Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Roy]

That is exactly what we had hoped to do. We had hoped to speak to as many people as possible and hear as many views as possible. We wanted to ensure that no matter what our inquiry said at the end, it was evidence-based. We were not going there to be a cheerleader for Occupy Central, but we were not going there to ignore it either.

Unfortunately, on Friday last week, we were told directly that the Chinese Government would not allow us to enter the territory of Hong Kong. As I said earlier, that is unprecedented. During this Parliament alone, the Foreign Affairs Committee has visited countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, which have had internal problems and which would not have been too happy about the Committee doing an inquiry. Regardless of their opinions, we were allowed to visit, to meet people and to publish our reports. In previous Parliaments, as we have heard, the Committee has visited China, including Tibet. We have never been denied entry to any country. In fact, no Committee of this House has ever been denied entry to any country.

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

The hon. Gentleman says that the Select Committee has been denied entry into Hong Kong. Has the Committee considered going ahead with its proposed visit and being turned away by the Chinese authorities to show the significance of what has taken place? That would clearly show the international community the contempt with which the Foreign Affairs Committee is being treated. What hope can the demonstrators have of how they will be treated by those same authorities?

[Mr Roy]

There is an argument for doing that. Unfortunately, the Committee would not be allowed to board the flight in London, because it is against the law for somebody to take a flight to somewhere they know they will not gain entry to.

Iran (Nuclear Talks)

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I hear my hon. Friend’s point, but if negotiations under the terms of the joint plan of action are a delaying tactic, they are a very poor one, because what Iran has to do during this period is systematically and steadily to convert its stock of enriched uranium into materials that cannot be used and could not be used for further enrichment and therefore for military purposes. It is a rather poor tactic, if that is what it is.

We are focused on trying to pursue this negotiation and get to a comprehensive agreement. I do not think it would be helpful to speculate on what might happen if we fail, but we are very clear: we are not going to enter into a bad deal. If we cannot get a deal that gives us clear reassurance that Iran is not going to acquire the capability to build a nuclear weapon, we will not do the deal. We will then have to deal with the consequences of such a situation, but it is not helpful to speculate on those now.

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

I welcome the statement from the Foreign Secretary and the work done by his predecessor on this matter. Along with what is going on in relation to its nuclear capacity, has a lot of pressure been put on Iran for it to stop supporting and harbouring terrorism—whether from Hamas in Israel, from Hezbollah in Lebanon, from interference in Iraq or from support for the brutal regime in Syria? If we want Iran to be a key player in the international community, it must abide by international norms.

[Mr Hammond]

We have a separate bilateral dialogue with the Iranians in which we urge them, as I said earlier, not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and not to take actions that would destabilise the region, but these nuclear discussions are taking place at P5 plus 1 or E3 plus 3, whichever people choose to call it. On many of the issues that my hon. Friend listed we would not get agreement among the P5 plus 1 about what is happening on the ground, so we have chosen—I think it is the right decision—to keep these nuclear talks ring-fenced and separate from all other bilateral and multilateral strands of discussion with Iran.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The point the Prime Minister was making was that we must reserve our right to intervene at very short notice if an imminent humanitarian catastrophe threatens, but we are also considering the longer-term proposition of how, in coalition with international partners, we can best rise to the challenge presented by ISIL. If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, I shall say something about that now.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hammond]

I must make some progress.

In Syria, we continue to support a negotiated political transition to end Assad’s brutal rule and pave the way to a political solution to this appalling conflict. To those who ask whether we should make common cause with Assad against the new enemy, ISIL, I say that Assad cannot be the answer to defeating extremism. Working with this butcher would only reinforce the appeal of ISIL and feed radicalisation at home. By contrast, therefore, we are strengthening our support for the moderate opposition, who share our values of respect for human rights, the rule of law and inclusive politics. They deserve our admiration as they take the fight to the extremist terrorists in their country as well as taking on regime forces.

In Iraq, we have strongly welcomed the formation of the new Government under Dr Haider al-Abadi. To be successful in turning the tide against ISIL, that Government must now win the confidence of all Iraq’s communities by turning into deeds the words of the new Prime Minister’s published programme for inclusive Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

Our clear intention is to create the conditions where within the Alawite community and the community around the regime, the pressure builds to change the leadership—to remove Assad and those closely associated with him and replace them so that it is possible for the moderate opposition forces and the international community to envisage a political solution in Syria.

We are facing in our near abroad the most capable terrorist group currently operating anywhere in the world. We cannot underestimate the threat that it poses to regional stability and to our security here at home, and we must be prepared to intensify our contribution to action against ISIL if the situation demands.

[Rehman Chishti]

In relation to ISIL and the foreign fighters, the Secretary of State will have seen reports from King’s College London, which engaged with some of these fighters in Syria and Iraq. It reports that some foreign fighters want to renounce terrorism and return to their countries of origin. Does the United Kingdom have a position on that, and was it discussed with other NATO members so that there is a combined position?

[Mr Hammond]

I too read the reports that my hon. Friend mentions. Clearly, those who have committed terrorist acts must be held accountable for their actions; there can be no general amnesty. Obviously, the Home Secretary will want to look carefully at the situation that we are facing. I suggest that she will have noted what he said and might be able to respond further when she winds up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

In asking his question, the hon. Gentleman anticipates my answer, which is that, frankly, it is not for the shadow Foreign Secretary to make that judgment. The critical judgment will be that of the Sunni community within Iraq. It is vital that there is a dialogue ahead of appointment, so that we do not have a situation in which those outside Iraq presume that a degree of unity has been achieved but, alas, it proves to be illusive within the country. The point that he makes is fair, but it only reinforces the vitality of there being inclusivity preceding the appointment, rather than assertions of inclusivity after the appointment.

[Rehman Chishti]

The shadow Foreign Secretary says that it is not the role of the international community to intervene in who comes to office and what position they take, but surely he agrees that the international community has a role in ensuring that another Government like Mr Maliki’s do not come to power. If that happens, the international community must dissociate itself at an earlier stage. If it had done so with Mr Maliki’s Government, we might not have the problem that we now have of international terrorism in Iraq.

[Mr Alexander]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about former Prime Minister Maliki. I had the opportunity to speak to President Barzani of the Kurdistan Regional Government a matter of weeks ago by video conference. He could not have been clearer about the destructive effect of the sectarian approach that was taken by the Maliki Government, both in corrupting the chain of command in the Iraqi army and destabilising the politics of the country. Our friends and colleagues in the United States were entirely right in holding out the need for Maliki to go, given the profound damage that he did to the fabric of society and the process of governance in Iraq. The challenge, however, is not to look backwards, but to look forwards to see whether the new Prime Minister is in a position to make the progress that many of us wish Maliki had been able to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend and I welcome that meeting. Indeed, he pre-empts my next remark. ISIS must be stopped and defeated, and I for one will support the Government’s plan to join the United States in air strikes if they decide to do so.

[Rehman Chishti]

On air strikes, ISIL and Syria, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the words of Robert Ford, the former US envoy to Syria, who said that the current international policy on Syria does not reflect the reality on the ground. That being the case, does my right hon. Friend agree that the international community now needs to review its policy on Syria?

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

I have to confess that I rather agree with the Foreign Secretary that Syria is very much a different case from Iraq. We have to be guided by those in the Foreign Office who are closer to the ground and to the intelligence that has been received on the ground.

The focus should now be on Iraq and then we can think about how to address the situation in Syria. However, to be frank, a western intervention will not magically solve the problems on the ground. There is a need for Arab countries to join the coalition of the willing to step in and confront ISIS militarily and politically. A huge rift has arisen between the Sunnis, the Shi’as and, to a degree, the Kurds. The ISIS surge is fuelled by a Sunni uprising, but in truth the Sunnis are not fans of ISIS. In my view, they would ditch the jihadists once a “Sunnistan” was established. As ISIS is hostile to everybody, I predict that it will have a relatively short life, but eventually I think these developments will result in a Kurdistan in the north, a “Sunnistan” in the west and a “Shi’astan” in the south.

However, the threats posed by a revanchist Russia and an extremist ISIS are not the only ones currently facing the world—although they are the most pressing. The internet and modern methods of communication have enabled local and regional extremisms to flourish. Thanks to them, we are witnessing a wave of global tribalism, starting with the Scottish referendum in our own backyard. In times like these we realise how much we depend on our international alliances to address present and future risks.

Over the summer recess, we heard a lot from bishops and generals, who gave us the benefit of their views. The Bishop of Leeds is a great friend of mine. Indeed, he was the best bishop that Croydon ever had, but to accuse the Government of lacking a strategy towards the Christians stuck on a mountain in Syria is, I think, the wrong approach. Our strategy is to have an Army, to be a member of NATO, to be a member of international institutions and then to react when the circumstances arise. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children wants children to be saved; Médecins Sans Frontières wants more health services. These are single-issue lobbying organisations. I think the Churches should recognise that. Again, that goes for the generals who on numerous occasions called for Parliament to be recalled to bomb anywhere they could think of. In this area the only people who can make policy are those who are prepared to seek election and to stand on a platform to defend it, not those who sit in armchairs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I think that it would be appropriate for me to pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who has been doing some excellent work in this area, not least by convening a high-level international grouping on the subject during the UN General Assembly ministerial week in New York. She will reconvene that group. We have also set up an advisory group on the freedom of religion or belief in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and we will continue to do what we can through our embassies around the world. It is extremely difficult work at this time, when religions of all types, not just Christians, are facing the most horrific oppression in all four corners of the world.

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

Will the Government continue to make representations to the Government of Pakistan to reform their blasphemy laws, which are often used to persecute and prosecute minority communities, including the Christian community? In particular, will the Government take up the case of Aisha Bibi, a mother of five children and a Christian who has been convicted under these laws and has been imprisoned for four years awaiting an appeal?

[Mr Swire]

We raise these issues consistently at senior ministerial levels in Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary lobbied Prime Minister Sharif during his visit in May. We made it clear that Pakistan must guarantee the rights of all its citizens, regardless of their ethnicity.

Israeli Teenagers (Abduction and Murder)

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, because I was in the west bank when it happened and the domestic price that President Abbas was paying for taking that stance internationally was abundantly clear. He is absolutely doing what the international community wants to see him do and we expect the Palestinian technocratic Government to live up to their responsibility to co-operate fully in security terms with the Government of Israel.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement today. He will know that Hamas is backed by Iran, as is Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran also backs President Assad’s horrific regime in Syria as well as the Maliki Government in Iraq, with its sectarian violence. Will the Minister assure the House that Iran will not be involved in any further middle eastern issues without first giving up terrorism?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In a sense, his question sheds some light on precisely why the Israeli Government are concerned about security and are right to be concerned about security.

Iraq and Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am sure there will be an occasion to debate that report when it is available. The hon. Gentleman and all of us will be able to give our views then. I think it is true that the vote in the House last August was influenced by a loss of trust in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, whatever side we took and whatever we think about that. It was influenced by that, yes, so we have to conduct ourselves in a way that rebuilds trust in Government decisions on these matters. That is what we are constantly seeking to do.

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

It is said that the international community wants to engage Iran to help resolve the situation in Iraq, but some ask how that can possibly be the case when Iran is supporting terrorism in Lebanon by Hezbollah, supporting Hamas and supporting the horrific regime of President Assad, and when it backed Prime Minister Maliki to cause the mess in Iraq in the first place. Linked to that, what steps are we taking to address the problem that the advanced-level weapons given to the Iraqi army by the international community are ending up in the hands of the extremists?

[Mr Hague]

The point that my hon. Friend raises is exactly why I have stressed several times that although it is right to engage Iran, which we are doing, we need to see a change in Iranian policies if the Iranians are to promote stability rather than instability in the region. They do support sectarian or terrorist groups and have supported them elsewhere in the region. That is an important policy to change because it creates deep divisions across the middle east, and I again stress that we look to Iran to change those policies.

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lewis]

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

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

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Lewis]

I will, but I have very little time left.

[Rehman Chishti]

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

[Dr Lewis]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on initiating the debate. I am very happy to be one of its sponsors. We have heard thoughtful contributions from all hon. Members who have taken part. I will not repeat the important points that have been made, but it is worth restating the universality of the freedom of conscience and belief. It is important that Britain, as a significant player in many international institutions, stands up consistently and vocally for that freedom. We should not be tempted, in the context of foreign or other policy, to put such action into the category of things that are too difficult to do, or too inconvenient when balancing other interests. It is a fundamental part of our commitment as a democracy.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend has mentioned our international obligations. In that connection, may I draw attention to the persecution of the Baha’is in Iran? The international community is currently attempting to bring Iran into the fold in the context of the nuclear issue, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should also stress that human rights must be a key priority for the country if it is to become part of that community?

[Robert Neill]

There is no doubt that we must move very carefully, and must ensure that Iran is genuinely complying with all the international obligations with which an accepted state should comply. Although—as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—there has been an occasional act of generosity towards Christian and other faith communities in Iran, it remains a matter of concern that since the election of President Rohani many Christians have been arrested, and more than 50 remain in prison. I think that the new regime is very much on probation, and that Britain, together with our allies, must be vigilant in ensuring that not too easy a ride is given to those who may wish to push it back in a reactionary direction.

Iran is indeed an important factor, but I want to say a little about two other issues which, although well known, are worth referring to again. What is happening in Syria is a horror story by any account. It is a horror story for all Syrians, regardless of their faith and regardless of where they find themselves in that country. There is particular concern about what is increasingly being shown to be the targeted persecution of the Christian community in Syria. The Christians are not alone: Alawites and Shi’a and Sunni Muslims have also been targeted in some cases. However, there is a real fear that the Christian community—which, after all, is one of the oldest communities in the middle east: we all remember the Damascene conversion, which is one of the roots of Christianity and dates back to its very earliest days—is under unacceptable and very frightening pressure.

The Christian charity Open Doors has been doing valuable work in screening many international media sources to find examples of persecutions of Christians. Its global researches have established that some 2,123 Christians have been killed because of their faith, and that 1,213 of them have been killed in Syria. We have also seen the systemic targeting of Christian churches, 83 in Syria and 492 in Egypt. Mass graves were discovered in the ancient Christian town of Sadad, which had been overrun by rebel extremists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has found time for us to debate this important issue today. Many of us have had constituents contacting us with concerns about the many examples of persecution in all too many countries of people simply because of their faith, beliefs or philosophical views. Most of the correspondence I have received has come from those concerned about the situation faced by Christians in all too many countries of the world: persecution that can range from people being unable to practise their faith or at least to hold services in public, to individual Christians and whole Christian communities facing injury, the destruction of their homes and livelihoods, and, all too often, torture and death.

Among the cases raised with me have been the terrible situation in North Korea, and not just for Christians, although Christians in that country have perhaps suffered worse than those anywhere in the world; the increasing attacks on Christians in parts of Nigeria; and violence affecting Christians in Pakistan. The Church of Scotland has written to all Scottish MPs highlighting its concerns about the way in which blasphemy laws in Pakistan disproportionately affect Christians and non-Muslim minority faiths in that country, a subject about which many Members have already spoken. Many of those who have contacted me feel that the plight of Christians in many parts of the world has not, at least until recently, obtained the publicity it ought to obtain. I hope that today’s debate will help to reassure those who are concerned that these issues should be raised in Parliament and that our Government should be acting on them.

As many Members have already emphasised, it is not just the situation of Christians about which we should be concerned, so let me give a few more examples. Constituents have raised concerns with me about the incredibly terrible situation of the Muslim Rohingya in Burma. Members of the Shi’a community in Edinburgh have highlighted the killings and attacks on Shi’a, not just in Pakistan, where many members of that community have links, but elsewhere. I have also been contacted by the Edinburgh Baha’i community about the situation that members of their faith face in Iran. I pick out those examples simply because they have been raised with me by constituents, but of course I could have given many other examples and spoken about many other faiths.

In that context, it is worth highlighting just how extensive is the harassment, discrimination and persecution of people throughout the world because of their faith. I am sure many Members will be aware of the recent report published by the Pew Research Centre, which discovered that in the six years from 2006 to 2012 across the world harassment had been faced by Christians in 151 countries; Muslims in 135 countries; Jews in 96 countries; followers of traditional religions in 52 countries; Hindus in 33 countries; Buddhists in 28 countries; and other faiths in 77 countries. That is an incredible number of countries across the world and that needs to be emphasised and highlighted.

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the number of countries where persecution is taking place. Going back to what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, does he agree that there is a real concern that, given what the BJP has done in Gujarat and the association with extremist parties, if we get a BJP Government in India there is likely to be more persecution and division than unity in India?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we are talking about values and principles that need to apply universally, across faiths, countries and political parties. He brings me to my next point, which is that although in some of the cases of harassment I have spoken about the authorities do what they can to prevent such discrimination and persecution, in others the state actually explicitly promotes such persecution, and where it does not do so explicitly still turns a blind eye, tacitly promoting, supporting and allowing that persecution and discrimination to take place.

It is not just those who profess or are identified with a particular faith who suffer discrimination and persecution; as we know all too well, in many parts of the world agnostics, humanists, free thinkers and atheists would not be able to express their views in public without facing dire consequences.

Today’s debate is also about freedom of thought as well as freedom of conscience and of religion. It would take many hours to list all the examples in the world where freedom of thought and the ability to express those thoughts are dangerous, and the consequences of doing so can range from social ostracism and loss of employment rights right through to imprisonment and death. That is why it is so important to emphasise and assert, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) did, the importance of putting our discussion today in the context of the promotion, defence and championing of universal human rights, which apply to all peoples in all countries and in all contexts.

Today’s debate has highlighted cases from around the world and allowed Members of this House to give witness to the suffering and persecution of so many people because of their faith, conscience or belief. What we need now is more action. I look forward to hearing from the Minister at the end of today’s debate as to how the Government intend to reflect Members’ concerns in their bilateral relations and foreign policy and in the actions they take in the many multinational agencies and forums in which they participate and have an influence.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the most powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is not in his place. I also thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) for initiating the debate.

Alongside extreme poverty, growing income inequality and climate change, I rate extremism in relation to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as one of the four most powerful threats to the world in the 21st century. In fact, it could be said that, in some places, extremism is the cause of one or two of the other threats. In the UK, as many speakers have said, we have a responsibility. We can see in our history the suffering caused by religious strife and persecution, as well as the benefits that freedom of speech and of religion can bring. I welcome the Foreign and Commonwealth Office making the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief a key priority. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to Baroness Warsi, to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), to the Minister and to Foreign Office staff for beginning to implement that critical priority.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to change one’s religion, which is important, and the freedom to manifest it in teaching, practice, worship and observance, all of which are in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, are not options. They are a fundamental requirement of belonging to the family of nations. The universal declaration of human rights was put together following the horrors of the second world war. It is not some kind of optional extra. It is a foundation stone of a civilised and just world. Any state that does not uphold it or pretends to do so must be challenged and challenged again by the international community.

Pakistan has been referred to several times in the debate, and rightly so, but we should also refer to other countries. There is a measure of freedom of religion in Pakistan, because we do see churches and worshippers there, but there are countries where we do not see a single church or a single building of a faith other than the authorised one. We do not hear so much about those countries—Saudi Arabia, for example—simply because there is no freedom at all. Sometimes a little bit of freedom results in persecution, because there is a measure of a presence of one particular faith. We should bear that in mind as we highlight countries in this debate.

We should challenge countries not only on the basis of their people’s fundamental human rights, but because in the long term persecution will severely damage the countries themselves. In order to succeed in today’s world, countries need people who are encouraged to innovate, challenge, inquire and take risks. If they expect that but say that people must believe in God, or cannot believe in God, or can only follow a certain lifestyle, making them into criminals if they do not conform, they should not be surprised if those people take their talents elsewhere, if they have not already imprisoned or executed them.

Take my family origins as an example. I come from a Huguenot background. We were expelled from France more than 400 years ago because of our Protestant faith. Yet the Huguenots brought to Britain the seeds of the industrial revolution, which changed the face of this country for ever—the Courtauld family was perhaps the most prominent—and France lost several decades of economic development as a result. It would be simplistic to correlate the lack of human rights, including freedom of religion, with economic progress. The presence of abundant natural resources can give Governments the ability to buy such progress, but that approach is unsustainable in the long term. The best way to build a state that can stand the test of time is to build one that enables all its people to flourish, that includes and does not exclude, and that celebrates its diversity, rather than being afraid of it.

Of course, there is another side. Freedom of religion and belief also involves exercising that freedom, as with any freedom, with great responsibility. Incitement to violence or any other crime can never be excused by being covered in the cloak of religion. I reiterate the point my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin made about the importance of people of all faiths in this country standing up for such freedoms in countries from which their families might have originally come.

[Rehman Chishti]

I visited Saudi Arabia two years ago with the all-party group. As someone from a Muslim faith, I made it quite clear to its parliamentary Shura Council that it should allow people from the Christian community to build churches there, just as people from the Muslim community who come here from other countries can build mosques. It is only fair that people of other faiths in Saudi Arabia should be able to build their places of worship.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful statement, and I absolutely agree.

As has already been pointed out, there is a global trend of increasing persecution of people of all religions and none. I want to make a few remarks about Tanzania, whose all-party group I chair. I also had the privilege of living there for 11 years. Tanzania has a secular constitution and has been noted for its religious freedom since independence in 1961. It has been a model of harmony, instituted by its first President, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. Yet recently we have seen a disturbing rise in the incidence of religious attacks, particularly on Christians. That reflects the rise in extremist Islamist action in both the Sahel and further south in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to support Tanzania and other countries, such as Kenya, and indeed Nigeria, in their work to maintain freedom, peace and stability against all those who wish to destroy it.

In my constituency we have an organisation called the Dalit Freedom Network. We must also not forget those peoples who find their rights at risk because of the families and societies into which they were born. I commend all those who, sometimes at the cost of their freedom or their life, stand up for groups around the world who are persecuted not just because of their faith or their political views but simply because of who they were born to.

Queen Elizabeth I is believed to have said that she did not wish to make windows into men’s souls. A country that follows that maxim—that works for and protects all its people, whatever their beliefs, background or lifestyle—rather than waging war on minorities is much more likely to flourish than one that does not.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for securing this timely debate on freedom of thought, conscience and religion around the world, and for their valuable and very non-partisan speeches in the Chamber this afternoon. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who was instrumental in obtaining the debate.

Allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to restate that protecting freedom of religion or belief is a priority for this Government. The right to have a faith, to manifest it alone or in company with others, to change religion, to live without any religion at all or to follow a secular or humanistic belief are of course fundamental principles.

We back up our commitment to those principles in words and deeds. We constantly raise religious pluralism and tolerance in our discussions with other Governments. I was therefore intrigued by the paradox that my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) was set to write about at school, and I agree that the idea that we should tolerate intolerance is intolerable. We devote Foreign and Commonwealth Office resources to overseas programmes designed to overcome prejudice, discrimination and sectarianism. We work in multilateral forums to ensure that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief is afforded the international legal protection that it deserves, and to bring forward the day when it will no longer be considered an orphaned right.

Alarmingly, there are now many examples of faith groups feeling that they are persecuted—from the treatment of Christians in North Korea, about which I will say more in a minute, to the blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Swire]

Let me make some progress, please.

The examples extend from the restrictions on the Rohingya Muslims in Burma to reports of raids on house churches in China, from the persecution of both Christians and Jews across the middle east to the plight of the Baha’i in Iran and Shias in Bahrain. Indeed, official restrictions on religion are at their highest for six years. That is why we actively intend to do more, not least as a result of the recommendations of the all-party group on international religious freedom and of the Government’s expert advisory group on freedom of religion or belief, which is chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who has responsibilities for those matters in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[Rehman Chishti]

The Minister said that the Government work with other Governments to address these issues. I raised the issue of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. I said that there is a need for urgent reform of those laws, which are often used to persecute the Christian community and other minority communities in Pakistan. The Prime Minister agreed to raise such points with Prime Minister Sharif when he visited London. Prime Minister Sharif visited London yesterday, so will the Minister clarify whether those points were raised with him and what his response was?

[Mr Swire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blasphemy Law (Pakistan)

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to debate the application of blasphemy laws in Pakistan. I consider myself to be a passionate, strong friend of Pakistan; I want to see it succeed. It is the country where I was born and spent the first six years of my life before moving to Gillingham as a little boy, which is the constituency that I now have the great honour to represent. I also had the great privilege to serve as an adviser to Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who lost her life during her quest to reform the country.

Pakistan aspires to be a global player and to have a greater international role, but its current blasphemy laws tarnish Pakistan’s name and reputation. Pakistan needs to implement the aspiration of its founder Quiad-i-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah, who said in his address to the nation at the creation of Pakistan:

“You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

For Pakistan to implement the aspiration of its founder, it must reform the blasphemy laws. These laws contravene international human rights standards, restricting freedom of speech and expression.

The UN Human Rights Committee has said that blasphemy laws are incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Pakistan is a signatory. They are often used to punish minority communities as well as Muslim communities and to settle personal vendettas and land disputes. The blasphemy laws were expanded in Pakistan between 1980 and 1986 by General Zia-ul-Haq, who added several clauses, including section 295C to the penal code of Pakistan, which stated that anyone who defamed the Prophet had to be killed.

While Pakistan has never yet carried out an execution under its blasphemy laws, this may change after the recent ruling by Pakistan’s Federal Shariat Court that the death penalty should be the only penalty for blasphemy, although the Government of Pakistan have so far refused to accept this direction. According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, at least 14 individuals are currently on death row and 19 more are serving life sentences, giving it the largest number of prisoners of belief.

We need to urge the government of Pakistan to address this issue head on. The blasphemy laws have been misapplied in many cases. Take the recent case of Mohammad Asghar, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) in this House. I pay tribute to the way in which she has raised that case at every level to ensure that justice is achieved for her constituent. He is a vulnerable British national with a history of mental illness and has been sentenced to death for blasphemy, having allegedly written blasphemous letters which were never posted.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but is he aware that there is still a problem with getting even medical attention for this gentleman, who lived in Edinburgh until relatively recently and whose family lives in my constituency? He has a mental health problem, but unfortunately it appears—the Minister might wish to comment on this—that it has been difficult to get in anyone who can make a medical assessment of his state.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. She is right, because individuals I talk to and experts who deal with such matters say that if someone is put in custody under the blasphemy laws, getting access to them and providing them with medical equipment are concerns. Additionally, there is a risk to the safety of those who are remanded in custody in blasphemy cases, and I hope that the Minister will address that real concern in his response.

I know that the Foreign Office has raised the case of Mohammad Asghar with Pakistan’s high commission and the Chief Minister of Punjab, but the criminal justice process can take many years, which means that a large number of innocent victims are languishing in prison waiting for their appeal to be heard. That is true in the case of Asia Bibi, a 43-year-old Christian mother of five children who has been in prison since June 2009. She was sentenced to death in November 2010 for allegedly blaspheming the Prophet after an incident with fellow Muslim village workers because she was thirsty and drank water from a well and a cup belonging to a Muslim woman. Such a totally pathetic, illiterate cultural practice is contrary to the virtues and principles of Islam.

Pope Benedict said at the time that what had happened in Asia Bibi’s case was unacceptable and called for her release. Her case is still awaiting an appeal before the Lahore High Court, but the proceedings have been postponed several times. On 24 February and 17 March, the hearing was cancelled when one of the two presiding judges failed to attend. On 26 March, the counsel for the complainant failed to appear. Perhaps at the next scheduled hearing, on 14 April, justice will be rightly done in this case. It is in the interests of justice and the credibility of Pakistan’s judicial system that the case is heard at its next listing and a judgment is made on the evidence before the court.

Even if Asia Bibi is released, her and her family’s lives will be at risk. Her family has already gone into hiding after receiving death threats. In Pakistan, even an accusation of blasphemy can be enough to precipitate violence against the innocent.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing the debate. It is imperative that ordinary citizens have faith in the justice system. Unfortunately, those afflicted by injustice are not only the victims, but lawyers and witnesses. The date of 2 March marked the third anniversary of the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti, the then Minister for Minorities in Pakistan and the country’s only Christian Cabinet member. I understand that although a suspect has been detected, his trial has been jeopardised by death threats to lawyers and witnesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the international community should be pressing strongly for justice in this high-profile case, because what would impunity for Shahbaz Bhatti’s attacker say about the prospects in Pakistan for a plural and tolerant society in which diverse religious belief is honoured and respected?

[Rehman Chishti]

I fully concur. It is right and proper that, in any civilised, democratic country, lawyers and the judiciary must be able to do their jobs without harassment. Judges must be able to deal with cases impartially and fairly, so I agree that it would be a dark stain on Pakistan’s legal system were there not justice in the case of Shahbaz Bhatti.

Linked to that—my hon. Friend will understand this point—is the case of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab who raised Asia Bibi’s case, who was shot dead by his bodyguard four years ago. The bodyguard has still not been sentenced. Why was that case not tried in the terrorist courts, rather than the civil courts, as Pakistani jurisdiction allows? Questions must be asked about why sentencing has not been dealt with in that case, even though the governor was clearly murdered.

There have been too many cases in which those acquitted have faced the violence of the mob, for example when two Christian brothers were gunned down outside a court in Faisalabad, or in June last year when Ghulam Abbas, a Sunni Muslim, was pulled from a police station, beaten to death and his body burned, or even the case of an elderly man who was shot dead in Punjab after being released from prison. Blasphemy cases can also trigger rioting, as with the case of Sawan Masih. As The Times reported, when he was sentenced to death for insulting the Prophet during a conversation with a Muslim friend, a mob burned dozens of Christian homes and set fire to two churches.

While Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have received international criticism, reform has received less attention in Pakistan because of the risks involved in raising such issues. Those who have spoken out, such as the Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti and the politician Salmaan Taseer, have found their own lives sadly cut short.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend know whether the UK has linked the considerable amount of aid we give Pakistan to the blasphemy laws in any way?

[Rehman Chishti]

I do not know whether the development aid we give Pakistan is linked to its blasphemy laws, but I know that it is spent on education, which is crucial for changing hearts and minds and ensuring that Pakistan becomes a tolerant society. Those who might drift into radicalisation or extreme values can then be given hope and opportunities through education.

The violence and assassinations do not mean that reform is impossible. Although repeal might be difficult in the short term, changes could be made so that the laws are dealt with by the higher courts, rather than the lower courts, which are more susceptible to intimidation. Specialised prosecutors and specifically trained judges should also be appointed to deal with blasphemy cases. As Pakistan has specialised terrorist courts, there could be specialised courts for blasphemy cases.

There should also be a body in the Ministry of Law to authorise prosecutions so that once an allegation has been made to the police, the matter is referred to the federal body in the Ministry before a charge is filed. That way, all the facts and evidence can be assessed before the individual is charged, because once an individual is charged it can take a very long time for the case to be heard, and in the meantime the individual is remanded in custody, which poses safety concerns, as many individuals awaiting blasphemy trials have been killed in prison.

In 2012, while on a visit to Pakistan, I met President Zardari, Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, and members of the Christian community. The Christians raised real concerns about the application of the blasphemy laws leading to the persecution of the Christian community. When I spoke with 12 High Court judges and a Supreme Court judge and asked why the laws were being abused in Pakistan, sadly some of them said that there was no abuse of the laws, which raises real concerns about the impartiality of the judiciary in these cases.

The Minister might well say that the Government have raised these issues, and the individual cases, with the Pakistani Government, and that they have a close relationship with that country but can do no more than push for reform. I know that the United Kingdom has a close relationship with Pakistan, that the Government are working to strengthen and deepen it, and that there is real influence there.

I attended many Foreign and Commonwealth Office meetings while working with Benazir Bhutto from 1999 to 2007, including meetings with the British high commissioners to Pakistan, Pakistan desk officers at the FCO, and the then FCO director for South Asia, as well as meetings with Foreign Secretaries, including the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and the former right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). In those meetings, everyone was focused on seeing a transition to democracy in Pakistan.

The United Kingdom had a key role in bringing democracy to Pakistan. If the UK can do that, then it can play a key role in pushing for reform of these laws in Pakistan. I recently met Pakistan’s high commissioner to the UK to make the case for reform. There is also an opportunity for the Government to press these concerns during the forthcoming visit to the UK by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that this issue will be raised with Prime Minister Sharif.

I also urge the Minister to work with experts such as the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, who was also Bishop of Riwand in Pakistan, and who has written and spoken extensively on how these reforms can be made. Bishop Michael recently met Prime Minister Sharif to raise this matter. I would be grateful if the Minister were able to arrange during Prime Minister Sharif’s visit a meeting between him and Members of Parliament who have expressed concern about these laws, and to ensure that experts in this area such as Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali are present.

When people have been acquitted in blasphemy cases, they often face the prospect of being killed when they are released from prison. Will the Minister consider working with other countries to accommodate individuals who have been prosecuted or persecuted for their conscience and freedom of belief and expression?

Promoting respect for human rights and freedom of religion and belief should be an integral part of our foreign policy towards Pakistan. Pakistan needs to reform the outdated blasphemy laws that tarnish its name and deprive its people of their basic human rights. I understand that the people of Pakistan themselves have suffered as a result of radicalisation and being a front-line state in the war on terror in Afghanistan. However, the Government of Pakistan must reform these laws, not only because they tarnish their reputation but because it is the right thing to do, for these laws are bad laws. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in relation to this matter.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing this debate. He spoke with passion, sincerity and very detailed knowledge. It was clear that he has a great love for Pakistan and its people and wants to see Pakistan move further towards the human rights of all its citizens being properly recognised and safeguarded.

I also want to acknowledge the interventions by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The cross-party nature of these interventions will have demonstrated to anyone observing our affairs that Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, particularly in relation to the use of the death penalty, concern the entire House and no particular party or faction.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham knows, my noble Friend Baroness Warsi has raised this issue in many conversations with senior members of the Pakistani Government, who are in no doubt about the concern that we attach to human rights in Pakistan and, in particular, to the issue of blasphemy as an offence.

In the past 15 years, an estimated 1,274 people have been charged under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. The fact that I can contrast that total with just nine reported cases that we know of between 1929 and 1982 demonstrates the importance of this issue and why my hon. Friend was right to draw the House’s attention to it today.

On the specific cases raised by hon. Members, I assure the House that we have made representations at the highest level. We continue to do so, and to do whatever we can to ensure that those who are facing charges or trials are treated properly and with respect for their human rights.

I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East that I am advised that Mr Mohammad Asghar has had a mental health assessment but has not yet been seen by the specialist whom his defence lawyer would like. We continue to do what we can and remain in contact with his lawyer to try to make sure that representations are being made by his legal team to have his mental health concerns taken fully into account in future proceedings.

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, we do not link our aid programme to Pakistan directly to progress on this issue, but we design the programme in a way that helps to improve both the cultural understanding of the importance of human rights and the observance of human rights in practice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham pointed out that a great proportion of our aid to Pakistan is directed at improving education there. The figures show that roughly one in 10 of all children in the world who are without any schooling live in Pakistan. Raising education opportunities is one important way in which to help bring about the sort of social change we wish to see there. Another element of our aid programme to Pakistan is directed towards giving particular help to people from minorities within Pakistan, to enable them to understand their rights and to have greater opportunities in Pakistani society.

Although it is important that the relationship between the United Kingdom and Pakistan is a broad and deep one, founded on history, human contact, development assistance, trade and a common need to resist terrorism, it is also important that that relationship is such that we can speak frankly to our Pakistani friends in Government about the kind of human rights problem that we have been debating tonight. To impose a death penalty for blasphemy is a breach of the international covenant on civil and political rights and of the universal declaration of human rights, to both of which Pakistan has subscribed.

At the risk of stating the obvious, these are Pakistan’s laws and it is only Pakistanis and the Pakistan Government and legislative bodies that can deliberate upon and make changes to the laws. As an external partner to and friend of Pakistan, we try to calibrate the language that we use in public about both individual cases and the general problem so as not to make things worse for people who might be at risk of persecution. There is no doubt that extremists within Pakistan are keen to look for any alleged evidence of western interference in their country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham said, the space available for open debate in Pakistan about blasphemy—let alone campaigning—has become severely restricted over the past 20 years or so. It is important to recognise that although we are safe to debate this problem in this place or to discuss it with our constituents, men and women in Pakistan face abuse, threats, lynch mobs and even death for questioning the laws of their country in an equivalent way. We need to be careful about rushing to condemn people for at times being unwilling to stand up in public to tackle the iniquities of these laws when they would take severe risks upon themselves by doing so.

It is also evident, however, that the blasphemy laws are open to abuse for personal gain, typically in commercial disputes. Although used predominantly against other Muslims, it is true that they are also used to persecute religious minorities, especially Christians and Ahmadis. The Government believe that is an intolerable abuse of freedom of religion and belief, and we must ensure that our objections to it and our wish for reform are clearly stated.

This matter is a key part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights work bilaterally, with the EU and in other multilateral organisations. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi has led the way in raising the profile of religious tolerance, both in this country and in countries overseas, including with the Pakistani leadership.

Sadly, many in Pakistani society face death threats, including journalists, minorities, Ministers and officials. Only last weekend, we were shocked to hear of an attack on Raza Rumi, a journalist and commentator known for speaking up for democracy and human rights. He survived, but tragically his driver died. Our high commissioner in Islamabad noted:

“Mr Rumi has repeatedly spoken up for democracy and, in a democratic society, everyone has the right to speak up for their beliefs without fear of attack. We are committed to supporting the Government of Pakistan in encouraging an atmosphere of tolerance, where debate can flourish.”

He ended by sending a message of support to Mr Rumi and his fellow journalists across Pakistan who stand up for free expression in the most incredibly difficult circumstances.

[Rehman Chishti]

The Minister outlines a scenario in which those who talk about democracy and tolerance pay the price, or nearly pay the price, with their death. Shahbaz Bhatti lost his life because he wanted reform in Pakistan. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we in the UK urge Pakistan to ensure that those who have committed such horrific murders are brought to justice? On Shahbaz Bhatti’s case, if there can be no justice for a federal Minister who is a Christian, what hope is there for ordinary minority Christians, Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Whenever we make representations on individual cases, we address not only alleged abuses of human rights—such as the withholding of access to medical treatment—but the right of any individual to due and impartial legal process, including proper legal representation.

For all the reasons I have given, Pakistan remains listed as a country of concern in the FCO’s annual human rights report. The 2013 report will be published next week, on 10 April, and I urge Members to take note of what it says about Pakistan.

Last August, Human Rights Watch noted the “impressive gains” made in Pakistan since the restoration of democracy in 2008, but warned that those gains could be lost unless the Government halted serious human rights abuses. We agree.

It is true that no person convicted of blasphemy has yet been executed, and so far all death penalties imposed under blasphemy have been quashed by a higher court on appeal. However, hundreds of alleged blasphemers remain in jail pending the appeal of their original convictions and, regardless of the outcome of those appeals, the power of mob justice has made intolerable the lives of many of those against whom blasphemy has been alleged. We understand the cultural difficulties and why blasphemy is regarded as so offensive, but we must continue to pursue the issue with visitors from the Pakistani Government to this country, as well as through our contacts in Pakistan.

It is not within the gift of Her Majesty’s Government to organise the meeting for which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham asks, but we will put his proposal to the Pakistani Government. I certainly hope that Prime Minister Sharif will find time during his visit to have discussions with Members of this and the other place on a wide range of issues, including human rights abuses, one egregious example of which has been the focus of this debate. I hope that we and our Pakistani friends can support a debate, a review and, above all, a long overdue reform of a dangerous and iniquitous abuse of human rights.

Question put and agreed to.

Commonwealth Day

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I did indeed bring that up on our visit to India. I am sorry to say that, when we were there, there was little movement in that direction. However, I recognise the significant efforts since made by the Foreign Secretary, and indeed the Lord Chancellor, with India. They are not giving up the ghost on this; they are working hard to reverse that position. India is currently undergoing a difficult time, thinking about elections rather than policy, but, hopefully after the elections it will look more carefully at this issue and change its mind. That would be, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, for the benefit of India and Britain.

Many Commonwealth countries have political institutions whose administrations and standing orders are not as efficient as they could be. We can—and do—do much to assist them. By engaging with member countries, we also create ties and good will in different areas that provide much greater depth to our international relationships than fleeting ministerial visits—as important as those are, I say with respect to the Minister.

I saw the value of engagement again when I joined a CPA UK delegation to Sri Lanka to review post-conflict reconciliation and human rights issues. Sitting in a very hot hut, which Tamil MPs used as a headquarters, we heard their grievances, which included alleged human rights complaints. They appreciated our making the effort to go to the north of the country, which still shows clear signs of the terrible war. We also met with army, police and other national representatives who explained their security concerns. Everyone seemed pleased to see us and keen to put forward their cases. That certainly gave me the impression that everyone wanted reconciliation even if, unfortunately, not at the same pace.

Importantly, we engaged with Sri Lankans from the north and south, and those of different religions and races, not as the old imperial power coming to dictate but as equals; as friends and colleagues with a shared history, and with a will to share the benefit of our experience and learn from each other. We also met with shared expectations of maintaining shared values—in effect, the values contained in the Commonwealth charter, which, at that point, came alive to me as a living and relevant document. More than that, being a member of the Commonwealth meant that I felt that I could be open and frank in setting out, for instance to the Sri Lankan human rights commission or Ministers, where we felt that improvements to conduct were required.

Let me add that the discussions were not one way. For instance, a number of our hosts raised complicated questions arising from the colonisation of their countries. The fact that they wished to discuss such issues on an open and friendly basis was, for me, proof of the worth of connecting through membership. I agree, therefore, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden about the importance of the CPA.

The further question, therefore, as I think my right hon. Friend said, is: how do we explain the benefits of our membership to the wider population? As well as feeding into the youth parliament concept, greater engagement by schools would be a good idea. Many areas of British engagement in environmental, social, empowerment of women and other civil projects across the Commonwealth would be fascinating for children to learn about. Given what I have seen and the value I now attach to the Commonwealth, I do see the benefit of having a Commonwealth day in order to provide a focus for the explanation of its relevance to our constituents and their children at school.

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

I passionately support the Commonwealth as I was born in Pakistan in 1978. On my hon. Friend’s point about focusing on the Commonwealth’s values and principles, does he agree that more work needs to be done on basic human rights across all members of the Commonwealth? I was in Pakistan in 2012, where I met members of the Christian community who, along with many other minority communities, felt persecuted by the blasphemy laws. We need to work here and in other Parliaments with Pakistan to get them to reform those laws so that people can aspire to the basic freedoms of faith and belief.

[Mr Djanogly]

I very much support my hon. Friend’s comments. The Commonwealth provides a platform for that to be done; the question is the extent to which we use that platform. He makes the important point that we should use that platform. I have said what I wanted to say. We should all support Commonwealth day and I am happy to support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I would not have expected my hon. Friend to have been anywhere else, because he is such a committed supporter of the Commonwealth. The tradition that we have established this week in our country—that the flag of the Commonwealth should be flown at civic offices, town halls and, I hope, schools—will continue. I am proud to say that the flag of the Commonwealth was raised on the flagpole outside the Romford Conservative association’s Margaret Thatcher house in my constituency.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for his magnificent work as international chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and of its UK branch in Westminster. I know that you, Mr Bayley, also play a significant role in the work of the CPA. When I was elected to Parliament in 2001, one of the first things I did was to join the CPA. I commend it on its magnificent work and the way in which it has evolved over my 13 years as a Member.

On my first CPA visit in 2002, I accompanied my right hon. and noble Friend the then Member for Folkestone and Hythe—now Lord Howard—to Mauritius. Since then, I have participated in many CPA activities. I am delighted that the CPA is no longer simply about parliamentary friendship—although that is important—but about helping others to develop important things such as credentials and good governance. The CPA does magnificent work in those areas.

I put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and his team for all the work that they do to promote the CPA. There are issues about CPA internationally, and I hope that all nations in the Commonwealth understand and appreciate that we must work together because we have important common goals, values and objectives, which we must cherish.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who has made powerful remarks today about his visit to Sri Lanka and the deep importance of the Commonwealth. Not enough people understand that. I am glad that he is part of the CPA and that he has been to Sri Lanka and seen what is going on. I was pleased to have the opportunity to visit Sri Lanka myself three years ago, where I saw the terrible things that have gone on in that country and the awful divisions that have occurred. Sadly, many of those divisions have been made far worse by the Sri Lankan Government’s decision many years ago that English would no longer be the country’s common language. Surely, one of the most powerful aspects of the Commonwealth is the fact that all its members are bound together by the common language of English. Ending the use of English as a common language for all peoples of the Commonwealth will create divisions as one regional language takes precedence over another. The common English language does more than anything else to bind us together.

The other thing that Sri Lanka did was to become a republic, taking away a Head of State who was neutral and above politics. Countries that have gone down the republic road have not necessarily had the great success for which they had hoped. Those that have kept Her Majesty the Queen as their head of state—Australia, New Zealand, Canada, most of the Caribbean countries and many others—have not suffered from the internal divisions that countries such as Sri Lanka have, sadly, experienced. That is a great lesson for countries thinking about going down that route. The monarchy is a glue that binds together people of all political backgrounds and all ethnic origins despite divisions within countries.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) for her powerful speech about human rights in many Commonwealth countries. I agree entirely with her. We are not doing enough to deal with the atrocious things going on today in some Commonwealth countries—she mentioned Uganda, and there are many others—where the standards and values of the Commonwealth should be enshrined. Those countries must understand that being part of the Commonwealth means that certain values, including, crucially, human rights, must be upheld. I commend her for speaking so strongly about that. It is a message that we must spread.

[Rehman Chishti]

On that point about human rights around the Commonwealth, two weeks ago students from Indian-administered Kashmir were charged with sedition and expelled from university for supporting Pakistan in a cricket match. That runs completely contrary to people’s basic human right to support whomever they like, however, wherever and whenever they like. Does my hon. Friend agree that those basic rights must be respected around the world, and that where they are flouted, we, as members of the Commonwealth, should say that that is totally unacceptable?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Of course, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth is a Commonwealth of nations, and we are all proud of our national heritage. We are proud of being British, and people of Pakistani origin are proud of their origins, as are people from New Zealand or any other country. Tolerance, understanding, kindness and friendship are values that should bind us together, and intolerance against people for whatever reason is wrong. I am sure we all agree that the Commonwealth must uphold that principle.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) gave a moving, powerful and thought-provoking speech about the huge sacrifice made by the people of New Zealand, Australia and other Commonwealth countries in the service of King or Queen and country over so long. That is particularly true of New Zealand, which has done more than probably any other country when it comes to sacrificing its own people in the service of freedom, the defence of the Crown and all the values that we hold dear.

I have been to New Zealand five times and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on Australia and New Zealand, having been an officer of that group during my 13 years in the House. I believe that there is no country in the world with which we have more in common than New Zealand, although perhaps I might include Australia and Canada in that. We are cousins. We are kith and kin, as my hon. Friend rightly said, and I find it utterly shameful that a New Zealander arriving at Heathrow is treated as an alien. I have raised the matter repeatedly with this Government and the previous one. Two years ago, I put forward a ten-minute rule Bill, the United Kingdom Borders Bill, on that subject. In the final year before the general election, I hope that the Minister will take back to the Government the message that it is time we did something to address that.

It is completely wrong that someone from New Zealand, Australia or Canada is treated as an alien when they arrive at Heathrow, but someone from a country that happens to have joined the European Union, for better or for worse, is treated as though they are British and comes through the same channel as we do. How can that be right? How did we get into a situation where we treat countries with which we have most in common—countries with which we share a Head of State, a language and a style of parliamentary and legal system—as alien, while we give preferential treatment to countries that happen to have signed up to the European Union?

I urge the Minister to speak to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and do something about the situation. If we want to value the Commonwealth, and particularly the realms, which remain under the Crown—if we want to cement them as part of the great Commonwealth family—let us try to affect that issue. Nothing offends New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians more than being treated in that way when they arrive at Heathrow airport.

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we should be mindful of the history. Like any country, Ukraine is a product of many different histories, as we are in the UK. That requires a political system that accommodates that, and achieving it is a major political and constitutional challenge for Ukrainian leaders. As I mentioned earlier, Ukraine is a sovereign nation and we cannot lay down to them what the solution is, but we can encourage them to have political leadership and a political system that is responsive to the concerns of different parts of their country.

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

On Syria, does the Secretary of State agree with certain comments and reports that the situation on the ground does not allow for transition or dialogue because the Assad regime is so strong, which is why it refused to accept discussions on a Government in Syria? What steps are being taken to overcome that? Linked to that, the Secretary of State has said that the United Kingdom will be providing technical assistance. Does that include providing intelligence sharing so that the Free Syrian Army would have certain targets to look at?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right that the fact that the regime feels itself to be in a strong military position, relatively, is probably behind its intransigence at the Geneva negotiations. In the long term, of course, that will be an illusion, because it is in that position in a collapsing country. This conflict has gone backwards and forwards over three years now, and its tide can easily turn against the regime in future. I think it is making a great mistake. I would never comment in the House on intelligence matters, as my hon. Friend knows, but I stress that this is one of the reasons we must help a moderate opposition to stay in being. There will not be a political solution in Syria without the activity of a moderate opposition, and that is what we must support.