Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

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

The thoughtful and very disturbing speech by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is a piece of a jigsaw that I hope will be assembled in the course of this debate, building up a picture in country after country, affecting religion after religion—and not always just religious groups and communities—and showing a certain common template. The word that I expect to hear over and again is “intolerance”, which was flagged up by the opening speakers, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who has steered this topic to the Floor of the House and introduced it so comprehensively and with such a depth of detail.

Before I come on to questions of religious intolerance, I should like hon. Members to cast their minds back to 1978, when the great director Michael Crichton brought a terrifying film to the cinema screen. The name of the film was “Coma”; I do not know whether that rings a bell with any hon. Members. It was a fictional story about how people would be placed in a hospital for minor operations, reduced to the state of a living vegetable, and then have their organs taken from them and sold for huge profits in an extremely sinister way. I found that film immensely unsettling, but I was able to comfort myself with the thought that, well, it was only fiction and nothing like that could really happen.

Unfortunately, something like that has happened and is happening, apparently, to this day. In this connection, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who sadly cannot be with us today, for putting into the schedules of Parliament a meeting at which I learned about the persecution of Falun Gong in China. We are talking about not just religious intolerance, but the intolerance of atheistic regimes such as the communist regimes of China and North Korea towards groups such as Falun Gong that are spiritual but not really religions. North Korea has been identified in report after report as the most dangerous place, or at least one of the most dangerous places, in which to be a Christian in the present day.

I find the phrase “organ harvesting” in relation to China and Falun Gong rather inappropriate. I would call it murder and butchery for money, which is what appears to be going on. It is a profitable business for the Chinese: I understand that a kidney can raise $62,000 and a heart more than $130,000. Interestingly, there has been an enormous increase in the number of transplantation centres in China in recent years, yet there is no national scheme for organ donation that could possibly account for the very large numbers of organs being made available for money by the Chinese.

It is not, I believe, denied that the organs of executed prisoners are used by the Chinese Government for that purpose. Many studies, including by special rapporteurs for the United Nations, have drawn attention to that terrible trade. As somebody from a Jewish background who read rather more than was good for my mental health at too early an age about what had happened in the medical block at the Buchenwald concentration camp, I think that the idea that that sort of atrocity could be going on in this day and age is absolutely unbelievable and abhorrent.

[Mr Burrowes]

I thank my hon. Friend referring on the Floor of the House to Falun Gong, which does not always get the attention it deserves. I have some constituents who practise Falun Gong and it is the most peaceful of groups. When it campaigns here and in China, it does so peacefully. It is not a physical threat to the Chinese Government, but it may well be a cultural threat because of its different views. It is standing up for its beliefs and views, and if we are going to stand up for Christians and others, we need to stand up for Falun Gong as well.

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend, who stands up for Christians and other groups remarkably well—as I have had occasion to observe over years in this place—is absolutely right. In fact, my understanding is that, originally, the Chinese authorities were quite well disposed to Falun Gong. It was only when it became hugely popular that they felt that any mass popular movement, even one as harmless as that, posed a threat to their totalitarian control.

I fully expect my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), should she catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I hope she will, to give us chapter and horrible verse about what is happening to Christians in North Korea. I want to flag up the fact that the splendid report that the United Nations arranged to be compiled describes what is going on in North Korea as analogous to the crimes committed by the Nazis. It states:

“In many instances, the violations of human rights found by the commission constitute crimes against humanity. These are not mere excesses of the State; they are essential components of a political system that has moved far from the ideals on which it claimed to be founded”.

Pakistan has been mentioned in one context today and I am now going to mention it in another. In June 2009, a Roman Catholic woman, Asia Bibi, got into an argument with some Muslim neighbours over whether she should be allowed to drink from the same water supply as them. As a result, she was accused of blasphemy. I have to say that the blasphemy laws of Pakistan are a very handy weapon for those who have an enemy anywhere in society, because all they have to do is to say that someone has defamed or insulted the Prophet or the religion and that person may, like Asia Bibi, find herself under sentence of death.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend is speaking about Pakistan. Earlier, hon. Members agreed that the United Nations should do more. Does he agree that the Commonwealth should also do more, particularly for Christians and other religious minorities that are being persecuted in Pakistan, India and other parts of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth human rights working group needs to be far more proactive?

[Dr Lewis]

That is absolutely central to the whole question. If the Commonwealth is good for anything at all, it is good for asserting the moral authority and best values that have bound our countries together. If we in this free Parliament do not speak out for oppressed minorities, nobody else will do so effectively.

To revert to the case of Asia Bibi, who remains under sentence of death, what is even more tragic is that the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, who visited her in prison, was murdered as a result of supporting her and opposing the blasphemy laws, as was the only Christian member of Pakistan’s Cabinet, the Minority Affairs Minister, Shahbaz Bhatti. The prevailing circumstances in Pakistan really are atrocious.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Lewis]

I will, but I have very little time left.

[Rehman Chishti]

I have previously raised the issue of the blasphemy laws in this place. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real concern about the Asia Bibi case is that her appeal has been delayed and delayed for four years, and that such an indefinite delay is wrong for her and her family?

[Dr Lewis]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows far more about this subject than I do, and I hope that he will contribute to the debate.

In the less than a minute that I have remaining, I want to end on a slightly more optimistic point. Although the persecution of the Baha’i community in Iran remains severe, a very recent development is that Ayatollah Abdol-Hamid Masoumi-Tehrani has rather bravely reached out to the Baha’i community by making a presentation to them and other faith communities. A lot depends on what happens to this ayatollah, but if change is to come, it will come slowly and it will involve such gestures. Let us keep our eye on what happens to this particular cleric in Iran, and let us hope that the reaction to his welcome gesture is positive and encouraging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. That is exactly the message coming from my constituents. They are asking me, “What are the Nigerian Government doing?” The mothers and fathers of the children concerned are asking the same question in Nigeria. Either there is disbelief on the Nigerian Government’s part, or they just do not know what is going on.

The attackers drove the girls into the nearby Sambisa forest. Fortunately, some 40 girls escaped. Open Doors says:

“Almost every house has a child in this school…Cries of parents could be heard all over the town…Christians in Chibok spoke to Open Doors following the abduction. ‘I am not sure of what our daughters are passing through,’ said Elder Emma, a church leader in the town. ‘Please help us to pray and seek the face of the Lord on this situation and that the good Lord will reunite us with our beloved children.’”

Those are the issues for those parents and children in Nigeria. Perhaps the Minister can say whether he has had any discussion with the Nigerian authorities on this subject, because it is important to have such discussions.

I tabled an early-day motion today to highlight the persecution of Christians in Nigeria. I urge Members who have not seen it to sign it today and show their support. We have a duty to stand up for those throughout the world who are dying for their faith. We have a duty in this House to help the widows and orphans, and to do the right thing in whatever way we can.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Given that we are supplying so much aid to Nigeria, does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps we might incentivise its Government a little by suggesting that the aid will not be forthcoming in such great quantity unless that Government take prompt action in this terrible situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend has pre-empted me. During Nawaz Sharif’s visit earlier this week, he and the Prime Minister discussed the recent blasphemy laws cases in Pakistan and the prospects for reforming those laws.

As was the intention of the hon. Members who secured it, this debate has quite rightly not focused exclusively on one country, region or, indeed, faith. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, the Pew Research Centre has found that Christians are now the most persecuted faith group in the world. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted that during his Easter reception, and hon. Members have highlighted it again today. Christians, like the followers of any other faith or those of no faith, are entitled to protection. We must do more to raise the awareness of their plight.

My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi gave a speech in Washington last November in which she spoke of a “global crisis” that is fuelled by a militant sectarianism that is forcibly removing minority Christian populations from areas where they have co-existed peacefully with the majority for generations. That is intolerable and we will continue to stand up against such persecution wherever and whenever it occurs. However, Christians seldom stand alone. Often, it is the Judaeo-Christian bloc, with its common heritage, that is threatened.

The fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is constantly threatened by sectarianism and by religious and ethnic division. We speak up for those facing persecution not because of their religion but regardless of their religion or belief, to defend the right, which should be undeniable, to practise the region or belief of one’s choice or, as I have said before, to follow no religion at all. To do that, we are working with civil society to build a united front to combat what can be seen as a rising tide of religious persecution and working to build acceptance across all faiths that, just as they are entitled to their beliefs, so others are entitled to theirs. Christians defending Christians, Jews defending Jews and Muslims defending Muslims is not enough.

Time and again, the voices of those who are persecuted for their faith call on us not to take pity on their plight but to strengthen the rule of law and defend human rights for all. More open and inclusive societies are the best route towards regional stability and security, and the protection of freedom of religion or belief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said so eloquently. In the middle east and north Africa, for example, the UK is supporting long-term political and economic reform through the work of the Arab Partnership initiative by strengthening crucial institutions such as the judiciary, a free press and civil society across the region.

There are reasons to be optimistic. I do not seek to claim that this is a direct result of our intervention, but I was tremendously heartened by the image during the violent street protests in Egypt three years ago of Christians holding hands to protect Muslims at prayer in the streets, of Muslims guarding Coptic churches while Christians prayed, and of Christians, on a Friday, reciprocating outside mosques.

Nevertheless, it is clear that a stronger political will is needed to ensure that there is universal implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council resolution 16/18, which calls on member states

“to foster religious freedom and pluralism, to ensure religious minorities are properly represented, and to consider adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”

The United Kingdom has been taking the lead on that. During the United Nations General Assembly ministerial week last September, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who has a particular interest in this issue given her dual role as Foreign Office Minister and Minister for faith, convened a meeting of international leaders to generate practical steps to promote freedom of religion or belief and to fight religious intolerance within our societies.

We are sharing some of our best practice with other countries and funding practical projects in a range of countries to reduce intra-community tensions, improve dialogue and promote minority rights. In Iraq, for example, we are funding a series of grass-roots meetings led by Canon Andrew White—the so-called vicar of Baghdad—to bring together people from different faiths to combat violence. In Syria, we have given more than £500,000 to promote dialogue and reduce tensions between the Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Druze, Armenian and Kurdish communities. We have been giving Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomats a better understanding of the role of faith in society and foreign policy. That includes training them to spot violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief and to take action when abuses occur.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

The Minister has covered many of the abuses that have been mentioned, but he has not made reference to China and the harvesting of organs, to which I referred. I note from the reading that I have done for this debate that whereas there have been pronouncements on the subject by the United Nations, the United States and even the European Parliament, I have not come across anything much from the British Government. I wonder what their attitude to the subject is.

[Mr Swire]

If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I hope to get to that in the time left.

We know that we do not have all the answers, and the Government alone cannot be the solution. The Foreign Office’s whole ministerial team, and particularly my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, are always keen to hear views from parliamentarians and civil society groups on what more we might do or what we might do differently. In particular, we welcome the increased focus on these fundamental rights by parliamentarians, including members of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief. I know, for example, that the all-party group recommended that we establish a new expert advisory group, which we did. We are looking to implement other recommendations, including by extending the funding period for our programme of activity and exploring the steps towards an international convention on freedom of religion or belief, although careful thought will have to be given to how that would be negotiated.

Hon. Members have raised a number of specific issues. The hon. Member for Belfast East, who secured the debate, spoke about Open Doors, to which we pay tribute for its work and its valuable world watch list, which describes the worst countries for Christians. We agree that the UN Human Rights Council could do more on the right to freedom of religion or belief, which is why, with our EU partners, we table a resolution on the topic every six months. We consistently aim to strengthen the text and ensure that individual UN member states implement those resolutions in their own countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and others raised the issue of freedom of religion in Pakistan. It is vital that Pakistan guarantee the rights of all its citizens, regardless of their faith or ethnicity. We regularly raise the issue of religious freedom with the authorities in Pakistan at a senior level, including on the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Pakistan in July 2013 and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi’s visit in September 2013. I answered the question earlier about the Prime Minister’s meeting in the past few days.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) raised the issue of Falun Gong. We continue to have serious concerns about reports of torture and mistreatment of detainees in China. We are aware that organs removed from executed prisoners are used for human transplantation purposes in China, and that Chinese law requires that prisoners give prior consent that their organs be used in that way. Criminal justice reform and the rule of law, including torture prevention and the treatment of detainees, has been a consistent focus of our human rights engagement with the Chinese authorities both at ministerial level and through project work on the ground. We welcome steps taken by the Chinese Government in recent years to improve the regulation of organ transplantation, and we will continue to encourage China to make further progress in that respect, including by engaging to share best practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke with some feeling about the Baha’i community. The Baha’i faith in Iran is subject to mounting persecution, as he is aware, and we are concerned by state efforts to identify, monitor and arbitrarily detain Baha’is. According to the Baha’i International Community, more than 100 Baha’is remain in detention in Iran. We have consistently and repeatedly expressed concern at the ongoing incarceration, and at the shocking sentencing of seven Baha’i leaders in Iran to 20 years’ imprisonment each on charges of espionage, propaganda against the regime, collusion and collaboration for the purposes of endangering national security, and spreading corruption on earth. We have made it clear in public statements that it is appalling that Iran reinstated that original sentence after acquitting the leaders of several of their charges.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and other Members raised the issue of the Ahmadis. We fully share her concern about the persecution of the Ahmadis and engage with the Pakistani Government about it at a senior level. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi praised the Ahmadis’ strong contribution to British society at their conference of world religions in February.

A number of Members mentioned Egypt, which continues to dominate the news. Sectarian violence increased under President Morsi and has continued since. Amnesty reports that 200 Christian-owned properties have been attacked and 43 churches burned down or damaged since July 2013. In September, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement in Parliament condemning the violence against Christian churches. Article 64 of the 2014 constitution states that freedom of belief is absolute, but the key test will be how the constitution is implemented, as many articles require additional legislation.

We are also concerned by the ongoing crackdown in Iran on religious minorities, which a number of Members mentioned, including the house church movement among Iranian Christians. The call by the supreme leader in October 2011 to prevent the spread of Christianity in Iran reveals a disturbing trend to stop freedom of religion. I call on Iran to cease harassment of religious minorities, and to fulfil its international and domestic obligations to allow freedom of religion to all Iranians. We are concerned for the welfare of the imprisoned pastors, Saeed Abedini, Farshid Fathi and Behnam Irani, whom we believe have no case to answer. We call on Iran to release them.

The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) asked about the horrific story of the abduction of 180 schoolgirls in northern Nigeria. The whole House will want to join in the utter condemnation of those responsible for the abduction and what is a hideous and despicable crime. In his statement on 16 April, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary offered our assistance and help to the Nigerians to ensure that the children can be returned to their families safely. He also spoke to Nigerian Foreign Minister Wali on 18 April. We are talking to the Nigerian authorities about how best to assist in their efforts to secure the girls’ release and bring those responsible to justice. The hon. Member for Wrexham asked for a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who has responsibility for Africa, and I am sure he would be happy to brief him if we had anything significant to add.

Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The relationship of the UN to this matter is of course very important. A debate took place several weeks ago in the UN General Assembly, when a resolution making clear the support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine was carried by 100 votes to 11. That illustrated the extent of Russia’s diplomatic isolation, but such a vote has not of course affected Russia’s behaviour.

We, of course, talk closely to neighbouring countries. I mentioned that the Minister for Europe is in Estonia today. The Baltic states are particularly concerned about what Russia has done, and we are increasing our military support for them. We will continue to work with neighbouring countries very closely, and I will visit Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine next week to reinforce that.

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

Given the danger that these tactics, if successful, will embolden Russia to do something similar against a NATO member state, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, is any thought being given to increasing the prominence of defence expenditure among Britain’s national priorities?

[Mr Hague]

Defence remains a very important priority for the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend knows very well. These events mean that at the NATO summit in September, which we will be very proud to host in Wales, there will be increased consciousness of the need for NATO in Europe and of the need for confidence in the collective defence of NATO nations. I have already made the case at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting that that will mean, over the coming years, some NATO nations that spend much less than 2% of GDP on defence having to think again and to increase their defence expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That will depend on the course of events over the coming days and on the evidence of Russia’s involvement. The latest this morning is that the authorities in Kiev say that the situation is dangerous, as we have said in this House, but under control. Indeed, the administrative buildings in Kharkiv appear to be back under the control of the Ukrainian authorities. I think we will have to assess the situation over the coming days, but I say again that a deliberate escalation of the situation by Russia will bring serious political and economic consequences.

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

To what extent has the ability of our European allies to wage effective economic sanctions against Russia been undermined by their dependence on Russian gas sources and do we have a strategy for trying to persuade our allies to diversify their energy sources so that that dependence will be lessened in the future?

[Mr Hague]

I think the answer is that that has not affected what we have done so far, but we have to be very conscious of that point and the effect it could have. We are very active—I at meetings of Foreign Ministers and the Prime Minister at the European Council—in saying that it will be necessary to accelerate measures that reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian gas. The G7 leaders discussed that at some length at the meeting in The Hague two weeks ago and my hon. Friend will be aware that we are convening a meeting of Energy Ministers in the G7 precisely to discuss that ahead of the G7 Heads of Government meeting.

Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, of course I do not. Finland was also occupied by Sweden, but there is no time to debate that. Ukraine is a completely different ball game to Russians than Poland. My point is that Ukraine is an extraordinarily divided country. This is not a simple, liberal argument about a long-standing independent united country and a foreign aggressor. Western Ukraine is fiercely anti-Russian. As I said, it is Catholic Uniate, its capital city is Lviv, and formerly it was largely inhabited not by Ukrainians but 80% by Poles who were forcibly removed by Stalin. Before that it was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and was called Lemberg. The whole of western Ukraine is therefore passionately opposed to Russia—quite understandably—and wants to break free.

The eastern part of the country around Donetsk and Crimea is a completely different state of affairs. We must be aware that however many speeches we give, and however many sanctions we impose, this is not just about a tyrant—Putin—invading a foreign country. A great proportion of the Russian population feels very strongly that the west is imposing double standards. The west insisted on self-determination for the Kosovans, and Serbia is very close to the Russian heart as a fellow Orthodox country. The House may not agree with that, but that is their point of view, and imposing any amount of sanctions will not change it.

We must stop playing power games. It is too dangerous a situation, and the west must realise that it cannot tear Ukraine away from Russia. We must stop these games of Ukraine ever joining NATO—thank God Ukraine is not in NATO because we would be involved in a war. We must stop these games.

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

My hon. Friend said yesterday in Defence questions what a different position we would be in had we let Ukraine become part of NATO. We must realise and impress on Russia that membership of NATO involves the criterion that an attack on one is an attack on all. If we are not prepared to protect a country in that way, we must not give it bogus guarantees.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Absolutely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Far be it from me to say whether anybody has reneged or not, although I note in passing that to renege, whether disagreeable, not least in this case to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is not unparliamentary—nothing unparliamentary has happened. He is a considerable expert in parliamentary procedure and has just written a two-volume tome on the history of Parliament. He may well be very dissatisfied, but he has vented his concerns and they are on the record.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Clearly the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is most agitated also to raise a point of order, and we had better hear from him.

[Dr Lewis]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you noticed my eccentric gesticulations and today you note my great agitation. I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has wide ramifications, similar to those we were concerned about yesterday: what is the status of motions passed, either in substantive votes or nem. con. votes in this House, when they are the result of the Backbench Business Committee agreeing that something should be debated and voted on? There is something a bit wrong when the House passes a motion and the Government appear to take no notice of it. What is the point of having a vote in that case?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has opened veritably a can of parliamentary worms. The issue he raises is important, and I do not seek to brush it off for one moment, but it is not a matter of order for the Chair. What I say to him in all seriousness and solemnity, recognising that the concern he expresses is probably more widely shared, is that ultimately it is for the House to decide what is the meaning of a particular decision taken. That is not a matter for the Chair but it is a matter for the House, and it is a point to which he and others can return if they so wish, but we cannot dilate upon it now. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda could if he were in order, but he is not and so he will not. We will leave it there for now.

Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We are not talking about a new Crimean war, although the action that Russia has taken—the use of armed force in Crimea—has risked a new Crimean war for that country. I would make one point to the hon. Gentleman. There is a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea, although it is of the order of 50% to 60%, but there are also important minorities, including the Tatar minority, and their rights need to be respected as well. It is too simplistic an approach to say that the majority in Crimea would like to be in a different situation from the current one. Any referendum that is held should be consistent with the constitution of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. That is not the current proposal.

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

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that part of the problem is that Ukraine is a deeply divided society, in which both sides have, at one time or another, played winner-takes-all? He talks, rightly, about the importance of maintaining a unified Ukraine. Does he agree with the conclusion of Professor Anatol Lieven that

“the only way to keep Ukraine together may be the introduction of a new federal constitution with much greater powers for the different regions”?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is for Ukrainians to decide their constitutional structure. I am simply advocating the idea that they should make their decisions in accordance with their constitution. It is a country in which there is a strong case for more decentralisation. There is also a strong case, strategically, for turning away from a winner-takes-all attitude in politics. I have gone out of my way to stress to Russia that we do not see the situation in zero-sum terms. Although we welcome close ties between Ukraine and the European Union, we recognise that Russia has entirely legitimate interests in, and an entirely legitimate relationship with, Ukraine. We will continue to make that argument.

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We can do a great deal, as we have in many other countries. The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Through the work of our embassies, we can give the Ukrainian authorities clear advice, as I have been doing in public today, and shall do in private, about how matters should be conducted to achieve that free, democratic future with financial support from international institutions. However, it is also important to communicate that message more widely across many different sectors of society in Ukraine—our embassy has begun to do that —and it is possible to find in European Union countries funding to support democratic development and political capacity building. We will be ready to do that.

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

Whether we like it or not, Ukraine is a polarised society, with large parts looking towards the west and significant parts looking towards Russia. Does the Secretary of State think, therefore, that the constitutional advice we give should include a recommendation for some form of devolved government so that Ukraine does not become a focus for east-west tension or, heaven forbid, confrontation?

[Mr Hague]

That analysis is correct. I said earlier that it is important not to present this as a binary choice for Ukraine. My hon. Friend’s argument is the reason for that: a binary choice would always make it difficult for a nation with that composition to give a 100% clear answer. It is important to leave open the wider possibilities of co-operation, both with Russia and with the European Union in future. It is for Ukraine to decide its constitutional structure. We can support the objectives of territorial integrity and the workings of a democratic state, but it is for it to decide the means of doing so.

Egypt

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Westminster Hall

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

The speeches in this debate so far have been measured, temperate and realistic—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Until now!

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I pay tribute to both previous speakers and, despite the friendly sedentary intervention of my friend, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I intend to follow in their footsteps. I congratulate in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on introducing such an important subject. I am pleased that people have not gone automatically into a mode of suggesting that all the good is on one side and all the evil on the other. In Egypt, we are confronted with a choice of which is the lesser evil. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) that the correct course to follow is not to rush to endorse what has happened in Egypt. We should ensure that we maintain pressure on whatever Administration or regime emerges to follow a path back to constitutional democracy at the earliest opportunity.

It sometimes bothers me that people think that when a dramatic development occurs, it is automatically to be interpreted in the context of what we have experienced in recent European history. I felt the very coinage of the term “Arab spring” to be inappropriate. I did not feel that the spate of revolutions that took place in one middle eastern country after another should be compared to the attempt by central and eastern European countries, which had been well set on the path to constitutional democracy before they were hijacked by the Soviet empire, to go back to the democratic path. There was no direct comparison between those European countries asserting their right to return to democracy and what was happening in at least some of the middle eastern countries.

In 1941, Churchill was famously teased by one of his left-wing opponents when he spoke up for Russia after it was invaded by the Nazis. After all, Churchill was the architect of British intervention in the Russian civil war, and he famously wanted to “strangle Bolshevism at birth”. He had the right answer to his critic: he said that if Hitler invaded hell, he would at least have a good word to say for the devil in the House of Commons. In other words, he recognised that it was a choice between evils.

It is often thought that when a totalitarian regime emerges, based on a totalitarian ideology, it does so in a coup, with no popular support at all. That is not necessarily the case; in fact, I would say that it is not usually the case. There was certainly popular support for the Nazis, as well as for the communists in many cases where they succeeded in coming to power. The paradox in trying to deal with such situations was that there was a degree of democratic legitimacy to the initial taking over of the country, but once that had happened, the regimes proceeded to dismantle the very framework of democracy—however great or limited it was at the time—that had enabled them to come to power on the basis of some form of popular support. Such popular support was often allied to a specific type of devious perversion of political language when the regime was consolidating its grip on power.

The question that must be faced by democracies looking on as such situations develop is what we do when a group of people come to power, initially with a greater or lesser degree of democratic legitimacy, and proceed to subvert the system so that they will never again have to submit themselves to democratic elections. I suggest that what was happening in Egypt was a movement in that sort of direction. The country was faced with the choice of whether it wished to see Islamism take control, as it has done following what I prefer to call the Arab uprisings, to the disappointment of many of us who were hoping to see constitutional democracies emerge in other middle eastern countries. The issue is what we do about that. Do we simply rush to condemn the fact that Islamists have been ejected from power in Egypt, or do we recognise the real difficulty of the choice that Egyptians have had to make between one extreme situation and another?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The situation in Egypt was even more extreme than that, in terms of the groundwork laid for political Islam. In the parliamentary elections, 50% of the seats were won by the Muslim Brotherhood and 25% by Salafis, so 75% of the seats were won by parties that openly supported political Islam. There was no room for an alternative in that system.

[Dr Lewis]

That is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend will put me right if I am mistaken, but I recall that part of the deal at the outset was that the Muslim Brotherhood undertook not to run for the presidency—I think that I am right in saying that. That promise was very promptly broken.

In my time trying to comment as best I can on defence and security-related subjects in Parliament, not too many months—certainly not too many years—go by when I do not have recourse to mentioning one of my favourite political quotations from the late, great, Sir Karl Popper in his famous book, “The Open Society and Its Enemies”. I have quoted it before and I suspect that circumstances will require me to quote it again. The paradox of tolerance is that in a free society, people must tolerate all but the intolerant, because if you tolerate the intolerant, the conditions for toleration disappear and the tolerant go with them. I am sure that this is what the people who ousted the Islamists in Egypt would argue was their justification. Although I said earlier that one must not make simplistic comparisons, I am now probably about to do just that. Those people would probably point to the situation in Germany in the 1930s and say, “Wouldn’t it have been better if the army had thrown the Nazis out, once it became clear that they were going to rip up the constitution and remove any chance of a democratic future, and when it saw what the Hitlerites were trying to do to the German system—which had more or less democratically elected them to power in the first place—using the techniques that we are so familiar with in totalitarian takeovers, to get an iron and irreversible grip on the society?” How would we feel now if the army had stepped in then?

I worry when I hear people use phrases such as moderate Islamism. The description of Islamism is the description of an extreme, intolerant ideology; there is no moderate Islamism, any more than there is moderate totalitarianism or moderate extremism. The reality is that there was a choice in Egypt between an Islamist takeover and the ejection of a group of people bent on destroying any sort of emergent democracy in that country and making a terrible mess of running it in the process.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

While the hon. Gentleman is expanding on whether there can be moderate Islamism and the consequence of Islamism emerging in Egypt and other middle eastern nations, might I ask if he shares many people’s concern that religious minorities, including Christians and others, are being systematically purged, not just in thousands or tens of thousands, but in hundreds of thousands, from many nation states right across the middle east?

[Dr Lewis]

I endorse that, and pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his party colleagues for raising this question more consistently and more often than any other group of hon. Members in the House. They are right to do so. We have to try to take a long view of the prospects for the re-emergence of some form of moderate government in Egypt. Those of us who have been in, and aware of, politics for a long time can remember the bad old days of Nasser. I am sure that some people would say, “Ah, but those days are likely to come back,” but I remember that most sensible, pro-democratic people were relieved when Nasser’s successor, Sadat, showed himself willing to moderate the more extreme outlooks of Egyptian politics and to make peace with Israel.

I remember, when Sadat was assassinated by what, today, we would call Islamists, how relieved we were that somebody else came forward who carried on his policies. Nevertheless, as is always the case when people come forward and get a grip, as Mubarak did, and do not want to give it up, corruption became rife and the situation ultimately became unstable. Of course, understandably, the people became fed up with him. However, although it took quite a while for the people to become fed up with that form of dictatorship, it did not take them terribly long to be fed up with President Morsi and his group.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the way that the hon. Gentleman is developing his argument. He is outlining the difficulties that we in the United Kingdom have in reacting to what is happening in Egypt, and the difficulties of choosing between two evils, as he termed it. Perhaps he will give us some specific steps that he believes the UK should take to stabilise the situation in Egypt.

[Dr Lewis]

I shall try to do so, although I am conscious that I am coming towards the end of my fair share of time. I shall try to make a remark or two along those lines at the end.

I do not hold myself out as being any form of expert on middle eastern politics, so I was pleased to see the comprehensive debate pack assembled for this occasion by Library researchers, who culled many good contributions from national and international media. I was struck particularly by the contribution of Dr Hazem Kandil, who is described as a lecturer in sociology and a fellow of St Catharine’s college, Cambridge, as well as being the author of a book entitled “Inside the Brotherhood”. He says:

“the Brotherhood’s opponents could not have fielded enough protesters to secure the cooperation of the high command had the common folk abstained. It was the Brotherhood’s shocking incompetence at government that drove millions into the streets on June 30. And it was the Brotherhood’s decision to turn a political clash into a religious war that guaranteed the public’s blanket endorsement for brutally repressing them.

The Brothers were ousted not because of their political duplicity, but because they were so bad at it.”

In other words, the people saw through them. He continues:

“they were later hunted down because they never understood that their countrymen preferred to risk backtracking into a functioning secular authoritarianism to the certainty of sliding into incompetent religious fascism.”

If I used those words, I might come in for some criticism, but when a knowledgeable fellow of St Catharine’s college, Cambridge, uses them, we all ought to take them seriously.

In response to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), I simply say that we should have a policy of positive critical engagement with whatever Government emerges. We should at least recognise that the Government who propose to emerge are at least talking the language of democracy, and can be held to that agenda, in a way that the Islamists do not.

My last observation is this. A few days ago, I was listening to the “Today” programme and a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood was asked a simple question by the interviewer: “Will you take part in the forthcoming elections or not?” He could have had plenty of good reasons for saying, “We won’t do it.” He could have said, “We don’t think they’ll be fair,” or “We don’t think we’ll be allowed to campaign freely,” and so on. The fact was that it took the entire interview, with that question being asked over and over, to get any sort of final admission from this man that, no, it does not propose to take part. That reminded me of nothing so much as old debates with Marxists, 25 or 30 years ago: they never gave a straight answer to a straight question, because they were subject to a devious political ideology and had the language to match.

These people are not democrats. They were about to subvert democracy. The people who have ousted them may not be democrats, but we at least have a chance of making them work towards democracy in a way that the Muslim Brotherhood would never have wanted to do.

European Council

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We make it clear every time there is a Spanish incursion into British Gibraltar territorial waters that that is unacceptable through a formal protest of some kind to the Spanish Government, which, depending on the circumstances, has ranged from a note verbale to a public summoning of the Spanish ambassador. We continue to make representations to Spain at the highest level about the fact that this sort of behaviour is not tolerable, as well as the fact that Spain would be better off recognising that a large number of Spanish citizens benefit from the prosperity of Gibraltar—from being able to take work there and from the spending power it provides to the Andalusian economy—and that it would be in Spain’s interest to start trying to make friends with Gibraltar, instead of issuing threats.

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

A common defence policy for Europe would clearly undermine the crucial link between Europe and America that forms the basis of NATO. What assessment have our Government made of the number of our fellow EU member states that favour a common defence policy, and of their motivation for favouring such a dangerous step?

[Mr Lidington]

It all depends on what is meant by a common defence policy. There is widespread support, including in the United States and from the NATO Secretary-General, for European members of the transatlantic alliance to be more effective and cohesive in their contributions to our joint security arrangements. My hon. Friend is right that some people in Europe want to go a great deal further, particularly in some of the European institutions, such as the Parliament and the Commission.

For rather obvious reasons of parliamentary accountability and a consciousness of the importance of national sovereignty over defence and foreign policy, there is greater reluctance among national Governments. As a rule of thumb, smaller member states often see security advantages in closer European integration at defence level, and the significant defence players are generally the most conscious of the need to preserve national autonomy and to defend what the treaties lay down, which is that defence and security remain national competences and rights.

UK Relations with Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I am grateful to you for chairing this important debate, Mr Havard. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for securing this debate and for his continued engagement and interest in Ukraine and his support for democratic reform there. Given the fast-changing events on the ground, this is a timely and necessary debate.

Ukraine is an important friend and partner to the UK. We work closely together across a broad range of international issues and multilateral forums, and more so in the light of Ukraine’s chairmanship in office of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe was in Kiev only last week to attend the OSCE ministerial council. We therefore welcome the latest news that President Yanukovych today agreed to round-table talks with three former Presidents, among others.

This Government have championed Ukraine’s closer integration with the EU, where it has the potential to make a significant contribution to stability, prosperity and competitiveness, and we will continue to support Ukraine’s European aspirations, including eventual membership of the EU, provided that the appropriate criteria are met and provided that it is what the Ukrainian people themselves want.

However, we have been watching recent developments in Ukraine with deep and genuine concern. Several hundred thousand Ukrainian citizens—perhaps more—have taken to the streets to express their views on Ukraine’s future. Also, troubling reports have emerged: of police violence in response to peaceful demonstrations; of journalists being beaten and possibly being deliberately targeted by security forces; and of disproportionate force being used. These things are completely unacceptable.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe raised his strong concerns at these developments in Kiev last week. On 3 December, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, together with his NATO counterparts, issued a statement condemning the excessive use of force in Ukraine, and he called on all parties to refrain from provocations and violence. NATO members also stressed that a sovereign, independent and stable Ukraine, which is firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is a key to Euro-Atlantic security.

We have made it clear that, particularly as the chairman-in-office of the OSCE is Ukrainian, it is essential that the Ukrainian Government demonstrate—through actions as well as words—their deep commitment to OSCE norms and values. We welcome the Ukrainian authorities’ commitment to a thorough investigation of police violence. Those responsible for such violence must be held to account.

We firmly believe that the way forward is through constructive engagement and dialogue, and we continue to encourage the Ukrainian Government and opposition to enter into early discussions. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe visited Kiev on 5 December, he visited Maidan, or Independence square, and saw for himself the peaceful nature of the protests. He also met opposition leaders and encouraged them to engage seriously with ideas to identify ways to defuse the situation and map out a peaceful route forward.

This House is aware that the protests in Ukraine were triggered by the decision of the Ukrainian Government to put preparations for signature of the EU-Ukraine association agreement on hold. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear to this House and in public statements, this Government’s view is that the Ukrainian Government’s decision represents a missed opportunity.

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

Have the Government had any opportunity to make an assessment of what measures the Russians may have brought into play to pressurise the Ukrainian Government to change their approach to this important matter?

[Mr Swire]

Not to date, but we—together with our EU partners—had hoped that the EU-Ukraine relationship would enter a new and fundamentally different phase following signature of the association agreement, which includes a deep and comprehensive free trade area, at the Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius on 28 and 29 November. What we have made a study of is the benefit that the agreement would bring to Ukraine and Ukrainian companies. It would give Ukrainian companies access to a market of 500 million consumers. Reliable studies have shown that GDP and wages would rise, and closer economic integration through the deep and comprehensive free trade area would be a powerful stimulant to Ukraine’s economic growth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Unlike the Labour party we are capable of thinking of more than one thing at a time. There are five themes, and since I have set out five, asking for one is not particularly helpful. We have also delivered more than one. We have already cut the EU budget for the first time, which Labour did not do, and we have protected the rebate in full, which Labour failed to do. We have put a stop to involvement in eurozone bail-outs, which Labour never achieved, and we will go on sticking up for Britain in Europe on more than one subject at a time.

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

Should reasserting control of our national borders be a priority? For example, does it make any more sense to have a single European work force than it does to have a single European currency?

[Mr Hague]

As I said earlier, I think reforming the concept of free movement on a sensible basis is the right way to think about that. Freedom of movement of workers in the European Union clearly has many benefits, including for British people, but we also know that it is susceptible to being abused. I therefore think the reforms set out last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are the right way to proceed.