Detained British Nationals Abroad

Debate between John Whittingdale and Julian Lewis

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate, and on the tremendous amount of work that he has done in this area. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Islington and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I have been delighted to join as a new member in the last few weeks. I am pleased to be able to say that I thought she made an excellent contribution, and I agreed with every word of it. I also join her in recognising the amount of work that was done by the previous Committee in the last Parliament, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who continues to chair the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs and to take a strong interest in the subject. The APPG produced an extremely good report, although I have to say that the Government response was a bit disappointing, so it is right for us to press these matters further today.

I myself chair the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom. Media freedom is also under huge pressure across the globe: far too many journalists have died in pursuit of their profession, or are currently in prison. According to the latest report, 546 journalists and media workers are detained as of today. The UK has rightly championed the cause of media freedom, especially in the Foreign Office, and we need to go on making that case. It is doubly concerning that some of the journalists who are in prison are British.

My right hon. Friend has mentioned a few specific cases, and I want to do the same. Both he and I were privileged to attend the Magnitsky awards dinner a couple of weeks ago. Bill Browder, now Sir William Browder, has done a huge amount, initially to support prisoners in Russia and to bring sanctions against those responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, but he has widened his campaign to highlight cases of detained political prisoners around the world.

In respect of the first case I shall mention, I am able to congratulate the Government on the part that they played. At the dinner, it was a privilege to meet Vladimir Kara-Murza. I have raised his case in the House, and many other people have done so over the last few years. We were seriously worried, particularly after the death of Alexei Navalny, that Kara-Murza would be next. There was certainly evidence to suggest that he would have died had he remained in prison, and I know that the British Government, along with the American Government and others, did a great deal to obtain his release through a prisoner swap that took place a few months ago. I have some concerns about the concept of prisoner swaps, because there is always the risk that carrying out a swap to obtain the release of innocent people in return for sending back people who are certainly not innocent—which is what happened in this instance—simply encourages the detention of other innocents in the future. In Kara-Murza’s case, however, I think that had he not been released he would have died. The release at the same time of Evan Gershkovich, an American journalist, was clearly another strong priority.

It is welcome that here is a case in which we have actually obtained the release of a British national, but sadly a number of others are still in prison. My right hon. Friend mentioned several of them, but I will start, as he did, with the case of Jimmy Lai, a remarkably brave man who is now detained under the draconian national security law that has been introduced in Hong Kong. It is noticeable that, just two decades ago, Hong Kong was 18th in the world rankings for press freedom; it is now 135th. Jimmy Lai was a publisher who worked to uphold freedom of speech; he was imprisoned as a result, and his health is now under severe pressure after four years in solitary confinement. I have met his son Sebastien, as has the Foreign Secretary, and we will continue to raise his case here until he is released.

There has also been reference to Alaa Abd el-Fattah. Like a number of other Members, I was able to speak to his mother, Laila Soueif, very recently. She is on a hunger strike to obtain his release. He has been convicted of spreading false news, and has been a long-standing target of the regime. It is notable that, in opposition, the Foreign Secretary was very vocal in condemning the Egyptian Government in respect of his case, and actually called on the Government to deny the Egyptian ambassador access to Whitehall until he was released. I have not observed the Egyptian ambassador being denied access, and Alaa Abd el-Fattah is still in prison. I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary to reflect on what he said in opposition, and to strengthen the progress that we are making.

The third case that I want to mention is that of a British journalist who is not in prison. Clare Rewcastle Brown, an independent journalist, has been the target of abusive lawsuits in Malaysia since she exposed corruption there. This year she was sentenced, in absentia, to two years in prison on a bogus defamation charge, having not even been told that she had been put on trial. Obviously she is anxious to appeal, but she has been told that if she is to appeal, she must attend the court in Malaysia in person. Very understandably, she is extremely reluctant to do so, given the amount of personal risk. The Government, as far as I am aware, have not commented on her case, and she has struggled to obtain support from the Foreign Office, so I ask the Minister specifically to look into her case as well.

There is also the case of Gubad Ibadoghlu, an Azeri activist but one who was a senior adviser at the London School of Economics. He returned to visit his family in Azerbaijan in 2023, and was promptly arrested and locked up. His family were quite badly assaulted during his arrest, and my right hon. Friend and I, and any others who were at that dinner a couple of weeks ago, will have heard his daughter speaking about that and about her fears for his health. He, too, is seriously ill and needs assistance.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

On that point, it is worth mentioning that Dr Ibadoghlu’s son visited Parliament a few weeks ago, when we had an opportunity to discuss his case. He has a close association with part of the University of London, and he was given assurances that it would be safe for him to return to visit his ailing mother. Subsequent to his arrest, a PhD student, whose name is Fazil Gasimov, was extradited from Turkey and tortured into giving evidence against Dr Ibadoghlu, and he has felt it necessary to go on hunger strike. There seems to be a huge effort by the Azeri Government to persecute people, even at the same time as a COP meeting was scheduled to take place in their capital.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes the point that I was just coming to. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out, all too often one part of Government may be pressing for somebody’s release while other parts of Government seem to have a normal relationship with the foreign Government responsible and do little. We managed to send many delegates to COP29—I cannot remember how many there were, but it was certainly in three figures—but I would be interested to know how many of them actually raised with the Government in Baku the case of Dr Ibadoghlu.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am very disappointed to hear that but, sadly, not surprised. I think I added my name to the letter that my right hon. Friend sent.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

In fairness to the Government, I have reason to believe that one of the Foreign Office Ministers was very concerned about the case. I think there is a high probability that it may have been raised quietly, if not publicly.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Let us not argue about whether or not it was raised. Let us agree that what we should do is continue to raise it with the Government of Azerbaijan until Dr Ibadoghlu is released.

The final case that I must mention, given that it was raised, quite rightly, by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), is that of Emily Damari, one of the hostages being held in Gaza, who is a British citizen. She is 28 and has been held for 425 days. Her mother is obviously deeply anxious to know that she is still alive, so the Government must do everything possible to try to obtain her release. I know that other Members intend to raise other cases. It is sad that so many British citizens are detained arbitrarily on trumped-up charges around the world, and that this debate is so vital and necessary.

I will finish by endorsing some of the recommendations made by the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, which have been echoed by its current Chair. A legal right to consular access is very important, and is something that the Labour party said it would bring in. We raised that legal right with the Foreign Secretary the other day, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government still intend to introduce it.

I agree with hon. Members including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the establishment of a separate directorate for arbitrary and complex detentions within the FCDO would be a really valuable addition. There is confusion at the moment, because all too often we are told that cases are being pursued, but nothing happens. Unfortunately, with the single exception of Vladimir Kara-Murza, all too many of those cases involve British nationals who continue to be unfairly and unjustly imprisoned, sometimes at risk to their lives. I look forward to the Minister’s response on those points.

Three and Vodafone: Potential Merger

Debate between John Whittingdale and Julian Lewis

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The overall question of the efficacy of the investment security process is for the Cabinet Office. The right hon. Gentleman may well wish to pursue his inquiry with the Minister responsible. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, will also have views about the process that the Government have put in place. All I can say to both Select Committee Chairs is that, in relation to this specific merger, we cannot comment on whether it is currently undergoing scrutiny through that process, but we believe that the process that is available for the examination of mergers of this kind on national security grounds is robust. Beyond that, I cannot really go.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am not asking my right hon. Friend to say whether this particular proposed merger is being investigated. What I am asking him to say is whether the Government accept that there is a significant national security dimension to any proposal for a merger involving a major shareholding by a Chinese subservient company.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me; I am not sure that I can even go so far as to say that. It is on the record that the Government believe that foreign ownership of major critical infrastructure raises security concerns, which is precisely why the process was put in place and the Investment Security Unit was set up. We believe that we now have the ability to determine whether there are serious national security concerns, and if it is determined that there are, powers are available to the Government to take action to protect our national security. I think the answer is yes, but I do not want to be drawn into particular countries or companies. If he will forgive me, I will leave it at that.

Several Members raised wider questions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) is right that we need to look at the context in which the merger is possibly being considered. His test of whether it is good for his constituents is a perfectly valid one. As he observed, this is the third time we have debated connectivity in 24 hours. That is a measure of how important it is to people. It is the Government’s very firm view that the roll-out of 5G connectivity has huge potential for such things as public services, industry, transport and education. There will be enormous benefits to obtaining the widespread adoption of 5G—benefits that might amount to £159 billion by 2035.

That is why the Prime Minister’s commitment to the UK becoming a science and technology superpower will deliver benefits for everybody in this country. Connectivity, and the availability of mobile telephony, lies at the heart of that. We are already beginning to see benefits from 5G, but the Government are clear that we wish to move beyond the current basic, or non-stand-alone 5G, towards stand-alone 5G. Considerable investment is taking place: something like nearly £2 billion is being invested by the mobile operators in enhancing and improving their networks, and 5G is now available from at least one operator outside 85% of premises.

Britain in the World

Debate between John Whittingdale and Julian Lewis

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It was genuinely a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) express himself in such fluent and consensual terms. The fact that he says his party is willing to agree with Government Members does not come as a surprise to me, because I know from my experience on the last two iterations of the Defence Committee, where I had the pleasure of serving alongside two Members of the SNP, that that is exactly true. That is how it was that, on a cross-party basis, all three parties represented on the Committee were able to agree at quite an early stage that defence expenditure is too low, and that something in the order of 3% of GDP is a more realistic target if Britain is to hold her head up in the world with safety.

Before I develop that theme, however, I want to pick up one point from the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and that is his reference to the BBC, in which he concentrated on the World Service. In about 2011, when the then Sir Ming Campbell and I were both members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I remember that we learned with alarm of the coalition Government’s plan to stop the ring-fenced funding not only of the BBC World Service but of the vital BBC Monitoring Service based at Caversham Park. We expressed the view at the time that the result of putting that funding on the shoulders of the BBC in return for allowing the BBC to have its usual requested rise in the licence fee would come back to bite us—and so it did, because both those budgets were badly squeezed, and I think I am right in saying that in the end the Government felt it necessary to restore separate funding for the BBC World Service, but sadly not for the BBC Monitoring Service.

[Mr Whittingdale]

The position is that the BBC continues to fund the World Service, but it now receives an additional grant from the Foreign Office that has allowed it to expand its services. I very much hope that the Foreign Office will continue—and perhaps increase—that funding.

[Dr Lewis]

Yes, but the trouble is that no such grant was made to the BBC Monitoring Service, which is our principal source of what is called open-source intelligence—or, as the BBC prefers to say, open-source information. The Defence Committee produced a hard-hitting report entitled “Open Source Stupidity”, because that was entirely our opinion of the effect of that cutback by the coalition Government. It led directly to the closure of Caversham Park, and although BBC Monitoring continues to do very good work, it is a shame and a disgrace that it is not specially separately funded, as it used to be.

Coming back to the main topic, this is, as we know, a debate on Britain’s future place in the world. However magnified, however static or even however reduced our future place in the world may be, we have to be able to keep our country safe. As I never tire of explaining to the House, the basis of any sensible defence policy depends on three concepts: deterrence, containment, and a realisation of the unpredictability of future conflicts. The examples I always give—I fear that people will start joining in in a chorus if I do it again, but I do so nevertheless—are the Yom Kippur war in 1973 that took hyper-sensitive Israel by surprise, the Falklands war in 1982 that took us by surprise, the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that took everybody by surprise, and the 9/11 attacks in 2001 that took the world’s then only superpower by surprise.

What do I conclude from the fact that most wars in the 20th century—I could give many more older examples —were usually not predicted significantly in advance? I conclude that if we are going to have an adequate defence policy, we have to be able to defend flexibly against a whole spectrum of future potential threats because we do not know which of those threats is going to materialise.

Ukraine (UK Relations with Russia)

Debate between John Whittingdale and Julian Lewis

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I will say a little more along those lines, but I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The idea that what has happened has been somehow at the instigation of the west and America ignores the fact that the people of Ukraine have the right to choose their future. They have overwhelmingly demonstrated—most recently in parliamentary elections, which I want to speak a little about—that they see their future as moving closer to the west and to Europe, and they do not wish to move away from that and back in the direction of Russia. We must respect their right to make that choice.

At the moment, the greatest violence is taking place in eastern Ukraine, and a war is going on in what is known as the Donbas region. There are violations of the Minsk accords every day. Civilian areas are being shelled, there are shootings, and an extremely fierce battle has been raging over several days and weeks for Donetsk airport, where despite the Russians deploying some of their best troops—the Spetsnaz—we understand that they have suffered heavier casualties and the Ukrainians have managed to repel them.

We are told by the Russians that there are no Russian troops in that part of Ukraine, but we know that there are regular movements of military vehicles across the border, and we understand that anything up to 10,000 regular Russian troops are in eastern Ukraine, not to mention the tens of thousands lined up along the border. So-called humanitarian convoys regularly cross into eastern Ukraine. The Red Cross or international observers have not been permitted to inspect those humanitarian white lorries, and local reports state that the most recent humanitarian convoys have contained ammunition.

The battle is fierce and has resulted in heavy casualties. In the summer a strong tank battle resulted in something like 70% of Ukrainian armour being destroyed by Russian forces. President Poroshenko has said that at the latest count, 1,250 Ukrainian servicemen have been killed and 3,000 injured, but casualties have not been only on the Ukrainian side.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Unpleasant though the alternatives are, given that Russia will clearly not allow pro-Russian forces in the east of the country to be militarily defeated, which is the least worse of these two outcomes? Either those areas are allowed to become relatively autonomous, or the situation is fought to a military finish, the only outcome of which—given that the west will not intervene militarily—would be Russian occupation of the whole country.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I will come on to what we need to do to respond to the Russian intervention. To some extent, I agree with my hon. Friend that we need political reform, but it should not only be about the two regions in Donbas. If he will forgive me, I will continue my current theme but I promise I will come back to that.

I want to talk not only about the fighting that is taking place in Ukraine, but about the massive abuse of human rights. We have Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers in eastern Ukraine, but confidence that they can monitor to the desirable extent is limited. I have heard criticism that they have been unable to carry out proper monitoring of the situation.

There has been a massive population displacement, from both Crimea and Donbas—something like 1.5 million people have been displaced, and that may well be an underestimate. Hostages have been taken. Nadiya Savchenko, the Ukrainian servicewoman who was elected to the Ukrainian Parliament, is being held in Russia. Wearing my other hat as Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I should mention that we are conscious that Oleg Sentsov, a distinguished Ukrainian film director, was abducted and is being held in Moscow. With my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), I attended a conference last week of the Council of Europe to discuss media freedom and the importance of the protection of journalists. We heard about two journalists who are being held hostage. There have also been a number of casualties among journalists.

If we listen to and watch Russian media, we get a completely different picture. There is no account of that whatever. The Russian propaganda machine is insistent that the Kiev Government are a bunch of fascist gangsters who have been imposed on the population. The Russians make regular claims of abuses by Ukrainian troops, and often produce photographs of bodies—it later becomes apparent that the photographs were taken during other conflicts many years ago.

Perhaps the most outrageous Russian media manipulation took place after the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH17. There was overwhelming evidence, which is now widely recognised throughout the western world, that the airliner was shot down by Russian separatists using a surface-to-air missile that they had managed to obtain. Despite that, Russian media initially told us that the aircraft had been shot down by the Ukrainians, because the Ukrainians had mistaken it for President Putin’s plane and were trying to shoot him down. Another claim was that the incident was a plot dreamt up by the west, which had flown an airliner full of dead bodies over Ukraine that could then be brought down to discredit the Russian separatists. Even this week, pictures have been produced in Russian media claiming to show a jet fighter that shot the plane down.

Despite the fact that those pictures were obviously faked, the concern is that a huge number of people believed the story. A substantial proportion of the Russian population—the majority—are convinced it is true. I therefore welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of the importance of countering that propaganda, which he gave me when I raised the matter with him after the statement on the G20. He said that President Obama had also recognised the need to counter Russian propaganda. I welcome the launch in this country of Ukraine Today, an English-language channel that will try to set out events accurately. I hope we and the Ukrainians do what we can to increase our efforts to get out the truth of what is happening. I welcome the intention of the new Ukrainian Government to set up a national public service broadcaster, which they have suggested could be modelled on the principle of the BBC.

What do we need to do to put pressure on Russia, and make it clear that its behaviour is unacceptable and that there must be penalties? Sanctions were first imposed after the annexation of Crimea and there has been a gradual escalation since then. Many people say that sanctions are pointless and have no effect, but they clearly are having a significant effect on the Russian economy. There has been a sharp downward revision in its prospects for growth, and they have affected the Russian currency and the Russian stock market. In my view, we need to do more. I would like to see a strengthening of sanctions. I recognise that that requires international agreement. The Minister and the Prime Minister have been at the forefront in pressing for the strongest response from the international community, but I have been alarmed by reports that some have been suggesting that perhaps we can now begin to relax sanctions. I hope the Minister can reassure me that we will make the case as strongly as possible that there is no justification to relaxing sanctions. If the current destabilisation continues, there may even be a case for strengthening sanctions still further.

Leveson Inquiry

Debate between John Whittingdale and Julian Lewis

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Over the past five years, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, which I chair, has examined the issue of the standards and ethics of the press three times. Each time, what we have uncovered has caused us serious concern about the way in which the press operates in this country; we have revealed information that we all found truly shocking.

It is important that we remember the people who have suffered at the hands of the press, including the McCann family, the Dowler family and Christopher Jefferies. However, it is also important to note that all in those cases suffered as a result of breaches of the law. Breaches of the Data Protection Act, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the contempt of court laws and the libel laws were all involved in the suffering of those people.

That is one of the reasons why I agree strongly with the earlier remarks of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). There are still big questions to be answered about how serial breaches of the law could take place in newsrooms and how the police appeared to do absolutely nothing about it, despite having the necessary evidence for a number of years. I very much hope that we will see the establishment of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry—whether it takes place under Lord Leveson or not is not the most important point—because we need answers to those questions once the criminal prosecutions have been exhausted.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

So far as the breaches of the criminal law are concerned, will my hon. Friend confirm that, if a statutorily based supervisory body were to discover that the criminal law had been broken—through phone hacking, for example—that would become a matter for the police anyway as soon as it was discovered and that, terrible though the suffering of the Dowlers was, their case is, in a sense, really rather irrelevant to the supervisory body that we ought to have?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am not sure that I would say their case is irrelevant, because it plainly provided evidence of the way in which the press seemed to feel that they were above the law, and that is a matter for a body overseeing ethics and standards. My hon. Friend is right, however, to say that that matter should have been dealt with by the police, and we still need answers as to why it was not.

Defamation Law

Debate between John Whittingdale and Julian Lewis

Thursday 15th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Whittingdale]

The flexibility that that might provide is clearly better than having a very detailed set of boxes, each of which has to be ticked. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is probably a sensible way to develop things.

Taken together, all these issues would go some way towards not weakening our libel laws, but restoring people’s absolute right to defend their character and reputation. The other side of that coin, however, is the right of the press to investigate and to expose, and the right of scientific journals to carry out legitimate debate. I hope that all those things will feature in the Government’s draft Bill.

I turn now to the way Britain’s libel laws are viewed overseas, because that should be of huge concern to the Government. The issue is encapsulated in the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld, whom the Committee met when it went to the States. She wrote a book in which she suggested that a Saudi Arabian business man, who has Irish citizenship, was in some way providing financial support to al-Qaeda and terrorism. An action was brought against her in the UK on the basis that 23 copies of the book had been sold here. Obviously, it was also accessible on the internet, so there was publication in that sense as well. However, the book was not widely available in the UK, and it is fairly clear that the case was brought here not because this was where the damage was done, or because Rachel Ehrenfeld or the Saudi Arabian had British citizenship, which they did not, but because the libel laws here were seen to favour claimants. On the back of that, we discovered that there are now widely shared fears in the United States. The Association of American Publishers submitted a statement to the Committee on the Judiciary of the US House of Representatives, which described libel tourism as

“the cynical exploitation of plaintiff-friendly foreign libel laws as a weapon to intimidate and silence U.S. authors and publishers.”

There is no doubt about which foreign libel jurisdiction it had in mind.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am not an expert in the area in question, although I have more than once had to bring a libel action. I think I am right in saying that in America pretty much anyone in the public eye can falsely be accused of quite serious wrongdoing but will have no recourse to a defamation suit. I acknowledge that the case that my hon. Friend used as an example is worrying, but I hope that he will not argue that we should adjust the libel laws in this country to prevent people who are defamed from taking action, just because in America people who are defamed are not allowed to take action. It would be a retrograde step to allow open season on reputations to the extent that that is allowed in the USA.

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who sadly cannot be present, thinks that we should move towards the American system, where two things apply. First, the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the people concerned to prove that they did not do what is alleged, whereas here a newspaper or journal must demonstrate that they did. Secondly, in America the first amendment trumps virtually everything. It is essentially impossible to get a pre-publication injunction. The Committee was told by people in public life that for such people there is essentially no defence against libel other than to make their case in public and try to convince people that what was said was wrong.

I do not go that far. Some of the criticism of the UK’s libel laws in America is based simply on the fact that they disagree with our stance and think that we should adopt their system. That is not the reason I am concerned. I am concerned about the use of the UK courts by people who have no connection with the UK; it is the tourism aspect. That is a much narrower, but nevertheless very important, issue. As an example of the consequences I want to quote a joint submission to the Select Committee by Advance Publications Inc., the Association of American Publishers, Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS television, Global Witness, Human Rights Watch, the Los Angeles Times, Macmillan, NBC, The New York Times and others. Perhaps the most important passage reads:

“Leading US newspapers are actively considering abandoning the supply of the 200 odd copies they make available for sale in London—mainly to Americans who want full details of their local news and sport. They do not make profits out of these minimal and casual sales and they can no longer risk losing millions of dollars in a libel action which they would never face under US law. Does the UK really want to be seen as the only country in Europe—indeed in the world—where important US papers cannot be obtained in print form?”