With the other international challenges in Syria, the middle east and many other countries, the international community has limited capacity. We need the Government and Opposition parties of Bangladesh to recognise that patience is running out. They need to work together to find a solution that respects the interests of the people of Bangladesh.

Members across the House have raised the issue of minorities. I reiterate my condemnation of the violence, the targeting of minorities—particularly of Hindu communities, but of other communities too—and the burning of villages. That is a disgrace for a country whose history—Bengalis were persecuted when they were part of Pakistan—is about a fight for minority rights. It is, therefore, a source of great shame that minorities feel persecuted and have experienced persecution. The all-party group on Bangladesh has been working on this issue, and will continue to pursue it vigorously with colleagues across the House and work with the Government to ensure that our voice is strong and united in highlighting that this is of deep concern. The Government must act to protect minorities in Bangladesh.

There are great concerns about how the law enforcement agencies have acted. The law must be enforced in a proportionate manner and people must have the right to protest peacefully. The onus is also on all groups to protest peacefully, and we have all seen that that has not always been the case. The Bangladeshi Government and the Opposition have a responsibility to ensure that their supporters behave with restraint when they protest.

The hon. Member for St Albans raised the issue of the main leader of the Opposition being essentially under house arrest. That is of grave concern to everyone. Political leaders must have the right to take part in elections. As she rightly said, the pendulum has swung the other way. The cycle of violence, opposition and boycotts of Parliament must come to an end or Bangladesh will remain in a perpetual déjà vu experience of never being able to move on, and history will continue to repeat itself.

Bangladesh has the potential to advance economically. The World Bank states that growth rates are at about 6%, and Goldman Sachs predicts that it could be one of the next 11 countries to become a middle-income country. It has made progress in tackling poverty and improving girls’ education. However, the political dimension to the challenges facing Bangladesh stands to undermine those achievements and the country’s potential. Strategically, it is well placed, with the biggest global markets of India and China on its doorstep, but none of these opportunities are being maximised. Indonesia, another Muslim-majority country, is showing the way, though it too has challenges, with a growing economy and social development, so there is no reason why Bangladesh cannot move forward and achieve—if it gets its political house in order.

I appeal to those in Bangladesh listening to today’s debate to find ways to work together in the interests of the people of Bangladesh and not for partisan, political self-interest. That is the challenge for everyone in Bangladesh, as it is in any country. I hope that, as we move forward, we can work as partners and continue dialogue, despite our frustrations, to try to achieve free and fair elections and move beyond what has happened in recent months.

Will the Minister highlight what representations have been made to the Government of Bangladesh to relay our concerns about the elections and the violence? What discussions have there been with our EU and US allies, as well as the UN, since the elections? What steps will be taken to highlight our concerns? What will happen to our development assistance and trade and investment links with Bangladesh?

As the only person of Bangladeshi-British origin in the House, I take it upon myself to thank all hon. Members for their continued interest in Bangladesh. Despite the frustration that colleagues feel, it is a tribute to them that they continue to take an interest in Bangladesh. It is a country with so much potential, talent and dynamism, and its people want to get on, achieve and progress. Sadly, its politics are holding them back. We are united in wanting to see a future that is peaceful, stable and democratic. I hope we can all work towards that.

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

What my hon. Friend has said today reflects the wishes of the Bangladeshi community in Coventry. There are a large number of Bangladeshis in my constituency and I think they would appreciate her efforts, since she has entered this House, in the interests of the people of Bangladesh. A lot can be done when people get together—the UN, the UK, the US and others—with good will.

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and suggestion. I know that we can all work towards that aim.

Persecution of Christians

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful for that intervention, and if my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress I shall set out the changes that will emanate from the work done by my noble Friend Baroness Warsi.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Simmonds]

Perhaps I could make little progress, so that I can set out some of the changes that we are making.

We are focusing on the multilateral work at the UN and the OSCE. During the United Nations General Assembly ministerial week at the end of September, we convened a meeting to focus on promoting freedom of religion or belief and fighting religious intolerance in our societies. At the OSCE for the past three years, we have showcased our work on freedom of religion or belief and combating hate crime against religious communities. Moreover, our work to promote the freedom of religion or belief continues to grow, as demonstrated by the creation of a new sub-group of the Foreign Secretary’s advisory group to focus on freedom of religion or belief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I know from past experience of speaking in Westminster Hall debates on human rights issues that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is passionate about the issue. He has made a number of speeches and interventions on the subject in previous debates and I congratulate him on persuading his party to table the motion today.

As we have heard, freedom of religion or belief is included under article 18 of the universal declaration on human rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

As we have heard from those who have spoken so far, in too many countries those freedoms, particularly the right to dissent from the majority religion and to change religion, are not respected.

I commend the all-party group on international religious freedom. I attended its meeting with Baroness Warsi a few weeks ago and I am sure that we will hear from some of the group’s members this afternoon. In particular, I congratulate the group on its report “Article 18: An Orphaned Right”. Although all human rights are interdependent and interrelated, it highlights the fact that religious freedom often remains on the margins. As we heard from the Minister, the abuse of someone's right to freedom of religion often acts as a gateway to other human rights abuses, such as those of the right to freedom of assembly or expression.

We have to consider religious freedom as an intrinsic part of human rights and indicative of the level of civil and political freedom in a country. According to the Pew research foundation, almost 75% of the global population live in countries with Government restrictions or where harassment related to religion is common. We have discussed the fact that Christians are the religious group most subject to persecution. In 2011, a report stated that the harassment of Christians was most prevalent in 105 countries, followed by the harassment of Muslims in 101 countries. We need to flag up the fact that persecution is not restricted to Christians, but we are here today to discuss the persecution of Christians.

Before moving on to the more commonly cited countries in the debate about religious freedom, I want to comment on the Central African Republic, which has been mentioned. According to the US ambassador to the United Nations, the Central African Republic has been described as

“the worst crisis most people have never heard of”.

There have been harrowing reports of violence, beheadings and villages being razed to the ground. France has warned that the country is on the verge of genocide, as violence between Muslims and Christians escalates. A third of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance, and I hope that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development will do all they can to try to prevent that situation from escalating even further and to bring relief to people on the ground.

The plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt is more commonly known. As documented in Amnesty International’s report, “How long are we going to live in this injustice?”, there was an unprecedented wave of sectarian attacks on 14 August, when the security forces dispersed people in camps, and churches and Church-affiliated buildings as well as businesses owned by Coptic Christians were destroyed. The excellent report by Amnesty—I recommend it to people who have not read it—reported that 43 Orthodox churches were completely destroyed, and 207 churches were attacked. Not only were the symbols of Christianity attacked but Christians themselves, and four people were killed that day. That is part of a rise in sectarian tension in Egypt, following decades of discrimination suffered by Coptic Christians and impunity for the perpetrators. Egyptian law also means that it is difficult for Christians to rebuild their churches.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the Coptic Church, which is probably one of the oldest Churches in the world. Does she agree that when we talk about aid two of the issues that could be raised are human rights—there is a price to pay for aid—and religious freedom, regardless of whether someone is a Christian or belongs to any other denomination? The two have to work hand in hand to attain what we would call human rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions. For example, we might look at aid to countries such as Uganda, which has introduced a Bill that has been discussed for the past few years. It is a private Member’s Bill, but it has support from senior figures, and it would introduce the death penalty for homosexuality. People have asked me whether we should give aid to a country that is considering such a measure. Should we give aid to other countries where, for example, abortion is denied to rape victims? It is a tricky situation, because if we deny aid to countries where people are persecuted, we run the risk of penalising the most vulnerable people we are trying to help. We need to send a strong message not about the conditions that we impose on aid but about our expectations of human rights in the countries to which we give aid. I shall come to that when I discuss the Prime Minister’s visit to China.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I think that my hon. Friend’s hopes are very well placed. This deal has the prospect of being transformative for the world economy, bringing perhaps an additional £100 billion a year for the EU and £80 billion a year for the United States over the longer term. That would include £10 billion a year for this country.

Topical Questions

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I am about to join NATO Foreign Ministers in Brussels this afternoon, where we will discuss plans for the NATO summit in Wales in 2014. We will also discuss our long-term commitment to Afghanistan, building defence capabilities and work with non-NATO partners.

[Mr Cunningham]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. If the Sri Lankan Government do not address war crimes and human rights by next year, will the Foreign Secretary consider setting up, along with other countries, a war crimes tribunal?

[Mr Hague]

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, we will pursue this at the Human Rights Council in March. If the Sri Lankan Government have not set up an inquiry of their own by then—so far, they have refused to do so—we would favour an international inquiry that is independent, credible and thorough. We will discuss with other countries in the Human Rights Council how best to do that and what we propose to do in detail. We will keep the House informed.

Iran

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Of course we would want Iran to observe the additional protocol. This is an issue that will have to be addressed in the discussions on a comprehensive agreement, and my hon. Friend will be aware from his knowledge of Iran that Iran’s ratification and observance of the additional protocol would be dependent on the Majlis. It would have to have a vote about that, in the Iranian system. That could introduce an additional complexity, but it is something we would certainly want it to do.

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

We welcome this agreement, although it is a first step in a long process. I remind the Foreign Secretary that President Obama and the American Congress postponed a decision as a result of this Parliament stopping the Foreign Secretary and the Americans having an attack on Iran. More importantly, if it is sufficient to sit down with the Iranians to discuss what is a very serious issue, why are we not facilitating talks on Syria? Are we going to wait another six months, allowing that carnage to go on?

[Mr Hague]

The debates that we had, whatever side people were on, about military action in August were about military action relating to Syria, not Iran. It is very much part of our policy, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to promote a political solution in Syria, including supporting a peace conference on Syria, and I hosted the Friends of Syria core group in London last month to agree our approach to that. I met the Syrian opposition in Istanbul last week to encourage their participation in a peace conference; that has now been announced for 22 January. Of course, we will do everything that we can to bring about progress in finding a peaceful solution on Syria, just as we have on the Iranian nuclear programme.

Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

The right hon. Gentleman knows more about religious divides than most of us in the House. In many respects, the split between Protestants and Roman Catholics is similar to that between Shi’as and Sunnis. The divides between Shi’a Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia date back centuries. If Saudi Arabia feels that the wrong deal is negotiated in Geneva, there is a real chance that the Saudis will buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan, because they will want to defend themselves against the threat from Iran.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the situation is not just about Israel versus Iran; it is about Iran versus, frankly, the rest of the world. That is yet another reason why the international community simply cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, because the likelihood of its wanting to use them in future is simply too great. That comes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Iran’s horrible regime is far removed from any process of democracy, and we can easily envisage circumstances in the near, medium or distant future in which someone in authority in the country might decide, “We have got a nuclear weapon. Let us use it.” That is a frightening prospect, which puts our worries about places such as Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia into the shade. It is the big issue on which the international community must concentrate.

I am in no way an expert on nuclear technology, but I have read enough to be convinced that Iran does not want to develop nuclear technology simply to provide power for its own people. It is hellbent on developing a nuclear weapons programme. The Foreign Secretary confirmed to me on the Floor of the House that the UK Government are convinced that Iran has enriched uranium to at least 20%. That is way beyond the 3.5% needed for civilian nuclear use, which suggests that the country is trying to develop a military capability. My understanding is that uranium for use in a nuclear warhead must be enriched beyond 90%, and although the gap between 90% and 20% might seem large, in nuclear physics terms it is actually quite small. Uranium enriched to 20% is more than half way to weapons-grade uranium. One of the worries about the potential deal now supposedly being negotiated in Geneva is that Iran might be left with a stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%, which it could bank and use to develop a nuclear warhead in the future. Any interim agreement that allows the Iranians to hang on to their nuclear stockpile is not worth having.

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

Perhaps I am wrong, but I understood the Foreign Secretary to say in a press interview that an interim agreement was being discussed, and a long-term agreement would be considered later on. I do not understand the concern about an interim agreement. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am no expert on nuclear weapons.

[Mr Hollobone]

There might be a problem here with my accent and that of the hon. Gentleman. I understood the Foreign Secretary to be talking about an interim agreement prior to arriving, we hope, at a full accord. The problem with an interim, short-term agreement is that, if I am right—I hope I am not—and the Iranians want to develop a nuclear warhead, such an agreement might give the Iranians time to develop enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear warhead. An interim agreement might, effectively, give the regime diplomatic cover to complete its nuclear weapons programme without the international community’s agreement.

[Mr Cunningham]

It is not for me to defend the Foreign Secretary, but as I understand it, he was talking about weeks rather than a long-term process that might allow Iran to develop along the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s fears would be realised within the short period of time the Foreign Secretary was talking about.

[Mr Hollobone]

There we disagree, because my understanding is that it is not a matter of weeks. I am sure that the Minister will enlighten both of us in his response, but my understanding is that it would take months or even years to reach an interim agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this timely debate. I do not agree with all the points he made, but he made some important points about, for instance, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium being among the considerations the negotiators must take on board.

The news that the Foreign Secretary brought to the House yesterday about progress in the negotiations, or the talks about talks, and about Foreign Minister Zarif proving to be someone whom western powers could do business with, was very welcome. We should reflect for a minute on how far we have come in a year and a half. I was looking back on some notes from May last year, and we were talking then about the risk of strikes on Iran and of a regional war being sparked by preventive strikes against Iran by the United States or by conflict breaking out over the strait of Hormuz. The situation now is not quite unrecognisable, but it has moved a considerable distance.

One crucial change is the election in the summer of President Rouhani. We may think that the electoral process was flawed, and we may think that the constitution of Iran is flawed and still gives too much power to the theocracy, but the election was undoubtedly genuinely contested, and it has undoubtedly changed the political landscape. We must therefore be a little wary of doing a reverse of the Whig interpretation of history: nobody naively believes that things will always get better, but we must never fall into the trap of thinking things can never get better. We must take advantage of the situation when someone such as President Rouhani is elected, because he is at least saying many of the right things, and he appears to be acting in many of the right ways.

In its statements over the past six months on President Rouhani and the situation in Iran, the Foreign Office has been very cautious and guarded, and it has talked about actions speaking louder than words. I have sometimes found that a little frustrating, and we could have seen a bit more enthusiasm for the reforming faction in Iran. However, if I am criticising the Foreign Office for going a bit too slowly, and others are criticising it for going too fast, it has perhaps got things just about right.

We should applaud the diplomatic efforts that have been made by British, international and, in this case, European Union diplomats. I was struck by the Foreign Secretary’s praise of Baroness Ashton in the House yesterday. She is, as a Brit, demonstrating not only the great British tradition of diplomacy, but the potential for the European Union to play a positive role in world diplomacy, not displacing, but complementing, national diplomacy. That is very positive.

There are three points that I would like to make. The first builds on my point about seeing the positive potential, rather than always accentuating the negative. I would ask the Foreign Office to be robust not only in pursuing the positive avenue of negotiations, but in standing up to anyone we traditionally think of as an ally who might try to stall the negotiations or prevent them from making too much progress.

There are two countries that I am particularly concerned about. One is Saudi Arabia. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, made an interesting comment last month. He said that following Washington’s failure to strike Syria and its entering into nuclear talks with Iran, there would be a major shift in Saudi Arabia’s relations with it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s perspective on American-Saudi relations and on our own relationships with Saudi Arabia, in the context of the Iranian nuclear talks. I hope we will not allow Saudi Arabia to stall our progress in this area.

Through the channel of this debate, I would tell the Saudi Government that if they look back to the 1990s, to the presidencies of Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami in Iran, they will see that there were much more cordial relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It has been only since the election of Ahmadinejad in 2005 and then the coming to power of King Abdullah that the two countries have got into a regional cold war and have almost been fighting proxy battles as rival regional powers from Bahrain to Syria to other places across the middle east. That is regrettable, and they should perhaps realise that the presidency of President Rouhani offers a path back to more constructive engagement.

Like the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I also have concerns about Israel. We have not heard very constructive comments from Prime Minister Netanyahu about the E3 plus 3 talks. He has expressed real fear that they will result in a deal that

“will not work for Israel”.

However, Israel must also see its long-term interests. Surely, the most positive thing for Israel would be a process that ultimately leads towards a nuclear-free middle east and certainly one that has a realistic prospect of achieving a nuclear-free Iran.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for not congratulating him on securing the debate. Does the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) not think that the situation between the Israeli Government and the Palestinians is linked to this issue? That must be part of a solution in the middle east, because we cannot have a settlement with Iran in isolation. Does the hon. Gentleman also not think that the settlements Israel has been building have thrown some difficulties in the way of the road map to peace? Finally, despite what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, there were demonstrations two or three years ago in Iran, and the opposition came close to winning the election. Internally, that may be motivating the regime a lot more than the hon. Gentleman suggested.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we keep interventions short? I hope to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.40 pm.

Persecution of Christians (Middle East)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned that person. It is an outrage that citizens of countries such as the United States are being detained in prisons in Iran.

In October, CSW reported that four members of a Christian Church were sentenced to 80 lashes each for drinking communion wine during a communion service, contrary to rules against the drinking of alcohol. That effectively criticises and condemns the Christian sacrament of sharing the Lord’s supper, and criminalises it.

Open Doors states that, despite promising words

“from Iran’s newly elected President, Rouhani, the situation for Christians in the country has not improved.”

An Iranian lawyer, Attieh Fard, told a recent meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council:

“It is obvious that the Islamic government of Iran has taken actions to prevent access of both Christians and the public to Christian societies, to churches, to Christian literature and religion, despite the Christians’ constitutional, national and international rights.”

Anti-Christian repression in Saudi Arabia is more severe than anywhere in the region, although we hear precious little about it. Non-Muslim places of worship are forbidden, conversion from Islam is punishable by death and the small number of indigenous Christians who practise their faith in extreme secrecy risk raids and arrests.

I will discuss what is happening in Syria in a moment, and also what happened to the Christians in Iraq following the US-led invasion of 2003, when hundreds of thousands were forced to flee their homes following targeted attacks, many by Islamist militants.

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

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and apologise for arriving late. I hope she will mention Egypt and the situation with the Coptic Church and the problems that Christians are experiencing.

[Fiona Bruce]

I will indeed, time permitting. The suffering of the Copts in Egypt is a critical issue.

Christians in the middle east have suffered from a domino effect of violence that began in Iraq, spread to Syria and overshadows Egypt, leaving the survival of the Church in jeopardy. According to reports, Christians are leaving in droves, ending the presence of the Church in its ancient heartlands. We must remember that Paul’s conversion was on the road to Damascus. That is a key part of the Christian story and heritage. Such countries formerly had large Christian communities—Syria had more than 1.5 million, and a similar number in Iraq is now down to about 300,000—so those are tragic reductions in countries where there are large numbers of the faithful. Persecution is also happening in countries such as Yemen, where the faithful are few in number.