I’ve just been back to Iraq for the first time since 2003 when I served there in the Army. I announced a further £20 million for our humanitarian relief effort, taking our commitment to £70 million since the summer of last year – that is aside from our military contribution to the international coalition against Daesh (ISIL). Despite the primacy of the Syrian war, Daish’s genesis is principally Iraqi.

A persistent band of internet trolls bombard me with emails purporting to prove that Daesh’s bestiality stems directly from the teachings of the Koran, and that the only true Muslims are – quite properly – violent jihadists. I have used this column previously to refute this nonsense. The reality is that Daesh, however efficiently organised and disciplined, is no more an homogenous phenomenon than any other terrorist group. It does, of course, consist of a significant proportion of religious nutters. It also contains gangsters, psychopaths, opportunists and – particularly in the higher echelons – plenty of Iraqi former regime loyalists. It is from this element that I believe the propensity for such extreme violence stems. These were men who served Saddam Hussein, and they learned their gruesome trade at the feet of the true Master.

Iraq has only a quarter of a million Syrian refugees (by comparison with over 2 million in nearby Turkey, and over a million in tiny Lebanon) but over three million of its own people have fled their homes and need help, which the government and the UN are asking for.

The difficulty is this: Notwithstanding the fall in the price of oil, were it not for Iraq’s rampant corruption; dysfunctional sectarian politics; bloated public sector; economic mismanagement – and free electricity, then Iraq ought to be able to weather the crisis from its own resources. It is difficult to touch the UK taxpayer for more, given the blood and treasure we have already shed there.

On the other hand, news of German and European generosity has reached the millions who have fled their homes to other parts of Iraq. Social media is alive with discussion of the prospects for more ambitious travel. We have to consider what more we need to do that might send the signal that remaining in Iraq still offers fair prospects.

Ben Carson the Republican presidential hopeful may have blown it by saying that it would be unconstitutional for a Muslim to be president of the USA, attracting the opprobrium of liberal commentators. He was, of course, wrong and ignorant of his own US Constitution which specifically excludes any religious bar to the office of President. It was pretty mild fare by comparison with the anti-Muslim propaganda that a number of my constituents continue to bombard me with. This is usually stuff they have picked up from dodgy websites and chain emails. In effect, they insist that the only authentic interpretation of Islam is as a totalitarian and violent ideology, ignoring the experience of over a thousand years of, for the most part, tolerant and peaceful co-existence.

The interaction of politics and religion has been an important factor in our own constitutional development. Lord Halifax in his Letter to a Dissenter sought to point out to Protestants opposed to the Anglican establishment, the dangers of making common cause with the papist tyrant James II, against the Church of England. Warning them that “infallibility and liberty are the two most contrary things in the world”. In this respect, returning to US politics for a moment, it is interesting to note that John F Kennedy, when he ran for president, made statements disavowing his Roman Catholicism, and insisting it would not unduly influence him as President.

Our own nation, notwithstanding its established Protestant religion, has evolved to be perhaps the most tolerant in the world of religious diversity. Equally, the USA, despite its Constitution defining itself as a ‘Nation under God’, is also a haven of toleration and diversity. I think that this earns us the right to comment critically on regimes that are failing to protect the rights of religious minorities, whether they be Islamic states accommodating increasing conservatism, or those in Israel wanting to define it as a Jewish state, with an aggressive settler movement determined to turn Palestine into a biblical theme park.

Most religions are benign, and all of them are a bit wacky, even my own. As Origen, one of the early church fathers pointed out ‘the more absurd it is, the more I believe it’. When it comes to the wacky stakes however, there is plenty of competition: Scientology; the Moonies; but is there anything to beat Mormonism?

Well, perhaps Atheism?

Last week I received a delegation of charities and voluntary organisations, many respected and well known household names, who came to complain about conditions in Gaza, and the restrictions which hamper their attempts to bring relief. In addition, they gave vent to their frustration about what they percieve as Israel’s increasingly brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories, with illegal settlements, demolitions, and collective punishments.

I responded by pointing out just how much we, as a government, are spending to demonstrate our support for the Palestinian people, it runs into hundreds of millions of pounds, and we are second only to the USA as a bilateral donor.

Notwithstanding the ever present terrorist threat, there is no getting away from the fact that, for staunch allies and supporters of Israel like ourselves, it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend some Israeli actions. As I said to ministers when I visited Israel recently, they aren’t giving us much to work with.

There are however, individuals and organisations in Israeli civil society who have the same concerns that were shared with me last week. This, at least, is an encouraging sign in what has been a bleak period for any prospect for peace.

I warned colleagues, excited at the prospect of the first Prime Minister’s questions with Jeremy Corbyn, that these things usually disappoint. It gave me no satisfaction to be proved right.

I do not recall a single PM or leader of the opposition in the last 18 years that hasn’t begun by announcing that they will do prime minister’s question time differently. Mercifully however, they all revert to type within a couple of weeks. Let’s hope Mr Corbyn follows the same pattern.

Every year a couple of people will write to me to complain about the lack of decorum at PMQs, but they are dwarfed by by the enormous number asking me to secure them tickets.

I think we are fortunate to have something with a bit of theatre to it, something of a gladiatorial contest. It is in stark contrast to the dullness of our continental neighbours. Now, if you want a really exciting parliamentary floor show, I can recommend Japan, which really can be authentically gladiatorial.

Da’ish is the grizzliest phenomenon of the modern world. Having specialised in finding the most shocking ways of carrying out public executions. It is now manufacturing and using chemical weapons with ghastly mass effect. Those of our disordered citizens who join this cult of death, declaring themselves to be the Queen’s enemies, should be given no quarter. They deserve to be targeted with whatever appropriate weapon systems we possess. Properly targeted and deployed, drones are an entirely satisfactory means with which to pursue them, after all…they had it coming.

To those of us brought up on Cricket and Christianity – giving us a C of E ‘middle and leg’ approach to most of life’s great questions – religious fanaticism is an incomprehensible phenomenon: we can entirely understand that men and women can be crazed and wicked.

It is impossible however, to understand their claim to be doing the will of God. The certainty with which Dai’sh terrorists believe that – should they die whilst massacring innocents – they will be welcomed to paradise with the gift of 72 virgins, is perhaps the most bizarre belief of all.

I understand, that now, scholars believe that it all comes down to a mistranslation: the offer is raisins, not virgins. Boy, are these guys going to have to handle disappointment.

I was listening to some of the coverage of the continuing refugee crisis on the wireless. They were asking refugees where they had fled from. Thus far, the focus has been on Syria and, in particular, Syrian families.

Actually, we estimate that only between one and three percent of Syrian refugees currently move beyond the countries bordering Syria. What is now apparent, is that there has been a rush of other migrants prompted by the signal that Europe is planning to accommodate them with a mandatory quota system.

I was not surprised to hear so many young men admitting that they had come from the Punjab – what sort of war zone is that?

This is exactly what the Prime Minister warned, about the European mandatory quota proposal.

I make no apology for returning to the subject of migration yet again: it is the chief source of my correspondence and it dominates the headlines.

The purpose of the international conventions on asylum to which we are a party, is to give sanctuary.

The migrants currently making their way through Europe are seeking a better life, and who wouldn’t, given what they have experienced. They should not be blamed for their desperate search for something better. They have suffered horribly, they invested heavily by paying criminal gangs of traffickers to bring them to Europe’s shores. They have braved perilous journeys, which for too many have proved fatal, including 3 year old Aylan Kurdi, his brother and his mother.

They all have however, passed through safe countries where sanctuary was available. Having seen the refugee camps in the region, I do not blame them for seeking a new and better life, but Europe would offer a better life than is currently available to three quarters of humanity. The EU plan for every member state to take a quota of refugees who arrive in Europe would send a powerful message to millions of other migrants to follow. It would be a bonanza to the traffickers and would multiply the number of deaths.

Britain is doing the right thing by the people of Syria: the Royal Navy is rescuing thousands in the Mediterranean. We are the second largest donor by a mile: we have committed £1 billion, more than we have given in any other such crisis, ever. We are funding shelter, healthcare, food, water, sanitation, counselling, protection, and education for the children so that there is ‘no lost generation’. In the region our money goes much further, helping so many more.

Of Course, the Prime Minister is right to respond to the public mood. The right way to do so, is to do more of what we are already doing: by working with the United Nations agencies to take the vulnerable and most deserving cases in the refugee camps – people who couldn’t possibly afford the charges of the traffickers. This way we can avoid so many more bodies on the beaches.

I have just returned from Nepal, which is recovering from the earthquake that struck the country in March.

Actually, whatever readers may have seen or read, the relief effort was very successful and the response by international donors impressively fast.

Humanitarian relief after disasters is one part of our international development effort of which the British people thoroughly approve. The Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Nepal quickly raised £83 million, and that is in addition to many other fund raising efforts that took place all over the country. The UK Government has committed £70 million.

There remains a significant number of remote areas that are still in need of substantial relief. The monsoon and the coming winter make addressing that need all the more urgent.

Naturally, focus is now on reconstruction and the need to ‘build back better’ – as the campaign slogan puts it.

The most important lesson that people need to understand is, I believe, that the success of the rescue and relief effort was built on the back of our international development budget over several years of investment.

We had earthquake-proofed some 60 schools, all of them survived where some 7000 other schools were destroyed, the same is true of the hospitals that we had reinforced. We had put in place a ready-to-use logistical staging facility for relief supplies at the airport. Had this not been ready and waiting it would have cost the relief effort 7 weeks overall in cumulative delays. We had pre-positioned essential supplies and invested in the training of volunteers for distribution, for rescue, and for first aid. We had rehearsed and rehearsed.

It is this sort of investment in resilience,every year,that makes the difference, not just opening our wallets once a disaster has happened.

Nepal is now open for tourism again. I visited a number of its fantastic World Heritage sites. The country has so much to offer, including its magnificent Himalayan trekking trails. Tourism is Nepal’s largest earner and it’s down 90 percent since the earthquake. If the Nepalese people are to thrive they need tourists. So, COME TO NEPAL…and, of course, always check for latest travel advice at www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/nepal

I have been deluged with correspondence about the Assisted Dying Bill. This is a private member’s bill which is due to have its second reading early in September. The bill would make it lawful for medical professionals and others to assist someone in committing suicide. The correspondents in favour of the bill were well ahead earlier in the summer but, after a late surge, the antis have caught up. Currently it’s neck and neck.

Many correspondents tell me it is my duty as their representative to vote in accordance with their wishes. I respond by telling them that my duty is to represent all my constituents, the vast majority of whom have expressed no opinion whatsoever.

Suicide, and attempted suicide were once criminal offences. The church would even refuse Christian burial to suicides. Nowadays we have rather more understanding and greater compassion. You can now lawfully take your own life. Were anyone to assist you however, they would commit a criminal offence, and it is this that the bill seeks to change.

The key change however, is to make suicide easier by allowing medical professionals to provide the required service at the time of the patient’s choosing.

I have every sympathy for those with terminal medical conditions with gruesome prognoses who, having decided to avoid a grizzly end by terminating their own lives, face the dilemma of going early or delaying too long and losing the physical ability to actually do the deed.

For me however, allowing assisted suicide is a step too far. I have no doubt that what starts as a possibility would all too soon become an expectation. I can imagine elderly and infirm being encouraged ever so subtly to ‘do the decent thing’.

I shall be voting against the bill.