European Union Referendum Bill

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Has the Foreign Secretary seen the national opinion poll today that shows that the majority of British people want to stay in the European Union, but a reformed European Union with a form that is in not only the British national interest but that of continental Europe and our 27 European partners? Does that not underline the importance of European leaders listening not only to this Parliament but more importantly to the British people, both through this Parliament and directly?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, and today we are ensuring that our partners in Europe understand that this is not about making a deal in a smoke-filled room with a few politicians but about delivering a package that satisfies the British people. My assessment has been for a long time and remains that the great majority of the British people want Britain to remain inside the European Union provided we can get the reform of the EU and of Britain’s relationship with it that satisfies and answers the crucial points we have set out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The big prize remains the ceasefire with FARC, which will benefit all the people of Colombia. I have always been happy to discuss the peace process and human rights with Members of both Houses. In October, I met at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Members from the Parliamentary Friends of Colombia, the all-party group on Latin America and the all-party group on human rights. I am happy to do that again to discuss these things, and I am also putting together a meeting, as I promised, with the Colombian ambassador. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come to the meeting with me, he is more than welcome.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Last December, I visited Colombia, with part of the talks being about reforming the Colombian intelligence services—the DAS. Does the Minister agree that for there to be public confidence in the peace process, the Colombian Government need to go further and faster in reforming their intelligence services?

[Mr Swire]

I do not think it is for me to give a running commentary on the intelligence services of Colombia. We assist the Colombian Government in our mutual desire to stamp out the drugs trade—we co-operate closely with them on that. A lot of things need to be reformed in Colombia, not least the perception of impunity for the armed forces, but I say again that the big prize is, first, to secure the peace—then the dividend can be cashed in.

Palestine

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a powerful case on such an important subject, about which we all feel so passionately. Does he agree that our Government have a duty to behave responsibly on arms licences? I asked the Secretary of State for Defence about that last week and found that 68 licences were granted in the six months leading up to the summer before the crisis in Gaza. That is £7 million-worth of arms, which surely does not fit with our principle of responsible exports.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I encourage Members, whether they have been in the House for four years or 40 years, to keep interventions short—more than 30 Members want to speak, and I will announce the time limit in a moment—and to ensure that all mobile phones are switched to silent.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard.

I am grateful for the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, because I was going to refer to her question. I have some suggestions for how we might move things forward. All parties in this House agree that the two-state solution is the way forward, and it has been the stated foreign policy objective of successive Governments for decades, but there has been a gap in the rhetoric of Ministers—this is not a criticism of the current incumbent, because I know he is a man of good faith who is seeking a solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind, as I have been generous in giving way. A lot of Members have indicated that they want to speak, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have his opportunity.

To respond to the specific point about trade, I point out—[Interruption.] Well, in terms of economic pressure—[Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. If there are to be interventions, they must be made in the normal way so that they can be recorded in Hansard and picked up by the media.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. On applying pressure to move things towards a negotiated settlement, trade is rather asymmetrical and there are strong arguments to support it as a legitimate tactic for bringing about negotiations, because the obstacle seems to be that the Israelis achieve their ends through the status quo and have no interest in pursuing a peaceful solution.

There was a tremendous outpouring of emotion from the British public this summer. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in protest, not just in London, where there were huge demonstrations with more than 100,000 people, and where 50,000 protested outside the Israeli embassy, but all across the great cities of the north, in my region, and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as in smaller towns and villages. The protests did not come from the Palestinian diaspora; they came from people with a burning sense of injustice at the completely disproportionate actions of the Israeli Government in relation to Gaza, and people who had seen some of the horrors perpetrated against Gaza. They showed the strength of feeling among the UK population. It behoves the Government to do something about the issue.

In such circumstances, I believe that all arms export licences should be suspended. Moreover, given Israel’s record of violating international law, the arms trade with Israel should be completely banned in both directions. The UK and the European Union have some of the world’s strictest rules in place for controlling the export of arms and components. Considering that Israel already has a history of using UK-supplied arms in the occupied territories, including Gaza, in breach of those rules, there is no excuse for the rules not being enforced. The UK’s relationship with Israel may have been profitable for arms companies, but it has had a devastating impact on the people of Gaza, which at the current rate of progress will not be rebuilt for many decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is part of the purpose of this debate, and of the historic vote that took place two weeks ago. We need to send out a number of messages to our Government and the Israeli Government, and a message of encouragement to the Palestinians engaging in an honest endeavour to find a peaceful solution. Yes, I agree.

I will conclude my remarks now, because I know a lot of Members are keen to participate. We have had decades of talk about peace, but to no avail. Now it is time for action, and I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the points that I and other Members put to him in this debate.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. We have 30 Members who wish to speak. The time limit I am setting for each speech is four minutes. Members will be aware that if they take an intervention, that adds another minute; they can take up to two interventions, giving them six minutes. Members can do what they want—as always, we have a vibrant debate in this place—but they might want to consider taking a maximum of one intervention. Let the debate flow. I call Robert Halfon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The problem is that the increasingly frequent terror attacks are constantly glorified by Hamas. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) talked about being disproportionate, but if Israel did not have the iron dome system, thousands of Israelis would have been killed by the missiles fired by Hamas. If that had happened, would it have been seen as a proportionate response?

There is a lot of hard evidence showing that genuine humanitarian aid was misappropriated by Hamas diverting the resources from their original goal of saving the population and using them for the construction of the tunnels and the acquisition of arms. That cannot remain a peripheral concern to those who push for a peace treaty between the two countries. The problem of Israeli security is one that permeates every aspect of civilian life in Israel, so it remains necessarily omnipresent in any discussions between Israel and Palestine. That affects the problem of the reconstruction of Gaza, where the Israeli Government proved their good will by striking a deal with the Palestinian Authority in September, agreeing to a bigger influx of resources to Gaza under the supervision of UN officials. By contrast, Hamas has just glorified every single terrorist attack that hit Israel, including the death of a three-month-old baby girl—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Let me make it clear that Gaza is not the Palestinian Authority, and nor is Hamas. I have known Mahmoud Abbas for more than 20 years. He essentially recognises the state of Israel. He wants peace. I have seen the maps, the proposals and the details that have consistently been rejected by the Israeli Government. If only the Israeli Government could step forward and say yes, we would have a two-state solution with two countries living side-by-side in peace. Mahmoud Abbas has even offered a demilitarised Palestine with some other kind of security guarantee, so there would never need to be a single Palestinian soldier posing a risk—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. You cannot appeal to the Israelis’ better nature, because they do not have one. You can, however, threaten them financially. When £10 billion of loan guarantees were withheld by George Bush senior, the Israelis scuttled off to Madrid. It is only sanctions and an arms embargo that work. The anticipation of a two-state solution, which we all support as a cliché, is bogus, because there will not be a two-state solution. The Israelis have the fourth largest military force in the world and nuclear weapons. They believe that they can get away with anything, but they had better take a look at how the Berlin wall fell. They had better take a look at how apartheid in South Africa crumbled overnight. They had better take a look at how peace was brought about in Ireland. They do not have time on their side. There are now more Palestinians than Israeli Jews—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hancock]

If only somebody would enforce international humanitarian law! I agree entirely. The failure is that no one is prepared to take the next step. It is no good saying that there is a great resolution from the UN; I was at the UN last week and listened carefully to the words of the Secretary-General about the situation. Unfortunately, he knows that he is a political eunuch when it comes to providing anything that will really lead to Israel responding positively, creatively and helpfully.

The overwhelming majority of Palestinian people want peace. They were told that they would get justice on several occasions throughout several different presidential Administrations in the United States, but the United States, which still has the most clout, has failed to deliver the powerful pressure on Israel that would force it to look again. It is manifestly unfair for our Government to continue not to apply as much pressure as possible. If that means preventing our industry from selling weapons and other goods to Israel, so be it. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, the one thing that wakes up the Israeli public and Israeli politicians is when they are hit with financial implications, which is something that we must explore.

If anything is to be learned from today’s debate, let the real expression of concern in this House be included in Hansard so that others can read it. All of us have concerns about rockets being fired and about people being killed by tanks mowing them down on the streets where they live. The situation is horrific and everyone condemns it, but that is not good enough, is it? Condemning something does not change anything.

What we need is a positive, hard punch that says that Israel needs to change. If not, it will become a pariah, similar to South Africa during the days of apartheid. Only when there was concerted effort against South Africa did it know that its time had run out. The Israelis have to be careful that they do not run out of time, because sooner or later the Palestinians will say, “There is no future for us here. We have no alternative but to continue what we have been doing.” That cannot be right, and it is not the solution that we want.

What we need is pressure from all the Governments who say that they want to support a two-state solution. Some 128 of them have now signed up, but what have they done since then to say that they would recognise a two-state solution? Very little—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Unfortunately, we will now have to limit speeches to three minutes. I again encourage Members to consider the number of interventions that they take.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hammond]

I will take one more intervention.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On the specifics of air strikes, the House will rise this week and not return until 13 October. If there were to be another atrocity in Iraq, is he comfortable with authorising, with the Prime Minister, air strikes if the House has not had a vote?

[Mr Hammond]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will come specifically to the question of air strikes and their authorisation later in my speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady probably knows better than almost anyone in the House that the situation in Burma remains extremely difficult. Given our meetings and exchanges across the Floor of the House, I think that she recognises the extraordinary work and support that we are putting in to ensure a transition from one form of government to a democracy in Burma, with all its religious and ethnic divides. We continue to lobby. I had the Burmese ambassador in recently to raise my concerns about the consensus but also about religious tolerance, with the Rohingya. If the hon. Lady wishes to come and see me, I am always happy to discuss the situation in Burma, as she knows. We are the first Government to have produced a cross-Burma strategy showing all the work that we are doing there.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Will the Minister of State speak with the Secretary of State for International Development to ensure that UK taxpayers’ money does not go directly to states that persecute the Christian Church worldwide?

[Mr Swire]

I think we have got better at ensuring that our aid goes to the right places, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise it. Of course, there is an issue. As we have reached 0.7% of GDP going to our aid budget, and as the GDP of this country increases due to the success of the Government’s long-term economic plan, there is more money around to help alleviate poverty around the world. It is up to us to ensure that that money reaches the right target.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue, which is of great interest to me personally. Last week, on the fringes of the ESVC summit, I held a very large and well-attended meeting with child soldiers—who described their personal experiences—along with excellent, hard-working non-governmental organisations such as War Child. The aim was to find a way in which the international community could work together to remove this scourge, and, in particular, to use the experience of countries that have achieved post-conflict successes, such as Sierra Leone—and the more recent progress that has been made in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—to benefit those who are still suffering.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

In the light of the Minister’s reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), may I ask whether he agrees that it is the International Criminal Court, and possibly regional ICC sittings in Africa and, indeed, other parts of the world, that can deliver justice—and there can be no peace without justice—rather than the African Union regional court?

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long]

Yes, the situation in Pakistan is extremely serious, given that people are essentially being sentenced to death for exercising one of the fundamental rights—the right to change one’s religion. That is hugely important.

As a Christian, my faith is part and parcel of who I am, and is part of the reason why I am involved in politics. I recognise the importance of faith and the constructive role that it can play in society and in our lives. However, I also recognise the damaging role that religious or any other ideological fundamentalism can have in restricting the freedoms of others. In the same way that my faith is important to me, I recognise the importance to others of their religious freedom, and that freedom, and the related right to freedom from religious belief, are hugely important and must be protected.

While working on issues of religious freedom and reading some of the harrowing cases that have been discovered, I have been struck by how lucky we are to live in a country where we enjoy relative liberty. However, we should never be complacent and should always guard against the erosions of those freedoms. In our society, there are challenges in balancing the rights of not only those of different faiths, but of those who wish to live a life free from religious interference. The question of how we balance those competing rights needs careful and thoughtful assessment.

The exclusion of all religion or faith from the public sphere is contrary to freedom of religion and belief, and so, equally, is the imposition of faith, or faith-based observances, practices or rules, on those who choose not to practise any religion. This tension has often left the right to freedom of religion without effective champions. As the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief said to the APPG when he visited Westminster, the religious are often more comfortable seeking protection for their own faith, but are wary of extending that freedom to those with whom they disagree.

Conversely, those who are liberal and usually champion human rights and freedom are often wary of religion and reluctant to see its restriction in the same terms as other forms of persecution. It is therefore hugely important that we reflect on article 18 of the UN declaration of human rights, which sets out clearly what is meant by freedom of religion and belief:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As a co-sponsor of the debate, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this timely debate. On the United Nations and article 18, does the hon. Lady agree that the UN needs to do more, as does its Human Rights Council, and some of the council’s members, who do not have particularly good records when it comes to religious freedom and freedom of speech in their country?

[Naomi Long]

That is a hugely important point, and I hope that as we explore those issues today, we can focus on those member states that do not make their full contribution, either at home or in the international sphere.

Article 18 remains the benchmark against which the enjoyment of the freedom of religion or belief should be measured on a global scale. It protects traditional, non-traditional and new religious beliefs and practices, as well as numerous beliefs not associated with divine or transcendent powers and not of a religious nature. Everyone has the freedom to manifest their religion or belief, either alone or together with others, publicly or privately. No one should be subject to coercion that would impair their freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of someone else’s choice; nor is discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief permissible.

Unlike many other human rights, freedom of religion or belief is as yet not directly addressed in a focused United Nations convention. As a consequence, this freedom has for many years been something of a “residual” right, and in practice, it remains on the margins of the family of human rights. However, research has found that almost 75% of the world’s population live in countries with high levels of Government restrictions on freedom of religion, or in countries where those with certain religious affiliations face a high level of hostility, and that figure is rising. Across the globe, there is widespread denial of freedom of worship, and of freedom to teach, promote and publicly express one’s religion and beliefs.

The APPG’s report instances examples of state intimidation, discrimination and violence towards people on account of their religion or belief, as well as situations in which states simply do not offer adequate protection from persecution by non-state actors. That is not limited to any one region or form of religion. As I mentioned, we are only too aware of the deeply troubling scale of the violations of freedom of religion or belief worldwide. Whether it is the Baha’is in Iran, Christians in the middle east, Jewish people in Europe or atheists in Indonesia, what we are exploring today is a truly global concern that affects the full range of religious and non-religious beliefs.

I want to look briefly at why we need to protect religious freedom. It is vital to remember the importance of protecting freedom of religion or belief in a wider context. Although it is important in its own right, it is also crucial to achieving a wide range of foreign policy goals, such as the prevention of conflict. Violations of freedom of religion or belief often involve the violent persecution of both individuals and groups, and often take the form of discrimination in access to education, employment and health services; limitations in the ability of individuals to marry or retain custody of children; limitations in the right to publish literature or participate in the media; or limitations on the right to preserve cultural and religious heritage. All those are important, both from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office perspective and from an international development perspective.

It is a key dynamic of freedom of religion or belief that it is interconnected with a wide range of other political, social, economic and cultural rights, from freedom of expression and association to the prevention of poverty. That is recognised by the FCO, which stated:

“In countries around the world, religious freedom is often crucial to ensuring conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding. Indeed, many conflicts have their roots in the tensions between different religious communities. Violence against a religious group can be a forewarning of wider conflict. Freedom of religion or belief is therefore important to achieving the UK's wider security agenda.”

I also want to look at the nature of persecution, which is changing. Religious persecution, particularly that of Christians, is on the rise and is becoming more intense in more countries. The nature of this persecution is incredibly varied. In some situations, it will take the form of a squeeze, with pressure being applied, while in others it is in the form of smash, with recourse to violence. Either kind represents a denial of article 18 and should be resisted. From November 2012 to October 2013, Open Doors recorded 2,123 killings of Christians worldwide—nearly double the number for the previous year. Nigeria and Syria were the most prolific countries, followed by Pakistan and Egypt. For obvious reasons, it could be argued that those figures are conservative, if we think about the percentage of incidents reported and how frightened people often are.

Recent trends suggest that squeeze pressure, where there is no physical violence but pressure is applied to prevent Christians and others from being able to express their beliefs freely, has increasingly become the main form of abuse. It is much harder to identify and document. However, perhaps as a result, it can be the most destructive and harmful to individuals and families. Life in the family sphere also suffers, in particular for those who exercise their right to change religion. Hostility from the state or neighbours can place not only the individual but the family under considerable pressure. That social and religious pressure can lead to pressure from within the family, with divorce and death threats common after conversion. The right to change religion is specifically protected by the wording of article 18, but there is a fear that denials of that right are not fully pursued in considerations at Government level.

Persecution also impacts on the community sphere, manifesting itself in restrictions on employment or access to resources. There is evidence, for example, that Christian villagers are denied water from wells in northern Nigeria by reason of their faith. The social stigma involved in such cases cannot be underestimated. The creation of sectarian and ethnic conflicts over perceived differences in religion are often a linked issue, where those of a particular religious faith are ascribed traits or beliefs that are either shunned by the rest of the community or portrayed as disloyal or dishonourable to the community in which they reside. I am unsure that any Member present today could imagine having to keep their faith a secret to the point where they cannot trust anyone with that knowledge, not even family and friends—to know that to do so could mean death or injury for us or for our families. Simply being found in ownership of a bible, for example, can put someone in extreme physical danger.

I want also to examine some of the main sources of denials of article 18 rights and to give a sense of quite how wide ranging and global the problem is. The report produced by the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief identifies two different but intrinsically linked dimensions of denials of freedom of religion or belief—direct state denial and state failures in the protection of freedom of religion.

Direct state denial includes incidents in which the state either actively persecutes individuals and communities on the basis of their beliefs or denies them the possibility freely to choose what they believe, whether they it express it alone or as a community. Under that theme, we find instances of Islamic extremism, communist oppression and, in the most extreme cases, Government policies of eradication of either one faith or belief group or of all those who seek to exercise their freedoms. Islamic extremism is arguably currently the biggest threat to freedom of religion and belief. There has been a major exodus of Christians from the middle east following the Arab spring, and atheists in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been heavily discriminated against, with laws against blasphemy being used to stifle free speech and freedom of belief.

North Korea is a classic example of communist oppression and has been in the media of late after topping the Open Doors world watch list as the most difficult country on earth in which to be a Christian. I was honoured to host a meeting between Open Doors, Church leaders and North Korean exiles, during which we heard first hand of the persecution and abuse that Christians and other religious groups face in North Korea. It made for harrowing listening. Like others in that country, Christians have to survive under one of the most oppressive regimes in contemporary times while dealing with corruption, disease and hunger. Christianity is viewed with extreme suspicion as a western ideology, and I was deeply moved and disturbed to hear from those who have had family members disappear and be imprisoned because of their faith.

The Baha’i faith and associated activities are officially banned in Iran, and its estimated 300,000 adherents have been subjected to a state policy of extinction. I have brought before the House previously the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved. Places of worship, schools, cemeteries, properties and businesses have been destroyed or confiscated by the Iranian regime. The Government-controlled mass media disseminates anti-Baha’i propaganda and has created a sense of violence with impunity for attackers. Currently, 110 Baha’is are in prison, facing charges of espionage and threatening national security that potentially carry the death sentence.

A state’s failure to protect freedom of religion or belief entails the denial of freedom to choose or reject religions. According to the Pew Research Centre’s religion and public life project, 39 state Governments hinder individuals in converting from one religion or belief to another. It is currently a particular problem in India, where several states have legislation that prevents or draws attention to religious conversions. In Indonesia, a young atheist was sentenced to two and a half years in prison after posting on a Facebook page set up for atheists. In Egypt, Coptic Christians have for decades been denied permission to open new churches.

It is important to note the link between failed states and persecution. Freedom of religion and belief is often a major casualty of civic and political breakdown, and a lack of freedom of religion and belief could be a contributing factor in that breakdown. Particularly where it happens at a sub-state or regional level, it may not be recognised or fully understood that, although the state may not be the aggressor, if it fails to intervene to protect people, it is contributing to persecution.

That is just a small glimpse of the range and degree of discrimination faced by people around the world owing to their religious or non-religious beliefs. I could have highlighted many other cases, as I am sure other hon. and right hon. Members will today. I hope that the debate will serve a number of purposes. The first is to raise public awareness of the issue’s importance. We are resigned to the fact that the nation will not be crowded around their televisions this afternoon to watch the Parliament channel, but there will be those who have an active interest in learning more about the subject and in becoming more active advocates in defence of religious freedom as a result.

The second purpose of the debate is to focus our attention and to encourage renewed vigour in our Government and abroad in defence of the principles. Having raised the matter with the Government before, I know that we are pushing at an open door, but we must continue to push. I have also met representatives of other Governments who have heard what has been raised in Parliament and have come to discuss matters with us, so I want to shine a light on the issue today to keep the conversation going.

Finally, this debate is also an opportunity for hon. and right hon. Members to raise with the Government specific concerns about individual countries, faiths, and regimes, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

For those of us older Members who find it difficult to count to eight, and because the clock is not working, could you give us a one-minute warning, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Oh, it is working; it has only just started. ]

Those of us who were born immediately after the war—I was born in the early 1950s—grew up with an innate optimism that each year would bring further progress. After all, the Nazis had been defeated in the second world war and the forces of tolerance had prevailed. We were growing up at time of huge improvements in medicine and the introduction of mass vaccination programmes. We were conscious of countries receiving their independence in the 1960s and the freedom that that brought. We were conscious of improvements in television and radio broadcasting and of people’s ability to access education in ways that had never previously been possible. Man was reaching the moon, and there were great scientific and technological advances. There was an innate belief that each year would bring greater progress, greater freedoms and a greater improvement in standards of living for people around the world. I suppose the only thing that remained outstanding was the iron curtain and the Soviet empire, which eventually disintegrated.

It is sad, however, that as we look around the globe today—the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) expounded on this so well—we see a world that is in many ways going back to intolerance and barbarism. I recently went to Somalia, and the Foreign Office would only allow me to spend a single day there because of the threat posed by al-Shabaab, which has almost completely destroyed that country’s security. The day after I left Mogadishu, a huge car bomb killed seven people outside the palace that is the official residence of the President of Somalia. Prior to visiting Mogadishu, I had been in Juba, South Sudan, where it was almost impossible to get out of the city because of ethnic tensions between Dinka and Nuer. The country has almost completely disintegrated as a consequence of intolerance and conflict between tribes.

Christians have been almost completely driven out of the middle east. Countries that had hitherto been tolerant of religious minorities are becoming increasingly intolerant. We have seen large numbers of Christians tragically murdered in Peshawar and Pakistani blasphemy laws applied with greater rigour.

[Mark Pritchard]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I will not give way, because many colleagues want to speak, and I am about to come to the point my hon. Friend made earlier.

The question for me is this: how do we start to return the world to some semblance of tolerance? My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) mentioned the United Nations. I think that this work has to be done at the highest international level, in the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. A number of countries promote tolerance, and we have partners among Muslim states that are keen to promote tolerance, such as Jordan and Morocco.

There are many international indices of corruption. I suggest to colleagues on the Treasury Bench that we ought to start thinking about international indices of tolerance, because that would allow us to make a judgment on how tolerant some countries are and to encourage them to follow the example of more tolerant countries. I remember being set an essay at school: “To what extent should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?” I do not think that we should tolerate the intolerance whereby people are not allowed to practise their faith as they wish or to change their faith. Those are fundamental human rights.

Much concern is expressed in this House about climate change and future resources, because we are concerned about the sort of world our children and grandchildren will inherit. I suggest that a world in which people can exchange ideas, pray without fear of being murdered and have a sense of identity is equally important for our children and grandchildren. These are not transitory concerns about what might be happening in one particular country at one particular time, for example what is happening today in Nigeria, Egypt, Iran or Iraq; they are fundamental concerns about the values of the world as a whole as we go forward through the 21st century.

The Foreign Office, and particularly my noble Friend Baroness Warsi, has been doing a lot of excellent work on this, but we need to do more. The United Kingdom has a long history of religious tolerance, because we learnt from the Reformation and the counter-Reformation, when many people were burnt at the stake and some really horrific things happened. On Sunday I was proud to attend Roman Catholic mass in my constituency, where the community was saying goodbye to their priest, who has been the priest for Banbury for the past 10 years. Five continents were represented in that one congregation worshipping together harmoniously. I think that in all our communities in this country we have a great degree of tolerance.

Therefore, I think that we should take a lead on this issue in the United Nations, both in the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. It will need to be persistent work. It is just as important as climate change and many of the other issues that grip the United Nations and the major councils of the world. The ability to pray and worship as one wishes is a fundamental human right, and one that we, as elected democrats, should always seek to defend.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on securing this timely debate and bringing it before the House. I also thank Members for their tolerance, in this debate about tolerance, for my earlier interventions. I had not intended to speak, but I will, if I may, contribute towards a little.

On the United Nations, I completely agree that article 18 needs far more definition of what fundamental human rights and freedom of speech mean, and far more elaboration of where freedom of religion sits within freedom of speech and fundamental human rights. Much is done by the UN around the world on freedom of speech, but greater focus is needed on freedom of religion. Although Members have highlighted persecution of people of all faiths, we are undoubtedly seeing unprecedented persecution against the Christian church. That can include Catholics, Protestants, evangelicals within the Protestant tradition and others as well.

I mentioned the Commonwealth earlier, and I will do so again, because I believe that it should be doing far more to ensure that its members abide by its founding and fundamental principles: both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In particular, I think of Pakistan. The Department for International Development’s aid budget to Pakistan has increased significantly, and I support that. However, the Government should be pushing more than they already are—although they are pushing more than the previous Government—on ensuring that people are able to express their faith in the way that they see fit.

[Rehman Chishti]

On Pakistan, does my hon. Friend agree that in politics, as in life, there is always a window of opportunity when one can push for change? In Pakistan at the moment, there is a new Government with a clear majority. Unlike the previous Government, which was a five-party coalition, they can do things. Prime Minister Sharif was a Minister under General Zia when many of these blasphemy laws were introduced. Therefore, with his close links to the clerics, changes can be brought about if the right pressures are applied by the international community.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend is probably the most knowledgeable on Pakistan in this House, so I defer to his wisdom. However, I am talking about leveraging—not having conditional DFID aid—UK taxpayers’ money so that we maximise the return on that money through aid and development. That can include, for example, ensuring that those people who want to have no faith or who want to convert from a particular faith—let us say from Islam to Christianity—can do so without fear of persecution. As my hon. Friend will know, that persecution can range from denial of access to public services, health care and education through to death, rape and torture. That is going on today in different parts of the world as we speak, and it is completely unacceptable.

I think also of India, another member of the Commonwealth. I joined Members from across the House last year in writing to the Indian Government about the changes to the laws in Orissa. Other states are changing their laws to say that people cannot choose which god, gods or faith they follow. Again, the Commonwealth must consider that issue.

Nigeria is another Commonwealth member and, of course, UK aid funding to it has increased considerably. Again, I support that. A lot of the budget is going to counter terrorism and I support that, too, but far more of the money ought to be going into interfaith dialogue and reconciliation between communities. The President, Goodluck Jonathan, needs to do far more to protect both the Muslim and Christian populations. At the moment, the status quo is not acceptable; let us hope that those young girls will soon be released. I support what the British Government are doing in Nigeria, but the Nigerian Government need to do far more to crack down on corruption so that British taxpayers’ money goes into interfaith dialogue and reducing religious tensions in that community.

[Rehman Chishti]

On interfaith dialogue, does my hon. Friend agree that when Islam or other faiths are misapplied, the Muslim community or the communities involved must ensure that they address that? An 18-year-old named Mr Deghayes went to Syria and fought as a terrorist, but he was described as a martyr by his father. There is no way he can be described as a martyr. He took part in a civil war, he was a terrorist and it is wrong for his father to say that. The wider Muslim community says, as I do, that he is a terrorist. When the faith is misapplied, those in the wider community must address that and that can only be good for interfaith dialogue.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The misapplication of faith around the world is a problem. The problem is not true religion, but false religion and the misinterpretation of faith. The majority of people of true faith want to make the world a better place.

On the issue of speaking out, I think it would be helpful to those of different faiths around the world to hear a little more from people in this country of differing faiths who stand up for freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the countries in which people of different faiths are being persecuted. We should speak out and say that we think they should enjoy the same freedoms as we do in the United Kingdom. Specifically—let me make this clear in terms—some of the Muslim leaders in this country should speak up from the cities of the United Kingdom for freedom of religion and speech in places such as Pakistan and India.

On Iran, many Members will know the history of Persia better than I do, but it was, of course, King Cyrus who inspired the charter on fundamental rights, with the so-called Cyrus cylinder. If one goes to the United Nations building in New York, one can see a copy of it there on the wall. Interestingly, that king helped the Jews to return and paid for the building of the temple. On the persecution of the Christians, the one or two remaining people of the Jewish tradition, and the Baha’i in Iran, I would say to the leadership that Persia has a proud tradition of standing up for freedom of speech and freedom of religion and of co-existing with people of other faiths.

My view is that if leaders of countries, religious leaders and the people are self-confident in their faith and in their god and/or gods, they do not need to go around persecuting people. They do not need to live in insecurity if they are secure in their own faith and their own tradition. Those who would persecute using the leverage of leadership and seniority are doing their own faith and tradition a disservice by suggesting that there is an insecurity inherent within it.

I want also to mention Egypt. I had the privilege some years ago of visiting Egypt four or five times—for the benefit of those in the Lobby, I hasten to add that I did so privately and funded out of my own purse, or rather wallet. The Coptic tradition has had a huge and positive impact on the culture of Egypt. I know that the Minister knows the country well. I know the Government are doing a huge amount to ensure that the new constitution in Egypt is not only implemented, but implemented in spirit. It is important that the buildings and even more so the people of the Coptic Church are given full protection in Egypt.

With reference to China and in particular the Xinjiang region and Uighur Muslims, it is right that those Muslims should be able to practise their religion without fear of persecution, but it is also in the Chinese national interest and the Chinese national security interest not to put in place measures that help breed the radicalisation of young people in that part of China. If the Chinese Government want to sow persecution, they may in the future reap a radicalised element within their own borders and their own community. I hope they will look again at their policy on Uighur Muslims and the Xinjiang region and other parts of China.

I pay tribute to Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other faith groups that do so much to promote religious tolerance, as well as to those churches in my constituency—in the diocese of Hereford, my home diocese some years ago, the diocese of Lichfield, and others within the Catholic faith and other parts of the Protestant Church.

This has been a timely debate. We need to keep a watching brief on these issues. As more Members visit Burma—I know that members of the International Development Committee recently visited—I hope they will speak out for religious freedom.

Ukraine

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is a very powerful point. When the Budapest memorandum was signed and the commitment was made not to use armed force against Ukraine, that was in exchange for its giving up of nuclear weapons. It sends a terrible signal to other nations that may be seeking nuclear weapons for Russia to behave in this way. This all means that if we do not stand up to such a profound breach of international agreements and the use of force to change borders in Europe in the 21st century, the credibility of the international order will be at stake and we will face more such crises in the future. Russia and others could conclude that it can intervene with impunity in other countries where there are either Russian compatriots or Orthodox populations. Indeed, it has been a Russian policy over a number of years to encourage such links and dependencies, through the issuing of millions of Russian passports in Ukraine and other countries bordering Russia. Events in Crimea form part of a pattern of Russian behaviour, including in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) mentioned three states that are members of NATO, but two other relevant states, Moldova and Belarus, are not. Although it is Russia, rather than the European Union, that has made strategic mistakes in Ukraine, does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU should make sure that it does not make any strategic mistakes with regard to Moldova and Belarus, and that it is robust in its dealings with those states?

[Mr Hague]

Of course we saw at the Vilnius summit the initialling of partnership agreements with both Moldova and Georgia, the two countries whose relationship with the EU is most advanced. It is very important that those agreements are signed and completed, and that our response to Ukraine sends out a message on our clear position against Russian interference in Moldova and Georgia, and indeed in other neighbouring states.

Ukraine

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue, but it is an issue for the medium to longer term. We are doing important things now to diversify energy supplies to Europe. I have already mentioned the new pipeline through Azerbaijan, whose construction we inaugurated in December. That pipeline, however, will take several years to construct.

Although this is, as I have said, a medium to long-term issue, I think that what has just happened will be a sharp reminder to everyone in Europe and in this country that it is also an important issue, and that dealing with it will become one of the important foreign policy and security considerations over the next few years.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

This is a real test for the United States and, indeed, for the Obama Administration, but it is also a test for the European Union. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his German counterpart? He has used the word “united” numerous times during his statement and in his replies. Are the Germans part of that united effort? Of course, other members of the international community are looking on to see whether there is unity and whether there is resoluteness, not least in Beijing, which has its own aspirations in different parts of the world?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend has made a good point about European unity and the role of Germany in that. I have very regular discussions with my German counterpart, Minister Steinmeier—indeed, I had a discussion with him at the weekend— and the Minister for Europe was with him at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday. The Prime Minister spoke to Chancellor Merkel last night, having also had discussions with her when she was here last Thursday. We will be working closely with Germany, and we will be working for a clear, united position at the European Council on Thursday.

Sri Harmandir Sahib

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is a very good point and a fair question. This investigation is not by Ministers but has been presented by the Cabinet Secretary to the Prime Minister, and we should have confidence in that. It has involved going through a huge number of documents, and the publication of additional documents that would not normally be released, and those things should be helpful in providing the necessary assurances to people. On top of that, as I announced in my statement, there will be a review of how we release documents, to ensure that all Departments are living up to their responsibilities and doing so in a uniform way, and that includes looking at the processes for withholding information. I hope that all that, and the fact that we are moving from a 30-year rule to a 20-year rule, will fortify or produce some public confidence in the transparency of the processes.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The events of 1984 were tragic and still impact on the lives of many Sikh families in my constituency. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be a disservice to the victims and their families if some Members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition made this a party political issue, rather than a pursuit of truth, transparency and closure for those families?

[Mr Hague]

Of course I agree with that, but I am not accusing anybody in the House of doing anything other than seeking the truth about these matters, and it is important we do that across parties. Procedures for the release of documents have been established across parties and different Governments over a long period of time, and I hope that if we improve and change those procedures, that will also command cross-party consensus. Let us hope that Members across the House will always approach the issue in that spirit.