Saudi Arabia: Mass Executions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No one can question the right hon. Lady’s track record on defending human rights. We hear loudly what she says. One of the questions we need to ask the Saudi Government is what on earth they think this will achieve. The practical benefit seems entirely negative, and I hope that the rational argument that the death penalty achieves nothing in the modern world will eventually sink in.

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

Does the Minister feel, as I do, that the feebleness of the response to the Khashoggi murder and the butchering of his body has in some way encouraged the Saudi authorities to think they can get away with anything, no matter how brutal and borderline insane?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I do not quite agree with my right hon. Friend. The international reaction was pretty robust, and a collective voice condemned it, led by Turkey, where it happened. I would like to think that that incident had a dividend and it got through to people that it was unacceptable, and they were taken aback by the fact that the murder of one person counted for so much elsewhere in the world. I hope it will never be repeated.

Libya

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The proud author and owner of a doctorate in strategic studies, Dr Julian Lewis.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that introduction. Which side are our sworn Islamist enemies backing in Libya?

[Mark Field]

My right hon. Friend, I know, feels strongly about these matters. They are backing different sides. All sides have, in a quite disparate way, elements of Islamic State or other extremist Islamist groups. This is the nub of the problem. Faustian bargains have been made by most of those who would either be warlords or would run Libya. They are building very unstable coalitions, which I think are very destructive for the reasons he alludes to.

Yemen

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

That is a fair question. I would like to think that I can do the job at least for urgent questions and the like, but I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman says. As far as a date for peace talks is concerned, we are desperate to ensure at the UN and with all our partners that there is momentum from what happened in Stockholm, which was very positive, but we feel that the momentum is coming to an end. As far as the Quad is concerned, there are ongoing discussions, and no doubt we will again try to get more movement and momentum to ensure that the progress made is built upon and does not dwindle away.

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

Are there any restrictions on our very large aid budget that would prevent us from applying it to a warzone such as this?

[Mark Field]

My right hon. Friend will recognise that that is an issue for the Secretary of State for International Development, but there are restrictions on it—in fact, fairly strict restrictions in international law, and our own legislation has come into play in that regard. Clearly, this is a desperate humanitarian situation. I think all of us feel that it is right that a significant amount of international aid is placed there. There is a recognition that it is sometimes difficult to get to the most vulnerable on the ground, but we shall do our level best to ensure that that happens.

Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s remarks, some of which I very much agree with. I also met Dr Tarek Loubani and colleagues from Medical Aid for Palestinians during the week. There is no doubt about his sincerity and the pain that he has experienced in relation to his injuries and the death of his friend. Any encounter with those who have been involved in the actions that resulted from the protests and the move towards the fence brings into sharp relief our discussions, when we confront the reality of what has happened—the loss of life, the life-changing injuries to a child hit by a bullet, a lifetime of disability and the loss of paramedics. Whatever the context of a right to protest and a right to defend, if such things result that is a tragedy, and such actions are shocking and appalling in equal measure. Whatever the context, that cannot and should not be an end result.

In relation to the procedural matters that the right hon. Lady raised, there are two parts to dealing with matters at the Human Rights Council: the vote itself, and the explanation of vote. The United Kingdom has not been alone in abstaining in relation to this accountability, and the votes were spread across the Human Rights Council. There are reasons for both.

The United Kingdom has taken a principled position in relation to item 7 for a period of time. When item 7 was introduced, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, Ban Ki-moon, the then UN Secretary-General, voiced his disappointment, given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world, that there was one specific item relating solely to Israel, and Israel was the only country that faced that. That has been the long-standing concern about item 7. At the same time, we have been at pains to make it clear that when issues came under other items, as with item 2 and this accountability report, the matter would be looked at entirely on its own merits, and we would support those actions that we believed we could.

In relation to this particular matter, at the time the inquiry was set up, we said that because of the nature of the inquiry—it would not be looking at the actions of those who were responsible for taking people to the fence and took some complicit action in relation to what happened—the inquiry could not be even-handed and balanced. That is why we abstained in the first place, and it is why we abstained again. If I may, I should put the explanation of vote that has been given in Geneva on to the record so that colleagues here can read it. It says:

“Our vote today follows on from our position in…2018 when we abstained on the resolution that created the Commission of Inquiry into the Gaza protests. Our expectation is that accountability must be pursued impartially, fairly, and in a balanced manner. We did not and cannot support an international investigation that refuses to call explicitly for an investigation into the action of non-state actors such as Hamas, and we cannot support a resolution that fails to address the actions of all actors, including non-state actors. The UK continues fully to support an independent and transparent investigation into the…events in Gaza. We note the IDF opening potential criminal investigations into a number of cases…But equally we have publicly and privately expressed our longstanding concerns about the use of live ammunition and excessive force by the Israel Defence Forces. Our decision to abstain reflects”—

our concern and our balanced position. That is the reason for it, but it does not stop us calling out those actions we consider to be wrong. We welcome the fact that there will be some criminal investigations, and we wait to see the result of them.

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

I agree with every word of the Government’s position, as just read out by the Minister. I therefore do not understand why we just abstained, instead of voting against the proposal. If we felt that this particular organisation would produce only a partial and unbalanced report, and if we want an impartial and balanced report, would it not have made more sense to vote against the proposal?

[Alistair Burt]

No. We maintained the position of abstention because that reaffirmed our position in relation to the nature of the inquiry itself. However, the inquiry produced matters of concern to the United Kingdom in relation to what it did, such as listing those who were killed and wounded. The nature of the account led us to the belief that our concern could properly be expressed not by voting against it, but by maintaining our previous position.

Commonwealth Day

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. On Thursday, he asked me to give the House quarterly updates on Commonwealth matters, and here I am, only a few days later.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to raise the important work that we do with Commonwealth members in tackling both the root causes and some of the impacts of modern slavery. That is part of a much wider piece of work that is being done across the Government, with many different strands in Commonwealth countries and beyond. I believe that Fairtrade Fortnight has just ended. Let me remind him, wearing my DFID hat, that we give extensive support to a range of fair trade projects and that, more important, we try to ensure that farmers, whether or not they are involved in fair trade, are helped to achieve a sustainable price that will give them a fair livelihood.

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

Given that the transition from colonial status to independence is often extremely difficult and sometimes downright dangerous, should we not pay tribute to all the parliamentarians and diplomats who had the vision to create the modern Commonwealth system, and should we not take some satisfaction from the fact that so many former colonies are happy to participate—with the United Kingdom—in that system, which has been so successful for so many decades?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the diplomatic network in focusing on the modern priorities of the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend will have welcomed last year’s announcement that the UK is to open diplomatic representation in a further nine Commonwealth countries, thus creating a complete set of diplomatic representations in all the Commonwealth countries.

Syria

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. On reconstruction, the support that the UK provides at the moment is termed stabilisation and resilience, in that people who have absolutely nothing need access to food, water and shelter. There is a distinction drawn between providing for the immediate needs of people—stabilisation and resilience—and what is termed the longer-term reconstruction, which is the rebuilding of infrastructure and of the country. There is an international difference of opinion. There are those who have taken the side of Syria during the time of the regime in saying, “This is what Syria needs going forward in order to settle its people.” However, we have a concern about this reconstruction being provided to an unreconstructed regime, where, as I have indicated, all the evidence suggests that there are refugees it deliberately does not want back for political reasons, and that for those who do come back, there are risks attached.

It seems to us that to ask United Kingdom taxpayers, and this House, to support a reconstruction programme in those circumstances is not correct. Accordingly, we—this is a joint EU position—have taken the position on reconstruction of saying no, until we know for certain that this is a different Syria that will provide properly for its citizens and will not provide the basic background that can then be exploited by extremists and terrorists in future because they are dealing with a population that is being appallingly treated. I think we are right to stick to that, but the hon. Gentleman can be reassured about the stabilisation and resilience support.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the neighbouring countries. To put some figures on the record, over the last few years we have provided £608 million for Lebanon, £483 million for Jordan and £319 million for Turkey—a total of £1.34 billion to support the 5.7 million refugees in the region and cover their needs. We are supporting the various programmes that are being run. It is a difficult balance for those states. They want to care for those who are there. In some cases, they are caring for refugees who have been there for a very long time—the Palestinian refugees—and, accordingly, we are building up issues about the length of time that host countries are able to support people for. I am sympathetic to the needs of those host countries, but it must be clear that refugees cannot be put back into a situation of danger, and the international community has to work together to deal with that.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned aid workers and, in particular, Sam’s House. He has written to me previously about it, and I commend the work of that small but very necessary agency. We work in close conjunction with it, as indeed we do with any such agency. I visited Holyrood not too long ago and had a good conversation with the Scottish Minister responsible for international development. Of course, we look to support our friends there. The protection of aid workers is about supporting the campaigns we see from time to time which say that aid workers and journalists are not a target, and ensuring that people know how important that is. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments.

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

I warmly commend everything that the Minister, wearing his DFID hat, has been doing to help Jordan in particular. The King and the Government are our close friends and allies, and they have been truly heroic in this situation. I have a little concern about the Minister’s position wearing his Foreign Office hat. Does the Foreign Office accept that President Assad and his regime, brutal though they are, have won the Syrian civil war? If they were to show a greater willingness to behave in a more humane way to returning refugees, would the Foreign Office and DFID be prepared to offer aid to those returning to Syria under the Assad regime’s control?

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. It would be unlike him not to have slight concern about some of the things that the Foreign Office does. I appreciate the situation. First, let us be clear: there cannot be any definition of “winning” this conflict when something like half a million people have been killed—the vast majority at the hands of the regime, and a significant number at the hands of Daesh—and millions have been displaced. Should the regime and its backers claim to have won, I am sure this House would speak with one voice in its disgust at such a term.

Is it correct to say that the situation on the ground indicates that the regime is likely to stay in control of areas that it currently controls and regain control? Yes, that is likely to be the situation. The regime was rescued by Russia on one occasion and by Iran and Hezbollah on another. We do not need to rehearse the events of August 2013, but there are consequences of both intervention and non-intervention, as the House understands. The situation is plain, and my right hon. Friend is correct; the regime will count its survival as a success in the dreadful circumstances.

What happens next is really important. As I indicated earlier, if Syria’s regime and governance returns to where it was, Syria will never be at peace. First, people’s human rights will continue to be trampled on. That will provide the base of conflict for the future, and those who seek stability in Syria through the return of the regime will not get it. It is clear that there must be a response from the regime to provide for its people decently, as opposed to the conditions of war that it has waged upon its own people for the past few years. When that time comes, I will be able to answer my right hon. Friend’s question.

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will touch on two aspects of what he said. The first is what losing the INF treaty means for extending New START, which is a bilateral treaty between the US and Russia that expires in 2021. We were pleased to see both sides meet the New START limits by the deadlines, by the end of last year. We believe that that treaty contributes to international stability. All allies support continued implementation and early and active dialogue on ways to improve strategic stability. It is, of course, for the US and Russia to take forward discussions about extending that treaty.

The hon. Gentleman also raised perfectly legitimate concerns, which I think we all share, about the broader range of challenges for the multilateral system. We will continue to work closely with the US across a wide range of multilateral organisations and issues. He touched on climate change, for which I have Foreign Office responsibility and on which we work closely—if not necessarily as closely as we would like with the federal Administration—with a number of important state governors and others.

May I just say that we, like the US, believe that a number of multinational institutions are in need of reform? On the matter at hand, a situation in which the US is respecting the INF treaty and Russia persistently and consistently is not is simply not sustainable. The UK and all other NATO allies have made clear our support for the US position.

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

In his memoirs, Mr Gorbachev makes it absolutely clear that the reason he signed the treaty was that NATO deployed cruise and, especially, Pershing II missiles, which he greatly feared. Given that this was the most successful example in history of multinational disarmament, as opposed to one-sided gestures, it would be a shame to lose the treaty if there were any chance of saving it. Will the Minister use his best endeavours to persuade the Americans to take to an international forum, such as the United Nations, the evidence they have for Russian non-compliance so that the world as a whole can be convinced, if the treaty is being broken, that the Russians are responsible for doing it?

[Mark Field]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of and great interest in these matters. He is absolutely right that there needs to be an evidence-based approach. I have to say that we are confident, and I think all NATO allies have been confident in the discussions that have taken place with our American allies, on this matter. I should also point out, as I did in my initial comments, that the announcement on Saturday 2 February actually triggers a six-month withdrawal process, so there is a chance for Russia to come back to the table and, indeed, as he points out, for all of us to work internationally to try to salvage aspects of this treaty.

Ultimately, to return to the point I made earlier, I would say to my right hon. Friend—as I say, he has a great passion for denuclearisation and for such treaties—that these treaties can only work if they are complied with on all sides. There has been a persistent and consistent sense from Russia, going back many years, that it has not been willing to do so, and that makes such a treaty unsustainable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

As the right hon. Lady knows, all the prominent cases of human rights activists are carefully monitored by the UK representatives in Bahrain. There are independent processes in order to oversee the activities of the courts in Manama, and we urge that there is a consultation and dealings with them. We keep a constant eye on this; it is a matter for progress in Bahrain, and the United Kingdom is very involved in seeing greater progress there.

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

Will Ministers use the United Nations as a forum where the United States can expose the Russian violation of the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty so that if America does withdraw, responsibility will lie where it should?

[Mr Hunt]

We are absolutely sure that Russia has been violating the terms of the INF treaty and that the way forward in this is to get back to compliance because it is vital for Europe’s security, but that starts with Russia recognising what it has done wrong.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I do not think that it is really possible to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. It is not always possible to gain access to those who are making the decisions relating to people who are held in detention in a variety of countries, and that is certainly true in this particular case. I think that the best the United Kingdom can do is make very clear how we see the situation, keep up our constant contact and requests for assistance, and continue to raise the matter as it has been raised here, but we are not always aware of what may have triggered one development or what might trigger a release. All I can say is that, as the House would expect, constant efforts are made to bring about the latter.

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

The Iranian regime has employed the taking and tormenting of hostages right from the outset. Surely, at some point, one reaches a stage at which one has to say that sweet reason and appeals to compassion are not working and severe sanctions must be considered. What sanctions are at our disposal, and what consideration has been given to imposing them?

[Alistair Burt]

Sanctions are in place in relation to a number of figures in Iran—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety, and others—on human rights grounds. That course of action has already been taken by the United Kingdom.

Institute for Statecraft: Integrity Initiative

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We are one of the leaders in cyber-defence; indeed, we assist other countries in learning the techniques necessary to protect against the sort of hacking that we are discussing in part today. I am confident, and I have enormous confidence in the professional competence of our officials in defending this country from cyber-attacks and malign cyber-activity.

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

How sure are we that the Russians were behind this hack? If we are sure, what are we going to do by way of response?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

One of the responses is, of course, to counter in the sort of way that we are doing in the House today. Unfortunately, I do not have as many allies across the Chamber as I would like to have in so doing. We know the origin of the attack because it takes exactly the same pattern that we have seen in previous attacks.