Iran

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

There is widespread concern that Iran will take every opportunity, through its proxies and through local militias and other groups, to exert its influence and have a destabilising effect in order to pursue its own narrow national interest in a way that is deeply damaging for the international order and for regional stability. In relation to Libya, I would want to look very carefully at that, but I think there is a much broader, general threat that Iran is systematically posing.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw unilaterally from the JCPOA last year and the additional sanctions have placed huge pressure on Iran, and there is much hardship in that country. The attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery is totally unacceptable, but does the Foreign Secretary not accept that the cavalier approach of the US President is a contributing factor and that Donald Trump must work with the west to de-escalate this crisis?

[Dominic Raab]

The US President is working with the west. We saw that at the G7 in Biarritz, and we have seen it at the UN General Assembly. Both the French and American Presidents want a better deal than we have at the moment. We will continue to commit to the JCPOA, but we cannot kid ourselves that it is a perfect deal. It has its limitations and we should try to do better.

Hong Kong: Pro-Democracy Activists

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is obviously trying to get herself on to the next trip that I take to Hong Kong. We need that matter explained in a much more succinct style than I am used to doing. None the less, she is absolutely right: we do recognise that at a time when—dare I say it?—the rules-based international order is coming under increasing threat, indeed from some unexpected quarters as well, we need to work together with many of our counterparts to ensure that we make that argument as robustly as we can.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his opening remarks, the Minister made it clear that the Hong Kong judicial system had integrity and was robust, and he evidenced that through the talks that he had when he visited the area with senior legal figures. In the same breath, though, he is saying that the system is being undermined. Will he tell me how the system is being undermined and what evidence he has for that?

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman and I were on a trip to Hong Kong more years ago than I care to imagine—I think it was about 13 years ago. Obviously, it was the first time that I had been to the area as a parliamentarian. Our concerns are over the right to protest and press rights. Members have already referred to the issue of the very sudden withdrawal of the visa of Victor Mallet, the Financial Times journalist. There are a number of issues in the area that we would call civil rights, but, as far as the legal system is concerned, there is a sense that that remains independent. Equally, though, we are concerned. In relation to the judgments that took place yesterday, there is likely to be a long and winding road of appeals that will take place over some considerable time. It is one reason why we are not commenting directly on this, because, obviously, we want to read the full judgments, but we recognise that there will be appeals from virtually all the defendants.

Violence in Rakhine State

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that we have no influence. The reality is that even in the past six years, when I accept some terrible things have gone on for the Rohingya population in Burma, there has been a move towards some sense of democracy. There was an election of some sort and Aung San Suu Kyi came into office, albeit with the constitutional constraints she is under and the difficulties brought by the civil war that is going on.

Nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that we have done nothing. There has been a huge amount of energy, particularly from the UK Government. Sometimes that has happened quietly behind the scenes. We shall continue to do that on behalf of the many tens of thousands who find themselves displaced.

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister started his statement by talking about a Rohingya attack on the Burmese military. That flies in the face of what is an emerging genocide. When will the Government take a much stronger line with the Burmese Government, which in spite of the election of Aung San Suu Kyi are allowing the military to continue as it did before?

[Mark Field]

As I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier, the constitution unfortunately constrains that to a certain extent. The military have essentially been in control for most of the time since the successful coup of 1962. The moves towards democracy have, by British standards, been relatively small. The constraint we are under is that the hand of the military still plays a very important role from day to day.

I started my statement with that issue simply to say that the escalation we have seen in the past 10 days came about as the result of a terror attack and the reaction of the security services to it. That is the moment at which things reached the crisis point that we have seen over the past 10 days. However, I accept what has been said by many Members of the House: this is not something that has come out of the blue sky; the persecution of the Rohingya population has been a profound issue for decades.

Syria and North Korea

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

To the best of my knowledge, the Russian President suggested that Bashar al-Assad should find refuge in some Gulf country, which I shall not upset by naming.

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his statement, the Foreign Secretary said, “I stress that we have no intention of dislodging Russia from Syria.” Well, we would be fools to think that we could. He then went on to say, “But Russia’s position in Syria does not depend on Assad.” For the past seven years, Putin has supported Assad through thick and thin. He will not suddenly develop a conscience, as we can see from his actions over the years in Chechnya and elsewhere. We are left in a position in which Russia, as a member of the UN Security Council, will constantly block any military attempts, which leaves us with a scenario where Trump could take unilateral action, as he did on the Syrian airfield. Although I supported that particular action, how far are we supposed to support Trump in those actions without the backing of the Security Council? Clearly, he could take such action against Assad and against President Kim in North Korea.

[Boris Johnson]

I disagree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, it is difficult. Of course the Russians have been backing Assad for many years, but this is an opportunity for them to have a new bargain in which there is a ceasefire, an end to the barrel bombs and an end to the chemical weapons—a real political solution—and in exchange they get a genuine relationship with the United States, join the rest of the world in the war against Daesh—[Interruption.] Yes, and they have an acknowledgment that they have a way out of the quagmire of Syria and that the west will step in, once it is possible, to pay for the reconstruction of that country.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

As has become the fashion, I declare my visits to Palestine and Israel over the past 15 years financed by various organisations.

The focus of this debate—settlements—is narrow but nevertheless very important. Some hon. Members have sought to trivialise the issue of settlements, but while they might not be the most important issue, they are nevertheless very important. We need only look at UN resolutions 242 and 338, dated 1967 and 1973, in which the key phrase refers to the:

“Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”.

It is clear that the Israeli armed forces will not be withdrawn as long as settlements exist in the west bank, so it goes without saying that settlements embody a crucial part of the problem. When I first visited Palestine, 14 or 15 years ago, there were about 50,000 settlers in the west bank. When I last visited, that number had increased to about 500,000, and I understand that the latest figure is about 600,000. The situation on the ground is changing extremely quickly, and the longer the conflict goes on, the further out of reach a two-state solution will drift. So much land will have been taken that there will be very little left for a contiguous state, as I hope the Government will recognise.

As we know, settlements were the main focus of resolution 2334 passed on 23 December. We also know that the policy of the US, the UN, the EU and the UK Government, as repeated endlessly by Ministers in the House, is that settlements are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. I do not know, therefore, how anyone can say that settlements are not part and parcel of the solution to the problem. It is said that there should be no preconditions before talks, but clearly the UN resolutions are not preconditions; they refer to international law, so the discussions and direct talks should take place on that basis. I urge the Government to recognise Palestine and apply pressure on the US and elsewhere to ensure that a two-state solution is still viable.

Changes in US Immigration Policy

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is right. There are so many of these irrational cases and personal stories that make no sense for the United States or for us.

For the Foreign Secretary to have said earlier that this is not a Muslim ban is the worst kind of diplomatic obfuscation. The Trump Administration themselves have made it clear that it is a Muslim ban. The fact that it targets particular countries but has a potential exemption for those who are not Muslim shows the prejudice and discrimination that lies at the heart of this, and it is something for which President Trump campaigned for very many months.

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It seems that while UK nationals with dual nationality may be admitted to the US, the European Commission cannot at the moment verify whether that would also apply to those from other EU member states. Could my right hon. Friend comment on that?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a whole series of unanswered questions about what happens not just in the case of dual nationals or UK citizens, but EU citizens and other nationals who may be resident in the United Kingdom and want to travel to the United States.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon described his personal experiences. I know that everyone in the House would want to stand with him against any sense of discrimination that he feels and wrongly faces. I think he would agree that, as he said powerfully, this is not simply about the rights of British citizens—it goes so much further and wider. It is about the shared values that have underpinned generations of co-operation between this country and one of our closest allies. Under our democracy and our common humanity, we have both built into our written and unwritten constitutions a condemnation of discrimination. We have worked together, over very many years, against prejudice and hatred, so it is deeply immoral for this ban to target Muslims in this way, and we should not be afraid to say so.

We have also worked together on international policy on refugees—to support the Geneva convention and the UN’s work, and to resettle refugees, including Syrian refugees from all over the world. The US has always played a historic role in resettling those refugees. For the United States to, in effect, pull out of the Geneva convention and that international co-operation is deeply damaging to a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees programme that all of us should want to champion. We should be prepared to speak out about that.

The ban also threatens our security. It is immediately counterproductive to prevent from entering the US those Iraqi citizens in the Iraqi Government and armed forces with whom the US may need to work in the fight against IS. Inevitably, the Iraqi Parliament has responded by saying that American citizens will be prevented from entering Iraq. We need these countries to work closely together, and with us, in order to defeat terrorist extremists. We should be fighting against them together, and not be divided.

Yemen

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt]

As I have just made clear, that is a matter for the courts. It is a matter of law that should be judged in the courts. The judgments that we need to make are policy ones. As far as the conduct of the operation in Yemen is concerned, it is in our interests to give as much support as possible to the Saudi-led coalition, which is, in effect, acting on our behalf, so that the coalition is able to conduct the operation successfully and within international humanitarian law.

Would that aim be achieved by pulling all support from the Saudi-led coalition, as the Opposition’s motion proposes? Would it be assisted by suspending arms exports, as the Scottish National party’s amendment suggests? It is pretty clear to me that either of those actions would seriously damage the sensible and proper conduct of the operation in Yemen by making it more difficult for the coalition to execute the operation with the advice and support of both the United Kingdom and the United States.

Despite the limited time, I want to put this issue in the context of our wider relationship with Saudi Arabia. What lessons would the Saudis take, and what message would it send to Saudi Arabia if, in these circumstances, we pre-emptively—in advance of any legal challenge to the basis of the licensing regime—pulled support from Saudi Arabia? Whether they are acting under international humanitarian law will be tested in the courts, but I believe at least that their intent is to make sure that they progress the operation within international humanitarian law.

What is happening in Saudi Arabia today, and in what direction is the state going? We have had a long-term strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I invite hon. Members to examine what is happening there. They should look at Vision 2030. They should look at the people who are now in charge. Anyone who has listened to the Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir—he has been to the House twice recently to give a presentation to MPs—will have seen how impressive a Foreign Minister he is. The deputy crown prince who is now leading economic reform in Saudi Arabia has put extremely impressive technocrats in charge of that process. It is all part of a wider modernisation process, not just economically but socially. It is absolutely in our interests that that direction for Saudi Arabia is supported and is successful.

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Crispin Blunt]

I will.

[Crispin Blunt]

I will.

[Mr Hendrick]

I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for giving way. I ask him quite simply: what is the alternative to the Saudi royal family as a Government—liberal democracy or an extreme Islamist Government? I think it is rather the latter. This country, and the west generally, must deal with the current Saudi Government whether we like it or not.

[Crispin Blunt]

We have seen the consequences of the uncontrolled loss of governance in the region, and they are pretty ugly. The truth is that the current leadership in Saudi Arabia is probably taking the country in a general direction that we can all approve of. The Saudi Government face huge challenges in doing that, but Saudi Arabia is the most important country in the Gulf. I believe that we should try to be alongside its Government on that extremely difficult journey, rather than making things more difficult. If they have to turn elsewhere for support, they will not be getting laser-guided bombs, but weapons that will not enable them to carry out operations in the Yemen in the way that they are or with the benefit of our advice. I am aware that I have now run out of the time you allocated me, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The situation in Yemen is appalling and indeed devastating to the population. It is right that we hold our friends to higher standards, but to withdraw our support from Saudi Arabia is to remove ourselves from being a critical friend and ally of a regime that we want to reform and that is going through a process of change which will only improve its governance and its prestige in the world. It is the world’s largest oil exporter in a region that is fraught with dangers and conflicts. Why would we want to abandon an ally in that situation, especially as they supply us with intelligence on al-Qaeda and ISIL and support us in our fight against terrorism more generally?

Stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia will not end the conflict in Yemen. In fact, it could exacerbate it, because, obviously, it would no longer be listening to the sound advice of this country, its Government and its military. At the same time, it would also devastate many thousands of highly skilled people who are working in an industry in Lancashire that provides aircraft and systems that defend with great effect not just our borders, but the borders of our allies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

If the reported human rights abuses are taking place, are they accidental, are they planned, or are they being carried out by rogue elements of the Saudi air force? I do not know, and I welcome the coalition’s interim report and look forward to its final report.

The Foreign Secretary referred to the fact that the interim report, which was published on 15 October, stated that Saudi Arabia is reviewing its rules of engagement and will take action against those responsible for the atrocities. He also said that the House should not be in any doubt that the British Government are meticulously monitoring the situation. Having served on the Committees on Arms Export Controls, I would expect them to do that, and I expect them to do so again in the future.

As I said in an intervention, the alternative to a royal family governing Saudi Arabia is not liberal democracy, but extremist Islamism. Undermining one of our allies in the region is not an alternative to guiding them to abide by international humanitarian law and the standards to which we all in this House aspire.

Turkey

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I commend my hon. Friend for what he has just said, which is both wise and practical. One of the most important ways in which Turkey can be engaged and persuaded is through the forum of NATO. We wish Turkey to remain a full and compliant member of NATO, and I hope that that meeting continuing as he suggests would provide a powerful platform for bringing about the kind of positive developments we would wish to see.

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Turkey is democratic, but successive elections have shown that it is becoming increasingly authoritarian. How concerned is the Minister that President Erdogan will use this coup as a blank cheque to go against any or all of his opponents? The UK is leaving the European Union but we should still be concerned that Turkey gets its wish and eventually becomes a member. Will the Minister make it clear to President Erdogan on his visit tomorrow that if the death penalty is introduced, that will totally negate any ambitions Turkey has in that direction?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I believe I am right in saying that if Turkey were to reintroduce the death penalty, it would be disqualifying itself from membership or future membership of the EU, so this would be a self-defeating act and against the objective the hon. Gentleman has just described of Turkey’s potentially joining the EU. I think it is fair to say I have already largely answered the other questions he asked.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The forthcoming referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will say a great deal about how we, the British people, see ourselves as a nation. Are we a nation at peace with ourselves, internationalist in outlook, confident of our place in the world and comfortable in the belief that by working closely with others we can govern our peoples to the benefit of everyone? Or are we fearful of the outside world, feeling that the European Union is doing Europe to us rather than us being a part of Europe, and fearing the threat of immigration, because the concept of free movement of European citizens has been conflated with free movement of refugees, economic migrants and legal or illegal migrants from outside the European Union?

We face a whole host of problems: illegal migration, people trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, environmental pollution to our rivers and seas, and so on, and none of those things respect national boundaries. Working together in the most successful multinational organisation that the world has ever seen, with its own single market, is a solution to our problems, not a problem in itself. Yes, we have our differences with our European neighbours, but they are settled on conference tables in places such as Brussels, Strasbourg, London, Berlin and Paris; not by bloody wars on European soil as they were for hundreds of years—indeed, in the last century, those problems escalated into two world wars and resulted in the deaths of millions of people.

The real response is for Britain to admit that those problems are also our problems. We cannot shut ourselves off politically and economically from the rest of Europe, and we must recognise the geographical and political fact that we are part of a union of nations that share common interests, values and goals, and that our neighbours’ problems will soon become our own unless we work with them to help solve them. If we did not already have the European Union, we would have had to create something similar to deal with those problems, and many others.

History, solidarity, and common sense are good reasons for staying in the EU, but let me be a little more hard-headed and talk in terms of costs and benefits—I have said little about the benefits of the EU and many of the things that we take for granted. The anti-Europeans and xenophobes who say that Europe is a threat totally disregard decades of successful membership that have contributed to making Britain the world’s fifth largest economy. Yes, we could “survive” and “manage” outside the European Union, but at what price? The benefit of being a member of the largest single market in the world has a cost, which is why we pay contributions for membership as we would when joining any club. We do so because we accept that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Let us consider what the UK’s largest business organisation, the CBI, has said, as well as the UK’s largest workers’ organisation, the TUC. We have access to a $16.6 trillion a year single market of 500 million people, which is a key benefit. The single market goes beyond a standard free trade agreement. The EU has eliminated tariff barriers and customs procedures within its borders, and it has taken strides towards removing non-tariff barriers, such as goods regulations, across the board. The UK’s contribution is a small net cost, relative to the benefits, of around €7.3 billion, or 0.4% of GDP. It is clear that the UK’s largest business organisation is in favour of our remaining in the EU.

The TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, says:

“Working people have a huge stake in the referendum because workers’ rights are on the line. It’s the EU that guarantees workers their rights to paid holidays, parental leave, equal treatment for part-timers, and much more…These rights can’t be taken for granted…And without the back-up of EU laws, unscrupulous employers will have free rein to cut many of their workers’ hard-won benefits and protections.”

Without remaining in the EU those protections could well disappear. Vote remain.

Anglo-Russian Relations

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am sorry. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will come on to say, the Scottish fishing industry is suffering greatly as a result of the sanctions imposed, as is the dairy industry. The Shropshire dairy industry is on its knees as a result of bovine tuberculosis and the lowering of prices that our farmers are paid by supermarkets. My Shropshire dairy farmers are going out of business in unprecedented numbers and all their exports to Russia—not just cheese and milk, but other dairy products—have been wiped out as a result of the sanctions.

I direct the Minister to some information I received from France the other day. Last week, the French National Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution inviting the French Government to lift the economic sanctions and other retaliation measures imposed on Russia by the European Union. The resolution was presented by a conservative Member of Parliament called Thierry Mariani. Although non-binding, several of his fellow conservative Members of Parliament have welcomed the move—in particular, former French Prime Minister François Fillon—and it will clearly put pressure on the French Government ahead of the next review of sanctions in July 2016.

Through their Foreign Ministry, the French Government factually stated that EU sanctions remain linked to the implementation of the Minsk agreements, and expressed their willingness to ensure the unity of the EU on this matter. That is very important. The French National Assembly’s resolution gives me the impression that many in the French Parliament want sanctions to be rescinded, and that they could be lifted if the Minsk agreements are implemented. What is the British Government’s perspective on that? The key question I would like the Minister to answer is: were the Minsk agreements implemented, would the British Government support the removal of EU sanctions? Or do they have an extra requirement, as I have been led to believe in the past: that Crimea would have to be returned to Ukraine before they would support the removal of sanctions?

In all my interactions with Foreign Office Ministers, I have been given the impression that the British Government would not support the removal of sanctions unless the Minsk agreements were implemented and Crimea were returned to Russia. As somebody who has visited Crimea on several occasions, I have to say that there is not a cat in hell’s chance of the Russians returning Crimea to Ukraine during the course of my political or biological life, and I will eat my hat if they do so.

Sanctions should be in place only with something tangible and achievable as the end result. I genuinely believe that, if the implementation of the Minsk II agreement were secured, that would be the sensible moment for us to start to talk to the Russians about getting rid of sanctions. If the Government’s attitude is, “No, we want Crimea returned,” they are doing us a great disservice by putting our constituents, ourselves, our prosperity and the likelihood of improving relations in jeopardy and peril.

I know others want to speak, so I will try to wind up quickly, but I want to say how pleased I was with the Iran agreement. We were facing the insoluble, difficult and highly complex problem of nuclear proliferation in Iran. I pay tribute to the Foreign Office and its diplomats for the leadership they displayed in securing the agreement. There is no doubt in my mind that the agreement would not have been achieved without the unique contribution of British diplomacy, but Russia was also a part of the agreement. It made an extraordinary contribution and is doing the heavy lifting on the agreement to protect the region and to protect peace.

The American Secretary of State, John Kerry, said in a press release:

“A number of commercial transactions made this shipment possible, with many countries playing important roles in this effort. Russia, as a participant in the JCPOA and a country with significant experience in transporting and securing nuclear material, played an essential role by taking this material out of Iran and providing natural uranium in exchange.”

That goes to show that, if we work with the Russians constructively, they can bring different things to the table. They have different experiences and different contacts. If we can work with the Russians on securing this vital deal with Iran, why can we not work with them in other important theatres such as Syria?

[Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has spoken at some length about his background and heritage and, indeed, about the welfare of cattle and the potentially lucrative nature of the cattle business in his constituency. He mentioned the Minsk agreement but said nothing whatsoever about the reasons for that agreement, which were Russian aggression, the conduct of hybrid warfare and thousands of lives being lost in eastern Ukraine and, to some extent, Crimea. That cannot be simply brushed under the carpet. The Minsk agreement and the sanctions are there for a good reason. Will he address those points?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

We all know what led to the conflagration and the difficulties that ensued in Donetsk and Lugansk. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am focusing on trying to secure peace now. Implementing the Minsk agreement and getting back to normalised relations are more important than what specifically led to the conflagration in the first place. I am glad he intervened. As I discussed with him yesterday, as a fellow member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, he has said in the past that he thinks the British Government ought not to have ruled out military action over Crimea. He has stated that Britain should have potentially got involved militarily. Well, if he wants a third world war and nuclear destruction of both entities, he is going the right way about it.

[Mr Hendrick]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to correct him?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Yes.

[Mr Hendrick]

The point I made was that I felt it was unwise of the Prime Minister at the time to verbally rule out military action, not on the part of Britain but on the part of NATO or anyone else. Saying nothing is far better than saying we will not do anything.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Let us agree to disagree on that. I think that that sort of sentiment is highly dangerous and could lead to significant destabilisation in our relations with Russia.

The Russians believe we have acted unilaterally in the world, and they have seen some of the terrible difficulties we have got into with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. They want to ensure we can work constructively with them to bring peace about in Syria. As I have said, the Russians bring different things to the table. We need to compartmentalise the relationship. We can still disagree with the Russians profoundly over Syria and Ukraine, but let us get back to dialogue over matters of security and energy security while we continue to disagree with them. [Interruption.] I will wrap up my comments because you have indicated, Mr Davies, that I have spoken for long enough.

Russia has watched our disastrous intervention in Libya and our prevarication over Syria. Russians would argue that their intervention in Syria has helped to stop or temper the ongoing bloodbath of the past five years and that they have saved the European Union the misery and suffering of having to deal with hundreds of thousands more migrants coming across the sea to Greece.

When I think of the tremendous work done in Tehran, which I visited recently, between Churchill and Stalin to put their differences aside in fighting fascism during the second world war—when we had even more differences of opinion with the Soviet Union than we do with Russia today—I think to myself that we ought to also have the courage and vision to put our differences aside and work with the Russians to fight modern-day fascism. ISIS poses a similar threat to both entities in Syria, Libya and on the streets of European capitals, with the bombing and terrorism that is taking place. Let us put our differences aside and work with the Russians to deal with that threat.

My final statement is this. On 15 March, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said:

“The Foreign Secretary said that he has not talked to Mr Lavrov. Is that because Mr Lavrov is refusing to take his call, or that he has not yet tried? If it is the latter, why not?”

The Foreign Secretary’s response—I want you to remember this, Mr. Davies—was:

“Again, experience is the answer. I have not tried to make the call, and I am in no doubt that I could predict quite confidently the outcome of such a call to Foreign Minister Lavrov. I have had many conversations with him over the course of our regular meetings at Syria-related events, none of which has been fruitful.” —[Official Report, 15 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 800.]

What a terrible statement to make: “None of my discussions with Mr Lavrov has been fruitful, so there is no point in making a telephone call.” No, no, no. The Government have got to change their stance and engage with the Russians, for the security of our country and the international community.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Our relationship with foreign powers is, I believe, totally inconsistent. We chide Russia for abuses—and, by the way, nothing I say is pro-Putin; I am not getting involved in that. I am just talking about double standards. We chide Russia for abuses but kowtow to China, whose abuses are far worse. If we were outside observers looking at that situation, what conclusion would we draw? That there is a double standard; and that is the only conclusion that Russians draw. We in the west have failed totally to take into account the Russian mentality when dealing with these problems. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on the way he moved the motion, and on trying to understand how Russians think. That is important in framing our foreign policy.

Ukraine is a perfect example. The country is ideally placed as a bridge between the two worlds—Europe and Russia. Indeed, in Russian, Ukraine means “borderland”. To Russians, Ukraine is not a foreign country. Russian orthodoxy, as far as they are concerned, was founded in the Kievan Rus 1,000 years ago. We may not agree with this, but for them Kiev is as much the spiritual home of Russian orthodoxy as Canterbury is to us the home of the Anglican Church. Clever Ukrainian statesmen could have held a fine balance, playing one side against the other for the good of their country, as of course India did during the cold war. Instead, Europe and the west had to barge in with, I believe, an insufficient understanding of Russian or, indeed, Ukrainian history, or people’s thinking in the region.

We in the European Union invested millions of pounds, euros and dollars to influence Ukraine away from Russia and towards the west. Because one side insisted on owning the bridge and the other side, naturally, would not let it, now the bridge is in tatters and burning; and it is the ordinary people of Ukraine—and of Russia, subject to sanctions—who are suffering. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham says, Russia will never in our lifetime give up Crimea. After all, the Russians believe and know that the overwhelming majority of people in Crimea want to be part of Russia. So they believe that we are playing with double standards. They all remember that Krushchev signed away Crimea to Ukraine with a stroke of a pen in the mid-1950s.

The psychotic zeal for permanent expansion of the western European sphere of influence, at Russia’s expense, gains us nothing. Actually, all we have done is significantly destabilise our eastern flank; and what about the good of Ukraine? Crimea is now permanently lost to it. We know that—it is a reality. The eastern regions are enveloped in a low-level violent conflict. Whatever we may think of Mr Putin or the Russian Government, clearly our interference has not worked out for the benefit of people living in Ukraine. Russia can, we all know, with little effort or cost to itself—I am not defending it, just describing the reality—support and maintain a constant low-boil conflict in eastern Ukraine for some time.

Therefore, any real effort to secure peace, stability and the rule of law in Ukraine—and peace and stability is what we should be about, is it not?—must of necessity take into account Russian fears and interests. That is the reality on the ground. If it does not, and if we just take an absolutist line, imposing sanctions, putting the Russian embassy in London and the Russian Government into deep freeze, and not talking to Mr Lavrov, we will achieve nothing and there will be no prospect of success. What would that mean for the relationship between our two countries? Our strategy for Anglo-Russian relations should be to engage, engage and engage. By all means be firm, but engage.

Last week, I chaired an investment forum—I am chairman of the all-party group on Russia—and there is significant interest among British and European businesses in strengthening their presence in Russia. The Governments of Germany, France and Italy are actually increasing their business, unlike our Government. Given our historical alliances with Russia, the Russians cannot understand why our Government and our Prime Minister are outriders. They are way beyond the Americans, the Germans and the French in their anti-Russian stance. The Russians cannot understand it. Let us remember for a moment who, frankly, saved our bacon in two world wars. How many tens of millions of Russians died in Nazi Germany’s invasion? We should remember that, with the unfortunate exception of the Crimean war, Russia has for centuries been our natural ally. We are two powers on the eastern and western extremities of Europe.

If we respectfully and confidentially engage with Russia, we will get the most out of that relationship and start making constructive advances. Blind and mindless Russophobia gets us absolutely nowhere. We should build economic links, strengthen cultural links and seek to work together on issues such as defeating Daesh, where UK and Russian interests overlap. Daesh is our enemy; Russia is not. Russia poses absolutely no strategic threat to the people of the United Kingdom. It does not and never has done in our entire history, but Daesh does.

[Mr Hendrick]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s reaction to the fact that Russian military aircraft regularly come into UK airspace in the full knowledge that it is UK airspace?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course Russia is a great power, and it naturally tests defences as part of its training of its own people, but does anybody in this Chamber seriously believe that it poses a strategic military threat to the United Kingdom? We are no longer in the cold war; it is over. I do not defend Russian aircraft approaching the United Kingdom, but I do not think for a moment that there is the remotest chance of their actually engaging in military action with us.

Daesh is our real enemy. Allowing its reign of terror to continue simply because we dare not co-ordinate our plans with nasty Mr Putin is cutting off our nose to spite our face. The only winner in that scenario is Daesh.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and I are saying and what we are trying to urge on the Minister. Assad and the Russians are not going to go away. As the Minister said very eloquently in the House of Commons yesterday, since the second world war, Russia has viewed Syria as an essential ally. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. On every level, we must be constructive, confident and respectful—and I mean self-respect, not just respect for the other side. The way we kowtow to China can reach demeaning levels, which is why I say we are engaging in double standards.

[Mr Hendrick]

The hon. Gentleman made a good point when he said that Russia fought on our side in the second world war. So did the Chinese. To illustrate the significance of this issue, Xi Jinping, on his visit to the UK, was very complimentary about British membership of the European Union. Although the Russian Government have not made an official statement about their position, President Putin is known to believe that the UK should be outside the European Union.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a remarkable statement. How do we know what Mr Putin thinks? All I can say is that I have discussed that with the Russian ambassador, and he gives the correct line on behalf of his Government. Mr Putin has made absolutely no comment, certainly in public—we have no idea what he says in private. There is simply no evidence that Mr Putin is somehow engaged in some massive conspiracy to encourage Great Britain to leave the European Union. I rather think that in practical terms he has other things on his mind. Russia has made no statement in public. It is neutral on this matter.

Constructive, confident and respectful engagement is the best way for our two countries to flourish together. If we engaged in that way, the appalling conflict in Syria might have some chance of being brought to a conclusion. Assad will not go away and the Russians will not go away, so the Minister should pick up the phone and encourage his boss to pick up the phone to do what Kerry is doing and speak to Lavrov every week. That does not in any way mean support for everything Mr Putin does, but only with constant engagement in building relationships can we make some progress towards peace in Syria.