Saudi Arabia

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman is asking me a hypothetical; I am not going to go down that particular road. I will say, as I have repeated, that if there is genuine intelligence evidence to suggest that weapons systems—not just in this country, but anywhere—have been abused, our robust export licence scheme will absolutely kick into place. I met representatives of a number of NGOs that operate in Yemen who raised concerns in the same vein. Again, I make the request to let us see the intelligence, then we will investigate it ourselves.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I have visited Saudi Arabia and met its parliamentarians and Ministers; one made it clear that one was against the death penalty and called for religious freedom. However, may I ask the Minister for clarification on this point? Has he seen the article by Joseph Braude from the Foreign Policy Research Institute? He said that many of those executed in Saudi Arabia along with Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr were members of Hezbollah al-Hejaz—a sister wing of Hezbollah that has been listed as a terrorist organisation by the European Union. Some colleagues have said that there was peaceful protest, but has the Minister seen the other side of the coin, which indicates that some of those involved had taken part in terrorist activity? I do not know the answer; I am simply seeking clarification. Linked to that issue, has the Minister seen a statement from al-Qaeda and Daesh calling for open revolt and for people to take up arms against the Saudi Government? We have a common enemy in Daesh and al-Qaeda in that respect.

[Mr Ellwood]

I have not seen the article and would be grateful if my hon. Friend passed it on to me. He makes an important point about the charges against these people. I underline, however, that we do not believe that the death penalty was deserved, whatever the charge. Britain has stood by that position for some time. As an interim step, there are EU standards that could be introduced. I hope that Saudi Arabia will take heed of that.

Middle East

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I very much agree, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I will refer to Syria later in my speech, if I have time.

The lack of planning for boots on the ground in Libya has led so tragically to the continued instability in that country and the civil war that is raging there. The Minister will know about those difficulties, particularly the fact that ISIS has managed to take root in certain parts of the country. Indeed, some reports have identified ISIS in Libya as being the most radical and cruel in the region. One question that I want to pose is this: why at this moment do we want to bomb ISIS in Syria, but not in Libya?

The bar has to be raised that much higher, given the difficulties in Libya, to ensure that, for those of us who support the Government on the issue, adequate time is spent on the Floor of the House and some of the difficult questions that Ministers might not want to hear are asked, so that the Government are better prepared in Syria than they were in Libya.

Of all the interventions I heard at that time, the one made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who now chairs the Defence Committee, was the most prescient. He challenged the figure of 70,000 moderates with whom we could work. It is extremely important that the Government listen to him and debate where that figure came from and of what those forces consist.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about the Free Syrian Army and the figure of 70,000. It has been said that the Free Syrian Army hates Daesh, but it hates Assad even more. Our strategy is to deal with Daesh first. Therefore, by not addressing the other evil entity—Assad—can we really trust the Free Syrian Army to fight Daesh while knowing that it might get Assad?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

That is a point well made, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to build upon it in his contribution.

During our visit to the middle east, certain states in the region were unable to explain to us what resources they will be committing in Syria, either in the air or on the ground. There is the added complication of Saudi Arabia wanting the almost immediate removal of Assad and how that will play out. Of course, the regional allies, including Kuwait, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia and others, are involved in a complicated and difficult war in Yemen, which is stretching their resources. I very much hope that, in advance of this vote, the Government will be able to explain to us what our regional allies will be contributing. It is very positive to hear that the Germans will be contributing 1,500 troops, on which I pressed their ambassador during our discussions in Iran.

My time is running out, so I would like to say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) that it is extremely important that the Government work with Russia on the issue. I regularly attend events at the Russian embassy and speak on RT. I am afraid that at the moment it is fashionable to be anti-Russian and to see Russia through a cold war lens. I believe that we must come together at this time, despite all our differences, set aside some of the difficulties we have had with President Putin and work constructively with him and others to bring about stability for Syria. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell that unless there is a competent strategy, we will end up with a “bat the rat” situation: if we defeat them somewhere, they will pop up again elsewhere only too quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

My comments are not about whether individual groups of MPs apply a whip or respect a whip that may be applied to them. It is up to the conscience of each and every one of us whether we follow a party whip. I take the view, although it has never been tested in 25 years in party politics, that if the whip contravened a direct instruction of my conscience I would follow my conscience. That is a decision for every Member to take. My concern is that there is a feeling throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere that for some people—and the vote could be close enough that they are a decisive element—considerations about the impact on positions taken in this Chamber will be a factor. A decision to go to war should never, ever be affected by such factors.

In looking at the justification that has been given so far for involvement in an aerial bombardment in Syria, I continue to have very serious concerns. In order for a war to be just, for those who believe that there is such a thing as a just war, one of the absolute requirements is that it must have a reasonable prospect of success. Aerial bombardment cannot achieve its aims without troops on the ground. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) suggested that those troops will eventually have to come from the United Kingdom, despite the fact that the UK Government have said, “Not under any circumstances.” Yet if they do not come from the UK, they have no idea of where they are going to come from. This will not work without a complete ceasefire between all the different warring factions in and around Syria, and there is no indication whatsoever of any ceasefire between any combination of those factions just now.

My fundamental concern about the idea of airborne military action in Syria is simply that it will not achieve its stated objective. To me, military action that has little chance of achieving its stated objective cannot be justified.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Grant]

I said that I would give way only once more, but since it is the hon. Gentleman, I will.

[Rehman Chishti]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Military action can degrade, control and contain Daesh, but it cannot defeat the evil ideology that this evil organisation pushes and panders to at every level, so our strategy has to look at dealing with that ideology as well as at taking military action.

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. The question I asked of the Prime Minister last week was based on that very point. It is one thing to remove Daesh—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a great scholar and I look forward to his contribution to this debate and, I hope, to the debate on Wednesday.

In Iraq, a Sunni king who was installed to allow the British to dominate was replaced by a Sunni dictator. In Syria, a Shi’a ruling class was created to enable the French to rule. In both instances, it resulted in bitter divisions, as political oppression added to sectarian divide. That settlement, which was maintained only by fear and force, has completely collapsed in the wars.

As we have watched Syria torn apart by the civil war and Iraq stuck in political deadlock and threatened by ISIL’s invasion, it has become clear to us that a new settlement is needed. The one that the US began in 2003 is completely gone. The Iraqi Government that the coalition set up and the army it trained are hollowed out and militias provide much of the manpower against ISIL. Iran dominates politics in Iraq today. I commend the Foreign Secretary for the work that he has done to bring Iran in from the cold.

As we fight to end the war and restore peace, we must recognise that real peace—a peace that lasts and allows people to feel safe and get on with their lives—can only come from self-government, federalism and political reform. That is the aim and it is a noble one, but challenges stand in the way. Syrians and Iraqis may want strong representative Governments, but that may not be what Iran or Saudi Arabia want. That is not what all Shi’a, or indeed all Sunni, in Iraq want, and it is not what Assad and the Shi’a minority in Syria may want. Why? Because all they have ever known is rule by the strongest. Those who are not on top are under the thumb of whoever is on top. People see a protracted fight as preferable to letting down their guard in a compromise that they might not survive. That lesson has been scarred into the region by systematic killing right from the death throes of the Ottoman empire to the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and Hafiz and Bashar al-Assad. However, we are not passive on this matter, and it was made clear to me in Iraq last week that we can influence Baghdad—indeed, those who agree with us are crying out for more influence in Baghdad.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend talks about influence in Baghdad, but does he agree that one of our failures was in supporting the Maliki Government who persecuted Sunnis and massacred Members of Parliament in Anbar province? That led to the creation of this monster—Daesh—which is now out of control.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I am coming on to that point. He is right to point out the shortcomings of the Maliki Government. As I said, we are not passive, and right now the only game in town is Iran, whose Government may not want a strong Sunni region in Iraq, or a Sunni-dominated Syria. Prime Minister Abadi is an ally, and we must make it clear to him that if he can push back and convince Iran that there is a different way, and begin the project of rebuilding Iraq after the disastrous Maliki Government, we will be with him all the way. We can make it clear that we want devolution to Sunni regions of Iraq, and inclusion so that the Iraqi political project can become the vehicle for Sunni hope that it ought to be. If we give people that, ISIL is finished and none shall follow in its place; if we fail them, we have not seen the last of extremism and violence.

Syria is not different in needing that kind of settlement. Assad inherited a doomed regime from his father. He could have chosen dialogue in 2011, but instead he chose the cudgel. Rather than admit that he was finished, he lashed out at the protests, and bludgeoned his country into civil war. Assad’s barrel bombs, torture chambers and nerve gas mean that he and his family cannot continue to rule in Syria, and they cannot be given a part in any future Government. To do so would guarantee that this is a war without end.

However, there is a difference between Assad and the regime, and a distinction between Assad and the Alawites. It is not a binary choice between Assad’s regime and the terror of ISIL. The moderate rebels are vital to the future of the country, and any future Government with whom we can work. Russia will see that too, because President Putin does not want ISIL to control vast swathes of the country any more than we do. Russia’s Caucasus has a large Muslim population that is vulnerable to radicalisation and terrorism. Putin wishes to keep his bases and a presence in Syria, and he worries about the transition between Assad and the next Government. On that, his views are legitimate, and we have no wish to dismantle Syrian Government apparatus. We desperately want a secular Government in Damascus, and for minorities to be protected, and we do not wish to threaten Russia’s interests, presence or bases in western Syria. There is very real room for agreement. The political settlement that we eventually reach can include all things, and Russia can become our partner in influencing such a deal.

The rift between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims has existed for almost as long as the religion of Islam and it is not going away. However, we do not need it to go away to achieve peace; we are not trying to achieve agreement on everything, and we do not need to. People will always disagree about what is important in their life and how society should be governed—that is pluralism. What is important is resolving and compromising on matters within democratic and legal apparatus. That is the real aim and it can achieve a new political system in time. There are also partners for us to work with in those countries, and I met the American, German and Dutch teams. Our Prime Minister is right to say that we must extend our campaign to Syria to fight Daesh, and I will be supporting him on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

My concern is about the most innocent and vulnerable people. Of course we want an end to terrorism in the middle east, and this House will have to address—perhaps in a couple of days—the best means of accomplishing that. I suspect that I will disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but in my short speech I hope to set out the scale of the challenge of rebuilding Syria, whenever that can start.

[Rehman Chishti]

In defeating this evil organisation, we must defeat its ideology, appeal and self-proclaimed legitimacy. We must join our ally France in using the correct terminology, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his party for doing that and for not linking this evil organisation to Islam, which has nothing to do with it. This organisation are evil scum and we must describe them as that.

[Roger Mullin]

They are indeed evil scum. I pay tribute to the many Members who call this scum by their proper name of Daesh. A few weeks ago, Members who did so were few in number, but now there are many more. All those who use the correct terminology in this debate deserve credit. The hon. Gentleman is correct: there are huge ideological and cultural challenges to overcome. I would like to say a few words, however, on the practical challenge relating to infrastructure.

It was estimated recently that the productive capacity of Syria has been so degraded that it is 80% less than it was before the war broke out four years ago. Some 37% of all hospitals in Syria have been completely destroyed and a further 20% are so degraded they are unable to provide anything like the kind of service they provided in the past. There has been a significant destruction of health, education, transport, water, sanitation and energy infrastructure. Indeed, it has reached the stage where some commentators estimate that if the war were to end today and Syria embarked immediately on 5% economic growth—that is highly unlikely—it would take 30 years to return to the economic situation it was in in 2010.

In addition to the destruction of infrastructure, there is the difficulty we will have in entering the area to start to rebuild it. I am the chairman of the all-party group on explosive weapons and I have carried out some investigations into that situation in Syria. As well as the degradation of infrastructure, the Syrian Government have been using both anti-personnel mines, manufactured in Russia, and cluster munitions. Both are deemed illegal under the Ottawa convention. Daesh uses both cluster munitions and improvised explosive devices as landmines. This build-up of the huge detritus of war will have to be cleared before any real development can take place. There is currently no mine action programme in Syria to remove any of it. This is understandable, given that the conflict is still under way. In fact, the situation is so unusual that non-state parties—terrorist groups—have been known to dig up landmines from Israeli minefields along the Golan Heights and attempt to reuse them for their own purposes. The number of victims of explosive weapons, predominantly civilians, is already huge. The conflict in the Falklands 33 years ago was relatively small, yet the UK has still not fully cleared all the landmines from the Falkland Islands. I say that not to condemn the United Kingdom, but to think about the challenge facing Syria given the state of destruction that has already taken place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

It is distinct, but it is not possible to consider a lasting peace in the middle east without addressing the situation there, which I think is being brushed under the carpet at the moment.

In the occupied territories, the Israeli Government are sponsoring and supporting both the development of new settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes and properties, which is creating a situation that is close to the annexation of those occupied territories by the state of Israel. That may be Israel’s intention, but if it pursues the same path, the viability of a separate Palestinian state will not be there, and hence the two-state solution will not be there. If the Israeli Government intend to continue their present policies, the Israeli Government should be challenged to say what they consider to be the longer-term conditions for a settlement of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis in that part of the world. Meanwhile, millions of Palestinian refugees are still being held in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries, in a sort of holding pattern, and are being denied any hope or any prospect of a place that they can call home.

I must say in all seriousness that one of the things that this country could do—acting in concert with other western countries—is try to take a fresh initiative on the question of Israel-Palestine, and be seen to try to advocate the human rights of Palestinians and the requirement for a lasting and balanced peace in the area. I think that that would, single-handedly, do a great deal to undermine and counter much of the mythology that is being put about on the issue of Daesh, and the suggestion that this is a conflict between the west and Islam. We should be seen to take new action on Palestine, but at present no one is talking, and no talks are planned for the future. I know from correspondence with the Minister that he is sympathetic to much of what I have just said, but this seems to be the policy that dare not speak its name. The United Kingdom cannot continue to be silent on what is happening in that part of the world.

Let me now say something about Syria, which is the main event that we are discussing. I must make it clear that the Scottish National party understands the threat that Daesh poses to our way of life, and that we sympathise absolutely with the requirement for international action to undermine and eradicate that organisation. We are, however, anxious not to do something in the short term that would make things worse in the medium and the long term. That is why we remain unconvinced about the need for air strikes, which, it is proposed, should take place not with a ground strategy to follow, but in isolation.

Aerial bombardment in isolation means rearranging the piles of rubble, and it invariably results in some innocent casualties as collateral damage. It creates more refugees, and, above all, it plays into the narrative of Daesh that the crusaders are coming to deny the Muslim people their way of life. Unless there are forces on the ground, all that air strikes do is destroy territory rather than controlling it. Unless the air strikes are linked with a proper ground campaign, we think it irrelevant to make the Royal Air Force the 13th air force in the skies over Syria. For 15 months the Americans have been bombing these positions almost daily, yet the situation on the ground in Syria has not changed by one inch, and, if anything, Daesh is stronger than it was 15 months ago.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

Again, I am not sure whether I have time, but I will take the intervention.

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Gentleman will know, in relation to numbers on the ground, that at the Vienna conference Jordan was tasked with identifying moderate groups that could work with the international community. I have not seen a list of moderate groups from Jordan. Has the hon. Gentleman seen such a list, and are those groups part of the 70,000 that we are told will come from the Free Syrian Army?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s scepticism in this regard. Last Thursday I asked the Prime Minister whether he envisaged circumstances in which the Free Syrian Army and the Kurds would launch a successful ground offensive against Daesh, ignoring the presence of the Syrian army or pretending that it was not actually there. I did not receive a satisfactory answer.

It seems to me that a four-way civil war is taking place in Syria, and that some of those four sides are themselves quite complicated coalitions. If we are to develop a Daesh-first strategy, we shall need to persuade the other three sides to agree to co-ordinated action against Daesh. That is where the focus of diplomatic and political effort should be directed. I realise how difficult it will be. I realise that many of the groups that are associated with the Free Syrian Army, for example, would see Assad as more of an enemy than Daesh, and it will take a great deal of negotiation to bring all that together. It does not mean that all those groups must share a command structure, and it does not mean that they must share zones of operation—those can be separate—but any action must be co-ordinated. We cannot allow a situation in which some of them are simply trying to do what would be our bidding in a completely irrelevant and ineffective manner. That strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

The one hope in all this is the Vienna process, and the fact that a dialogue is under way. We believe that the time now should be spent in boosting that process, and in trying to secure the political and diplomatic agreements that we need for co-ordinated action that will be successful not just in bombing places into the stone age, but in taking control of land, starting with a military administration and then passing it over to civilian administrations month by month, year by year. Unless that framework is in place—and, unlike the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I remain to be convinced that it is—when the opportunity comes on Wednesday, the Scottish National party will not vote to go to war with Syria.

Pakistan

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for Pakistan.

As chairman of the all-party group on Pakistan, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss Government support for that country, which has long and deep historic ties with the United Kingdom. Our thoughts are with the people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and parts of India affected by yesterday’s earthquake. I lost 25 relatives, including my grandfather, in the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. I know what amazing support the UK provided then, and I ask the UK to do all that it can to help Pakistan at this difficult time.

There are more than 1 million people of Pakistani background in the United Kingdom. They are the second largest ethnic minority group, and many continue to contribute much to our country, as well as retaining links with family and friends in Pakistan. Pakistan has come a long way in its relatively brief 68-year history, passing an important milestone in 2013 with the first peaceful democratic transition from one Government to another. There is a conviction that a resilient UK-Pakistan relationship is vital to regional and global peace and security. Working together and with key international partners helps to address evolving threats in south Asia. Pakistan has the will, determination and commitment at every level to be a progressive, strong and democratic country at the heart of the international community.

As a country on the front line of the war on terror, Pakistan has faced major challenges and brutal attacks, such as the horrific massacre at the army public school in Peshawar.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in the debate. I congratulate him on securing it; it is important, given the historical and cultural relationship of Britain and Pakistan. Pakistan has existed for only 68 years, but things have developed. Given what is happening now because of earthquakes and other things, the area needs peace and increased prosperity. The British Government have a responsibility to look into the issues and work with the diaspora here and with the Government of Pakistan.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He has always been a strong friend of Pakistan, wanting to build on the excellent relationship between our two countries. He often highlights the important role of the diaspora. Of course that is right. The United Kingdom has a huge role to play in ensuring that there is prosperity, stability and security throughout the region in south Asia, by working with all countries—India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and China. It has a significant role to play in that respect.

I was touching on the horrific attack in Peshawar, in which, sadly, 134 children lost their lives. After many years of attacks that have resulted in the deaths of more than 47,000 civilians and 5,000 armed forces personnel in terrorist-related violence in the past decade, reports show that in the past nine months major terrorist attacks have declined by 70%. The UK has always stood shoulder to shoulder with those tackling terrorism and has always been a strong ally of Pakistan. As the Prime Minister said,

“in this battle the friends of Pakistan are friends of Britain; the enemies of Pakistan are enemies of Britain”.

Domestically, Pakistan’s main threat emanates from terrorism and extremism, and there is a direct link between those things and external factors such as conflict in Afghanistan, the unresolved Kashmir dispute and increasing chaos in the middle east.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

This is an important debate and the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there are more than 1 million people of Pakistani origin in this country. The debate will be important for them. My thoughts and prayers are with those who tragically lost their lives in the earthquake in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one issue that remains outstanding in the region, which is in some ways a barrier to peace and prosperity, is the region of Kashmir? Does he agree that there is a need for a peaceful solution to allow the sons and daughters of Kashmir the right to self-determination, and will he call on the Government to encourage both Pakistan and India to have peaceful round-table discussions to promote that?

[Rehman Chishti]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the brilliant work that he does in building the relationship between our two great countries, and for all that he does in his constituency with its large Pakistani diaspora. He touched on an important point about Kashmir; no doubt the Minister and all concerned are aware of United Nations resolution 47 of April 1948, which says that the people of Kashmir should be given a right to self-determination, to determine their own destiny. The resolution includes the words:

“Considering that the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security”.

My response to the hon. Gentleman is that yes, of course, people will say there is a need for bilateral talks between India and Pakistan. However, as we saw in the past year the talks between Foreign Secretaries collapsed, with the Indian authorities withdrawing from them. For talks to continue, two willing parties are needed. At the moment there is no constructive bilateral way forward. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the international community, including both the United States and the United Kingdom, has a moral obligation with respect to peace and stability in the region to do all that it can to assist in that long, drawn-out issue. I would mention, by way of a declaration, that I was born in Kashmir, so I await a plebiscite for my say, whenever that may come. I think that the international community has a moral obligation with respect to the matter.

[Imran Hussain]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful response. Will he also comment on the continued breaches and human rights violations in the region, as reported by many international human rights organisations? Will he join me in asking the Government to note that that is perhaps an even more pressing issue at present? Human rights violations in the region must end and the international community must do more to assist with that.

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Gentleman is right about respect for the rule of law and human rights. Both the countries in question are signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so on that basis everything needs to be done to ensure that people’s basic human rights are respected, wherever they are.

It is said that the UK’s supply of advanced conventional armaments to India has the potential to aggravate the growing asymmetry between India and Pakistan, which will lead to a lowering of nuclear thresholds. Some in Pakistan consider the UK’s nuclear stance on Pakistan to be unfair and that the UK’s support for India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group and perceived pro-India stance on the Missile Technology Control Regime not only undermines Pakistan-UK bilateral relations but also forces Pakistan to adopt measures in the nuclear domain that it considers to be in its national interest but which may be contrary to the UK’s aspiration within the international nuclear paradigm. The UK-Pakistan defence relationship is strong but not regarded as strategic. A move in that direction could develop even stronger relationships.

One of Pakistan’s biggest challenges and largest opportunities is its growing and young population, which is projected by the UN to increase to more than 300 million by 2050. There is an opportunity to reap that demographic dividend, and Pakistan could be the next South Korea by 2050. According to economist Jim O’Neill, Pakistan has the potential to become the world’s 18th largest economy by 2050—almost the same size of the current German economy.

Lord Maude, UK Minister for Trade and Investment, said in the House of Lords in June 2015 that Pakistan presents “too big an opportunity” to miss. Pakistan has one of the world’s fastest growing middle classes, representing 55% of the total population. In the past three years, consumer spending in Pakistan has increased at an average of 26% compared with 7.7% in Asia as a whole. That increase in consumption-driven demand presents an opportunity for British brands to introduce their products and services to the market, as demonstrated by the success of Debenhams.

Pakistan’s strong relationship with the European Union and the US through the GSP plus programme, which the UK strongly supports, is a significant boost to the country’s exports. Since Pakistan was awarded that status by the EU, exports have increased by 21%, and total UK-Pakistan trade increased by 15% in 2013-2014. The China-Pakistan economic corridor in particular has seen 51 agreements signed, totalling $45.6 billion in 2014, in one of China’s largest overseas investments. The mega-projects that will follow can be given vital assistance by British companies through providing services and expertise to maximise the benefits. Encouraged by that, and in recognition of its being one of the best performing frontier capital markets, Pakistan’s credit rating was upgraded this year by Moody’s for the first time since 2008. The UK Export Finance fund has been revised in order to support the work of publicly managed projects, while the overall size of the fund has increased from £200 to £300 million.

While there is an appetite in the UK to do more business, there are mutual obligations and a moral imperative for Pakistan to reform, including improving the legal process, privatisation, taxation reform and dealing with corruption. Pakistan is rated 127th out of 177 countries on the corruption index. Its controversial and often abused blasphemy laws hinder the country’s international standing, as countries are expected to respect citizens’ human rights and religion freedoms.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about human rights issues and blasphemy laws. Does he agree that our Government should also look at human rights issues in the rest of south Asia? For example, in India there has been a surge of sectarian violence in the past year or two, which has often been linked with the rise of Hindu nationalism or fascism—whatever we want to call it. In Burma, there have been killings of Rohingya Muslims. Does he think it appropriate for our Government to look at those countries and their human rights records as well?

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and pay tribute to her for the brilliant work she does to promote the relationship between Pakistan and the United Kingdom. It was a real pleasure to be on a British Council delegation to Pakistan with her. She probably read the article I read—I urge the Minister to read it too—in the Times of India on 1 May 2015, entitled “US panel: Minorities under attack in India”. The independent panel that reports on religious freedom to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, highlighted human rights issues concerning minorities in India.

Whether the issue is China or the Rohingya community in Burma, human rights should be a key part of our foreign policy wherever abuses occur, as I made clear to the shadow Foreign Secretary in a Queen’s Speech debate on foreign policy. As I said to the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), everyone’s human rights, wherever they are, should be respected by all, and we should do everything we can to ensure that countries respect basic human rights and religious freedoms.

I have often spoken about the need to reform Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Last year, I wrote a letter, signed by 54 Members of Parliament, to Prime Minister Sharif and the Chief Justice raising concerns about Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five who was sentenced to death. I am pleased to see that in July, Pakistan’s Supreme Court announced a stay of execution, but there is still much to do to secure her release. Over the summer, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and I visited Pakistan as part of a cross-party delegation. We met senior Government officials and discussed the need to reform blasphemy laws and minority rights. It is fair to say that we sensed a real desire by those senior officials to look at reforming those laws, which are often abused and target Muslims as well as minorities.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I concur with the hon. Gentleman. I remember meeting with a Chief Minister in Pakistan and raising the matter of blasphemy laws, as well as the Asia Bibi case.

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Lady not only raised the issue, but used that meeting to provide alternatives of how abuse could be curtailed. I fully support what she said about reform, whether it is a question of these cases being dealt with at high courts rather than lower courts or having special prosecutors and special judges. Those discussions took place at every level, and I thank her for her expertise and contributions.

The delegation to Pakistan had the opportunity to learn more about the British Council’s excellent work. Members on the trip visited Islamabad and Lahore to see some of the British Council’s projects in action, including Take a Child to School and the Punjab Education and English Language Initiative, which aims to train 300,000 teachers. The British Council in Pakistan works in all four provinces and has built a network with the scale, skills and influence to deliver transformational change. The council aims to expand its presence and reach tens of millions of people across the entire country by reopening libraries, improving life chances and community engagement through citizenship and sport, empowering women and girls, strengthening skills and expertise in English and UK-Pakistan partnerships in higher education, science and the creative industries.

The Department for International Development is investing some £320 million this year in Pakistan in one of its largest programmes. Pakistan was DFID’s third largest bilateral programme in 2014-15, and if progress continues, it could become DFID’s largest such programme in 2015-16. The greatest priorities for the UK as an international development donor to Pakistan are education, women and children, creating jobs and supporting economic growth, strengthening democracy and governance, building peace and stability in conflict-affected areas, and providing humanitarian assistance through life-saving support to people affected by conflict and natural disasters.

There are ways we can further our relations with Pakistan. In particular, I would like the Minister to consider the following issues. Will he ensure that every possible assistance is offered to Pakistan in the light of the earthquake, to assist the country at this difficult hour? There is a clear relationship between the number of direct flights to a country and an increase in trade. However, since 2008, British Airways has suspended its six weekly Heathrow flights. Will the Minister look at that? The Government’s travel advice has been raised as an issue. Will the Minister look at that and the process for reviewing it, in line with the improving security situation in Pakistan?

The Government have a target of increasing bilateral trade to £3 billion by 2015. Will the Minister present an update on plans to increase trade relations, including plans for trade delegations to Pakistan? With the bulk of trade focused on the goods sector, what can he say about the scope to develop trading links across the service sector? Around 10,000 Pakistani students are studying in the UK. However, changes to student visas were raised when we visited Pakistan as a delegation. Will the Minister provide an update on the situation?

On security, Pakistan is on the front line of the battle with terrorism and would appreciate assistance through GSM—global system for mobile communications—intelligence gathering and technology, such as biometric scanners and night goggles, to monitor the Afghan border more effectively.

I come to my last specific point for the Minister. In a recent joint statement with Prime Minister Sharif, President Obama said that US engagement with Pakistan, one of the largest Muslim democracies in the world, should be comprehensive and multi-dimensional to reflect the global challenges of the 21st century. Is that what the United Kingdom is trying to achieve with Pakistan in its long, strategic relationship with the country?

In conclusion, Pakistan still has many challenges, but it is determined to become a safe and prosperous nation at the heart of the international community. With our mutual shared history, our very large Pakistani-origin diaspora and our deep, strong, multi-dimensional relationship based on mutual trust, respect and understanding, our relationship can go from strength to strength by working together to tackle the global challenges facing the international community. I know that the Minister has recently visited Karachi and seen the many opportunities that the country offers. I thank him for the brilliant work that he does in building our two countries’ excellent relationship, and I look forward to hearing from him on this matter.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, who will have to speak quickly.

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

Thank you, Mr Davies; it is a real pleasure to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing it. He spoke with such passion, flair, understanding and expertise on this matter, and in such detail, that he has managed to give me limited time in which to respond. However, such is his enthusiasm for making sure that these matters are discussed in the House that it is fully understandable that he has eaten a little into my time to reply. I will do my best to respond to some of the matters that he has raised, and as usual, I will write to him in the normal manner if there are points that I cannot reply to now. I commend him and other hon. Members for the work they have done in the House.

My hon. Friend began, as I should as well, by offering our condolences, understanding and sympathies to all those affected by the horrific earthquake that has taken place in Afghanistan, but which has rippled right across the region. He asked what Britain is doing. Naturally, we stand ready to give support—we have had no formal request yet, but we stand by, ready to help our friend and ally.

My hon. Friend mentioned the important role of the enormous diaspora that we have in this country, which strengthens our cultural relationships and the understanding of our country, which is very important indeed. I am pleased that he also paid tribute to the British Council, not least the delegation that I had the opportunity to meet recently on a visit to the country. I was very proud to meet those British Council representatives and to hear about the work they are doing to strengthen this important bilateral relationship. I had the opportunity to visit not only Karachi, but Islamabad last month. I saw at first hand how Britain is working very closely with Pakistan on three key areas: security, which my hon. Friend raised, the economy and governance. Before trying to answer his questions, I will cover—in the time available—some thoughts on those three key areas.

First, as my hon. Friend implied, security across Pakistan has improved dramatically. There really was an understanding—almost a wake-up call—following the disastrous attack that killed so many children in the Peshawar public school. The British Government are very much playing our part. We are training Pakistani police and promoting work with prosecutors and the judiciary to investigate, prosecute and sentence terrorist suspects in line with international human rights standards. We have made an awful lot of progress, and I hope that continues.

Secondly, on the economy, the improved security is helping to drive economic growth. It is making the country more attractive. An International Monetary Fund programme has helped to stabilise the economy since the fiscal and balance of payments crisis two years ago. However, more work is needed if we are to increase the country’s growth to the 7% to 8% needed to reduce poverty. We continue to encourage Pakistan to address the energy crisis, tackle corruption and undertake further privatisations, which are needed to boost the economy. We are supporting businesses that want to trade more with Pakistan, where the opportunities, from energy to infrastructure, are clear, as I discovered on my visit. I hope to return to Pakistan, not least to Karachi, in the near future with my own trade delegation. Indeed, I have invited and encouraged the Mayor of London, who is familiar with working with megacities, to provide assistance in making sure that Karachi works towards being a gateway to the region.

Thirdly, on governance, the advances made in security and prosperity cannot be sustained without good governance, and democracy in Pakistan has shallow roots, as we have heard. We are helping to build on that and sharing our experience to cement accountable governance, credible elections and civilian transitions. The Department for International Development, which my hon. Friend mentioned a number of times, has one of the largest bilateral aid programmes and is helping Pakistan to improve healthcare, education and the provision of humanitarian assistance. UK aid has benefited over 6 million primary school children, ensured that over 1 million more births involved medical professionals and helped over 4 million flood victims.

My hon. Friend mentioned Kashmir, which is obviously a very sensitive subject. He is familiar with our long-standing position in the UK—that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution to the situation in Kashmir which takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or indeed, to mediate, but we very much encourage both sides to maintain their positive dialogue and to work towards a solution.

In the limited time remaining, I will try as best as I can to answer the series of questions that my hon. Friend asked. As I mentioned, on the earthquake, we stand ready to give support. We will continue to have discussions with British Airways. The time is now ripe for those flights to be reviewed and reinstalled. I hope that will be the case, pending the security requirements that we and the airline need. On travel advice, we want to make things as trouble-free as possible. There are over 1 million visits and movements every year. There is a requirement, occasionally, for us to review travel advice to specific areas. We are quite careful to make sure that we articulate that travel advice on our website.

On bilateral trade, we have the target of £3 billion. I hope we can persevere towards that. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the fact that the British Government now underwrites and guarantees business opportunities. The money has increased from £200 million to £300 million, which I think is excellent news. That is an indication of how we want to meet the target and to encourage not only businesses that are already there to grow, but new businesses to consider Pakistan as a place to open up and do business.

My hon. Friend mentioned the 70th anniversary in 2017. I very much hope that that is something we can work towards, and it is wise to flag that up now, to ensure that we can mark that important landmark in Pakistan’s history.

On visas, my hon. Friend will be aware of the robust requirement for us to have a thorough visa system in place. However, we want to make sure that we can attract the brightest and best students from around the world and that they are able to come here on legitimate courses, so we very much want to work with Pakistan on that front. On terrorism, I hear what he said about the requests. We will certainly look at that. We have a very strong relationship that is growing ever stronger with regard to helping Pakistan on counter-terrorism.

My hon. Friend spoke of the opportunities for the country to grow and to become the South Korea of the future.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I have 30 seconds left, so I hope it is a short intervention.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the high commissioner of Pakistan to our debate and in commending him for the brilliant work he does to build the relationship between our two countries?

[Mr Ellwood]

That intervention was absolutely deserved. I look forward to meeting the high commissioner in the very near future—I think we have a meeting planned either today or tomorrow—and we are always happy to have the opportunity to meet.

This has been a short debate, but it has articulated the importance of this bilateral relationship and the opportunities for us to work together on security, the economy and governance.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. There is some merit to my hon. Friend’s points, but I called this debate to see what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s view is of the potential context and contents of any proposed agreement.

A bilateral arms control treaty is not what our partners in the region are looking for. In preparing for this debate, I was fortunate enough to be briefed by representatives of the Bahraini Government on behalf of the Gulf Co-operation Council, and it is fair to say that our partner states in the Gulf have specific concerns about how significantly the proposed treaty has moved from what was originally intended. One of the most striking comments made by the representatives of the Bahraini Government was that they felt increasingly as if they were being treated by the P5+1 similarly to how eastern European countries were treated when there were arms control treaties between the US and the Soviet Union. If that development is concerning our allies in the GCC, the Government should take that seriously.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He mentioned the GCC and Bahrain, but another linked point is Iran harbouring and sponsoring terrorism in Yemen by supporting the Houthi rebels to destabilise the region, as well as in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, in addition to supporting Hamas in Israel. We cannot have a nuclear agreement with a state that is sponsoring and harbouring terrorism. It is a short-term fix for a long-term problem for the international community.

[Guto Bebb]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, which was certainly reflected in my discussions with the representatives of the Bahraini Government last week. The fact that good intentions are being taken for granted in relation to the treaty is being questioned by some of the Gulf states, which have concerns about Iran’s foreign policy objectives, to put it mildly, in that part of the world. It is important when we consider the potential treaty that we take into account the views of not just the P5+1 but partner states in that part of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti]

The point has been made that Iran is supporting the international community to defeat Daesh or Faesh. I think that that is completely wrong. The G7 statement says that we must first defeat the Assad regime to defeat Daesh, but as long as Iran is supporting the Assad regime, we cannot defeat Daesh or Faesh. That point must be clear.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The middle east is complex and contains states such as Iran that will sponsor terrorism. It is something that none of us wants to foresee, but the idea of Iran, with its attitudes towards its neighbours, especially towards Israel, having a nuclear weapon and being capable of using it is abominable.

Why does Iran need so much enriched uranium? We could go through the figures all day, but I do not intend to go into them again. I do not believe that Iran needs uranium just to create nuclear power stations; it wants to enrich it. Why does Iran not allow proper access for us to see what is going on? If we were allowed better access, we could stand up in this Chamber and say what a delight it is that we are able to go all over Iran and see exactly what it is enriching and what it is not, but we have no real idea, because we are not allowed access. We have a fairly good estimate of what might be going on, which in itself is far too much.

I am from the west of England and have the same trouble as my hon. Friend from the north of England, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) in pronouncing such words, but consider the Bushehr nuclear power station. It uses Russian technology— I first upset the Americans and now the Russians, so I will perhaps upset everyone this morning—and I am not always delighted with Russian technology or with Russian nuclear power stations. The idea of such a combination does not bode well. It is no good our sitting here, putting our rose-tinted glasses on and saying, “Let’s do a deal with Iran”—dare I say it?—“at all costs.” I have great faith in the Minister here today and Britain must stand up and be sensible about this matter. If we are actually to reduce terrorism in the middle east and to make the region more secure, we cannot possibly have an Iran with the capability to make a nuclear bomb.

The agreement mentions 10 to 15 years of control, but that is just not enough. Ten to 15 years passes almost in the blink of an eye. I would love to think that we could talk of a wonderfully peaceful middle east in 10 to 15 years. Call me cynical, but I do not believe that that will be the case—although I hope that it is. We must stand up to such states. It is no good sitting here saying, “It’s okay. Let’s have an agreement and brush all the problems under the carpet because they don’t really exist.” Oh yes they do. They exist and Iran will have that capability.

We have debated the matter thoroughly this morning. We need to have our eyes open. I want to hear from the Minister about the British position and not about some nice, cosy and lovely agreement that makes everyone feel warm. What is actually happening in Iran? What are we doing about getting inspectors in? I cannot see how we can sign any agreement until we know exactly what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is right that the rest of the Gulf and the Arabian peninsula is far from being an island of perfection in an otherwise dark world. Other states have serious issues and I would not in any way seek to relieve pressure on the Salafi funding of various regimes around the area. I completely agree that such things are inimical to our interests. The pressure that Islamic State, as it has been laughably called—it should be called Daesh—is putting on our interests in the region is abhorrent. The idea, however, that somehow my enemy’s enemy is my friend is also for the birds—it is completely wrong. We are watching the continuation of a period of violence that started with the battle of Karbala and the deaths of Hassan and Hussain. We do not want to get involved, saying, “No, everyone can nuclearise themselves.” Indeed, my hon. Friend makes my point for me, that to nuclearise one would be to encourage further problems for the whole area.

I repeat that to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons would be anathema to peace for the region, anathema to the civil rights of the society and anathema to our interests. I therefore urge the Minister, who I am glad to see in his place, because he understands the region extremely well, to look hard at what Her Majesty’s Government can do. We need to reinforce our position as a voice for peace in the region, reassure our friends in the Gulf and across north Africa that we will not abandon them and be only fair-weather friends. What will we do to stand up for them if Iran insists on pushing things, because we will be standing up not only for them, but for ourselves?

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend says that we should support our international allies in the region and around the world, but does he agree that we should learn lessons from what happened previously? For example, the international community stood by when Iran backed the Maliki Government in Iraq, which led to the crushing of the Sunnis and then to the rise of Daesh or Faesh and the massive problem we now have. Therefore, we have an international duty to support our friends and colleagues where oppression is going on and to deal with such policies and issues at an earlier stage.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making an excellent point. All I can add is to urge hon. Members to read “The Unravelling” by Emma Sky—a plug for a book by a friend of mine that is absolutely outstanding. It explores not only the failure of the American governance system in Iraq, but the rise of Iran’s influence. The point my hon. Friend made most eloquently is just that—Iran did not wait for us to push, but has been constantly pushing out from its borders, because its view of itself is not the same as what we say when we see the borders. It is not a post-Westphalian state; it is a pre-Islamic state that is still exploring its areas of influence.

Britain in the World

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I shall make a little progress, if I may.

It is also in Britain’s interest and in Europe’s interest that we resolve decisively the question of Britain’s relationship with the EU. Alongside the challenges and threats to the rules-based international system, negotiating a better future for Europe and our future relationship with Europe will be one of the overriding priorities of Britain’s foreign policy agenda in this Parliament. Allowing the British people to have the final say on Britain’s future in Europe was one of the centrepieces of the Conservative party’s offer to the electorate at the recent election, and one that distinguished us from the Opposition parties.

The British people grabbed that offer with both hands, and whatever revisionism we now see from the Opposition, the British people will not forget in a hurry who was prepared to trust them with this decision on Britain’s future and who was not. The introduction of the European Union Referendum Bill last week represented an election promise delivered by this Government, and I look forward to making the case for a referendum—a case that Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats have all denied—in the Second Reading debate next week.

The three key immediate challenges we face are clear: repelling the threat to the established order from Russia and developing a response to its doctrine of asymmetric warfare; crushing the evil and poisonous ideology of ISIL and extremist Islamism more generally; and resolving Britain’s relationship with the European Union.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend says that we should not link Daesh, that evil organisation in Syria and Iraq, with Islam, but the international community is doing so indirectly by calling it Islamic State. It is not a state, it is not Islamic and it is an affront to billions of Muslims around the world to call it Islamic State. Will the United Kingdom do what Turkey and other countries do and call it Daesh, or Faesh in Arabic?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend will not have heard me using the two unmentionable words that he uttered. I use the term ISIL. Daesh is equally acceptable. I would be grateful if he presented his argument to the BBC and perhaps got it to adopt his very sensible proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The answer is that, in relation to Syria, we are doing our training outside the country; in relation to Iraq, we are doing training inside Iraq. We are providing important specialist training to Iraqi forces—particularly counter-improvised explosive device training, which is probably the most pressing single need they have at the moment. We are actively looking at areas where we can increase our support; what we are looking for is areas where we can bring something to the table that others cannot—where we have a niche capability that will deliver a meaningful benefit to the Iraqi forces.

In Syria, we have to seek a political settlement to the civil war, which has allowed ISIL to control large swathes of territory in which to create a nascent terrorist state. We support UN special envoy de Mistura’s efforts to kick-start a political dialogue, and we will continue to train and support the moderate armed opposition and to seek a settlement that leads to a truly inclusive Government that can then tackle ISIL head on.

We are clear that Syria cannot overcome the extremist threat so long as Assad remains in power. As the forces under his command and control showed through their use of chemical weapons against their people and through their continued use of indiscriminate barrel bombing—including attacks over the weekend in Aleppo province—he has lost any claim to legitimacy in Syria. Assad is the heart of the problem. He has triggered a crisis that worsens day by day: 220,000 people dead, nearly 4 million people forced from their homes and more than 12 million in extreme need. We will maintain our leading humanitarian role. With our international partners, we must be ready to support a post-Assad regime to prevent the country being overrun by ISIL and to contain other Islamist extremist forces as it consolidates power.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hammond]

I will in just a moment.

While we work with our coalition partners to use the full range of diplomatic, economic and military tools to overcome a barbaric terrorist organisation with aspirations to statehood on NATO’s south-eastern flank, we must at the same time face a renewed threat on Europe’s eastern border to the rules-based international system. At the end of the cold war, we sought to draw Russia into the international community of nations by offering investment, trade and friendship, but President Putin has rebuffed those efforts. By his illegal annexation of Crimea and Russia’s destabilising activities in eastern Ukraine, he has demonstrated beyond doubt that he has chosen the role of strategic competitor. He appears intent on destabilising eastern Europe with the threat of a new and highly dangerous form of hybrid asymmetric warfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The programme as agreed at Lausanne does indeed capture that and provide very good levels of protection. Of course, we have now got to translate that into a detailed written agreement. That is the process that is going on at the moment.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hammond]

I must make some progress.

The Russian assault on our stability in Europe has been met with a robust response and Britain has been at the forefront of delivering it. We now need to maintain unity in the European Union and alignment with the United States to renew the sanctions until such time as Russia delivers on the pledges it made at Minsk. Sanctions must remain in place until it does so. If there are further violations, the EU has made it clear it will impose further sanctions. Nor will we forget Crimea: Russia’s annexation of Crimea was illegal and illegitimate in 2014; it remains illegal and illegitimate now.

On Europe, the concerted response in Europe to Russia’s aggression has shown how the European Union can leverage the muscle of 28 countries coming together to send a clear, unified message of willingness to use its economic power to protect Europe’s security. We must also recognise, however, that in a rapidly globalising world, the European Union has demonstrated fundamental weaknesses that have to be addressed. The Common Market we joined 40 years ago has changed out of all recognition since then. For many people in Britain, the EU too often feels like something that is done to them, rather than for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having been reappointed as Foreign Secretary, and I wish him well with his important responsibilities. From the start I assure him that where we believe it is right to do so, I and my colleagues will fully support him and the Government in matters of foreign policy.

I shall also say something about my predecessor as shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander. For nearly 18 years, he was committed to serving his constituents, and as a Cabinet Minister and as shadow Foreign Secretary he made a distinguished contribution to public policy and our debates; he will be much missed.

I pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. Whether it is their courage and sacrifice in Afghanistan, conducting air missions in Iraq, helping the people of Sierra Leone affected by Ebola or saving the lives of frightened families in overcrowded boats in the Mediterranean, their unfailing bravery, professionalism and dedication are in the finest traditions of our nation. I would also like to acknowledge all those who serve in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, here and abroad, for their outstanding work on behalf of our country and the world. In all my dealings with them as a Minister, I was unfailingly impressed.

In this century more than ever before, we as human kind are having to come to terms with our interdependence and what it means for relations between countries and peoples. One hundred and fifty years ago, when the British empire was at its height, Parliament was much concerned with what was happening overseas, but, unlike now, much of that debate focused on what Britain’s unilateral diplomatic or military response should be. Today’s world is very different. The empire has gone. New global powers and trading blocs have emerged and grown in strength and influence—most notably China—as power and wealth have shifted from north to south and from west to east. Events across the globe are seen and reported as they happen and their effects are felt and debated by people in this country as never before, as the imperial interests of the past have been replaced by the community of interests that reflects our nation today.

The challenges we face are changing too, and the end of history is nowhere in sight. Who would have thought that 25 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, we would see fighting between Russia, through its proxy forces, and Ukraine? Who would have believed that 350 years after the Enlightenment dawned, an ideology bitterly hostile to other faiths and the rights of women would rise up and use brutality and terror to conquer and seek to roll back progress in countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria?

[Rehman Chishti]

In tackling extremism, one has to create a tolerant world, but in 130 countries there is persecution of people based on their faith. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have to do much more to protect religious freedom, whether it is reforming blasphemy laws in Pakistan affecting Christian and other minority communities or in respect of Burma and the Rohingya community? Does he agree that that should be a key pillar of our foreign policy?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and shall have a word to say about it a little later.

Who would have thought we would be grappling with the potentially catastrophic consequences of loss of biodiversity and climate change—a threat that is the ultimate expression of our interdependence as human beings, because no one country on its own can deal with it? Make no mistake: if drought causes crops to fail or families to go thirsty, if flooding and rises in the sea-level wash people’s homes away or if conflict breaks out, human beings will do what human beings have done throughout the whole course of human history; they will move somewhere else to try to make a life for themselves and their families.

Despite these changes, Britain retains influence and reach in global affairs. We are part of the Commonwealth; we are members of the European Union, NATO, the G7 and the G20; and we have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Our history and our exports, material, political and cultural—democracy, human rights, the rule of law, the BBC, the English language—give us a voice that makes itself heard, and because of that heritage and good will, the Government have a particular responsibility to use Britain’s place in the world for the greater good by showing that we aspire to continue to be an outward-looking, not an inward-facing, nation.

That is why the mess the Government have got themselves into over the Human Rights Act is so damaging to Britain’s reputation internationally. Does the Foreign Secretary really believe it helps his cause when he raises human rights issues with other countries while back home his Cabinet colleagues talk about leaving the European convention on human rights, which we helped to draft after the second world war?