International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time in two days, Mr Gray—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

We are both very hard-working people.

[Bob Blackman]

Yes! I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Gray, and thank you for volunteering to oversee our proceedings this afternoon.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate and on his tireless work in championing the cause of religious minorities around the world. He is well known for standing up for people who are voiceless and unable to speak for themselves in countries where those with their religious beliefs are oppressed. I endorse the report he mentioned, which was released yesterday. It sets out a commendable agenda, which I trust will be supported across the House, irrespective of political parties.

In the short time in which I wish to speak, I will concentrate on Hindus who are minorities in certain countries, in particular minority Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Russia. No doubt colleagues will raise the plight of other minorities throughout the world, and it is absolutely right that they do, but I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus and am proud of that role. The APPG frequently raises particular problems faced not only by British Hindus but by Hindus in other countries.

An organisation called Human Rights Without Frontiers, which is based in Brussels and lobbies many of our European Union partners, has released a plethora of information highlighting the plight of Hindus across the world who are being oppressed in certain countries—in particular, I have to say, in Islamic republics that do not tolerate the Hindu religion. I believe that Governments, whoever they are, have a fundamental right to protect their borders and ensure that all citizens are protected, but after that, above all else, they should protect the minorities that live within those borders. People should have a fundamental right to celebrate their religion irrespective of what that is, as long as it does not offend or jeopardise the security of their country. We should speak up about that in Parliament—loud and clear.

In Pakistan over the past year alone, there have been countless acts of violence, persecution and discrimination against Hindus by the community but also by the Government and the army. I have highlighted several issues, not only in Pakistan but in Bangladesh and, I have to say, among the Rohingya. The hon. Member for Strangford highlighted the plight of the Rohingya generally, but as recently as 26 September 2017 a Daily Mail article highlighted the minority of Rohingya who are Hindu—the Rohingya are not just Muslims but Hindus as well. They fled violence in Myanmar and, in front of witnesses, eight young women were forced to either convert or die in refugee camps. To me, that is reprehensible; it is on the public record and I believe it should be condemned outright. Although I have every sympathy for the Muslim majority of Rohingya who flee in fear of their lives, it is reprehensible that the Hindus are picked on by that majority and are forced to convert or die in those camps.

There was a case in June in Thar of a Hindu girl of only 16 being abducted by men and forced to convert. The Hindu population was in outrage when that happened. That young girl was forced to convert to Islam and to marry a rather older Muslim boy. In this country we are not immune to that. As long ago as 2007, Sir Ian Blair, who was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at that time, pointed out that the Metropolitan police and universities were working together to combat “aggressive conversions”. He produced evidence of the huge number of complaints that had been investigated by the Met police, which was working with university authorities on the problems experienced in this country. The Hindu Forum of Britain highlighted the plight of Hindu girls in this country at the time, and this is still going on. We have to protect the minority rights of people in our country as well as those in other countries. Just in October, we heard about the plight of a Coptic Christian family who were captured in Egypt earlier this year. They were eventually allowed to return home after being kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam. The reality is that that goes on in a number of places across the world and we all must speak up about it.

In Pakistan, the new developments in so-called online blasphemy laws have resulted in the imprisonment of peaceful Hindus—people who celebrate their religion and put it online are arrested. Prakash Kumar, who is in the Gadani jail in Pakistan, was arrested in May 2017 for allegedly sending blasphemous content through WhatsApp. As a result of the accusation, he was surrounded by a mob that physically attacked him and, after the police arrested him, gathered outside the jail calling for him to be executed.

When we speak up for freedom of speech we have to face the fact that it should be a fundamental right for people to promote their religion. They should not be imprisoned or face execution for such activities. In Bangladesh, the arrival and activities of Islamic State and other violent extremist groups have contributed to increased attacks against the Hindu population and other religious minorities. The attacks have targeted not only individuals but places of worship. That is another of the insidious things going on across the world: places of worship are deliberately targeted and demolished because the majority population does not like a minority celebrating its religion.

Hindu communities have arrived in Bangladesh to escape persecution in Myanmar, as I have mentioned. They have had to set up Hindu refugee camps but have received very little attention from across the world and, more importantly, no aid from the Bangladesh Government. Indeed, I do not believe that they have received international development aid from our Government. If the Minister cannot respond to that specific issue today, will he look into it? Clearly, we need to protect all those minorities who are fleeing for fear of violence.

In Russia, Alexander Dvorkin, the vice-president of French-funded anti-sect organisation FECRIS, was behind the 2011 attempt to ban the holy scriptures of Hinduism in Russia. In February this year, a rally was held in front of the Russian embassy in the capital of India to protest against his anti-religious activities. It is quite right that we should confront people, wherever they are, who suggest that we ban religions and religious books, and say, “No.” We should speak up for all minorities and encourage them to celebrate the faith that they hold dear.

[Bob Stewart]

As I understand it, about 75% of Russians are, on the face of it, Russian Orthodox Christians, yet according to the report that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, there is suddenly persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Protestants in Russia. I asked in my earlier intervention, “What Christian country actually persecutes?” In a way, we could say that Russia does.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We always have to be careful when we talk about persecution of religious minorities. In this country, we are only 400 years from the time when someone who was the wrong version of Christian could be burned at the stake, so we must always be careful about pursuing this subject. I counsel him to remember that, not so long ago, religion was banned altogether in Russia; it was held under the radar. As he quite rightly says, the majority of the population of Russia purport to be of a Christian faith, but that does not mean that everyone is, and it certainly does not mean that the Government protect religious minorities. We should be careful about pillorying countries, but we need to zero in on the evidence, where it exists and where it can come forth, so that we can raise those issues and, indeed, so that the Minister can raise them with his counterparts.

Advocates of women’s rights across the world, of which I am one, cannot ignore the worldwide reports of Hindu and Sikh women and girls being kidnapped, forced into marriage against their beliefs and converted to a religion that they do not share. The reality is that that goes on in a range of countries. We must confront that evil—because evil it is. I have nothing against people who decide voluntarily to enter a relationship or a marriage with someone of a different religion and opt to convert to that religion—that is of course their choice—but kidnappings, forced conversions and forced marriages of women and girls, against their will, occur systematically across the world. It is fundamentally wrong that that is hidden and is not spoken about enough.

I have challenged people about that numerous times, and I invite students in particular but also religious organisations to bring forward the evidence for public scrutiny, so that we can get a serious debate going and have transparency about this issue in this country and across the world. Specifically, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to take up the issue of the protection of religious minorities and particularly Hindus and Sikhs in countries around the world where they are under serious threat of oppression and forced conversion, and the threat of death if they refuse to convert.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I apologise that I came to the debate only recently because of attendance at a Select Committee, Mr Rosindell. I shall keep my remarks short in case other hon. Members have already covered what I want to say. And what I want to say comes very much from my own family’s experience—not recent experience, but experience as a Huguenot family back in the 1600s, when the family came from persecution in France to the freedom that there was in England and, indeed, in other parts of the United Kingdom and other parts of the world.

There are three areas where I believe that the freedom of religion, of thought and of expression is vital and it is very important that our Government proclaim that in a modest, factual and responsible way around the world. It is not something to be ashamed or shy of, but something to be celebrated.

The first area concerns the economic consequence of freedom of faith or religion. The Huguenots were industrialists in France. When they were driven out, it cost France a substantial industrial base, particularly in textiles, but they brought that industrial base to England and other parts of what would become the United Kingdom. As a raw material producing country with the great wool barons of East Anglia, England became a textile-producing country and was one of the bases for the expansion of industry in these islands. So a practical reason for toleration is that it allows people with initiative, imagination and drive to come to your country. We have seen that on so many occasions.

One of the most recent examples in the United Kingdom was when Uganda, under the dictatorship of Idi Amin, decided that it did not want its Asian community any more. The Asian community that came from Uganda to the UK and other parts of the world—but mainly to the UK—as a result of that expulsion has been of enormous benefit to this country. The welcome that this country and other countries gave was both the right thing to do and very much in our interest.

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend is making a good contribution to this debate. Does he also recall that the wonderful people expelled from Uganda, whom I regard as Britain’s gain and Uganda’s loss, were denied access to return to India, the nation of their birth, by the Indian Government at the time? That is why a Conservative Government in this country encouraged them to come here, and they have contributed tremendously to the economy and wealth of this country.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful for that intervention; I was not aware of those details. I would point out that the same people who were welcomed here are now contributing greatly to the economy of Uganda and other parts of the world. The blessings that they have received in this country, very much by dint of their own hard work and application, they want to spread around the world. They are a fine example of what can be done when a people who are persecuted in one country and welcomed into another then decide to share the benefits of their prosperity with other countries around the world. I would also say that about Huguenots, who have made a great contribution in this country, in Canada, Australia, South Africa and Germany, and in what were then the Low Countries and now the Netherlands and Belgium.

Religious persecution is counterproductive. It drives out people who have a strong faith. Often with a strong faith comes a strong commitment to the community and therefore the economy, and to the common wealth of the nation, so I urge all Governments that persecute religious minorities to simply look to their own interests. They are absolutely doing the wrong thing for the future of their own country. They are narrowing the economic interests of their country and narrowing the culture and political space within their own country.

Secondly, I would look at the benefits to science. It has often been said that there is not much contact between science and religion, but I would say absolutely the opposite. What often drives scientific investigation is a desire to know more about this wonderful creation of God. My own father-in-law, the late Professor Donald MacKay, who was from the north-east of Scotland, always proclaimed that that was the most wonderful part of these islands. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I will not comment on that, but I can hear some affirmation. He worked with Alan Turing and many other distinguished scientists. He was a physiologist and brain scientist and also a very strong believer who wrote many books on the relationship between science and faith, which are well worth reading. I could give many other examples of scientists who have derived their desire for the investigation of this world from their faith and trust in God.

Thirdly, I want to stress what religious persecution takes from a country in terms of its culture. If some of the most creative people—those who have a faith or no faith—are persecuted and driven out, a huge amount of the country’s culture is lost, whether it is in its literature, music or graphic arts. There are many examples, but I will give just one small example of how our great writers and artists in this country have drawn upon their faith. Jane Austen grew up in a vicarage in Hampshire and the next-door parish was the parish of the Reverend Lefroy, hence the connections between her family and the Lefroy family over the past 200 years. It is clear that that experience of growing up in an atmosphere in which there was a strong and vibrant Christian faith had a great influence on Jane Austen’s writing.

Would Jane Austen’s novels have been written in a country in which there was repression? Possibly. We have seen examples of great literature that has come out of repression, but I would argue that a free country where people are allowed to follow their faith and to express themselves in a way they believe is right, and where there is no fear of the law coming down on them because of what they think or believe, is the best possible environment in which to produce great literature or great music. Thank you, Mr Rosindell. I appreciate the opportunity to say those few words.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

It is a great pleasure to work under your chairmanship as well, Mr Paisley. I am not sure whether there are planes to be caught and other things beyond 4.30 pm, but I will endeavour to respond to all aspects of the debate.

I am delighted to represent the Government in this debate and, along with everyone else, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing it on such an important occasion. I pay tribute to him and to all the members of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief for their continued strong commitment to promoting this universal human right. We welcome the views of parliamentarians and civil society groups on what more we might do, and we seek to act on those views where possible.

I was going to thank the new boy and the new girl who have made speeches today, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) has now left the Chamber. Perhaps he took to heart the idea of catching a plane home—he has a slightly longer commute to his constituency than I do, of course. He and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) made good and heartfelt speeches, as indeed did all Members who contributed.

To speak slightly personally, I have spent all but four months of my 16 years in this place as a Back Bencher. Although I believe firmly that I must speak today on behalf of the Government, I am also aware, as the Government need to be aware, that we do not have a full majority in the House of Commons. Therefore, the opinions of Parliament in this and many other matters have increasing importance. I take seriously this sort of debate. In my role as a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, I will endeavour to pass it on to the high commissions and embassies within my bailiwick, in order to ensure that the concerns expressed by parliamentarians do not just die in the ether or appear on a few pages of Hansard for a particular day, but are given practical effect. I give my word to everyone here that I shall endeavour to do so and to boil down the issues debated, as well as the important report, to make a practical—if not life-changing—day-to-day difference in how our embassies and high commissions operate. I will ensure that the concerns addressed by parliamentarians, not just in this debate but in numerous others, are brought to bear.

To an extent, that has already been done in relation to Burma, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) pointed out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford rightly said, more than 600,000 Rohingya have been forced to flee to Bangladesh since 25 August. Parliamentarians’ active role has contributed to the UK’s continuing leading international position on the matter. The issue is evolving, and I know that frustration has been expressed at various times, not least by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, and rightly so; it is her role in opposition to provide a practical sense of concern about the pace of reform.

I spoke about the issue yesterday at a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. The situation continues to evolve, in diplomatic and political terms. As recently as Monday I was at the United Nations in Geneva to pledge on behalf of UK taxpayers an additional £12 million, bringing to £47 million, or $62 million, the UK’s contribution to the heartfelt international efforts in response to this terrible humanitarian catastrophe, which at the moment is occurring predominantly in Bangladesh. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton is absolutely right that we are doing all we can to ensure that the displaced can return to Burma, and one hopes that some of the money will be spent to rebuild lives and villages on that side of the border.

That is an example of what is going on; no doubt in three or four months’ time there will be other issues for me, as a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, or one of my colleagues, to deal with. That is why we appreciate the work of the all-party parliamentary group and parliamentarians to raise the temperature of such important issues; it informs and complements our work overseas. I stress that I will, in my own small way as a Minister, take it seriously. If we hear such representations, we will try to ensure that we can act on them in our embassies and high commissions elsewhere.

Tomorrow our posts across the diplomatic network will mark International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day in various ways. I want to mark the occasion by reiterating the Government’s commitment to promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief, reflecting on the situation in a number of countries of particular concern and setting out what action the Government are taking on the issue.

Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights is the fundamental principle underpinning our work. It defines freedom of religion or belief as

“the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

As a number of hon. Members have pointed out in this debate, the article states that everyone has the right to choose a religion or belief, or to have no religious belief at all. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke earlier this year about her

“determination to stand up for the freedom of people of all religions to practice their beliefs in peace and safety.”

I set out my own personal commitment on this issue when I last spoke on it in a debate in July, and I know that Lord Ahmad, the FCO Minister with responsibility for human rights, regularly expresses sentiments similar to mine, both in the other place and in his engagements in London and overseas. I also know that he was with many Members yesterday in Speaker’s House for the launch of the APPG’s report, which is a genuinely impressive piece of work that will further inform our efforts in this area.

We make those efforts not just because the right to freedom of religion or belief is a principle worth defending for its own sake. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who said that we also make those efforts because we believe that societies in which people are free to practise their faith or belief are, by their very nature, more stable, more prosperous and more resilient to extremism.

Sadly, however, the situation in a number of countries around the world continues to cause grave concern, and as I have a little more time than I had anticipated I will give some specific examples. The information provided by the Pew Research Centre shows that Christians have been harassed in more countries than any other religious group. The middle east is the cradle of the religion, although obviously it is also the cradle of other religions, namely Islam and Judaism. However, Christians in the middle east are particularly suffering from harassment. In Iraq the Christian population has fallen from over 1 million in 2003 to a current estimate of 250,000. We are also concerned about the plight of Christians in Syria, Burma and a number of other countries.

However, followers of all faiths and religions suffer persecution, as at times do people of no faith, so I will set out what the UK Government are doing in some specific cases. Essentially, our approach is to tackle the issue on two fronts: first, working with and strongly lobbying countries individually; and secondly, working within organisations such as the United Nations.

A recent example of our bilateral approach is our work to defend the rights of Christians in Sudan, and we welcomed the release of several pastors earlier this year. We have also called for the release of the Eritrean Patriarch, Abune Antonios, and we are supporting the rights of many faith groups, including the Baha’i in Iran and, as has already been said, the Rohingya Muslims in Burma. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made the important point that some Rohingya are actually Hindu and that some have no religion at all, but they too have been persecuted during these terrible times. What I am saying also applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and Shi’a Muslims in several countries, including Saudi Arabia.

Lord Ahmad recently visited an Ahmadiyya mosque in Dhaka in Bangladesh for a multi-faith gathering, at which he made a call for universal religious tolerance. Most recently, we have expressed concern about proposed amendments to the law in Nepal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford rightly said would restrict religious freedoms. Only last month I had the opportunity to speak about that issue directly with my US counterpart at the UN General Assembly.

As an example of our multilateral work to defend and protect religious freedoms, I draw the House’s attention to the UK’s leading role in the global efforts to bring ISIS or Daesh to justice. All of us here are only too aware of the absolutely appalling treatment that that paramilitary group has meted out to anyone who does not subscribe to its extremist ideology. That has included religious minorities in Iraq and Syria—Christians and Yazidis—and of course the majority Muslim populations in those countries.

The UK is determined that Daesh will not get away with it. That is important not only in countering extremism, but in defending the right to freedom of religion or belief. We have led the multilateral response to Daesh. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, together with his Belgian and Iraqi counterparts, got the ball rolling last year with a UK-led initiative to bring Daesh to justice. Just last month a new UK-drafted UN resolution, co-sponsored by 46 member states, including Iraq, was adopted unanimously by the Security Council, as Daesh accountability resolution 2379. The resolution calls on the UN Secretary General to establish an investigative team to collect, preserve and store evidence of crimes by so-called Islamic State, beginning in Iraq. I know that we will be supported by members of the APPG, who focused on the issue when their report was launched yesterday.

That UN investigative team will be led by a special adviser with a mandate to promote the need to bring ISIS to justice around the globe. We have contributed, as a down-payment, £1 million to support the establishment of the team, to ensure that it is adequately resourced at the outset and that the evidence collected is used to bring the perpetrators to book.

However, our work on promoting freedom of religion or belief goes beyond bilateral or multilateral efforts overseas. We are also now committed to stepping up our engagement with faith leaders here in the UK. That is why Lord Ahmad has established a regular roundtable with a variety of faith leaders and representatives, the first of which he hosted as recently as Monday. The aim of the roundtable is to discuss how the Government and faith leaders can work together to address issues of religious freedom. We want faith groups to play a bigger role in seeking solutions to international crises and to broader international challenges. That international network will be of critical importance. Also, when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office marks International Human Rights Day in December, we will focus particularly on promoting freedom of religion or belief, and on the important role that faith leaders can play in driving that agenda.

We shall continue to support religious freedom and tolerance through our project work under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Magna Carta fund for human rights and democracy. I must confess that I am particularly proud of a project that is helping secondary schoolteachers in the middle east and north Africa to create lesson plans that promote tolerance and freedom of religion or belief among all their pupils. The project is being implemented by an organisation called Hardwired Inc, which, along with other civil society organisations, is a vital partner in our efforts to make article 18 a reality. I pay tribute to its dedicated work.

We continue to strive to be as effective as possible in promoting freedom of religion or belief. Ensuring that our embassy and high commission staff are properly trained is an essential part of that programme, and I know that the APPG’s report rightly highlighted such training. I will continue to look for ways to improve religious literacy among our staff. We already provide a set of resources to support their work, which we will promote more widely to our posts overseas. Earlier this month the FCO launched a new religion and diplomacy course. We will continue to review actively both that course and the feedback it receives from our staff, to ensure that it meets our needs in a fast-changing world.

In addition, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad will write to all our ambassadors and high commissioners tomorrow, reissuing our freedom of religion or belief toolkit and instructing them to give serious consideration to freedom of religious belief in their diplomatic engagement with host Governments. Where there are violations of religious belief, Members can be assured that the FCO and its Ministers are clear that they will be addressed through our diplomacy with international partners.

In partnership with Lord Ahmad, I will also write to the embassies and high commissions in key countries for which I have responsibility, asking them to report on precisely what they are doing to promote freedom of religion or belief. I will ensure that our embassies are aware of the strength of both parliamentary feeling and my own personal feelings on this issue.

As recently as 2011 there were 150,000 Christians in the city of Aleppo in Syria, which is a country I visited in my first term as a Member of Parliament. Now, as far as we can understand, there are fewer than 35,000. Religious persecution has increased in other Muslim countries, such as Pakistan, Sudan and Iran. In Nigeria, 1.8 million people have been displaced by Boko Haram. In India, it has been suggested that the harassment of Christians has increased with the current rise of Hindu nationalism. However, I also take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said on that issue, namely that Hindus and Sikhs themselves are under day-to-day threat in parts of the subcontinent. In China there are now no fewer than 127 million Christians, which I fear has upset the authorities there, who see Christianity as some form of foreign infiltration and seek to Sinicise it in some way.

I will now take the opportunity to address one or two issues that were specifically raised by a number of Members. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford that there are concerns that some provisions of the new penal code in Nepal may be constructed to limit the freedom to adapt, change or practise a religion. I have already raised those concerns with the Government of Nepal and will continue to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) mentioned Egypt, which is a human rights priority country. Her Majesty’s Government have been clear that freedom of religion or belief needs to be actively protected. The Government of Egypt have stated their commitment to protecting the rights of minorities and the need for religious tolerance. We regularly raise concerns with the Egyptian Government about the deteriorating human rights situation, including issues that affect Christians. The Coptic Christian community is made up of 8 million to 9 million people and has been around as long as any other Christian group, but there are great fears for its future, and certainly for its future stability.

May I take this opportunity to apologise to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who has not yet received a response to his letter on behalf of his constituent from 25 August? I will endeavour to find out where the letter has gone in the system. He made some interesting comments about the apostasy issue. I will contact the Home Office to request that it finds a way to include such cases within the hate crime statistics, if that is at all possible. I will get back to him when I have a reply.

There was a slightly discordant shot from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on genocide. Genocide is strictly a legal term. Whether a parliamentary motion or Ministers refer to it as genocide is neither here nor there; it is strictly a legal term. With what has been happening in Burma and various other parts of the world, it is clear that a process has to be gone through in the UN and finally in the International Criminal Court before a genocide can be proven.

I want to reassure those Members who raised the issue of funding. All DFID’s support to Governments involves discussions on human rights, and we will continue to give serious consideration to adopting recommendations 1 and 2 from the report to take account of DFID and FCO funding streams. I do not want to commit my Department on the Floor of the House without it having had a proper look through all the recommendations. To be brutally honest, many of them relate to issues that we already address on a day-to-day basis, but we will give the report serious consideration. Once we have had a chance to look through all the recommendations, I will get back to the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford to say which ones we are in a position fully to adopt and what action we would look to take elsewhere.

[Bob Blackman]

During my speech I raised the plight of a particular prisoner in Pakistan. Will the Minister take that issue up with the ambassador, the high commissioner and the Pakistani Government?

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend did raise that case. If he is happy, I will take it up in writing. We will ensure that the matter is taken up.

In conclusion, the Government believe strongly that whole societies benefit when the fundamental rights of all their citizens are respected and protected. That includes the right to religious freedom or belief, or to have no religion at all. That is why we will continue to work with individual countries, with the international community and with faith leaders and civil society organisations to promote and defend this fundamental right. The UK Government’s position is to remain absolutely committed to promoting freedom of religion or belief as enshrined in article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, supported by article 2 on non-discrimination and article 26 on access to justice. I think I speak for everyone who has contributed to this important debate when I say this: only when these universal rights are universally respected can there be religious freedom for everyone, everywhere.

UK Relations with Taiwan

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK relations with Taiwan.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in Westminster Hall, Mr Paisley. I place on record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: along with many colleagues, I took part in the all-party parliamentary group visit last month to Taiwan, where we were hosted by the Government and businesses from across Taiwan. That is one of the great values of all-party parliamentary groups; we can visit countries and states around the world, report back to Parliament and brief Ministers and members of the Government who, despite the extremely hard work that they undertake, cannot be everywhere all the time. It is a vital part of our parliamentary work.

To set the scene, Taiwan is the 22nd largest economy in the world, with a gross domestic product of close to $530 billion. It is a growing country with a population of 24 million, concentrated around the coast of a volcanic island, and its industry is growing dramatically. It is a vibrant democracy and an open society, with opportunities to share our values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The UK and Taiwan have many shared interests in maintaining peace and stability not only in Asia but in the Asia-Pacific region in general.

Taiwan is also, of course, well known around the world for its high-tech information and communications technology industry. Its target of increasing and strengthening five key industries—the Asian silicon valley, biomedicine, green energy, smart machinery and defence—means ample opportunities for free trade between us and Taiwan. I am one of those who believe that in the Brexit era, we have an opportunity to be internationalist and broaden our horizons in terms of the countries with which we trade and opportunities to set up new arrangements around the world. Taiwan is one country where we have a huge opportunity, because we have such a strong base to build on.

Taiwan has been a World Trade Organisation member since 2002. Who knows where we will be after March 2019, but I suspect that given our involvement with countries such as Taiwan, we will have an opportunity to forge closer links and possibly a free trade deal and further co-operation with Taiwan post-Brexit. As our economic relationship is central, further improvements have been made. More than 300 UK companies have business operations in Taiwan already. I ask not only the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but the Department for International Trade to encourage more UK companies to set up trading links with Taiwan.

At the last count, Taiwan was the UK’s 39th largest export market and 28th largest source of imports overall. We exported £1.8 billion in goods to Taiwan in 2015, but imported £3.5 billion, giving a trade deficit of £1.7 billion. We have had a trade deficit in each of the last 10 years. It is important, in the post-Brexit world, to look to improve the importance and levels of our exports. Our exports to Taiwan peaked as long ago as 2010, so there is a lot of potential to improve on the position.

To give a brief history of Taiwan and our trade involvement, in 1950 we ended unofficial relations with the Republic of China following the Chinese civil war and recognised the People’s Republic of China, but we maintained our relations in Taipei and continued to conduct trade-related activities. In September 1963, a Government office was established in the UK by the name of the Free Chinese Centre, becoming the Taipei Representative Office in 2015. Obviously, there is a lot of opportunity there.

In 1976, we established the Anglo-Taiwan Trade Committee in Taipei, which ended up increasing our involvement with Taiwan overall. In 1993, the Anglo-Taiwan Trade Committee and the UK Education Centre merged to become the British Trade and Cultural Office, which became the British Office Taipei in 2015, to ensure that we extended the full scope of the work.

The Government’s position on Taiwan has been summarised in written evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs:

“Under the terms of the 1972 agreement with China,”

the Government

“acknowledged the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and recognised the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China. This remains the basis of our relations with Taiwan.”

Will my right hon. Friend the Minister clarify, when he replies to this debate, our relations with China?

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I, too, have an entry in the register. Early in my ministerial career, it became abundantly clear to me what huge importance our principal ally, the United States, attaches to free movement within the South China sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must bear in mind in all our future relations with China the importance that our principal ally attaches to the South China sea?

[Bob Blackman]

The military position with respect to Taiwan and the statements made by the People’s Republic of China—not least this week, as representatives have met to determine their future strategy and reconfirm their view that Taiwan is a province of China—strengthens my view that we must stand steadfast with our allies in the United States and in Taiwan to ensure Taiwan’s future economic prosperity and independence.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I declare my interests as contained in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also chairman of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a great shame that relations between Taiwan and China have deteriorated since the democratic elections in which Tsai Ing-wen was elected President of Taiwan? We can see from the number of flights between Taiwan and China every week—more than 800—that if only both sides could sit down and see how many mutual interests they have, the prosperity that would pour from that would be beneficial to the peoples of both countries.

[Bob Blackman]

Opportunities will arise with the recommencement of direct flights from the UK to Taipei on 1 December. That is a welcome move, which will encourage the development of trading relations and tourism between the UK and Taiwan. As my hon. Friend says, it is right that given the number of flights and the relationship between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China, there are opportunities for greater trade and co-operation.

As a result of the political situation in Taiwan, the people have exercised their democratic right to a vote—we all understand that in a democracy, we do not always get the results we would like—and have elected a President and a party that are far more independent of the People’s Republic of China than the Chinese might like. On our visit to Taiwan, the great impression that I gained, as I am sure other colleagues did, was that the people of Taiwan see themselves as Taiwanese, not Chinese. That is very important for our future relations.

My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) referred to defence links. Although the UK does not have any military ties with Taiwan, we should press the Government to promote Taiwanese participation in international organisations, so that we can normalise relations and gain from its expertise.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It would be great if we had more military links with Taiwan—for example, if Royal Navy ships visited. The United States does not visit Taiwan because of Chinese pressure, but perhaps we should be looking at that sort of activity. I ask the Minister to consider that. Royal Navy vessels are in the South China sea and it would be great for them to visit Taiwan. That may upset the Chinese, but frankly—tough.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, I think. My view is that as a country we should not be going round trying to upset people across the world.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Can I take my hon. Friend back to his assertion that the Taiwanese people do not see themselves as Chinese? Part of the complexity of the issue is that some do. The tragedy was that Chiang Kai-shek saw precisely that identity, and it was that put him in the position of refusing the possibility of remaining in the United Nations when the People’s Republic of China became the proper representative of China and the Chinese.

[Bob Blackman]

My right hon. Friend tempts me to talk through the history. As he knows, the people of Taiwan have transferred from Japanese and Chinese rule to independence. They fiercely defend their independence from both Japan and China.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

I apologise for intervening again; sadly, I have to leave soon on Select Committee business. As well as being chairman of the British-Taiwanese all-party group, I am vice-chair of the all-party group on China. This is a complex issue. When I say that I am a friend of China and a friend of Taiwan, some people cannot get their head around that, but we want to have good relations with Taiwan and China. We need to promote that and get both sides working together.

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend gets to the meat of the issue. We need to use our soft power, particularly in the post-Brexit era, to harness co-operation from individuals and individual countries around the world. The opportunities for co-operation will allow the economies of the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan to grow, to the mutual benefit of all citizens. We should encourage that.

I return to the British Government’s role. In 2009, Taiwan became part of the visa waiver programme. It was decided, after assessing different regimes around the world, that Taiwan was a low-risk country. During the first year of the programme, the number of visitors to the UK from Taiwan increased from 26,100 to 54,200. The estimated figure last year was 82,900, and with the introduction of direct flights, the numbers will increase yet further.

The Taiwan-UK youth mobility scheme, which provides 1,000 UK visas each year to Taiwanese people between the ages of 18 and 30, was launched in 2012. It also gives UK young people the opportunity to visit Taiwan each year and interrelate with young people from Taiwan. That needs to be part and parcel of the future of our relationship. Those on the scheme are encouraged to work full or part time, to carry out voluntary activities or study, and to understand the mutual benefits of the culture, society and lifestyles of our two countries. In 2016, the UK Government opened the registered traveller service to Taiwan, which has improved the convenience of travel for Taiwanese citizens who visit the UK frequently. We have built stronger relations between our two nations as a result.

There are clearly many opportunities. In the past year alone, visits to Taiwan have been made by the Minister for Trade Policy; by the Prime Minister’s trade envoy, Lord Faulkner; and by three UK parliamentary delegations. In February, a number of UK cities participated in the first ever UK-Taiwan smart city forum in Taiwan. In March, Sir David King, our special representative on climate change, visited Taiwan. In June, Taiwan’s Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs met the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), to promote co-operation on renewable energy. In September, Lord Faulkner visited Taiwan again, to witness the signing of a letter of intent for co-operation on railway heritage between Taiwan and the UK. Direct flights will resume on 1 December; I trust many colleagues will be present to witness the first flight arriving at Gatwick. Clearly, we will need to expand Gatwick to accommodate all the extra flights coming to our great city of London.

We need to build on our strong relationship and promote regular dialogue between our two countries.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I was on one of the delegations to Taiwan. The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech on our relations with Taiwan. Given all the delegations that take place and all the ministerial support that the UK and Taiwan give each other, will he encourage the Minister to encourage his Chinese counterparts to allow Taiwan observer status in international bodies? That status has been stripped from Taiwan recently, which has set back its whole economic development and strategy. The best way of improving Taiwan’s relations across the world is to allow it to have observer status in international bodies.

[Bob Blackman]

I am coming on to what needs to happen. First, we need to facilitate industry collaborations. Smart city initiatives give UK cities outside London the opportunity to participate in promoting business with Taiwan. With smart cities and industries such as renewable energy and railways, the UK and Taiwan can look forward to greater co-operation. We need to build on our successful links.

Secondly, we need to promote and support Taiwan’s participation in international organisations, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) says. One is the World Health Assembly. Taiwan was a key contributor to the WHA for eight consecutive years and dedicated itself to international medical work and disease prevention, so it was a great shame that it was excluded from the WHA this year, at the behest of the PRC. In my view, the PRC is adopting a short-sighted approach in continuing to want to exclude Taiwan, and I note that Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and my right hon. Friend the Minister have directly raised concerns about this issue with the PRC.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS, epidemic of 2002-03 clearly showed what can happen if we exclude people and countries from participating in the promotion of good health. at that time, researchers in Taiwan did not receive the data they needed to combat that virus, and it continued to spread in both Taiwan and China. So we have a part to play in encouraging the PRC and other countries and organisations to promote Taiwan as a member.

[Bob Stewart]

I, too, have visited Taiwan and been influenced by what I saw there. The Taiwanese provide world-class emergency teams when something goes seriously wrong in any country worldwide and they should be hugely applauded for that. There is never a restriction; Taiwan sends its teams wherever it can, although sometimes China blocks them. Nevertheless, it is a fantastic thing that Taiwan does for the world.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree completely.

To continue with my short list of international organisations, another is the United Nations framework convention on climate change. We know that we cannot combat climate change by ourselves; we have to co-operate with all others across the world. Taiwan has set a very ambitious target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and it is therefore absolutely right, even though it is a small island state, that Taiwan should have a key role in helping and encouraging others to participate in this process. It is a great shame that Taiwan has not been invited to do so since 2016, so I firmly believe that our Government should encourage others to allow Taiwan to participate in the process again.

Similarly, there is the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Back in 2013, Taiwan was invited to attend the ICAO assembly as a guest, but since the assembly in 2016 it has been excluded. That is complete nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) referred to the number of flights between Taiwan and China, and now of course international flights go from all over the world into Taipei, which means that Taiwan needs to be represented in the ICAO, even if just as a guest.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I also declare my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend has touched on a very important issue—air safety. I sit on the Select Committee on Transport and air safety should not be a bargaining chip in international relations; it is paramount. No one country has a monopoly on the wisdom of what makes it safer for us to fly around the world, so I find it unexplainable that Taiwan—a major air carrier—should be excluded from deliberations on that issue.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Quite clearly, international air safety should trump all other issues. Irrespective of diplomatic relations, it does not make sense to fail to seek the co-operation of countries to ensure that international airspace is safeguarded.

The final item on my list of asks concerns the International Criminal Police Organisation, or Interpol. Cross-border crime is becoming a more serious issue year by year, and as we seek to contribute to the global efforts against organised crime, cyber-crime and terrorism, it is quite clear that in the coming years we should support Taiwan’s participation in Interpol as an observer so that further progress can be made. We can see that Taiwan has already made a great contribution towards Interpol, and quite clearly it is unfair and ridiculous that it is excluded from that organisation, especially given the levels of cyber-crime emanating from south-east Asia.

I return now to what I regard as the value of the British-Taiwanese all-party group. The group has more than 150 members from Parliament, which makes it one of the largest groups in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley and Lord Steele are the two co-chairs of the group, which shows it not only has a cross-party view but speaks with a strong voice on behalf of the UK Parliament on relations with Taiwan. We should also remember that in October 2014 the Lord Speaker, Baroness D’Souza, became the first ever Lord Speaker to visit Taiwan, which demonstrates the positive development that is taking place between our two countries.

I look forward to hearing further contributions from colleagues. I also ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to emphasise in his response to the debate the importance of UK-Taiwan relations and to say how we can further the development of those relations, economically, diplomatically and possibly militarily, if that is appropriate. Even more significantly, given the increased focus and increasingly outward-looking nature of the PRC, it will be important in the future that we stand by our allies and friends in the South China sea region, to ensure that that region is not destabilised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

Thank you, Mr Paisley, and I thank the Minister for his constructive remarks in response to the debate. I welcome the views of the official Opposition and the Scottish National party, and I welcome my hon. colleagues from across the House putting the case for strengthening relations economically, commercially and on security between the UK and Taiwan.

The reality is that Asia faces a challenge over the next few years, and has done so on security, economic and cultural interaction. With China assertive and looking outward far more, the future of all countries in Asia is paramount. Today we have rightly concentrated on our relations with Taiwan. We have had an excellent debate on how to strengthen our relations in future and on how to assist our friends in Taiwan to fulfil their place in the world, whether in the United Nations or through other roles.

There is clearly very strong support from across the House, in all parties, for strengthening relations between the UK and Taiwan, which means that, regardless of who is in government, we will see our friendship and our commercial relationship growing ever stronger. That is very important. We may have differences of opinion about our views on defence and other things, or indeed about our recognition of Taiwan as a country, but what we can build on is the shared values—and shared progress—not only across parties but between the UK and Taiwan.

I therefore invite you, Mr Paisley, to put the Question. We can look forward to further development of excellent relations between the UK and Taiwan in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UK relations with Taiwan.

Iran: Human Rights

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Ms Buck, I apologise for being slightly late and entering the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) was speaking.

I am delighted to participate in the debate and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on initiating it. She is well known for her travails in Northern Ireland as Secretary of State. She brought together people who were polar opposites and did a brilliant job. I am glad that she has now been released from the shackles of government and can lead the campaign for human rights around the world and particularly in Iran.

I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister in his place, because he is one of those individuals who takes these issues very seriously; indeed, he has been a master of his brief during previous terms in government, so I look forward to his reply to this debate.

I take the view that a Government’s first duty is to safeguard their borders and their citizens from external attack. Their second duty is to protect the rights of minorities within their borders. We have heard about the reality in Iran from colleagues. The Jewish community in Iran was quite extensive 60 years ago; it is now non-existent. The Christian community is reducing fast in numbers. The Baha’i community is under constant threat and attack, and the Government of Iran do nothing. Minority sects within Islam are under threat and the Government in Iran stand aside and do nothing. The sad reality is that we have a history of the failure by the Iranian Government to address the needs and rights of minorities. That is a fundamental duty.

I have been extremely sceptical and oppositionist to the Iran nuclear deal. I take the view that it has given the Iranian regime the opportunity not to take up human rights, and has actually blessed what they are doing. The sad fact is that whatever our views on the Iran nuclear deal—we will hear later today what the United States of America is going to do about the nuclear deal—it has not advanced human rights in Iran one inch. That has to be accepted.

I agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members on human rights, but I particularly want to concentrate on the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in 1988. Many of us have had the opportunity to attend conferences, in this place or externally, that have shown clear evidence of the extent of that massacre. I have heard the first-hand experiences of the relatives of those who were executed, people who escaped from that massacre, and the first-hand experience of the repression and persecution of minorities that routinely take place.

[Theresa Villiers]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the publication of the report by the UN special rapporteur, which clearly acknowledges that these events did happen, should be a reason for the Government to take this more seriously, and to begin to raise it more vigorously in international forums such as the UN?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I was coming on to the special rapporteur’s report, which gives a world view of the massacre. This is not a few itinerants saying, “We believe this happened.” This shines the light of transparency on what happened 30 years ago in Iran. I regret that our Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not taken up this call, and not taken the view that we need to take action on the report. I would urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to make sure that we take up this issue in a particular way, and make sure that Britain lends its support to the rights of minorities and those people who were drastically affected by this massacre.

In the last Parliament, I was pleased to co-sponsor an early-day motion with the former Member for Mansfield, Sir Alan Meale, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and the former Member for Lewisham West and Penge. The early-day motion set out the position—I reiterate—that we note

“that the audio file of Ayatollah Montazeri, former heir to Khomeini, in 1988, reveals new evidence about the massacre of more than 30,000 political prisoners in Iran’s prisons in the summer of 1988 including women and children and all political prisoners who supported the opposition movement of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI); understands that the massacre was carried out following a fatwa by the Supreme Leader Khomeini… is concerned by Montazeri’s comments that this was the biggest crime that has occurred in the Islamic Republic and that the world will not forgive us”

if we stand idly by and allow the authorities of the Iranian regime to act with impunity, as they have done in the past few decades, which is the main cause for continuation of these crimes in Iran. We endorse the survivors’ account that those in charge of the massacre go unpunished and are currently in the highest positions in the Iranian Government.

The reality is that we can table early-day motions and make speeches in this place. That does have an effect, and builds pressure on the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the regime in Iran, but we need our Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular to take up the issue. Last year, we had a similar cross-party statement by more than 100 MPs and peers. That demonstrates the wealth of support in Parliament for action on this issue.

On 21 September, the UN Security Council adopted an historic resolution proposed by the UK to bring Daesh to justice. That shows that Britain can bring war criminals to justice. Now is the time for the United Kingdom to co-sponsor a motion bringing justice for the victims of the 1988 massacre. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. The FCO can do more, and it could acknowledge and support the viable 10-point democratic platform for the future, as presented by the NCRI president, Madame Maryam Rajavi, which calls for the abolition of the death penalty, torture and the theocracy’s Shi’a laws, as well as the prohibition of the suppression of women and any forms of discrimination against followers of any religion and denomination, as required by the UN charter.

I would also urge, in conclusion, my right hon. Friend the Minister to address the fundamental issue that opposition to the theocratic regime in Iran should be given a voice and a platform in this country. I believe that Madame Rajavi should be issued with an invitation to visit this country and shine the light of transparency on what is going on in Iran. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the proposal to give that opportunity to the NCRI and the PMOI, to expose once and for all to the British public what it is like to live in Iran and what could be done as an alternative to the current theocratic regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me. The Government have repeatedly said, and I can say again here, that human rights considerations are not being, and will not be, sacrificed for trade deals. That is not the Government’s intention, as the hon. Member for Leeds North East indicated from the Opposition Front Bench, and we have repeatedly said so. I can give that assurance to colleagues in the House today.

[Bob Blackman]

Before the Minister concludes, both my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and I raised the issue of the 1988 massacre, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister has not replied. Will he lead the campaign in the United Nations to get a proper report into that?

Hurricane Irma

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

On search and rescue, the answer is, yes, those personnel will be deployed. The Cobra meeting at 2 o’clock this afternoon will discuss all those options. Sitting in the crisis centre this morning, looking at the auxiliary vessel going, I can say that one of its great advantages is that it has a helicopter. One issue that we are looking at very urgently is trying to get a second helicopter. Then we will consider supplementary relief flights and possibly a second naval vessel—I am not committing to that now. In the hope that we might be able to do that when we look at the disaster and assess it, then, hopefully, the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question will be yes. We must appreciate that this is a massive, perhaps unprecedented, natural disaster. We have not seen a hurricane on this scale in our lifetime, so we will have to assess the damage and respond as best we possibly can, knowing that this is—as I would put it—a whopper.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the commitment made by the Government to help those who are suffering. Clearly, in advance of the hurricane the United States ordered the complete evacuation of Key West. That was not practical on many of the islands that have been devastated, but has there been any request, for example, for Barbuda to be completely evacuated given that reports suggest that it is uninhabitable?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We are not in power to demand the evacuation of countries that are self-governing, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption]—but we do our best to ensure that they are fully informed, and modern science does help inform people. People have had greater prior notice of the danger than they would have had even two decades ago.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I remind colleagues that topical questions are supposed to be short? If Members insist on asking long questions they will be cut off, as it is not fair on colleagues.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

My immediate priority is to help to resolve the tensions in the Gulf, where Britain has old friendships and vital interests. That is why I have just returned from visits to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, where I reinforced the need for dialogue and de-escalation. Tomorrow, I will attend a summit in Trieste on the western Balkans region, where the UK is playing a vital role in guaranteeing stability and resisting Russian ambitions.

[Bob Blackman]

In Jammu Kashmir yesterday terrorists brutally murdered seven Hindu pilgrims, including five women, as they undertook amaranth yatra. What action has my right hon. Friend taken to condemn that terrorist outrage, and what support will he give to recovering and bringing to justice the terrorists, who, we believe, emanate from Pakistan?

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are in close contact with the Indian and Pakistani high commissioners about Kashmir. I assure him that we will bring this up over the next 24 hours and ask for a plan of action, as he requests.

Israel and Palestinian Talks

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).

As has been mentioned, the centenary of the Balfour declaration falls this November, marking 100 years since the British Government confirmed the UK’s support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people. In making that commitment, we recognised that the UK not only has an interest in Israel as a nation, ally, regional partner and friend, but specifically laid out the need to protect the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, thus creating the foundation on which the state of Israel was built. The British Government have since committed to a long-standing position of supporting a two-state solution.

The centenary of the Balfour declaration presents a unique opportunity to revive the middle east peace process, and it is important that we play our part in this. As we re-evaluate the role that the UK can play in brokering peace, I am pleased that the Gracious Speech includes the commitment to find sustainable political solutions to conflicts across the middle east.

As this year also marks the anniversary of the 1967 war, we reflect that the halfway point since Balfour was marked by six days of regional conflict that pitted Israel against its neighbours, one against the other, leaving a legacy of distrust, violence and resentment against ensuing settlements. And yet today, Jordan and Israel are beacons of much-needed stability in a region still riven by war, conflict and the mass displacement of populations.

I have visited both countries and seen not only the huge challenges that they face, but their inspiring work and determination to succeed. I refer Members to my entries in the register of interests regarding my visits to Jordan and Israel. In Jordan, I saw the wonderful work being undertaken by UNICEF in the Za’atari camp and in the host communities, educating thousands of refugee children and helping to support many of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian people who have been given refuge by the Jordanian Government. The Jordanian commitment to stability in the region makes the country potentially a strong partner in the push for peace.

In Israel, I visited Rawabi, the first Palestinian planned city, which is expected to provide homes for over 35,000 Palestinians, and is aiming to create more than 50,000 jobs, focusing on the high-tech, healthcare and the renewable energy sectors. It was awe-inspiring to see a city built from scratch.

We should not underestimate the prospect that a desire for economic progress could also fuel a drive for peace. With sectors such as technology booming in Israel, with 300,000 high-tech workers being employed, a solution with two states at peace offers a future of prosperity for both.

Over recent months, we have seen terrorism and violent attacks in Israel and the west bank, as well as closer to home in the UK. It is always the innocent who suffer. However, whenever terrorism, terrorist extremism and intolerance take place, that must never be allowed to deter us from a desire for peace and democracy. To achieve the goal of a peaceful, stable region, we must support authorities on both sides to come to the table without prescriptive preconditions and in a spirit of understanding.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for peace in the middle east. In the light of Indian Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Israel and the fact that India has suffered terrorism as well, does she agree that those two great countries can come together and form an excellent security relationship?

[Mary Robinson]

I agree. It is interesting that we are looking to see which other countries can help, even though we acknowledge that peace itself will come only from the two sides involved.

Regional players and previously hostile states are moving closer towards accepting an ideal of peace, and I note that at the Security Council briefing on the peace process last month, the Arab League Secretary-General reaffirmed a commitment to the 2002 Arab peace initiative. Perhaps this provides an opportunity for constructive dialogue.

For our part, as the dust settles from the general election and we rightly focus on what our future relationship with Europe looks like, we must continue to act in the best interests of peace across the world. We should not lose sight of the historical bond between the UK and the region, and with our strong historical trade ties, and in this special year, the UK has the opportunity to reaffirm and actively pursue peace through our long-standing positions supporting a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, agreement on the status of Jerusalem for both states, and the resettlement of refugees. This has been the UK’s commitment to the peace process, based on a two-state solution. As we commemorate 100 years since the Balfour declaration and our support for the region, we should revive the effort for peace through meaningful talks and truly make 2017 the anniversary of the Balfour declaration and an anniversary for peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Yesterday, there was a debate on the middle east in the other place. My noble Friend Lord Polak made a typically interesting contribution. He pointed out that in 1948 there were 726,000 Palestinians refugees, and 856,000 Jewish refugees living in Arab lands, yet since then the UN’s focus has been solely on the Palestinians. He pointed to the more than 170 resolutions, the 13 UN agencies created or mandated to look after the Palestinian issue and the billions of dollars that have been provided to the Palestinians. Nevertheless, he still hoped that the UK would do all it could to bring Israelis and Palestinians around the table to hammer out a solution. I agree with him.

Israel remains committed to an independent Palestinian state through, among other things, direct negotiation to end the conflict. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly underlined his commitment to restarting peace negotiations without pre-conditions. Israel has accepted the principle of a future Palestinian state based along 1967 lines and for land swaps to take place.

Polling in 2016 has shown that there is still an appetite for a two-state solution among both Palestinians and Israelis. The figures were almost 60% for Israelis and just over 50% for Palestinians. The biggest obstacle to peace involved the infighting between Hamas and Fatah, the Palestinian approach unilaterally to wanting statehood, and the rearmament in Gaza by Hamas. Personally, I would add to that the seemingly blinkered approach of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. When I was last in Ramallah, I visited the PLO and had talks with its members. I found that there was little basis on which to have those talks. There was an attempt to blame us for all the ills of the region and a dislike for the involvement of anything that smacked of the private sector. I also wish to stress the levels of co-operation that already exist between the Israelis and the Palestinians and to point to one organisation in particular, Save a Child’s Heart, which I have visited on a number of occasions and does fantastic work.

I would be the first to admit that settlement expansion is counterproductive, and I have made that point to the Israeli Government, but the settlement issue is not a permanent obstacle to peace, and it is one of the five final status issues. It is not the reason for the continuation of the conflict, as violence predates the settlements, and the majority of settlers live within established settlement blocks along the green line, which are widely anticipated to become part of Israel in the peace settlement.

The past two years have shown a rising level of terror and Palestinian incitement in Israel. Since 2015 alone, there have been around 180 stabbings, 150 shootings, 58 car ramming attacks and one bus bombing. The result has been more than 389 terror attacks and over 759 injuries and some 50 Israeli or foreign deaths. The violence escalated to the point that, in October 2015, an Israeli mother and father were gunned down in front of their four young children. The sort of attitude that we have seen from President Abbas is not very helpful. He vowed to Palestinians that he would not stop prisoner salaries even if he had to resign, despite telling the US that he would do so.

[Bob Blackman]

rose—

[John Howell]

I will not give way, as I am fairly close to the end.

No peace agreement will be able to guarantee peace in the medium to long term if a generation of Palestinians are growing up indoctrinated to hate Israel and the Jews. The Palestinian Authority’s failure to deliver on its commitment to end incitement and hate education explicitly undermines the principles and conditions on which the peace process is built. Although I welcome France’s recent efforts to promote peace, I do not think that the best way to make progress is to hold an international conference without the attendance of the two main parties. We must get the two main parties around the table at the same time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

Both the Prime Minister and I have raised this issue specifically with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we will continue to do so. We are opposed to such demolitions and, as I have said many times this morning, we continue to believe that continued illegal settlements are an obstruction to peace.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Pakistani Government have announced their intention to annexe Gilgit-Baltistan, a sovereign part of India that Pakistan illegally occupies. What representations has my right hon. Friend made to the Pakistani Government to say that this act is illegal and the UK Government will oppose it?

[Alok Sharma]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have very good relations with both India and Pakistan, but on issues of a bilateral nature it is for those two countries to reach a settlement; it is not for us to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator. Of course we encourage both sides to maintain good relations and we will continue to talk to them.

Iran’s Influence in the Middle East

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing the debate and on braving the Northern line to make sure that he got here.

I share my hon. Friend’s serious concerns about the destabilising effect of Iran on the middle east, and am delighted that there is concern in the United States; there has been for a long time. I am encouraged to hear that the new Trump Administration have initiated a review process whereby the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps could finally be listed as a foreign terrorist organisation. That is a welcome break from long-standing US and European policies that seemingly regarded the hard-line paramilitary organisation as a legitimate instrument of Iran’s national defence, despite the fact that it sponsors Hezbollah, Hamas and various other terrorist proxies throughout the middle east and across the world.

Prior to the change in approach, the State Department saw fit only to give a punitive designation to the special foreign operations wing of the IRGC, known as the Quds Force. Yet even that designation was somewhat anaemic, in that it saw fit to identify the Quds Force only as a “material supporter of terrorism”, and not as a fully-fledged terrorist entity. I argue that the IRGC as a whole unquestionably fits the legal criteria for designation as a terrorist organisation, given its proven involvement in terrorist attacks abroad.

If there were any question about the organisation’s terrorist intentions or capabilities, it should have been cleared up following new revelations about IRGC activities inside and outside Iran from the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which I am proud to support. Those new revelations added clarity to what most foreign policy analysts know about Iran’s theocratic regime: that it has spent years and resources on an effort to deepen sectarian divisions throughout the region. Clearly, widespread instability has resulted from those efforts, not the least aspect of which was the amplification of conditions leading to the rise of Islamic State. Not only did IRGC involvement contribute to the Syrian war; it saved Bashar al-Assad from the brink of being overthrown. It has attached religious significance to the intervention and encouraged the sectarian aspects of the conflict.

Similarly, ISIL’s success in Iraq came only after Tehran encouraged a purge of Sunnis under the Government of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The resulting conflict in Iraq has allowed IRGC-backed Shi’ite groups to take on ever more extensive roles in the country’s military efforts and, by extension, in its political affairs as well.

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a huge concern for us all is the role of Iranian Shi’a militia in destabilising post-liberation Mosul in the vacuum after the removal of Daesh, and in creating the conditions for Iranian-sponsored instability and sectarianism in Mosul and the surrounding area?

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, that harmful aspect—the destabilising of the regime—amplifies the problems with what Iran does.

What I have been describing has diminished American and European influence and perpetuated today’s climate of division. It is undoubtedly harmful to our interests, and it benefits Tehran’s constitutionally mandated mission to extend the Islamic revolution beyond the borders of the Islamic Republic. It would be absurd to suggest that the IRGC’s proxies in Syria, Iraq and Yemen are not terrorist operatives in the same way as its proxies in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Nigeria are. Each of them is trained by similar means within the same Iranian network and serves the same foreign policy goals of the Islamic Republic, which are contrary to the interests of Europe, the UK and the United States.

The Obama Administration have rightly been criticised for appeasement, as has been mentioned. Despite the cherished nuclear agreement and associated side deals, there has been no sign, either that the human rights violations that routinely take place are being rectified, or of moderation in Iran’s anti-American and anti-western rhetoric or promotion of international terrorism. We should therefore understand that the theocracy ruling Iran will remain true to its hard-line roots, regardless of what we in this country, or beyond, attempt to do. There is little rational basis for further arguments in favour of conciliation and appeasement, especially given what the Prime Minister and the Trump Administration have said.

I want finally to ask the Minister whether he will follow the Trump Administration in reviewing policy, and proscribe the IRGC.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

Would the hon. Gentleman gives me a moment? As the right hon. Member for Enfield North said, this is a fundamental issue of building trust. Unless trust is built and the issue of disputed lands is dealt with, the trust deficit will continue.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as far as Israel was concerned, the trust was almost ended when the only result of removing all settlements from Gaza was a torrent—an avalanche—of rockets and missiles?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. and long-time Friend makes a good point. Everyone talks about Israel giving up land for peace. It has given land, but it did not get the peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) because, like him and the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), I have been fully involved in visits to Israel and the west bank—six over the past three years—with organisations that encourage co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians. I also chair events here where those organisations come forward and describe what they are doing. I have on several occasions been to Tel Aviv to see Save a Child’s Heart, a brilliant organisation that goes out of its way to treat Palestinian children who have heart problems. That involves fine surgery that requires a great deal of skill.

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend mentioned Save a Child’s Heart. Will he confirm that children from other Arab countries and beyond receive life-saving treatment at the hospital in which it operates?

[John Howell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of Arab children treated by the Israeli doctors at the hospital is phenomenal, and it sets a brilliant example for the whole region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who made an eloquent speech.

The motion before us is a curate’s egg—good in parts. At its heart, there is a false assertion. As hon. Members have said, the only way in which this crisis in the middle east will ever be solved is by face-to-face negotiations between the Palestinian leaders and the state of Israel. As we all know, this area of the world has had a long history of being occupied by empires down through the ages. The Ottoman empire ruled the area until the time of the first world war, when the British mandate came in, and the reality is that the west bank was annexed by Jordan in 1950. To call it occupied territory is of course to suggest that a country once existed, but it has never existed. That is the real dilemma in this whole problem.

I absolutely think that United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 should not have been supported by the United Kingdom Government; it was wrong for them to do so. It was passed in the dying days of President Obama’s presidency, and his refusal to support Israel in its hour of need was a deliberate swipe at that country, as history will show. However, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on distancing herself from John Kerry’s one-sided speech. That was a unique point in history, because it was the first time that a British Government had distanced themselves from the serving Secretary of State of our greatest ally in the world. I congratulate the Government on not sending individuals to the Paris conference, which attempted to internationalise the solution to the problem.

I want to ask the Minister about one particular issue. What is his view of the Oslo accords and the agreements that the Palestinians made with the Israeli Government? Under those agreements, it was quite clear that developments could take place in area C of the west bank—that was permitted and agreed to by the Palestinians—so to call this illegal is incorrect.

Equally, we have heard that United Nations resolution 2334 would prevent Jews and Christians from celebrating at the western wall and at the greatest Christian sites. Before 1967, the western wall was out of bounds to Jews, and the same thing would happen again were this implemented. The green line was never, ever an international line, and there has never, ever been an international agreement on the exact borders of any potential state of Palestine.

I want to talk about something that has not been mentioned thus far: the plight of the 2.3 million Jewish refugees who were forced out of Arab countries and had to flee for their lives. Some of them went to Israel, some to the United States and others to parts of Europe. They are never mentioned, but there clearly has to be a home for them. When the Israeli Government put up housing developments for Jewish people who are refugees from Arab states, we should not condemn them but congratulate them on providing those facilities.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making very pertinent points. Does he agree that the whole point of this debate is that concessions need to be made on both sides? It would be unfortunate if people interpreted it as meaning that everything would be solved if only Israel did this or that. Substantial concessions are needed from both sides.

[Bob Blackman]

My concern, and that of many hon. Members, is that the Palestinians are trying to internationalise the issue—taking their case to the United Nations, and seeking help and assistance from outside—but are not getting the real issue, which is the need for face-to-face talks with the state of Israel to resolve the existing problems so that we can reach a conclusion with a secure state of Israel and a secure state of Palestine. We should always remember that the green line represents an area that would be indefensible for the state of Israel in the event of another war.

[Joan Ryan]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech and giving a historical analysis that has been somewhat lacking. Does he agree that in the process of trying to internationalise the process, rather than accepting that there have to be direct, face-to-face talks, the Palestinians are being misled into believing that peace can be found for them without their having to make any compromise? As the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) said—many hon. Members agree—compromise and trust building on both sides is required.

[Bob Blackman]

We clearly have to build trust and experience on all sides. I have had the experience of going to Israel on six occasions, and I have also had the opportunity to visit the west bank and Jordan with the Palestinian Return Centre. The reality is that the Jordanians did not build trust among the Palestinians at that time; they refused to give them status or title to their land. The problem that still remains is the difficulty of resolving those particular land issues. As the right hon. Lady has outlined, we must build trust through joint projects and by bringing people together so that there can be negotiation, with trust being built between the peoples, rather than their being separated.

It is quite clear that everyone would like the security barrier around Jerusalem to be removed, but it can be removed only when there is trust between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Once that is in place, we can achieve the dream of a two-state solution, with proper viable borders and proper security for both states.

Kashmir

Bob Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for the calm and measured manner in which he introduced the debate. I hope that we can continue that throughout the debate.

No one in the debate has yet mentioned that 19 January 1990 was an evil day in the history of Jammu and Kashmir—the day when 65,000 Hindus were forcibly expelled from the Kashmir valley by Islamic jihadists, under the slogan, “Die, convert or leave”. They forced only the men out. They said, “Leave your women. We will convert them, we will rape them and we will make them all Muslim.” One of the sad facts of this largely forgotten area of conflict is that it has a religious element as well as the aspect of where people wish to live.

I had the opportunity in February last year to visit Jammu and Kashmir. I went to Srinagar and to Jammu. I was heartened by the fact that when I met people from all walks of life in Srinagar, particularly those from the chamber of commerce, they came with a series of opportunities, including trade, hydro-electric power, agriculture, canning goods to be sold across the world, as well as using the beauty of the Kashmir valley to attract tourists to the area. It is an area that we would all love to go and visit and that we would all love people from across the world to be able to go and visit. The one fundamental issue that they all raised was that of safety and security.

The reality is that when we talk about the suffering in Jammu and Kashmir, we have to concentrate on the human rights abuses and violations against Hindus, Sikhs and minority Muslims. The sad fact is that this has been used as a means of ethnically cleansing this part of the world.

I hope when the Minister replies he will comment on the fact that the European and Indian authorities identified terrorism as one of the major sources of concern to both the European Union and India. Jointly, in their communiqué, they condemned the terror attacks in Brussels, Paris, Pathankot and Gurdaspur and recalled the November 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. They called for the perpetrators of these attacks to be brought to justice. Leaders called for decisive and united actions to be taken against ISIL, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, the Haqqani Network and other internationally active terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Those terrorist groups all operate from Pakistan. They are along the international line of control. They are infiltrating terrorists into the sovereign state of Jammu and Kashmir.

We should remember that the fundamental element of this is when Britain ceased to be the colonial power. The decision on whether states opted either for Pakistani control or for Indian control was left to each independent state. The Maharaja Hari Singh, who was the last ruling Maharaja of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, signed the instrument of accession to India, bringing the state under India on 26 October 1947. We should be clear that under international law, the whole of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. It is the crowning glory of India. As such, every other aspect that has gone on after that date has been a violation of international law.

Several hon. Members have alluded to the United Nations resolution, and we must remember the detail: Prime Minister Nehru took the issue to the United Nations in the first place, seeking to get the Pakistani forces that illegally occupied part of the sovereign state of Jammu and Kashmir to leave. The UN resolution calls—this is the first element—on the illegal occupying forces of Pakistan to leave Jammu and Kashmir, then for the Indian forces to reduce to what is required for security purposes and then, and only then, for a decision to be made on a plebiscite for the people of Jammu and Kashmir on what should be their destiny. Pakistan has never accepted or complied with that UN resolution. That is one of the fundamental reasons why we have this challenge and problem today.

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend is making an articulate case, as always. Does he think there is any chance of India engaging in confidence-building measures with Pakistan on this point so that that element of the resolution might ever be fulfilled? Is India willing to give appropriate assurances?

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, I cannot speak for the Indian Government and the UK has ceased to be a colonial power. We are not the power that will tell India or Pakistan what to do and, in that respect, I am concerned that the motion could be misinterpreted in other parts of the world—[Interruption.] I think that Mr Deputy Speaker will hold me to account if I give way.

There have been numerous violations of the ceasefire along the line of control, and a recent upsurge in violence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North mentioned. Studies have found that the shells, GPS units and everything else that emanated from the site where those Indian troops were killed and murdered came from Pakistan military use, so it is quite clear that Pakistan was behind that conflict. The number of violations across the line of control has been frequent and well documented, and that needs to be understood. The recent upsurge in violence resulted from the Indian forces eliminating Burhan Wani, the Jihadi John poster boy of jihad.

The use of pellet guns and other human rights abuses have been taken up by the state Government of Jammu and Kashmir, who have had four debates on the subject. Those human rights abuses have been called to account and will be fully investigated, and any proven perpetrators will be suitably punished. I think we can say that the sovereign state is looking after those aspects. We want a peaceful resolution to the situation so that the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, can live in peace and harmony.